After School: WHAT CHANGED?
Find who's responsible
Use a new situation to see what you can explain, support and revise.
Caseload 3 — Find who's responsible
Essential question: Who has authority here, and how do you know?
The creator code and the recurring charge
New transfer scenario. Read the source set before answering. Do not assume that a familiar word such as “policy,” “law,” “ban,” “scholarship,” or “petition” tells you who has authority or what happened.
Source set
SOURCE A — Creator video caption
NPW practice document. “Use code STUDY for 50% off. Not sponsored, I just like it.”
What it establishes: Shows the creator’s public claim and discount code.
What it cannot establish: Does not establish whether the creator has a financial/material connection.
SOURCE B — Checkout screen
NPW practice document. “$4.99 today. Then $14.99/month until canceled. By selecting Start, you agree to recurring billing.”
What it establishes: Shows the recurring-charge term at checkout.
What it cannot establish: Does not show whether the creator earns commission.
SOURCE C — Affiliate-program terms
NPW practice document. “Approved creators receive 15% commission on purchases attributed to their code.”
What it establishes: Shows that approved creators can earn commission through tracked codes.
What it cannot establish: Does not prove that this specific creator is enrolled without confirming their status.
SOURCE D — Bank statement
NPW practice document. Charges: $4.99 Aug 3; $14.99 Sep 3; $14.99 Oct 3.
What it establishes: Shows recurring charges on this account.
What it cannot establish: Does not show whether the user canceled or disputed them.
Part A — Check
1. Which document establishes the recurring price?
A. A
B. B
C. C
D. D only
2. Which documents together raise a question about the “not sponsored” claim?
A. A and C
B. B and D only
C. A and D only
D. None
3. What does Source D establish?
A. That the creator committed fraud
B. That three charges appeared
C. That the subscription was canceled
D. That the code caused the charge
4. Who can clarify/cancel the subscription terms first?
A. The platform/service billing support under its cancellation procedure
B. A random commenter
C. The school board
D. The creator’s friend
5. What is the most precise public correction if affiliate status is later confirmed?
A. “Creators are liars.”
B. “The video said ‘not sponsored,’ but the code is an affiliate code that can generate commission; that material connection should be disclosed clearly.”
C. “All discount codes are scams.”
D. “Subscriptions are illegal.”
Part B — Explain
Explain what each of Sources A–D can establish and identify the one fact that still must be confirmed before calling the creator’s statement inaccurate.
Part C — Use it
Create a “Before You Buy From a Creator” card with five checks: price today, recurring price, cancellation, material connection/affiliate disclosure, and what record to save.
Educator answer and scoring guidance
1. Correct answer: B. The checkout screen states the recurring billing term.
2. Correct answer: A. The public claim and affiliate terms are the relevant pair; specific enrollment still needs confirmation.
3. Correct answer: B. A bank statement establishes charges, not motives or affiliate status.
4. Correct answer: A. The service controls its subscription account and procedure.
5. Correct answer: B. It corrects the specific claim without overgeneralizing.
Strong constructed/performance response: Strong responses distinguish the recurring subscription contract from the creator’s potential affiliate relationship and do not infer specific enrollment from general affiliate terms alone.
Score Part B and Part C with the master analytic rubric. Do not award or remove points for a learner’s political, institutional, or personal preference. Score the quality of source use, reasoning, authority/process understanding, scope, and communication.