This class runs in two periods and they do not do the same lesson on the same day. You are reading the Period 6A-7B calendar, the one with John Carroll bioethics on Mondays.
JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?
Do now
Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
- Hand in
- Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
- Where
- Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
If the form offers you a saved draft, choose New draft. If the Assignment box comes up empty, type it exactly: JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?
You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for limits, or against limits?
Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we limit prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
- • You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
- • You can state the strongest argument against your own side and answer it.
- • You can separate what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.
- In one sentence, what is the single strongest point for limits?
- In one sentence, what is the single strongest point against limits? Write it as if you believed it.
- 1Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- 2Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- 3Open with the icebreaker: What is your spirit animal, and why?
- 4Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- 5Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- 6Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- 7Close by writing where you actually stand now, and what moved you.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Should we limit prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
- 0-5 minScenario read together; sides assigned
- 5-22 minFacilitated debate, John Carroll leading
- 22-33 minRebuttals: answer the other side's strongest point, not its weakest
- 33-40 minWrite where you now stand and what moved you
- 40-80 minPLTW work for this unit, picking up where the last class left off
- • John Carroll has the first half of the block, about 40 minutes. The second half is PLTW work for this unit.
- • You do not know your side yet. That is deliberate, and it is why the prep asked you to build both.
- • A debate is not a fight to win. It is a way of finding out which argument actually survives contact with the other one.
- • Exit goal: you can state the best case against your own position, and say what you would need to change your mind.
- • In a future where antibiotics have largely stopped working, a young child named Anya develops a simple ear infection. The first-line antibiotics fail. Her fever spikes and the infection spreads, threatening her hearing and her life. This is what experts mean by a post- era.
- • The case for: A large share of prescribing today is unnecessary, so limits would cut waste before they cut care.
- • The case against: Someone has to decide who receives antibiotics and who does not, and there is no neutral way to make that call.
JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?
John Carroll facilitates the first 40 minutes. Bring your preparation assignment; it is your evidence. The rest of the block is PLTW work for this unit.
Do this: Bring your preparation assignment and use it. John Carroll runs the first 40 minutes, and sides are assigned in the room, so you argue whichever one you are handed. For the second half of the block, continue Project 1.2.6 Case Closed in myPLTW, picking up where last class stopped.
One case, argued all the way through: your three strongest arguments, a direct answer to the other side's best point, and where you stand at the close.
The debate is the first 40 minutes. You are finished with it when you have written where you stand now and what moved you. The rest of the block is Project 1.2.6 Case Closed.
Your preparation assignment is the evidence. Turn it in the way this page names below.
Nothing is assigned in myPLTW today, so there is nothing there to make up. If you miss the block, use the away plan on this page: write a full CER on the case question, argue both sides fairly, then say where you stand. Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?
Bring your preparation assignment and use it. John Carroll runs the first 40 minutes, and sides are assigned in the room, so you argue whichever one you are handed. For the second half of the block, continue Project 1.2.6 Case Closed in myPLTW, picking up where last class stopped.
The debate is the first 40 minutes. You are finished with it when you have written where you stand now and what moved you. The rest of the block is Project 1.2.6 Case Closed.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees who came ready. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we limit prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
- Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- Open with the icebreaker: What is your spirit animal, and why?
- Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- Close by writing where you actually stand now, and what moved you.
CER: Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Your preparation assignment, which went out the Friday before. Bring it with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it. | _______ |
| Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with. | _______ |
| Open with the icebreaker: What is your spirit animal, and why? | _______ |
| Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads. | _______ |
| Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check. | _______ |
| Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
- You can state the strongest argument against your own side and answer it.
- You can separate what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.
- 1Do thisArgue an assigned side of this question: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
- 2Use this resourceYour preparation assignment, which went out the Friday before. Bring it with you.
- 3Submit thisCER: Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the form. It must say For students at the top: if it says For parents and guardians, press Back and pick I am the student.
- 2If it offers you a saved draft, choose New draft: an old draft brings back the old assignment.
- 3Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 4Check the Assignment box says today's assignment from this page, then pick your period and type your student ID, all nine digits.
- 5Attach your file and press Submit. The thank-you page is your receipt.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions? › CERTurn it in
Learn it · deck, reading, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
A CER report turns an evidence board into a written argument that others can challenge, because naming and handling the conflicting evidence, rather than hiding it, is what makes the conclusion credible.
Should we limit prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
A review board sorts scientific evidence, stakeholder needs, possible benefits, possible burdens, and uncertainty before choosing a policy.
- Which statements are scientific evidence?
- Which statements express a value or priority?
- Who receives the benefit and who carries the burden?
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
- • Evidence cards map to source-backed findings.
- • Stakeholder cards map to affected people and priorities.
- • The recommendation maps to an explicit tradeoff with a named uncertainty.
Driving question: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for limits, or against limits?
What you already know: A CER report turns an evidence board into a written argument that others can challenge, because naming and handling the conflicting evidence, rather than hiding it, is what makes the conclusion credible.
New idea: Should we limit prescriptions to preserve their effectiveness for future generations?
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Use the labels and arrows in F1 to identify the relationship that supports JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit antibiotic prescriptions?.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in today's lesson.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for limits, or against limits?
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
Limit: Scientific evidence can inform the options and likely consequences, but it cannot choose a single value-neutral answer.
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
Limit: A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT@P67-2026-10-05 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Select the option best supported by E1-E3.
- • Select a reasonable alternative and name the evidence it would require.
- • Delay the claim because the evidence does not distinguish the options.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: A position you cannot argue against is a position you do not yet hold, you have only inherited it. The test of your view is whether you can state the other side's best case in a form its holders would accept.
- • T1: Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- • T2: Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- • T3: Open with the icebreaker: What is your spirit animal, and why?
- • T4: Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- • T5: Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- • T6: Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- • E1: A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
- • E2: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- • E3: You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for JCU bioethics 3: Should we limit prescriptions?. Use the labels and arrows to identify the decision-relevant relationship. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Self-quiz today's objective before the next class: state the target in your own words and give one supporting example.
Go further and get help▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
If you are away, write a full CER on the case question, argue both sides fairly, then state and defend your own position. Submit it the way you would the opt-out report.
Then submit your CER. Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
JCU Philosophy4Kidz- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in through the one route named under Submit here and confirmed by the form receipt or the named physical handoff. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.