Perspective Room · B2 · 25-minute adult lesson

A river, two regions

Fictional case; all institutions, figures and constraints are authored task facts. No real-world policy claim is implied.

Purpose

Read for constraints, exchange missing information, distinguish observation from inference and value, and justify a position. Grade reasoning and intelligibility separately from agreement with the teacher.

25-minute sequence

1. 3 minutes: predict the dilemma from the title. Read the shared brief and establish the decision.
2. 5 minutes: read E1–E3, underline constraints, then give each partner only their own role card.
3. 5 minutes: exchange information orally. Each partner asks at least two questions. In 1:1 teaching, take the other role; for independent work, read the two roles sequentially.
4. 7 minutes: answer the evidence questions, then negotiate and draft an individual recommendation. Reveal feedback after the role exchange.
5. 5 minutes: explain a trade-off, state the strongest objection and identify evidence that would change the decision. Give a 60-second summary.

Answer guidance: evidence checks only

1. 15 units.: 100 − 40 − 45 = 15. The remaining allocation requires a stated principle; arithmetic does not choose it.
2. Upstream control proves deliberate harm to Vale.: Control establishes capacity to operate the gate, not intent or a particular harmful action.
3. Publish both sets of readings and investigate differences jointly.: Comparable records and a shared investigation apply the same evidence standard to both parties.

Both roles

One possible recommendation

I propose 47.5 units for Orin and 52.5 for Vale: verified essential needs first, then an equal split of the 15 remaining units. This protects a needs-based minimum but does not give equal total shares. Both parties should publish releases, readings and withdrawals weekly. A recorded shortfall should trigger a joint investigation at the two-week review rather than an automatic accusation of bad faith.

Other positions can be defensible. Check whether they preserve supplied facts and address constraints. A different policy preference is not an error.

Reasoning rubric

Use absent / developing / clear for each dimension without combining it into a CEFR score:

• Evidence: accurately uses at least two relevant supplied facts and identifies their source.
• Perspective: fairly represents a competing interest or objection.
• Justification: states a principle, explains how the proposal follows, and acknowledges a cost.
• Uncertainty: identifies a gap and a concrete condition for revising the decision.

Language feedback

Choose one useful target: qualification, conditional language, concession or a request for clarification. Give one focused revision. Accept valid alternative phrasing. The three-item quiz measures recognition of evidence in this case; it is not a speaking, writing or CEFR test.

Delayed retrieval

Next lesson, ask for the case’s main constraint and an opposing argument without reopening the file. Transfer the reasoning to a new fictional setting; label any new assumptions.