The School Board's Word Count
A student advocacy group has drafted a 900-word letter to the school board arguing for later start times. The board's public-comment policy caps written submissions at 500 words. The group's advisor suggests cutting the letter's opening anecdote (about a student falling asleep at the wheel), its three-paragraph review of sleep-science studies, and its closing paragraph of thanks, keeping only the recommendation and two student testimonies. A second advisor argues the letter should instead be left at 900 words and submitted to the district's online forum, which has no limit, since the anecdote and studies are the most persuasive material. The board meets in six days; the online forum is read by district staff but not by board members before votes.
1. Which advisor's recommendation better serves the group's rhetorical purpose, and why?
Read the worked answer
The first advisor's. The group's purpose is to influence the board's vote, and the board only reads submissions under 500 words. A 900-word letter posted where board members won't read it before voting fails the rhetorical situation's most basic constraint: the audience. Cutting to 500 words preserves the accessible audience. Note that the choice isn't about which material is strongest in the abstract-the anecdote and studies may well be more persuasive-but about which material can reach the decision-makers at all. Effective rhetorical choices are audience- and occasion-specific, not universally ranked.
2. The group decides to cut the science review but keep the anecdote and testimonies. Write one sentence explaining what this choice signals about their theory of the board's decision-making.
Read the worked answer
Sample: "By keeping the anecdote over the studies, the group signals that it believes the board responds more to concrete, emotionally legible harm to named students than to abstract statistical evidence-a bet about the board's values and attention that the studies alone wouldn't satisfy." The sentence should name both the discarded and retained evidence and infer an assumption about the audience, not merely restate the cut.