Created by Yoav Duman · Free browser play · No student account
Original AI-generated conceptual cover. Historical evidence and its provenance are presented separately in the case files.
4 historical case filesChoose a main case + a second caseAbout 55 minutesPlanning estimate · not measuredSolo or pair discussionOne shared device = one shared recordSave & resumeBrowser autosave + JSON backup
The outcomes are known
The explanation is yours to defend.
Investigate what political actors could do, which actions affected their options and what the record leaves uncertain. The cases keep their historical outcomes; your decisions change the argument you build.
Russia / Early 2024
Support. Entry. Opportunity.
Read reported support alongside evidence about candidate entry, opposition activity and independent observation.
Malaysia / 2013 & 2018
Advantage. Then change.
Explain how incumbent advantages coexisted with the opposition coalition’s 2018 victory.
Malawi / 2019 & 2020
A new contest. A new winner.
Distinguish the steps that made a fresh election possible from the reasons it produced a different result.
Serbia / 2023–Feb 2024
Seats. And conditions.
Examine the national parliamentary contest: what do opposition seats establish, and what remains unresolved?
Your work at the hearing
Make each piece of evidence earn its place.
01 / Select
Start with a question.
Choose a main case and keep a first explanation. Later, select a second case for a focused comparison.
02 / Curate
Two supports. One complication.
Build an evidence board with two distinct supporting observations and one observation that limits or challenges your account. Explain each card’s job.
03 / Connect
Actor → action → affected option.
Trace a specific relationship. Use a supplied starter or write your own actor, action and affected option, then cite the evidence for the links.
04 / Hear
Answer. Decide. Give reasons.
Respond to two source questions. Record a cited reason for keeping an explanation, narrowing a link or replacing a supporting card.
05 / Challenge
Put a rival on the same link.
Offer another account of the same uncertain relationship. Name evidence that could help distinguish the accounts; both may contribute.
06 / Compare
Make a bounded claim.
Use cited evidence from a second case to test your explanation. State what the comparison supports and where its reach ends.
Keep observation and inference separate.
A source can report an event, rule or attitude without establishing every cause or wider effect. Check the unit, denominator, provenance and limits of your evidence. The activity asks for a bounded explanation and does not impose a country-wide regime label.
Choose your way in
The same analytical task in both routes.
Play / Just exploring
Work at your own pace.
Opens the game’s Just for fun mode, which allows paste and text drops. Save an unfinished draft whenever you want. Full completion still requires every analysis task.
Class mode blocks paste and text drops into editable fields. Built-in optional frames and JSON backup import remain available. Fill every part of a frame you use before marking the work complete.
Aim for 60–85 words in the main explanation; the completion range is 50–120. Write a 30–45-word comparison. Both routes use the same completion requirements. Source feedback checks bounded readings; an instructor assesses the argument.
Plan about 55 minutes, with more time for discussion or careful source reading. This is a teaching estimate; classroom timing and learning gains remain unmeasured. In a pair, discuss and swap proposer and skeptic roles. One shared device holds one shared record.
The evidence desk is open
Bring your explanation to the table.
Work saves in this browser on this website when storage is available. Download a JSON backup to resume elsewhere. For a readable record, use Print / Save as PDF, download HTML, or open the grading summary and copy its text manually. Exporting or completing the hearing does not submit it; use your course’s submission route.
Completion checks whether the required work is present. It does not automatically grade the quality of an explanation. Ask which link is best supported, which remains uncertain and what new evidence would matter.
