Medical Interventions / Genetics of Disease · September 16 · 80 minutes

Who gets the test?

Use a hypothetical shortage to defend an allocation rule and explain its tradeoff.

This page has four parts, in the order you use them. Part 1 is what you need to know: the scenario, the words and the three frameworks. Part 2 says what to do, in plain English. Part 3 shows one finished argument on a kidney case that is not this scenario. Part 4 is your own CER and your three progress entries.

Also today · Mini lab

What is in the tube? Identify an unknown DNA read with BLAST. One real read of 500 bases, the real NCBI tool, click by click, and a name at the end. Mr. Mendoza says when to start it; it has its own page with its own four parts. Open the BLAST mini lab

Two submissions: one CER and one short source/progress Google Doc. Due: September 16, 11:59 p.m.

Submit the allocation CER Attach the source/progress Google Doc

Part 1 of 4 · Background and definitions

What you need to know before you write

Where you are: September 15 practiced limiting a comparison to its evidence. Today, distinguish supplied facts from values. Do not assume an earlier search, report or official activity was completed.

Everything in your CER comes from what follows: the scenario supplies the only facts you may cite, the words are the ones Part 4 asks you to use correctly, and the F1 table is where every claim, tradeoff and rebuttal starts. Read all of it before Part 2.

Medical Interventions / Genetics of Disease · Wednesday, September 16

The problem

This is a hypothetical clinic, not a report about real patients. The clinic has 50 test kits and 400 people asking for a test. These counts show a shortage. They do not tell us who is infected, how accurate the test is or what outcomes any rule would produce.

Your main task is one individual argument explaining a rule for distributing the tests. You will also attach a separate, short official-source/progress record. The model, guided notes and partner discussion support these two tasks; they are not extra submissions.

The words you need

Allocation means distributing a limited resource. A criterion is a rule used to judge a choice. A tradeoff is a benefit gained alongside a cost or an opportunity given up.

Evidence describes information that is supplied or known. Here, the test and demand counts are supplied scenario facts. A value judgment states what you think should matter most. Saying that greatest need should come first is a priority choice, not a measured test result.

CER means claim, evidence and reasoning. The claim states your rule. Evidence supports your argument. Reasoning explains the connection between your evidence and the value guiding your rule. A rebuttal answers an opposing argument by addressing its strongest point.

F1. Three allocation frameworks

This is a text reference, not patient data. Each framework uses a different priority criterion.

Most need: Criterion: Give priority to those with the greatest need under a stated criterion.; Tradeoff: This takes need seriously, but need alone may not capture every other value.
Most benefit: Criterion: Give priority where the resource is expected to help most, using a stated measure of benefit.; Tradeoff: The expected benefit needs supporting information and leaves uncertainty.
First-come: Criterion: Give priority by arrival order.; Tradeoff: The order is clear, but people may have different opportunities to arrive.

Text equivalent: most need uses a stated need criterion; most benefit uses a stated expected-benefit criterion; first-come uses arrival order. For any choice, state its criterion and a possible tradeoff. The 50-kit/400-person counts do not rank the people or establish a uniquely fair answer.

What this argument can establish

This hypothetical scenario supports comparing allocation rules and tradeoffs. It cannot establish patient outcomes or a uniquely fair clinical answer. A value judgment is not a measured result.

The separate kidney-allocation model shows how to organize an argument about another hypothetical shortage. Its people and numbers are not information about this clinic. Do not copy a kidney outcome or clinical ranking into your test-allocation argument.

The limit that applies to everything today

This hypothetical scenario supports comparing allocation rules and tradeoffs. It cannot establish patient outcomes or a uniquely fair clinical answer. A value judgment is not a measured result.

Part 2 of 4 · Directions in plain English

What you will do today, in order

One individual allocation CER and one separate, short official-source/progress record. Submit each once to its own assignment.

Five steps. Each one says what to do, and the line under it says where on this page the material lives.

