# PWR-116 — Causal reasoning: learner worksheet Release: Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition Estimated time: Estimated 18 min reading and worksheet pass Difficulty: Introductory Equipment: Basic stationery or digital tools — The four complete fictional case rows; The causal-workbook columns built into the fixture; The answer key, hidden until conclusions are recorded; Paper or an accessible note method Space: Desk / seated Automated structural checklist: 10 of 10 structural checks present Evidence quality/context: G1; Focused research depth Automated method-quality band: Established Method-rating basis: Structure coverage, instruction/check specificity, alternative distinctness, source troubleshooting, comparison depth and whether purpose/check fields are authored rather than derived. Editorial review: Pending manual editorial sign off ## Before you begin - [ ] I read the tutorial authority and stop conditions. - [ ] I have the required equipment/space or a declared accessible alternative. ## Canonical source context Causal reasoning asks more than whether two variables move together. This pack supplies four fictional cases spanning observation, self-selection, and randomised intervention. The learner names cause and outcome, checks design and time order, generates alternatives, proposes discriminating evidence, and writes a bounded classification. Numerical differences remain descriptive until design supports a causal interpretation. Target outcome: Define causal reasoning without inheriting mythology or broader claims. Explain what the current evidence supports and what it does not establish. Use the declared measurement boundary and recognise misleading proxies. Complete only the separately governed capability practice inside its declared limits. Make a retention, transfer, maintenance, provider or stop decision without overclaiming. ### Authority and setup conditions - Use only the fictional cases. Do not accuse a real person, diagnose, generate misinformation, or justify policy, legal, clinical, employment, or financial action. - A plausible mechanism or diagram does not replace outcome evidence. - Consequential causal claims require domain experts, suitable study design, affected-person input, and accountable review. ### Required or supplied materials - The four complete fictional case rows - The causal-workbook columns built into the fixture - The answer key, hidden until conclusions are recorded - Paper or an accessible note method ### Supplied fixture All cases are invented. The final four columns are the complete learner worksheet. Do not use any row to make a claim about a real person or system. | Case id | Fictional claim | Design and data | Known context | Learner design | Learner alternatives | Learner discriminating test | Learner bounded conclusion | Learner mechanism status | Confidence before and after review | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | C1 | Umbrellas make the park path wet. | 30 rainy days average 70 umbrellas and all have wet paths; 30 dry days average 5 umbrellas and none has a wet path. | Observation only; rain status recorded. | [classify] | [two alternatives] | [one test] | [conclude] | [shown / plausible / unknown] | [record both] | | C2 | A blue greenhouse filter increases seedling height. | 40 matched pots randomly assigned: 20 blue filter, 20 clear; means 18.4 cm and 16.1 cm after four weeks. | Water, soil, and day fixed; one fictional greenhouse. | [classify] | [two alternatives] | [one test] | [conclude] | [shown / plausible / unknown] | [record both] | | C3 | Using the library quiet room causes readers to finish more pages. | 30 visitors choose quiet room and average 42 pages; 30 choose open room and average 30 pages in the same hour. | Book difficulty and prior habit unmeasured. | [classify] | [two alternatives] | [one test] | [conclude] | [shown / plausible / unknown] | [record both] | | C4 | A reminder card increases neutral sorting-task completion. | 100 fictional trials randomised: 40/50 complete with reminder, 30/50 without. | Same task, device, criterion, and window. | [classify] | [two alternatives] | [one test] | [conclude] | [shown / plausible / unknown] | [record both] | ## 1. Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence… Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence from 0 to 100 before classifying the design. Why: “Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence from 0 to 100 before classifying the design” creates the auditable value, condition or statement needed for the tutorial’s later comparison and conclusion. Success check: A legible entry directly completes “Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence from 0 to 100 before classifying the design” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence from 0 to 100 before classifying the design.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “A legible entry directly completes “Operationally name the proposed cause and measured outcome, then record initial confidence from 0 to 100 before classifying the design” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 2. Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison… Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison or another exact label. Why: “Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison or another exact label” isolates the named evidence distinction so the learner can interpret Causal reasoning without extending the claim. Success check: The output directly answers “Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison or another exact label”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record. Accessible alternative: Complete “Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison or another exact label.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The output directly answers “Classify the design without upgrading it by wording: observation, self-selection, randomised comparison or another exact label”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record.” Use text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard navigation, shorter sessions, a support person or an equivalent non-practical record format as needed. Accessibility changes must not enlarge practical authority. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 3. Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted… Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted results would differ between them. Why: “Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted results would differ between them” creates the auditable value, condition or statement needed for the tutorial’s later comparison and conclusion. Success check: A legible entry directly completes “Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted results would differ between them” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted results would differ between them.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “A legible entry directly completes “Record at least two compatible alternative explanations and one test whose predicted results would differ between them” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 4. Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN. A plausible story is not a measured mechanism. Why: “Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN” isolates the named evidence distinction so the learner can interpret Causal reasoning without extending the claim. Success check: The output directly answers “Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record. Accessible alternative: Complete “Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN. A plausible story is not a measured mechanism.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “The output directly answers “Classify mechanism as SHOWN, PLAUSIBLE or UNKNOWN”, names the relevant distinction and stays within the supplied record.” Use text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard navigation, shorter sessions, a support person or an equivalent non-practical record format as needed. Accessibility changes must not enlarge practical authority. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 5. Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved; then record final confidence and the exact evidence that moved or preserved it. Why: “Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved” fixes the exact Causal reasoning configuration or decision before later observations are compared. Success check: A legible entry directly completes “Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim. Accessible alternative: Complete the same research action — “Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved; then record final confidence and the exact evidence that moved or preserved it.” — using speech-to-text, text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard-only navigation, shorter work blocks or a support person. Preserve this declared check: “A legible entry directly completes “Choose unsupported, suggestive, better supported or unresolved” and records the requested condition, decision or boundary without adding a new claim.” Do not convert the research task into capability practice. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## 6. State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support. Why: “State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support” establishes the exact Causal reasoning question or boundary that every later comparison must preserve. Success check: Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support.” Accessible alternative: Complete “State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support.” in shorter passes, or use keyboard input, dictation or a support person, while preserving this success check: “Evidence of completion shows the learner followed this exact instruction without adding an unstated step: “State the boundary and one decision the row cannot support.”” Use text-to-speech, enlarged text, keyboard navigation, shorter sessions, a support person or an equivalent non-practical record format as needed. Accessibility changes must not enlarge practical authority. Alternative relationship: Target preserving when declared check is preserved Learner notes: ________________________________________________________________________________ Completed: [ ] ## Reflection What changed? ________________________________________________________________________________ What remains difficult? ________________________________________________________________________________ What will I repeat, adapt, ask for help with, or stop? ________________________________________________________________________________ --- Completion of this worksheet demonstrates tutorial participation only. It does not establish capability, qualification, safety clearance, diagnosis, treatment or independent validation.