Reading: The Blog Post That Argues Both Ways
You read a blog post by a French lycéen, Hugo, about banning smartphones in schools. He writes: « Franchement, l'interdiction, c'est du pur délire. On nous traite comme des enfants. Mais bon, je dois avouer que depuis que le collège l'applique, je travaille mieux en cours. Après, mes parents sont joignables en cas d'urgence... enfin, sur le téléphone du bureau. Bref, je ne sais pas trop quoi en penser. » You must write a 150-word article for the school magazine presenting the debate and giving your own view.
1. Analyse Hugo's position and explain how his tone and language affect the reliability of his argument.
Read the worked answer
Hugo's position is ambivalent, not neutral. He opens with strong opposition (du pur délire, on nous traite comme des enfants), then concedes a real benefit (je travaille mieux), then raises a counter-argument about emergencies, then admits confusion (je ne sais pas trop quoi en penser).
Language signals: informal markers (franchement, bref, après) and hyperbole (du délire) show emotion rather than evidence. The concession with je dois avouer que is the most credible part because it goes against his own stance.
Implication for your article: you can quote his concession as evidence that the ban has a measurable effect, while noting that his emergency argument is weakened by his own detail - the school office phone exists. The judgement tested is separating a writer's tone from the content of his claims, and using his own words fairly rather than caricaturing him.
2. Write the opening of your 150-word article in French, presenting both sides before giving your view.
Read the worked answer
Structure: context → two sides → your position, in a register suited to a school magazine (vous or nous, clear but not slangy).
Model French (opening): « Interdire le téléphone portable au lycée : la question divise. Pour certains, ces appareils distraient et nuisent à la concentration. Pour d'autres, ils sont un lien vital avec les familles et un outil pédagogique. Dans son blog, Hugo reconnaît lui-même qu'il travaille mieux depuis l'interdiction, tout en trouvant la mesure injuste. À mon avis, la solution n'est pas d'interdire ou de tout permettre, mais d'apprendre à utiliser ces outils de façon responsable, avec des règles claires. »
Why it works: it names both sides with their reasons, uses Hugo's concession as concrete evidence, and states a nuanced position rather than a slogan. The judgement tested is balanced summary plus a defensible personal view within the word limit.