Step 1. Read the hypothetical clinic scenario, definitions and framework table.
Where: Part 1, the scenario, the words and the F1 frameworks.
Step 2. Draft one CER: claim, at least one supplied-scenario evidence sentence, reasoning, one limitation and a rebuttal to an opposing framework.
Where: 4.1 Your CER, five parts.
Step 3. Revise the same CER using the separate model and framework comparison. Discussion is support; no separate replies are due.
Where: Part 3, the kidney model, then 4.1.
Step 4. Create one short Google Doc with the official source, actual progress or access obstacle, and next assigned step or need for teacher direction.
Where: 4.2 Your three progress entries.
Step 5. Submit one CER PDF to 8520302515, unless your teacher collected the paper CER. Attach the progress Google Doc to 8520302557. Both are due September 16 at 11:59 p.m.
Where: Turn in.

Partner exchange and reading other rules, when available, support revision of the same CER. No separately posted replies are required. If no partner is available, use a supplied alternative framework for the rebuttal.

Guided notes, reflection and the worked model are optional support, not additional submissions.

The 80-minute plan

0–10 min: Teacher opening, then individual reading. Read the scenario and definitions; identify the criterion each framework uses.
10–25 min: Individual drafting. Choose a rule and draft the claim, evidence sentence and reasoning.
25–40 min: Individual work with optional discussion. Compare an opposing framework and distinguish facts, values and possible outcomes.
40–55 min: Individual revision. Write the rebuttal and revise the same CER.
55–70 min: Individual source/progress record. Record the title/link, actual progress or access obstacle, and next assigned step or request for direction.
70–80 min: Individual check and submission. Check the two products and submit each once. CER: PDF or collected-paper exception. Progress: Google Doc attachment.

Slides and optional guided notes

The slides follow the same order as this page. Guided notes, reflection and the worked model are optional support, not additional submissions.

Download PPTX Optional guided notes (PDF)

Part 3 of 4 · Worked example

A separate kidney-allocation model

The kidney facts are not evidence about the 50-kit clinic, and the model is not another submission. Read it for the shape of the work, because Part 4 asks for the same five parts in the same order: claim, evidence, reasoning, limitation, rebuttal.

Read the complete model

Scenario

There is one donor kidney and three compatible fictional patients. Patient A has waited four years. Patient B is nineteen and otherwise healthy. Patient C is stipulated to decline fastest without a transplant. These facts make priorities compete; they do not predict how long a transplant would work for each patient.

Claim

For this classroom case, I would give expected benefit substantial weight and also consider waiting time. This is my proposed priority, not a clinical ranking of A, B and C.

Evidence

The case supplies one kidney, three compatible patients and their different circumstances. A's wait, B's age and health description, and C's expected decline give reasons to discuss competing priorities. They do not supply rejection-risk results or individual transplant-outcome estimates.

Reasoning

My proposed rule makes expected benefit and waiting time explicit values. As a separate thought experiment, fifteen years of kidney function would be a longer-lasting outcome than two years. Those durations are not forecasts for these patients, and longevity alone does not settle fairness.

Limitation

The case does not provide the individual medical evidence needed to estimate benefit or rank these three patients. Sickness or urgency alone does not establish rejection risk or how long an organ would function. Real U.S. allocation uses organ-specific policies, medical matching and several priority factors; this classroom rule is not that algorithm.

Rebuttal

A most-need rule gives priority to the person at greatest immediate risk, which is a serious fairness concern. My proposed rule could leave that person waiting, and I must acknowledge that cost. I would need individual medical evidence before ranking these three patients.

Use the structure, not the case facts

Notice the five labeled parts: claim, evidence, reasoning, limitation and rebuttal. The writer states a value, uses only supplied facts and acknowledges a cost. Different rules can be defended when their values and limits are made clear.

Use that structure for your own test-allocation CER. Do not turn the kidney case into a second submission, a real clinical recommendation or evidence about the hypothetical clinic.

Sources behind the model's limits

These optional sources provide background. They are not patient outcome data or additional required assignments.

