Skip to content
Illustrative example with invented data

One claim, followed all the way through.

This is a fictional fixture. Its numbers are intentionally invented to show how SlideDeck handles sources, timing and questions. It is not research evidence and describes no real club or event.

Part 1

The brief and its sources

Topic
Should our student club run another repair workshop?
Audience
Undergraduate committee
Time slot
Seven minutes: five minutes of presentation, two minutes of Q&A
Tone
Conversational but precise

Must include

  • Attendance
  • Participant feedback
  • Costs
  • A recommendation

Fixture sources

  • Fixture attendance sheetLists 40 attendeesillustrative data
  • Fixture feedback sheet30 responses; 24 selected “would attend again”illustrative data
  • Fixture ledger$240 direct expenditureillustrative data

Each fixture file is marked illustrative and carries explicit ownership and permission metadata.

Part 2

What the evidence does and doesn’t support

Supported within illustrative fixture

“24 of 30 respondents indicated they would attend again”

Source: Fixture feedback sheet · rows 2–31 · illustrative data

Calculated: 24 ÷ 30 = 80% of respondents
Unsupported leap

“80% of all attendees will return”

The fixture only covers the 30 people who answered, not all 40 attendees, and says nothing about future turnout.

Calculated

$240 ÷ 40 attendees = $6 direct expenditure per attendee

Not a profit, willingness-to-pay or full-cost calculation.

Part 3

The slide and its script

Repair workshop review · 03

Most respondents would attend again

24 / 30

24 of 30 respondents said they would attend again.

Fixture feedback sheet · rows 2–31 · illustrative data

Slide 03 as rendered. Visible content: “24 of 30 respondents said they would attend again.” Source chip: Fixture feedback sheet · rows 2–31 · illustrative data.

Script · slide 03

[00:00 — LOOK UP]

“We received feedback from 30 of the 40 attendees.”

[PAUSE 1 SECOND]

“Twenty-four of those respondents said they would attend again. That is 80 percent of respondents—not 80 percent of everybody who came.”

[POINT TO DENOMINATOR]

“We should treat this as encouraging feedback, not a guarantee of turnout.”

[CLICK → slide_04]

“Now let us look at what another workshop would cost.”

Exports turn machine cues into readable stage directions while the internal graph keeps stable slide IDs. Times are approximate and recalculated after rehearsal; a word count alone doesn’t fix how long a person takes to say something.

Part 4

A practice question and how an answer is assessed

Question

“You say 80 percent were positive. What about the ten people who did not answer?”

Answer criteria

  • Distinguish respondents from all attendees
  • Acknowledge the missing feedback
  • Avoid inventing the missing opinions
  • Explain how a follow-up survey could reduce uncertainty

A defensible response

“We do not know their views, so we should not generalize the response rate to all attendees.”

Criteria describe expected elements, not a single exact wording you have to repeat.

Part 5

Feedback and the proposed repair

Your answer correctly acknowledged the missing responses. Add that qualification to the slide subtitle so the audience does not infer a stronger conclusion.

Proposed change · slide 03 subtitle

+ Based on the 30 of 40 attendees who answered.

Previewed, scoped to one slide, and never applied without your approval.

If the feedback sheet changed from 24 to 21 positive responses, the calculation would recompute to 70%, and the dependent slide text, script segment and practice answer would be flagged for review and their cached narration invalidated.

Try it with your own topic.The free preview builds up to 3 slides from your own sources.

Start my presentation