Arrow keys to navigate, space for next; touch, thumbnails, speaker notes, fullscreen and print are supported.
First visit
Reading language
You can read the course in one language and ask for explanations in another. We never guess your language from your name, religion, nationality or location.
Verifiable in a stated scope: 1,020 orders in March.
I
Inference
Explains a cause: the host is persuasive.
J
Judgement
Says what should be: the shop should close.
Step 3 · Evidence
O34 min
Four grades, four uses
1
First-hand records
Backend exports, receipts, stock counts.
2
Published operator data
Useful with a stated scope and definition.
3
Observation or interview
Good for behaviour and decisions, weak for prevalence.
4
Media relay
An entry point, not a measurement.
Step 4 · Alternatives
O45 min
What else could explain B's volume?
Lower price: compare order value and discounts.
Repeat buyers: compare new vs returning orders.
Platform support: compare traffic before and after.
Seasonality: compare the same weeks last year.
Host skill: same host, different category.
Common reasoning errors
O3–O44 min
Five errors to catch
Single cause: one plausible reason becomes the reason.
Survivorship: only the sellers still trading are studied.
Level mixing: platform growth compared with shop revenue.
Scope drift: month versus session, gross versus net.
Precision bias: a decimal treated as proof.
Reporting requirements
O1–O44 min
What a good report contains
1
Scope line
Six choices, one sentence per case.
2
Comparison table
Four dimensions, no empty cells.
3
Labelled claims
Six claims marked F, I or J with source.
4
Bounded conclusion
Two alternatives plus a limitation clause.
Assessment
O1–O43 min
Ten points, process first
A modest, bounded answer scores higher than a confident, unbounded one.
Scope 2 · dimensions 2
Labels 2 · alternatives with tests 2
Bounded conclusion 2
Group task
O1–O418 min
Comparison clinic
3 minRead the profiles; write six scope choices for A and B.
6 minFill the four-dimension table; label six statements.
5 minWrite two alternatives for B, each with a test.
4 minDraft the bounded conclusion; exchange for peer review.
Self-check
O1–O43 min
Four questions
Q1 fact, inference or judgement
Q2 correct scope · Q3 comparison error
Q4 alternative explanation with a test
Summary
All2 min
The method in four lines
Scope first: six choices, written down.
Four dimensions: parties, ownership, channel, occasion.
Label F/I/J and grade the evidence.
Test alternatives; bound the conclusion.
Sources & next
1 min
Sources and further reading
Textbook §1.3, §2.3.4, §3.1.1 (SRC-001/002/003).
Laudon & Traver (2022) for framework background (SRC-005).
Cases are teacher-written fiction; no student records.
Slide 1 of 19
Lesson 19 · Workshop · 1 / 19
Three sellers, one defensible comparison
A workshop in scope, evidence and bounded claims
Purpose: set the workshop contract. State at once that all three profiles are teaching fiction and no real student records are used. Explain that the deliverable is a method, not a winner. Ask: what would make a comparison unfair? Misconception: more stories make a stronger case. Next: the opening vote.
Opening question · 2 / 19
Three stories - can they be compared?
A: Dhaka clothing shop, orders on WhatsApp
B: Hangzhou livestream, 1,020 orders in March
C: Nairobi reseller, buys after the order
Which sentence is a fact?
Purpose: expose the instinct to rank before defining. Ask for a show of hands on who is 'most successful' and record the criteria used. Misconception: revenue equals success. Transition: the answer depends on six scope choices.
Workshop objectives · 3 / 19
By the end, you can...
Align six scope choices before comparing.
Fill a four-dimension table.
Label facts, inferences and judgements.
Test alternatives and write a bounded conclusion.
Purpose: make the rubric visible from the start. O1–O4 map to the four activity outputs and to Q1–Q4. Emphasise that the conclusion is only two of ten points; process carries the rest. Ask which objective feels hardest. Misconception: the rubric only grades the final answer. Next: the workshop sequence.
Workshop sequence · 4 / 19
Four moves, in order
Purpose: give the workshop a visible spine. Point out that conclusions come last on purpose. Ask what happens if step 3 is skipped. Misconception: analysis means choosing a side. Transition: start with the most commonly skipped move, scope.
Step 1 · Scope · 5 / 19
Six choices before any ratio
Party: company, individual or platform; consumer or business buyer.
Market and product: which country, which category, which definition.
Period and unit: month or session; money or orders.
Returns: gross or net, and what counts as a return.
Purpose: make scope concrete. Apply the six choices to A and B aloud: A is a shop, Dhaka, clothing, March, net sales, exchanges counted separately; B is a team, one platform, home textiles, March, gross orders, 12% returns. Ask which mismatch is largest. Transition: the flow shows where these choices sit in the procedure. Misconception: scope alignment is a definition exercise with no consequence.
Method · 6 / 19
From stories to a bounded claim
Purpose: show the procedure as a chain. Emphasise that each node produces an artefact the next node uses; the conclusion is not a separate opinion. Ask where a group is most likely to jump ahead. Misconception: the flow is linear in practice; loops back to scope are normal. Transition: the four dimensions are the largest node.
