Role A / Maya / admissions coordinator
- Applicant A applied first and received an automated acknowledgement, not an offer.
- A has a camera but cannot afford the course fee.
Who gets the last place?
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
- Both applicants face a course-fee barrier.: Both role cards state a fee barrier. Acknowledgement is not an offer, and both applicants can attend.
- Earlier applicants should always receive priority.: Should states a normative rule. The application page did not adopt that rule.
- It can prioritise an additional barrier while disappointing an earlier eligible applicant.: Both applicants have a relevant need. Giving one priority does not erase the other’s circumstances.
Both roles
Role B / Alex / learner-support coordinator
- Applicant B applied later, has no camera and also cannot afford the fee.
- Both applicants can attend all course sessions. Neither has been promised a place.
One possible recommendation
I would use a transparent lottery for this intake because both applicants meet the requirements and no priority rule was published. This respects equal eligibility, but it may leave B’s additional equipment barrier unaddressed. I would explain that cost openly and offer the lending session to the unsuccessful applicant without calling it equivalent teaching. Before the next intake, the centre should publish and justify a selection rule.
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.