Writing Workshop 3
C2 · Writing · Rhetoric and Persuasion
Model answer · Task 1
✍️ ━━━━ MODEL ESSAY · OPENING ━━━━ ✍️
Both texts begin from the same premise: that misinformation spreads quickly and does real harm. Where they diverge is on the remedy. Text A argues for firm intervention — holding platforms responsible and removing demonstrably false claims — while Text B argues that removal is both epistemically risky and practically counter-productive, and that resources would be better spent on building public resilience.
Text A’s strongest contribution is its reframing of the censorship objection. It points out that the status quo is not a neutral marketplace of ideas but one in which algorithms systematically reward outrage. On this view, moderation does not distort an otherwise free debate; it corrects a distortion already present. This is a powerful argument, but it tacitly presupposes that those doing the moderating can reliably identify falsehood, and that their judgements will be trusted.
⋯ (the complete model answer is in the teacher’s guide)
Model answer · Task 2
📰 ━━━━ MODEL ARTICLE ━━━━ 📰
📰
“Late-night screen use triples risk of sleep disorder in teenagers.” It is the kind of headline that sends parents reaching for the Wi-Fi router. Before you do, it is worth asking three simple questions.
First: triples from what? A tripled risk sounds alarming, but if the original risk was 1 in 1,000, it has risen to 3 in 1,000 — an increase of 0.2 percentage points. That may still matter, but it is a very different story from the one the headline implies. Relative figures (“triples”, “halves”) are useful for comparing effects, but they need the base rate beside them. Without it, you cannot tell a small change from a large one.
⋯ (the complete model answer is in the teacher’s guide)
Sample questions (2 questions)
- Your turn: write a synthesis (380–480 words) of the two texts. Present each fairly, identify the key presupposition in each, and propose a reasoned position that integrates their strengths.
- Your turn: write a short article (300–380 words) explaining to general readers how to read a statistic in a news headline critically. Use your own examples of relative versus absolute risk and correlation versus causation.
Answers and hints from Migo appear when you do it online.