🌐 Global Challenge Lab

Stop and check: which of your stereotypes actually held up?

Phase 3 of 5

Duration ≈ 45 min

Skill Argumentation & weighing trade-offs

0 of 0 tasks completed

🔎 Claim, evidence, reasoning

Go back to the stereotypes you wrote down in Phase 1. Pick the one that has changed the most for you after working on your team mission.

Task 1

Claim: What was the original stereotype or assumption?

Evidence: What have you now learned (from your team mission or another team's) that supports or challenges it?

Reasoning: What's your conclusion now? Has the stereotype been confirmed, complicated, or proven wrong?

⚖️ Structured controversy

Discuss in your team first, then write individually:

"Can economic growth and environmental sustainability coexist?"

Two starter arguments on each side to get you thinking — don't just copy them, add your own reasoning or example too.

PRO

Countries developing later can "leapfrog" dirty technologies entirely — going straight to mobile phones instead of landlines, or straight to solar power instead of coal plants.

PRO

Clean industries like solar power and electric vehicles create real jobs and export income — protecting the environment can grow an economy, not just cost it.

CON

Building clean infrastructure costs a lot of money upfront — money a country with widespread poverty might feel it needs for schools, hospitals and jobs right now.

CON

Wealthy countries built their economies on cheap fossil fuels for over a century. Many see it as unfair to now ask developing countries to do things differently.

Match each argument above to its core idea in one phrase. This makes sure you actually read all four before you start writing.

PRO — Countries can jump straight to mobile phones or solar power instead of older, dirtier technology.

PRO — Solar power and electric vehicles create real jobs and export income.

CON — A country with widespread poverty might need that money for schools and hospitals right now.

CON — Wealthy countries polluted freely for a century; now they ask others to behave differently.

Task 2

List at least one argument in favour.

List at least one argument against.

What's your own position, and why?

🗣️ More dilemmas to explore

Your teacher may run one or more of these as a class debate, role play, fishbowl discussion, or "expert conference" — no single correct answer, just informed opinions with real reasoning behind them:

"Should global companies produce goods in low-wage countries?"
"Is English a chance or a threat for local languages and cultures?"
"Should AI be allowed to replace jobs that currently employ millions of people?"

🎯 Team discussion

Talk this through with your team — there's no single correct answer. Go back to your own team's mission page (A–F) and look at who is actually speaking in the text: journalists? Governments? Statistics? Or real people, in their own words?

Discuss, then note down

Name one specific kind of person whose voice is missing from your team's mission material — a real type of person, not just "more information." Example: "We read facts about IT outsourcing, but no quote from an actual delivery-app rider."

Why would hearing from that person change the picture your mission material gives?

🚀

Submit your thinking

Enter your name and class, then submit.

🎓

Onwards

Well reasoned. After your class exhibition (Phase 4, in your classroom), come back for the final phase.

Continue to Phase 5: Reflection & Transfer →