Reading Task: Two Letters to the Editor on Language Policy
You read two short letters in a Hebrew newspaper. Letter A, from a retired teacher, argues that Hebrew classes for immigrants should focus on grammar and written accuracy because 'without correct Hebrew there is no place in Israeli society'. Letter B, from a 30-year-old immigrant, says she learned Hebrew mostly at work and through television, that grammar classes made her feel humiliated, and that she now manages a team of twelve. Letter A cites falling scores in a national Hebrew test. Letter B cites her own promotion. Neither mentions the other's evidence. The question asks you to compare the writers' attitudes to language learning and to evaluate the strength of their arguments.
1. Compare the two writers' attitudes and explain how each uses evidence.
Read the worked answer
Letter A (retired teacher):
- Attitude: prescriptive and gatekeeping - correct Hebrew is a condition of belonging ('no place in Israeli society').
- Evidence used: aggregate, institutional data (falling national test scores). It is broad but indirect: falling scores do not show that grammar-first teaching produces integration.
- Weakness: conflates accuracy with belonging; the claim is normative, not empirical.
Letter B (immigrant manager):
- Attitude: functional and experiential - language is learned by use, and humiliation is a real barrier.
- Evidence used: a single personal case (her promotion, team of twelve). It is vivid and directly relevant to integration but cannot generalise; she may have succeeded despite, not because of, her learning path.
- Weakness: anecdote cannot refute a claim about national averages.
Key comparison: the letters do not actually contradict each other's evidence - they measure different things. A measures tested accuracy; B measures workplace integration and wellbeing. Neither writer engages the other's measure, so the exchange is a dialogue of the deaf.
Evaluation: A's argument is stronger on evidence type (aggregate vs anecdote) but weaker on logic (accuracy does not entail belonging). B's is stronger on lived consequence but weaker on generalisability.
2. Write a short response (about 60 words) as a third letter that acknowledges both and moves the debate forward.
Read the worked answer
'Both writers are right about different things. Test scores measure accuracy; the immigrant manager measures integration. A grammar-only class may raise scores while lowering confidence, and workplace learning may build confidence while leaving written gaps. The useful question is not which method wins but which combination serves immigrants best: structured grammar taught without humiliation, alongside real opportunities to use Hebrew at work. Falling scores and a successful manager can both be true at once.'
Why this works: it names the different measures explicitly, refuses the false choice, and proposes a synthesis (grammar plus use) rather than picking a side. It also implicitly answers the exam's evaluation demand by showing that neither letter's evidence defeats the other's.