Match Each Change Claim with Evidence

Supplied materials

• Paper and a pencil, typed notes or a browser scratch area. Color names can replace colored supplies; drawn figures and timelines can replace performance.
• Complete teaching inputs: A process report says its revision improved caption legibility in the stated paper size. Which evidence best establishes the specific documented change? Supplied candidates: (A) Only say “it looks professional” (B) Replace both artifacts with an unrelated sample (C) Report an audience effect that was never tested (D) Show before/after artifacts and the explicit check for caption legibility in the stated paper size.
• Independent check: A process report says its revision improved timeline total. Which evidence best establishes the specific documented change? Supplied candidates: (A) Only say “it looks professional” (B) Replace both artifacts with an unrelated sample (C) Report an audience effect that was never tested (D) Show before/after artifacts and the explicit check for timeline total.

Learn the idea

Build a curatorial argument from documented features. Select comparable original works, declare an ordering criterion, acknowledge conflicting visual evidence and connect each revision claim with the artifacts and checks that actually support it. A revision report should connect each claim with a before/after artifact and its explicit check. This makes a planned feature improvement inspectable instead of substituting a broad impression.

Reason through the supplied case: The before/after artifacts reveal what changed, while the named criterion check establishes the relevant property. This can verify a planned feature or calculation; it should not be upgraded into an unmeasured learning or audience outcome.

A checked caption, proportion or timeline property is not an unmeasured audience effect. Keep the reported change and the extent of verification aligned with the actual evidence.

1. Read the complete teaching inputs and mark the feature, rule or constraint being tested.
2. Compare the model decision with one rejected candidate; state the visible evidence or calculation that distinguishes them.
3. Solve the independent check and the three changed-input practice cases before reading feedback.
4. Retain a distorted draft and a proportional revision, then map the preserved-ratio claim to both dimension calculations.
5. Check your artifact against these explicit criteria: Before and after dimensions show the exact ratio correction, and the claim remains limited to undistorted proportion.

Check your reasoning

Your answer is temporary and is not saved to an account. Download your current answer before leaving or reloading. Written work on paper or in another app stays in your own file.

Take it further

New-input analysis: A process report says its revision improved requested panel order. Which evidence best establishes the specific documented change? Supplied candidates: (A) Only say “it looks professional” (B) Replace both artifacts with an unrelated sample (C) Report an audience effect that was never tested (D) Show before/after artifacts and the explicit check for requested panel order. Expected relationship: Show before/after artifacts and the explicit check for requested panel order. The before/after artifacts reveal what changed, while the named criterion check establishes the relevant property. This can verify a planned feature or calculation; it should not be upgraded into an unmeasured learning or audience outcome. Create your own artifact: Retain a distorted draft and a proportional revision, then map the preserved-ratio claim to both dimension calculations. Completion criteria: Before and after dimensions show the exact ratio correction, and the claim remains limited to undistorted proportion.

Nothing here is saved to an account or sent to a teacher. The answer download includes your current choice and any checked feedback. It does not include choices from the separate More practice section. Download that section separately.