Question: How do purpose and small-print limits affect a scientific-looking headline? Kit: Source A poster, Source B, claim audit. 35 = 3 launch + 7 model + 12 inquiry + 8 revise + 5 exit.
- 0–3 launch: Show the poster without B. Ask for its largest assertion, author and intended fictional reader; forbid “proved” until a source is checked.
- 3–10 model: Teacher reads the bottom sentence as carefully as the heading. “The same team wants a retest. It reports 20 with four layers while the model predicts 10. Its motive explains emphasis but does not by itself make every number false.” Model
claim / source detail / assumption / unanswered question. - 10–22 inquiry: Pairs identify that A and B share a maker; cite the exact 4-layer difference and list one missing method detail. Distinguish the hypothesis “each layer halves” from the actual fictional record. Do not infer physical danger or benefit.
- 22–30 revise: Write a cautious replacement headline such as “Four-layer result did not match exact-halving prediction in first fictional table.” Routes: annotate poster and B in large print; move tactile
claim/prediction/recordstrips; dictate or sign a two-sentence source comparison with exact-word recording. Require source attribution in each. - 30–35 exit: “Are A and B independent confirmation? What is one conflicting number?” Key: no; same team, 20 recorded versus 10 predicted at four layers. Response move: if learner treats purpose as proof of dishonesty, re-anchor in numerical/method evidence; if they miss small print, read it in equal volume.
Another domain: Use an invented stage-light shade advert with the same conditional model; do not claim actual lighting performance. Home: critique a fully fictional headline in writing or speech; no product search.