A forecast with competing outcomes
Recover the central forecast, alternatives, assumption and remote case.
TF30 · C1 Grammar · 30 min
Fine Distinctions in Modal Probability
Position competing outcomes on an evidence scale, justify nearby modal choices and revise a forecast when new evidence arrives.
Why this lesson matters · เหตุผลที่เรียนบทนี้
For learners: Distinguish nearby probability choices, justify them from evidence, revise selectively and deliver a measured forecast.
For teachers: This C1 step turns calibrated claims into an evidence scale with neighbouring-choice justification, assumptions and revision triggers.
สำหรับผู้เรียน: แยกความต่างของตัวเลือกความน่าจะเป็นที่ใกล้กัน อธิบายจากหลักฐาน ปรับเฉพาะข้อสรุปที่ได้รับผล และนำเสนอการคาดการณ์อย่างพอดี
สำหรับครู: ขั้น C1 นี้พัฒนาข้อสรุปที่พอดีให้เป็นสเกลหลักฐาน พร้อมเหตุผลระหว่างตัวเลือกที่ใกล้กัน สมมติฐาน และจุดกระตุ้นให้ปรับข้อสรุป
Your Goal
Place ten probability statements on an evidence scale, justify six modal choices, revise three conclusions after new evidence, and deliver a measured forecast.
คำอธิบายภาษาไทย
จัดวางข้อความความเป็นไปได้ 10 ข้อตามน้ำหนักหลักฐาน อธิบายเหตุผลของการเลือก modal 6 ข้อ ปรับข้อสรุป 3 ข้อเมื่อมีหลักฐานใหม่ และนำเสนอการคาดการณ์ที่พอดีกับข้อมูล
Why this lesson matters
At C1, accuracy includes the distance between neighbouring probability choices. A useful forecast shows its centre, alternatives, assumptions and the evidence that would cause revision.
ภาษาไทย: ในระดับ C1 ความแม่นยำรวมถึงความแตกต่างระหว่างตัวเลือกความน่าจะเป็นที่อยู่ใกล้กัน การคาดการณ์ที่ดีต้องมีข้อสรุปหลัก ทางเลือก สมมติฐาน และหลักฐานที่จะทำให้ปรับข้อสรุป
PROGRESS FOCUS What improves today?
MEAN · MeaningPosition strong, preferred, open, remote and ruled-out outcomes on an evidence scale.
FORM · FormChoose modal and likelihood patterns by evidence, context and stance rather than fixed percentages.
USE · Real useJustify six choices, revise three claims selectively and deliver one decision-useful forecast.
Your 30-minute route
1 · 4 minPlace ten claims
2 · 4 minDistinguish neighbours
3 · 5 minRevise selectively
4 · 5 minBuild a forecast
5 · 5 minListen and update
6 · 7 minForecast and retry
Teacher Lesson Plan
Ask “Why this wording rather than the neighbouring option?” and “Which new evidence would move it?” C1 evidence is the justification and selective revision, not a long list of modal labels.
| Stage | Teacher move | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Scale | Place ten claims by evidence strength. | Ten placements |
| 2 · Distinguish | Compare neighbouring probability choices. | Six justifications |
| 3 · Revise | Add three evidence changes and require selective revision. | Three revisions |
| 4 · Forecast | Build centre, alternatives, assumptions and triggers. | One forecast plan |
| 5 · Transfer | Use British/American recordings to recover and challenge choices. | Two listening maps |
| 6 · Perform | Score MEAN/FORM/USE, set one target and retry. | Forecast + focused retry |
Stage 1 · Place ten statements on an evidence scale
Judge the relationship between claim and evidence, not merely how confident the speaker sounds.
