Choosing the right register for a formal letter to a newspaper
A Year 12 student is drafting a letter to the editor of a Tamil daily in Chennai about a local bus-route change. She has written three opening lines and cannot decide which to keep. Line A uses the singular informal imperative and a first-name self-reference. Line B uses the honorific plural verb form and the formal first-person plural self-reference. Line C mixes a formal salutation with an informal verb in the second sentence. Her teacher has told her the assessment rewards consistent register across the whole text, not just the opening. The letter must also argue a position and give two supporting reasons within 300 words. She has 40 minutes of writing time left and has already used 90 words on background description.
1. Which opening line should she keep, and what must she change elsewhere in the draft to keep register consistent?
Read the worked answer
She should keep Line B. The honorific plural verb form and the formal first-person plural self-reference match the public, formal context of a letter to a newspaper editor, where the writer addresses an unknown readership and an institution.
Line A fails because the singular informal imperative and first-name self-reference belong to intimate or peer conversation, not public correspondence. Line C is the trap: a formal salutation does not fix an informal verb later in the same sentence, and examiners reward consistency, not a formal opening.
Consequences for the rest of the draft:
- Every verb addressed to the editor or readers must stay in the honorific/formal form.
- Self-reference must stay first-person plural or the neutral formal form throughout.
- The 90 words of background must be trimmed, because 90 + 300 exceeds the limit; the two supporting reasons and the position statement need room.
- The closing formula must match the formal register of the opening.
2. The draft currently spends 90 words on background and still needs a position plus two reasons inside 300 words. What is the planning judgement here?
Read the worked answer
The student has a budget problem, not just a style problem. With 300 words total and 90 already spent, only 210 remain for the position and two reasons. That is workable but tight, so the judgement is to compress the background to about 30–40 words and reallocate the space.
A defensible allocation:
- Background: 30–40 words (one sentence naming the route and the change).
- Position statement: 25–35 words (clear stance, not hedged).
- Reason 1 with support: 70–80 words.
- Reason 2 with support: 70–80 words.
- Closing appeal: 20–30 words.
This keeps the argument visible and prevents the common failure where background crowds out reasoning. The exam rewards a sustained argument with supporting reasons, so cutting description to protect argument is the correct trade-off.