The Detailed Study That Outgrew Its Evidence
Mei has chosen to present on how Chinese-Australian family businesses pass on language to the second generation. She has a strong personal angle: her parents run a grocery in Box Hill and she has interviewed them informally. Her presentation is capped at 10 minutes including a short Q&A-style close, and the assessment criteria reward a clearly stated focus, a coherent argument, and evidence that goes beyond personal anecdote. In drafting, she finds her personal interview material is vivid but narrow, and she has 6 minutes of it. She also has two academic articles she has only skimmed, and a documentary she watched last year. Her teacher warns against a 'story of my family' presentation. Mei wants to keep the interview because it is her favourite part.
1. Identify the main risk in Mei's current plan and explain how the detailed study criteria make it a risk rather than a strength.
Read the worked answer
The risk is that the presentation becomes a single-case narrative rather than an investigation. The criteria reward a defined focus, analysis, and a range of evidence; a 6-minute personal interview consumes most of a 10-minute cap and leaves no room to test the claim. A vivid anecdote is persuasive but cannot establish a pattern, and markers can hear the difference between 'this is what my parents do' and 'this is what the evidence suggests happens more broadly'. The interview is not the problem; letting it carry the argument is. Mei should treat it as one data point within a framed question.
2. Propose a revised structure that keeps the interview but satisfies the evidence requirement, and justify the time allocation.
Read the worked answer
A workable structure: 1 minute stating the focus (how language transmission survives or fails in family businesses) and why it matters; 3 minutes on the two articles, summarised in her own words with one contrast between them; 3 minutes on the interview, explicitly framed as a case used to test the articles' claims; 2 minutes analysing where the case confirms or complicates the literature; 1 minute concluding and acknowledging limits. This keeps her favourite material while making it serve the argument. The interview shrinks from 6 to 3 minutes but gains weight because it is now evidence rather than content. She must actually read the articles; skimming will show in the analysis.
3. Mei's teacher says she should not use the documentary she watched last year. Is that advice sound? Explain.
Read the worked answer
It is conditionally sound. The objection is not to documentaries but to vaguely remembered material: if Mei cannot cite specifics, dates, or claims accurately, using it weakens credibility and invites a question she cannot answer in the close. If she can rewatch it and extract two or three precise points that bear on her focus, it becomes legitimate supporting evidence and adds range. The judgement call is between breadth that is hollow and depth that is verifiable. The safer rule is: use only what she can defend precisely, and prefer three well-understood sources to five half-remembered ones.