The Source Text Trap
A written examination task asks students to write a 250–300 word article for a school magazine arguing that sport should be compulsory for all students. The instructions say to draw on the ideas in the provided source text, which presents both benefits and concerns about compulsory sport. Priya writes 340 words. She uses the source's benefits but ignores its concerns entirely. She writes in a formal academic register with long complex sentences, and she addresses the reader as 'one'. She exceeds the word limit by 40 words. Her grammar is excellent, but the article reads like an essay and does not sound like a magazine piece for students.
1. Identify the four ways Priya's response fails to match the task requirements.
Read the worked answer
She ignores half the source. The source presents benefits and concerns; Priya uses only the benefits. The instruction to draw on the source's ideas implies engaging with its full content, including counterarguments, which would also strengthen her argument.
She misjudges the register. A school magazine article for students should be engaging and accessible, not formal academic prose. Addressing the reader as 'one' is inappropriate for a peer audience; 'you' or 'we' would fit better.
She misjudges the form. An article typically has a headline, an engaging opening, and a conversational tone. Priya's essay-like structure does not match the genre.
She exceeds the word limit. Writing 340 words when the limit is 300 risks penalty and shows she did not plan her length. The extra 40 words also suggests she did not edit for concision.
2. Explain how Priya could use the source's concerns to make her argument stronger rather than weaker.
Read the worked answer
Engaging with the concerns would demonstrate critical control rather than undermine her position. A strong argument anticipates objections and answers them.
For example, she could write: 'Some worry that compulsory sport pressures students who are less athletic. This is a fair concern, but it can be addressed by offering a range of activities rather than a single competitive model.' Here she acknowledges the source's concern, then rebuts or qualifies it.
This strategy, sometimes called concede and counter, shows the assessor that she has understood the source fully and can evaluate it. It also makes her article more persuasive to a student audience, who will recognise the concern. Ignoring the concerns leaves her argument exposed and suggests she has only skimmed the source.