# Day 26 · Two texts can tell different parts

## Purpose

Compare audience, purpose and the scope of a claim across two short information texts.

## Prepare

Source: N1. Read [the preparation notes](PREPARATION.html). Plain paper and a familiar communication system are enough. [Child choices](../learners/day-026.html) · [Optional home start](../home/day-026.html) · [Optional extras](../extras/day-026.html).

## Teach the 25-minute core

1. Ask “Could a poster help you choose a kit without telling you every condition?” Offer quiet thinking first.

2. Read both N1 notices and name their authors, imagined readers and jobs: inviting children versus giving availability details. No actual club information is being verified.

3. Model matching “every kit” against B’s named exception. Use the two-source model or full alternative. Ask what the writer could change while keeping the poster welcoming. Demonstrate word work.

4. Choose a route and compare its two supplied snippets. Record a shared topic, one relevant difference and a question still open. Texts may be adult-read; a child can use short labels, AAC or an oral comparison.

5. Confer with a few pupils: “Which words make that claim broad?” Then “Does this other text support all of it?” Do not teach that longer, newer or more serious-looking text is always correct.

6. Write or dictate a useful revised claim. Test it against both texts. Record remaining uncertainty rather than inventing an answer or a real service promise.

## Taught-point word work

Study kit, available and organiser for meaning. Read a suitable multisyllabic word using taught sound–letter patterns; adult-read remaining technical vocabulary. Revisit pack → packing and make → making to contrast adding ing with final-e removal.

## Three meaningful practice routes

### A · Kit poster editor

Use N1. Make the invitation fit the organiser’s information while staying welcoming.

### B · Fictional games shelf

Text A: “Every game is ready to borrow.” Text B: “The card games are ready. Two board games are missing pieces.” Compare the availability claims; do not diagnose a real game’s safety.

### C · Fictional garden stall

Text A: “We have plants for every space.” Text B: “Today we have small pots for shaded shelves. Ask about your space before choosing.” Compare the claims without making a plant-care recommendation.

## Two additional teaching examples

### C11 · Fictional tool table

“All tools are here” is broader than “Paper rulers are here; scissors are with the adult.” A revision can name the available tool and adult help.

### C12 · Fictional music corner

“Every instrument is quiet” conflicts with a note describing a loud drum. “There is a quiet humming option” is narrower if the note actually offers it.

## Component evidence and next teaching

Look for: Explains a relevant claim difference with wording from each source and relates it to purpose or audience.

Interpretation: N1 does not support every kit being available; B explicitly excludes light-up train kits for now. “Paper-town kits are ready; ask the organiser which to choose” is one valid revision, not the required phrasing.

Next teaching: If the texts are summarised separately without comparison, highlight matching claim words and one exception. If secure, explain what information a welcoming poster can omit without misleading.

National links: AC9E3LA02, AC9E3LA03, AC9E3LY01, AC9E3LY03, AC9E3LY05. These are partial opportunities; see [the exact map and limits](../authority/CURRICULUM.html).

Record the actual response and help given; leave unobserved reading, spelling, handwriting and delivery unscored. [Separate checks and criteria](ASSESSMENT.html).

Original text and vector artwork: © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, SubjectNest. CC BY 4.0: credit, link and indicate changes. National curriculum and linked primary sources retain their separate rights. No authority endorsement is implied.