Counts can show change without showing its cause. Check an explanation against relevant observations and ask what would not fit. These invented frog counts are not a real creek report. Safety: No wildlife handling, water sampling or outdoor investigation is required. Stop: End with the proposed evidence check. Do not visit creeks, handle frogs or collect water.

Materials: Paper; Pencil; Two colouring pencils 1. Draw this illustrative table: Survey | Frogs counted | Duration | Method. First | 12 | 10 minutes | count from bank at dusk. Second | 6 | 10 minutes | count from same bank at dusk. Record only the count change, not a population decline as a fact. 2. Compare two possible explanations: fewer frogs were present; frogs were harder to see. Write why either could produce fewer counted frogs. The table does not say how many were hidden. 3. Add these illustrative clues: First survey had clear viewing; second had tall plants blocking part of the view. Underline which explanation this makes more plausible, while noting that frog numbers might also have changed. 4. Choose two useful additional records from this complete list: rainfall, water-quality measurements by trained adults, visibility, number of pencils in the observer’s bag. Explain why your chosen records are relevant; reject the pencil count. 5. Check this proposed explanation: Counts were lower only because less of the bank could be seen. Describe a result that would not fit well, such as equally clear views on repeated surveys with consistently lower counts. Write a cautious final statement. Done: The learner separates count change from cause, uses a relevant clue and describes one result that would challenge an explanation. Proof: Keep the table and explanation check, labelled illustrative. Note adult prompts. Stop: End with the proposed evidence check. Do not visit creeks, handle frogs or collect water.