Teaching-mechanic library

hidden_variable_mystery · math · investigator.elimination

Concept: Correlation vs causation

Player does: Find the hidden third system driving both meters

Breaks: Correlation proves causation

A correlation can be explained by a hidden confounding variable driving both, rather than one causing the other.

causal_weighting · history · investigator.weigh

Concept: Competing causes

Player does: Allocate importance among causes; the explanation shifts with the weights

Breaks: Every event has one cause

Major historical events usually have several contributing causes whose relative weight historians still debate.

source_seer · history · investigator.source_eval

Concept: Source reliability

Player does: Weigh testimony by author, timing, incentives, corroboration

Breaks: Eyewitnesses are always reliable

An eyewitness account's reliability depends on the author's position, timing, incentives, and corroboration, not on eyewitness status alone.

perspective_switch · history · investigator.perspective

Concept: Historical perspective

Player does: Replay the event as different actors; match accounts to motives

Breaks: People in the past thought like us

Historical actors reasoned from the beliefs and constraints of their own time, which often differ sharply from ours.

evidence_board · history · investigator.elimination

Concept: Inference from evidence

Player does: Pin clues; eliminate hypotheses until one explanation stands

Breaks: Any evidence supports any claim

Evidence supports a specific hypothesis only when it is consistent with that hypothesis and inconsistent with the rivals.

counterevidence_attack · history · investigator.argument

Concept: Qualifying a claim

Player does: Opposing evidence weakens your claim until you qualify it

Breaks: A strong argument ignores counterevidence

A strong historical argument addresses counterevidence directly and qualifies its claim instead of ignoring it.

precedent_court · civics · investigator.argument

Concept: Judicial precedent

Player does: Build the ruling from the facts and prior cases

Breaks: Courts decide on personal opinion

Courts ground rulings in the facts of the case and applicable precedent, not a judge's personal opinion.

argument_map · philosophy · investigator.argument

Concept: Argument structure

Player does: Connect premises to the conclusion; cut the irrelevant ones

Breaks: More premises make a stronger argument

An argument's strength comes from premises that actually support the conclusion, not from how many premises are listed.

character_motive · literature · investigator.perspective

Concept: Characterization & motive

Player does: Match actions and quotes to each character's motive

Breaks: Characters always say what they mean

Characterization is built from actions and subtext as much as dialogue, so what a character says is not always what they mean.

theme_evidence · literature · investigator.argument

Concept: Theme

Player does: Support a theme claim with passages from the text

Breaks: The theme is the topic

A theme is the insight the work makes about its topic, not the topic itself.

unreliable_narrator · literature · investigator.source_eval

Concept: Narrative reliability

Player does: Flag where the narrator's account conflicts with the facts

Breaks: The narrator is the author

A narrator is a constructed voice the author creates, whose account can conflict with the author's own view or the facts of the story.

evidence_fit · writing · investigator.argument

Concept: Supporting evidence

Player does: Choose evidence that actually supports the claim

Breaks: Any quote on the topic is evidence

Evidence must directly support the specific claim being made, not merely mention the same topic.

elements_check · law · investigator.elimination

Concept: Elements of a claim or offense

Player does: Every element must be shown; eliminate charges that fail one

Breaks: Proving most elements is enough

A claim or offense requires every element to be established; missing even one defeats it.