Zwei Quellen, ein Beschluss: Presseerklärung gegen Tweet
Lena is comparing sources for a 250-word analysis of a local transport decision in the town of Kesselheim. Source A, a council press release: „Der Stadtrat hat am Dienstag mit 18 zu 9 Stimmen beschlossen, die Innenstadt ab Juli 2026 zur Tempo-30-Zone zu machen. Die Verwaltung rechnet mit 40 Prozent weniger Unfällen mit Fußgängern; die Kosten von 85 000 Euro trägt der Freistaat.“ Source B, a tweet from the Kesselheim retailers' association: „18 von 27 Stadträten stimmen für Tempo 30 – keiner von ihnen fährt morgens mit dem Lieferwagen durch die Bahnhofstraße. Wir zahlen die Zeche. #Wirtschaftsstandort“. Lena has 250 words and cannot quote both texts in full, so she must decide what to quote and what to characterise.
1. Where do the two texts agree, and where does Source B depart from Source A? Include what B does not dispute.
Read the worked answer
Agreement:
- The decision was taken and the vote was 18 to 9 out of 27 members. B restates the numbers correctly - worth noting, because it shows B is not careless with facts.
- Both texts are about the same object: the Tempo-30-Zone in the Innenstadt.
Departure:
- A frames the decision as a health measure with an external funder; B reframes it as a cost imposed on a specific group.
- B attacks the standing of the voters („keiner von ihnen fährt morgens mit dem Lieferwagen“) rather than the policy. That is an ad hominem move by implication: it says the council cannot know what it is deciding.
What B does not dispute:
- The 85 000 Euro figure, the funding by the Freistaat, and the expected fall in accidents. B is silent on all three.
- That silence is Lena's most interesting finding: it tells her which claims are politically contestable here and which are not.
2. Assess how reliable each source is for (a) the cost figure and (b) the 40 % figure. What wording must Lena use in her report?
Read the worked answer
- (a) Cost, 85 000 Euro. A is an institutional source with access to the Haushalt, and it names the payer. But it is also the council's own communication - self-interested in showing the decision as cheap. Reliable enough to report, provided Lena attributes it: „laut Stadtverwaltung“.
- B is not evidence about cost. „Wir zahlen die Zeche“ has no figure and no mechanism; it is a claim about incidence, not amount. It is excellent evidence of a stance, useless as evidence of a sum.
- (b) 40 %. This is the trap. A says „rechnet mit“ - a forecast, not a result. Lena must write „erwartet“ / „prognostiziert“ and never „es gibt 40 Prozent weniger Unfälle“. She should also note that the baseline and the period are unstated, so the figure cannot be checked from the text.
- Ranking: A is stronger on facts and weaker on independence; B is stronger on authenticity and weaker on everything measurable. Reliable for perspective, not for facts.
- Attribute every number to its source; never let two sources' figures merge into one unattributed sentence.
3. Write one German sentence for the report that uses Source B as evidence of a perspective rather than of a fact, and explain the construction.
Read the worked answer
Model sentence: „Der Tweet zeigt, wie der Beschluss im Einzelhandel wahrgenommen wird, belegt aber keine zusätzlichen Kosten für die Geschäfte - die Zahl im Tweet fehlt.“
- Two verbs, two jobs: „zeigt, wie … wahrgenommen wird“ makes the tweet evidence of reception; „belegt aber keine …“ blocks the inference Lena must not make. The contrast is carried by „aber“ in the middle field, where it belongs.
- Indirect question with „wie“ plus a passive („wahrgenommen wird“) keeps the focus on the perception rather than on the retailers as people.
- The dash clause names the missing evidence explicitly - this is what turns description into evaluation, and it is exactly what the marking criteria reward.
- Register: „wahrgenommen wird“ is standard report German; „die Zahl fehlt“ is plain and deliberately blunt at the end. The mix keeps the sentence readable in a 250-word analysis.
- Note „im Einzelhandel“ rather than „bei den Einzelhändlern“ - the sector, not the individuals, which keeps the sentence analytical.