Step 2 · Dimensions · 7 / 19
Four dimensions that separate look-alikes
Purpose: give students the comparison grid. Apply each card to A, B and C in one sentence. Emphasise ownership of the customer relationship, which separates A from B even though both are B2C. Misconception: channel is the same as ownership. Transition: the case slide puts the grid to work. Ask: which dimension best explains the return gap?
Case · Teaching fiction · 8 / 19
Three seller profiles
A: 18 m² shop; US$6,800 March sales; 60% ask for photos.
C: 90 orders; US$18 average; no stock; cash on delivery.
All figures and people are fictional.
Purpose: supply the shared dataset. Read the profiles once, then ask which number each group would verify first. Emphasise that A's US$6,800 is net while B's 1,020 orders are gross. Misconception: bigger revenue means better business. Transition: the side-by-side makes the ownership difference visible.
Case analysis · 9 / 19
Same B2C label, different business
A · Dhaka shop
Owns stock and customer relationship
Offline discovery plus WhatsApp
Planned, try-before-buy occasion
Paper records, in-store exchanges
B · Hangzhou livestream
Owns stock, rents the audience from the platform
Platform live plus short video
Impulsive, entertainment-led occasion
Backend export, 12% returns
Purpose: show that the label B2C explains almost nothing. Ask which difference best explains the return gap. Emphasise ownership of the customer relationship. Misconception: the channel determines the business model. Transition: having a table is not enough; each cell needs an evidence grade.
Step 3 · Claims · 10 / 19
One sentence, one label
Purpose: give a fast labelling test. Ask students to label three sentences from the case aloud. Emphasise that a judgement can be legitimate but still needs argument, not evidence. Misconception: a strongly supported inference becomes a fact. Transition: evidence grading tells you how much weight each label can bear.
Step 3 · Evidence · 11 / 19
Four grades, four uses
Purpose: stop the habit of treating all sources as equal. Ask which grade supports '1,020 orders' and which supports 'customers care about price'. Emphasise that model output is not evidence of fact. Misconception: a published number is automatically reliable. Transition: with evidence graded, alternatives can be tested.
Step 4 · Alternatives · 12 / 19
What else could explain B's volume?
Lower price: compare order value and discounts.
Repeat buyers: compare new vs returning orders.
Platform support: compare traffic before and after.
Seasonality: compare the same weeks last year.
Host skill: same host, different category.
Purpose: demonstrate that an alternative is only useful with a test. Walk through each bullet and name the comparison. Ask which explanation the available data can actually separate. Misconception: alternatives are objections; they are tests. Transition: five reasoning errors show what happens when this step is skipped.
Common reasoning errors · 13 / 19
Five errors to catch
Single cause: one plausible reason becomes the reason.
Survivorship: only the sellers still trading are studied.
Level mixing: platform growth compared with shop revenue.
Scope drift: month versus session, gross versus net.
Precision bias: a decimal treated as proof.
Purpose: name the errors so students can catch them in peer review. Give a one-line counter-question for each. Ask which error is hardest to see in one's own writing. Transition: the report requirements turn the corrections into a deliverable.
Reporting requirements · 14 / 19
What a good report contains
Purpose: make the deliverable unambiguous. Show a strong and a weak example of a conclusion. Emphasise that an empty cell is a finding about the evidence, not a failure to fill the page. Misconception: length equals quality. Transition: the rubric makes the weighting explicit. Ask: which of the four cells is usually left empty, and why?
Assessment · 15 / 19
Ten points, process first
Scope 2 · dimensions 2
Labels 2 · alternatives with tests 2
Bounded conclusion 2
Purpose: align effort with marks. Point out that the conclusion is only one fifth of the score. Ask which criterion a rushed group usually loses. Misconception: a strong opinion earns marks. Transition: the activity applies the rubric immediately.
Group task · 16 / 19
Comparison clinic
Purpose: rehearse the whole method under time pressure. Circulate with two questions only: which claim is unlabelled, and which conclusion is unbounded? Do not supply content. Transition: the quiz checks the distinctions individually. Misconception: a longer table is a better analysis.
Self-check · 17 / 19
Four questions
Q1 fact, inference or judgement
Q2 correct scope · Q3 comparison error
Q4 alternative explanation with a test
Purpose: individual check of the four objectives. Do not reveal answers; ask students to justify one choice in writing. Q3 is the most common error in the activity. Transition: the summary restates the method in four lines.
Summary · 18 / 19
The method in four lines
Scope first: six choices, written down.
Four dimensions: parties, ownership, channel, occasion.
Label F/I/J and grade the evidence.
Test alternatives; bound the conclusion.
Purpose: compress the method for recall. Ask one student to restate it without notes. Re-state that the cases were fiction. Transition: sources and the next lesson. Misconception: the method can be memorised rather than practised.
Sources & next · 19 / 19
Sources and further reading
Textbook §1.3, §2.3.4, §3.1.1 (SRC-001/002/003).
Laudon & Traver (2022) for framework background (SRC-005).
Cases are teacher-written fiction; no student records.
Purpose: close the evidence boundary. Point out that SRC-078 is optional context about Dhaka shopping, not evidence for the fictional Case A. Transition: Lesson 20 reorganises the course into concept clusters. Ask: which source would settle a disputed claim? Misconception: a cited source is automatically relevant.