Unit 08 · Health Decisions, Media & Consumer Science
The year closes where health science meets everyday life: the flood of health claims in the news, on labels, and in advertising — and how to reason about them with evidence instead of taking them at face value. This unit covers reading a health claim critically, telling the difference between correlation and causation, separating marketing from real evidence, and why a bottle of supplements can’t stand in for a balanced diet built from whole food. Mastery means you can meet a bold headline calmly and ask the right questions of it.
| Criterion | Developing | Proficient | Mastery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reading a health claim critically | Accepts a health claim at face value and cannot say what would make it trustworthy. | Senses a claim needs checking but cannot name what evidence to look for. | Meets a health claim by asking who made it, what evidence backs it, and whether the source has something to sell. |
| Correlation vs. causation | Treats any headline linking two things as proof that one causes the other. | Has heard “correlation is not causation” but cannot apply it to a real headline. | Explains why a link between two things is not proof of cause, and names other explanations a headline might have missed. |
| Spotting marketing vs. evidence | Cannot tell an advertisement apart from an evidence-based recommendation. | Notices persuasion but cannot point to the specific tactic being used. | Separates marketing language from evidence — naming the tactic (testimonials, vague “studies show,” fear appeals) and what real support would look like instead. |
| Supplements vs. whole food | Assumes a supplement can simply replace the nutrients in a balanced diet. | Knows whole food matters but cannot explain what a supplement leaves out. | Explains why supplements can’t replace a balanced diet — whole food carries fiber, a mix of nutrients, and things we haven’t isolated — and treats “a pill fixes it” as a red flag. |
| Anchor lab (health-claim media-analysis case study) | Skips the case study or summarizes a claim without evaluating it. | Analyzes a claim but stops before weighing the evidence behind it. | Works a health-claim media-analysis case study end to end — tracing the claim to its source, weighing the evidence, and reaching an evidence-based verdict. |
| Integration (cross-domain) | Makes no supported connection between the source and the science. | Uses the source but needs help connecting evidence, writing, or limitations to the science. | Independently connects History, Reading, and Writing using a cited source, appropriate evidence, a limitation, and a scientific explanation. |
Integration is reported separately and cannot lower the science grade or block a science demonstration pass. Science and practical criteria determine that pass. Use the integration guide's evidence checklist for the separately reported criterion.
“The headline said people who drink green tea live longer — but that’s a link, not a cause; those people might just exercise more too. And the ad selling green-tea pills is marketing, not evidence. Whole food carries things a pill leaves out, so I’d want a real study before I believed the claim.”
“It was in the news, so it’s probably true. If a study found a link, that means it causes it, right? And the supplement says it replaces vegetables, so that’s the same thing.”
You demonstrate this unit through a health-claim media-analysis case study — taking a real headline or advertisement apart and defending an evidence-based verdict aloud — not a multiple-choice test. A criterion counts as mastered only when you can both analyze the claim and justify how you told evidence from marketing. Mastery is demonstrated, not awarded.
A 5-page clipboard packet — unit overview, key terms, the mastery rubric, anchor examples, and a score sheet you can print and grade against.