Compare product claims without assuming safety
See this course’s project requirements
A fictional risk-decision card separating marketing claims, impairment, dependence, peer pressure and trusted support with a rehearsed safe exit.
Keep your working files in your own notebook or software. Save a private description, checklist, and work link in My Proof.
What to include
- Marketing claim/evidence screen.
- Immediate impairment and support distinction.
- Relative-risk correction.
- Refusal with confirmed safe transport.
- Urgent-help card and nonjudgmental support routes.
Review and revise
Use these criteria to check your work and choose what to improve.
- Claim screen distinguishes relative-risk claims from unsupported zero-risk advertising.
- Case analysis separates impairment, dependence concerns and urgent warning signs.
- Refusal/transport plan names a confirmed non-impaired option and safe waiting arrangement.
- Support record distinguishes qualified routine help from emergency action without diagnosing or stigmatizing.
Want more background?
The idea in everyday life
Supplied educational facts: vaping aerosol may contain nicotine and other harmful substances; some adults who smoke may reduce certain harms by completely switching under qualified guidance, but youth should not vape. Fictional seller says fewer smoke chemicals means safe for a 16-year-old.
Less of one hazard does not mean no hazard.
Compare product claims without assuming safety — supplied practice
Less of one hazard does not mean no hazard.
Supplied educational facts: vaping aerosol may contain nicotine and other harmful substances; some adults who smoke may reduce certain harms by completely switching under qualified guidance, but youth should not vape. Fictional seller says fewer smoke chemicals means safe for a 16-year-old.
1. Step 1
Record the seller’s leap from fewer to safe.
You should see: The claim converts a relative comparison into a zero-risk conclusion.
2. Step 2
Apply the age/context difference.
You should see: Adult smoking contexts do not establish suitability for youth.
3. Step 3
Keep ingredient uncertainty and dependence risk visible.
You should see: Aerosol and nicotine concerns remain relevant.
4. Step 4
Draft a correction without recommending a product.
You should see: The comparison does not make vaping safe for youth; seek official information and qualified cessation support if needed.
What to finish
A relative-risk correction card.
Watch for this
No product use or cessation medication decision is made here.
How can I tell I understand it?
Support each lesson-specific criterion with your supplied-case artifact: I identified the relative-to-absolute leap.; I preserved age and context differences.; I avoided recommending a substance product.
Quick knowledge check
Answer all 3 questions. Get at least 2 right and the lesson completes automatically.
You’ll get an explanation for each answer. Signed in? Your results save to your account.
Pass the check. We’ll save the progress.
Answer all 3 questions above and get at least 2 right. You can review the explanations and try again.
Go to the knowledge checkTools, templates, and lesson sources
Tools and templates
Tools open in a new tab so you can keep your place here.
Sources and further reading
Explore the references behind this lesson.
Source & access notes · checked 2026-10-01
Read nicotine addiction, youth risks and adult-context limitations.
Access: Official page content was retrieved with the web reader on 2026-10-01. Video playback, outside forms and personal services were not tested.
Reuse: Original fictional cases and assessments with linked factual references. Source exercises, photographs and diagrams are not copied.
Report a problem with this lesson
Tell us what went wrong. Please leave out personal information and private project contents.