STUDENT TASK
| Evidence position | Typical language | Decision test |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly supported | must / is highly likely to | Do several independent clues converge? |
| More likely than not | is likely to / will probably | Does the evidence favour this over alternatives? |
| Open possibility | may / might / could | Does it fit without being preferred? |
| Weak possibility | could conceivably / may possibly | Is it plausible but poorly supported? |
| Ruled out | cannot / is highly unlikely to | Does reliable evidence contradict it? |
- Place ten supplied or teacher-created statements on the scale.
- Underline the evidence phrase behind each placement.
- Identify two statements whose wording is stronger than their evidence.
- Identify one statement whose wording is too weak for converging evidence.
Scale justification: “This belongs nearer likely than possible because two independent indicators point in the same direction.”
Finish evidenceTen placements and three evidence-strength corrections.
Teacher Help · Stage 1
Do not teach the scale as fixed percentages. Require a comparison with the neighbouring position and a reason tied to evidence quality.
Stage 2 · Distinguish neighbouring probability choices
Explain why one wording fits better than a nearby alternative.
STUDENT TASK
| Choice pair | Fine distinction | Evidence question |
|---|---|---|
| must vs highly likely to | strong inference vs high forecast probability | Are you explaining a present clue or forecasting an outcome? |
| likely to vs may well | preferred outcome vs notable possibility | Does one outcome clearly lead? |
| may vs might | often interchangeable; context and stance matter more than a fixed gap | What alternative remains open? |
| could vs could conceivably | ordinary possibility vs deliberately remote possibility | How weak is the support? |
| unlikely to vs cannot | low probability vs contradiction | Is the claim merely doubtful or actually ruled out? |
- Choose the better item in six pairs.
- Give one evidence-based reason for every choice.
- Repair two false rules about fixed percentages.
- Create one context where may and might are both defensible but signal a different stance.
Check the principle
Modal probability is calibrated through context, evidence source and communicative stance. Avoid treating each form as one universal percentage.
Finish evidenceSix justified modal choices and two repaired false rules.
Teacher Help · Stage 2
Ask “Why this one rather than its neighbour?” A label without comparison does not demonstrate C1 control.
Stage 3 · Revise three conclusions after new evidence
Change only the claims whose evidence position has moved.
STUDENT TASK
| Initial conclusion | New evidence | Required revision |
|---|---|---|
| Demand is likely to rise. | A larger survey shows stable demand. | downgrade and explain the sample change |
| The delay may be temporary. | Three independent systems report the same fault. | strengthen the diagnosis |
| The plan cannot meet the deadline. | A verified extra team becomes available. | remove the impossible claim |
- State the original evidence position.
- Describe exactly how the new evidence changes its quality or scope.
- Revise all three conclusions with a new probability choice.
- Explain why the remaining claims should not change.
- Create one misleading revision that changes too much and repair it.
Revision frame: “On the earlier sample, demand looked likely to rise. The larger survey weakens that conclusion, so it may remain broadly stable.”
Finish evidenceThree justified revisions and one repaired overreaction.
Teacher Help · Stage 3
Reward selective revision. New evidence should not cause every claim to move; the learner must identify which inference it actually affects.
Stage 4 · Build a measured forecast
Turn current indicators into a forecast with range, assumptions and revision triggers.
STUDENT TASK
INDICATORWhat is observed?
FORECASTWhich outcome is most supported?
TRIGGERWhat new evidence would change it?
| Forecast element | Required output | Quality check |
|---|---|---|
| Central forecast | one likely outcome | supported by at least two indicators |
| Alternative | two open possibilities | plausible and distinct |
| Remote case | one weak possibility | not impossible, but evidence-light |
| Boundary | one ruled-out claim | contradiction named |
- Choose a work, travel, study or daily planning scenario.
- Record four indicators without conclusions.
- Plan a central forecast, two alternatives, one remote case and one boundary.
- Add two assumptions and two evidence triggers.
Finish evidenceFive forecast positions, two assumptions and two revision triggers.
Teacher Help · Stage 4
Keep alternatives meaningfully different. A measured forecast shows a centre, a range and the evidence that would cause movement.