Next, Part 4 applies this same shape to the clinic scenario. Open the model on its own page if you want it beside your draft.

Part 4 of 4 · Your work

Your CER and your three progress entries

Everything below is yours to write. The scenario card is the only source of facts. Then the five parts of your CER, then the three short entries for the progress Doc. Two products, each submitted once.

The only facts you may cite: Hypothetical clinic: 50 test kits and 400 people asking for a test. These counts show a shortage, not infection status, test performance or patient outcomes.

4.1 Your CER, five parts

One individual test-allocation CER with a claim, at least one supplied-scenario evidence sentence, reasoning, one limitation and one rebuttal.

1. Claim: State the allocation rule and its criterion.
2. Evidence: Use at least one sentence with the supplied clinic facts. Do not invent patient or outcome data.
3. Reasoning: Explain how the facts and your stated value support the rule. Describe the tradeoff as a possibility, not a measured outcome.
4. Limitation: State one uncertainty or limit of the supplied information.
5. Rebuttal: Give the strongest point of an opposing framework and answer it. Use the supplied frameworks if no peer is available.

4.2 Your three progress entries

One short Google Doc with three official-source/progress entries.

1. Official source: Record Activity 1.1.5 ELISA and the official-source link supplied in this lesson.
2. Actual progress: State what you actually opened or completed, or describe the access obstacle.
3. Next step: State your next assigned step, or the step for which you need teacher direction. Do not invent a future assignment.

4.3 Check before you turn in

Does the CER state a criterion, use at least one supplied-scenario evidence sentence and explain the reasoning?
Does it include one limitation and a rebuttal to the strongest opposing point?
Does the separate Google Doc have exactly the three short progress entries, without claiming unperformed work?

Submit each product once

Submit one CER PDF to assignment 8520302515 by September 16 at 11:59 p.m. If your teacher collected your paper CER, the existing collected-paper exception applies. This item is 15 points in Assessments.

Submit the allocation CER

Attach one short Google Doc with the three progress entries to assignment 8520302557 by September 16 at 11:59 p.m. This item is 6 points in PLTW Work. The paper exception applies to the CER only.

Attach the source/progress Google Doc

Guided notes, reflection and the worked model are optional support, not additional submissions.

This hypothetical scenario supports comparing allocation rules and tradeoffs. It cannot establish patient outcomes or a uniquely fair clinical answer. A value judgment is not a measured result.

Connection to PLTW

Activity 1.1.5 ELISA is the official unit source. Today's local allocation discussion does not run an assay, complete that activity or authorize a wet lab. Record actual progress or an access obstacle without claiming unperformed work.

The PLTW connection

Activity 1.1.5 connects antigen binding, dilution, controls and test results to an investigation. Today's local allocation discussion considers the ethical context of testing. It does not run an assay, complete the official activity or authorize a wet lab. No patient result, vendor procedure or dilution worksheet is required to finish this argument.

The Belmont Report is optional background about ethical principles in research. It does not supply patient outcomes or a uniquely correct allocation rule for this clinic. The reading and model here contain the information needed for your local argument.

Activity 1.1.5 ELISA: official unit source for the progress record.

Open myPLTW

Original ethics practice: compare allocation rules. No curated WebXam outcome is claimed, and no lab technique is practiced today.

Help when you need it

Need help? Choose a starting point

Need a running start

Read the scenario and the three framework definitions first.

On track

Complete the same five-part CER and three-entry source/progress Doc.

Stuck? Get unstuck

Use the five labeled CER fields and the three progress-entry headings. Ask which fact or criterion supports your sentence.

Push me further

Optional reflection: what additional information could change your reasoning? No extra submission is required.

Restart where you stopped

Find the next unfinished part of your CER: claim, evidence, reasoning, limitation or rebuttal. Use the scenario and framework table. Then complete the three short progress entries. Submit each product once to its own assignment.

Working without a partner

Take home: A defensible allocation rule states who may benefit, who may wait and which value guides that tradeoff.

For Thursday, September 17: how can a known ratio help you check a planned concentration?