Would you move on after six right answers?
Decide what a demonstration tells you about the whole class.
The question
A history class examines a shopkeeper’s letter about prices in one town. The goal is to explain what one source can tell us about prices across the country.
| Pupils | |
|---|---|
| In the class | 24 |
| Volunteered | 6 |
| Volunteers who gave the right conclusion | 6 |
The volunteers said the letter could not establish prices across the country.
“Would you move to the next source, or would you gather more evidence first?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Name what you know
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Treat the answers as an initial sample.
The strong move. The volunteers’ conclusions give evidence for six pupils. The other pupils’ reasoning remains open.
Record that the class reached the goal.
Tempting, but it misses something. Only six of 24 volunteered, and the record gives conclusions without their reasoning.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Six volunteers reached the right conclusion. I’d check how they used the source and gather responses from the rest of the class.”
Why it works: The volunteers’ conclusions give evidence for six pupils. The other pupils’ reasoning remains open.
Step 2: Ask everyone for evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Collect individual conclusions and supporting reasons.
The strong move. The response gives evidence for the conclusion and the reasoning behind it.
Ask for a show of hands on whether a letter can prove a national claim.
Tempting, but it misses something. A show of hands gives a choice but leaves the reason and the unrepresented answers unclear.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d ask for a short independent response. Each pupil would give a conclusion and name one feature of the letter that limits the claim.”
Why it works: The response gives evidence for the conclusion and the reasoning behind it.
Step 3: Read the new responses
The independent check gets 20 responses from the class of 24. Of these, 12 meet both criteria, 6 generalize from the town to the country, and 2 give no relevant feature of the source.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Revisit the local-to-national claim and check the missing responses.
The strong move. Separate observed results from missing responses. The repeated error gives a specific idea to revisit.
Record 60% of the class as meeting the goal.
Tempting, but it misses something. 60% describes 12 of 20 submitted responses. Four pupils have no recorded result.
See how a strong candidate says it
“In the responses, 12 of 20 meet both criteria. Four are missing, so the class result could range from 12 to 16 of 24. Six pupils made the same overgeneralization.”
Why it works: Separate observed results from missing responses. The repeated error gives a specific idea to revisit.
Step 4: Decide what comes next
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Revisit the common error and check with a comparable source.
The strong move. The next check targets the problem in the responses and keeps the same learning goal.
Advance because the most common submitted result was a pass.
Tempting, but it misses something. Six responses expose a shared mistake. The four missing responses leave part of the class evidence open.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d revisit how far one local source can support a claim. I’d gather the remaining evidence and use a comparable letter before deciding whether to advance.”
Why it works: The next check targets the problem in the responses and keeps the same learning goal.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Revisit the source’s scope before advancing.
- Because
- Six responses make the same jump from one town to a national claim.
- What would change it
- A comparable check showing reasoned answers across the class would support moving on.
Common traps
- Counting volunteers as a class sample.
- Treating a missing response as a result.
Check your answer
- I named who answered.
- I asked for a reason.
- I kept both denominators clear.
- I gave a focused next check.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026