Stage 5 · Listen, challenge and revise the forecast
Recover probability positions across two accents and test them against new evidence.
STUDENT TASKBritish English American English
New evidence changes the range
Track three revised conclusions and the evidence that moved each one.
- Listen once for the overall forecast and confidence.
- Listen again for indicator · probability choice · assumption · trigger.
- Justify three modal choices from the recordings.
- Give your Stage 4 forecast; a partner supplies three new evidence cards.
- Revise only the conclusions directly affected and defend one unchanged claim.
Challenge frame: “That evidence changes…, but it does not affect…, because…”
Finish evidenceTwo listening maps, three justified choices, three selective revisions and one defended claim.
Teacher Help · Stage 5
Audio never starts automatically. Accent variety tests transfer, not imitation. Replay the evidence or assumption clause when the learner hears the modal but cannot justify it.
Stage 6 · Final Practice: forecast, update and retry
Deliver one independent measured forecast, revise it and improve one precise weakness.
STUDENT TASK
FINAL PRACTICE
Scale → justify → forecast → update → defend → retry
- Use notes only: indicator · evidence position · modal choice · assumption · trigger.
- Deliver a 90-second forecast with one central outcome, two alternatives, one remote possibility and one ruled-out claim.
- Justify at least six probability choices by comparing each with a neighbouring option.
- Your partner adds three new evidence items; revise three conclusions selectively.
- State two assumptions and defend one conclusion that should remain unchanged.
- After one feedback target, retry only the weakest calibration, form, justification or revision move.
Planning example: “The central outcome is likely because two independent indicators converge. A slower recovery remains possible, while a complete stop is highly unlikely unless the funding signal changes.”
Score the first independent performance
MEAN · MeaningTen positions and the forecast range reflect evidence strength, alternatives and contradiction.
FORM · FormModal, likelihood and probability patterns accurately express fine distinctions without false fixed-percentage rules.
USE · Real useSix choices are justified, three conclusions are selectively revised and one measured forecast remains decision-useful.
0 · Not yetProbability positions or revisions are disconnected from the evidence.
1 · With supportThe forecast becomes clear after an evidence-scale, neighbouring-choice, assumption or trigger prompt.
2 · IndependentThe scale, justifications, selective revisions and measured forecast are clear without a prompt.
Result: 0–2 Rebuild · 3–4 Developing · 5–6 C1 mastery evidence.
Finish evidenceTen probability placements + six justified modal choices + three revisions + one measured forecast + one focused retry.
Teacher Help · Stage 6
Score the first independent attempt across MEAN, FORM and USE. Give one target only: scale position, neighbouring distinction, evidence justification or selective revision. Keep the original score and record the retry.
Grammar you can use
You can now distinguish nearby modal-probability choices, justify them against evidence and revise a measured forecast selectively. Use the Dynamic Learning Graph below for the next step.
Return to the Learning LibraryContinue your learning path
Probability, Caution, and Hedging
Learn first: calibrate claims, limitations and conditional recommendations.
เรียนก่อน: ฝึกกำหนดน้ำหนักข้อสรุป ข้อจำกัด และคำแนะนำแบบมีเงื่อนไข
Modal Deduction about the Present
Compare the C1 probability scale with evidence-led present deduction.
เปรียบเทียบสเกลความน่าจะเป็นระดับ C1 กับการอนุมานปัจจุบันจากหลักฐาน
Scenario Planning: What If Conditions Change?
Use measured probability to revise scenario plans when conditions change.
นำระดับความน่าจะเป็นที่พอดีไปใช้ปรับแผนสถานการณ์เมื่อเงื่อนไขเปลี่ยน
Fine Modal Stance and Interpersonal Distance
Separate evidence strength from interpersonal distance in advanced modal stance.
แยกน้ำหนักหลักฐานออกจากระยะห่างระหว่างบุคคลในการใช้ modal ระดับสูง