Role A / Maya / Northbank delegate
- Northbank expects a 60-unit peak but can reduce non-essential use by up to 5 units.
- It prefers contributions based on expected usage, subject to a published audit.
Keeping a shared grid reliable
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
- 3 minutes: predict the dilemma from the title. Read the shared brief and establish the decision.
- 5 minutes: read E1–E3, underline constraints, then give each partner only their own role card.
- 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.
- 7 minutes: answer the evidence questions, then negotiate and draft an individual recommendation. Reveal feedback after the role exchange.
- 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
- 100 units.: 52 + 48 = 100. This past record does not settle future peak demand.
- 115 units.: 60 + 55 = 115, ten above the stated peak capacity.
- The cause is not identified in the six-week record.: The record gives duration but no cause or pattern.
Both roles
Role B / Alex / Southplain delegate
- Southplain forecasts 55 units but can shift 5 units of flexible use to another time.
- It prefers an equal contribution because both regions rely on the link.
One possible recommendation
I would trial a 6/4 maintenance contribution based on recorded usage, alongside a joint audit and a published outage log. Both regions should shift five flexible units because the forecasts total 115 while peak capacity is 105. The forecasts may change, so the agreement should be reviewed after four weeks using verified demand and outage data. Usage-based costs may still feel unfair if a region’s essential needs differ; the trial should allow both to challenge the evidence.
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.