Year 7 Science · AC9S7H04

Science Communication — Evidence, Viewpoints and Policy

Progress from identifying evidence to evaluating communication and making a justified recommendation.

Part A — Core checks

  1. Distinguish a scientific claim from the evidence used to support it.
  2. Explain why popularity on social media is not a reliable measure of scientific quality.
  3. State two features you would check before trusting a public science graph.
  4. Distinguish a policy from a regulation and give one science-related example of each.
  5. Why should a communicator state uncertainty rather than replace a range with one certain number?

Part B — Analyse communication

Source A: A monitoring report shows fish abundance index values of 100, 91, 82, 70 and 55 over five years. It states that several possible causes are under investigation.
Source B headline: “Fishing proven to be wiping out fish — total ban is the only solution.”
  1. What pattern is directly supported by Source A?
  2. Identify two claims in Source B that go beyond Source A's evidence.
  3. Rewrite the headline so it is accurate but still understandable to the public.
  4. Name two additional pieces of evidence decision-makers would want before choosing a fishing policy.

Part C — Audience, risk and cultural protocols

  1. A cyclone agency has technical model outputs and must warn residents. Explain three changes it should make for the public audience without changing the science.
  2. Explain why “70% chance of heavy rain” is useful even though it is uncertain.
  3. When a communication includes First Nations ecological knowledge, identify three responsibilities the communicator has.
  4. Explain how two-way communication can improve a Caring for Country policy discussion.

Part D — Higher-order decision

A town is considering water restrictions. Reservoir storage has fallen for six months, inflows are below the long-term median, demand is rising, and the seasonal rainfall forecast is uncertain. Restrictions would reduce household water use but impose costs on some businesses.
  1. Write a four-sentence public message that communicates the evidence without overstating certainty.
  2. Explain how two residents could understand the same evidence yet prefer different policies.
  3. Recommend either immediate restrictions, staged restrictions or continued monitoring. Use at least three pieces of evidence, state one uncertainty and one non-scientific consideration.

Answer / marking guidance

1–5

1 Claim = proposed conclusion; evidence = observations/data supporting it. 2 Likes/shares measure attention, not method, expertise or corroboration. 3 Accept source/provenance, axes/units/scale, method, date, uncertainty. 4 Policy = agreed framework/course; regulation = enforceable rule. 5 A range communicates the strength/limits of prediction and avoids false precision.

6–9

6 Abundance declined from 100 to 55 over five years. 7 Source A does not prove fishing is the cause and does not establish a total ban as the only response. 8 Example: “Monitoring shows substantial five-year decline in fish abundance; causes are being investigated.” 9 Accept fishing effort, breeding/recruitment, habitat, water quality, disease, comparison sites or longer-term data.

10–13

10 Plain language; clear map/legend; timestamp; explain uncertainty; specific action instructions. 11 Probability still helps risk-based preparation. 12 Use authorised context-specific knowledge, permission/protocols, appropriate attribution; do not expose restricted knowledge or generalise. 13 Communities can contribute place-based knowledge, questions and practical impacts while scientific monitoring remains visible.

14–16

14 Must accurately state falling storage/low inflows/rising demand, preserve forecast uncertainty and give proportionate action. 15 Values, costs, risk tolerance and priorities can differ even when evidence is shared. 16 Any of the three options can earn full marks if the recommendation accurately uses at least three stated evidence points, acknowledges forecast uncertainty and includes a social/economic consideration such as business cost or equity.