Integrated practice: propose a community tool-lending trial
The following materials are fictional, not research findings. Draft a one-page proposal before checking the reference criteria. The goal is traceable reasoning, not including every detail.
Task and source packet
A community coordinator is considering evening hours for a tool-lending point. Funding allows a two-week trial. Provide a recommendation, evidence and evaluation plan.
- Source A: volunteer interview summary. Six of eight respondents prefer evenings. All were weekday visitors; nonusers were not interviewed.
- Source B: a newsletter says “most residents support longer hours,” citing only A.
- Source C: last month’s log has 40 loans from 18 accounts. It omits visitors who borrowed nothing and their reasons.
New source D: open after drafting
Correction: five of the 40 records were duplicate entries, leaving 35 loans from 18 accounts. Evening operation requires two volunteers for fire-safety coverage; only one is confirmed.
Create your output
Draft incrementally. Fields stay in this browser, separately by language. The written task is not automatically scored.
My practice record
Reference criteria: compare after completing
- Do not generalize six of eight respondents to most residents; B repeats A.
- Separate loans, accounts and people; retain the gap about nonusers.
- The index locates A and includes task-related aliases such as demand, evening hours or tool lending.
- A conditional trial, further inquiry or deferral can be reasonable if reasons and constraints are explicit.
- After D, revise 40 to 35 and preserve the correction. Do not treat immediate opening as feasible while staffing requirements are unmet.
- Evaluate demand, feasibility and outcomes; completing a proposal is not a successful trial.
Return to the relevant lesson after self-review. Completeness does not guarantee sound judgment; check source boundaries and new constraints.