The Persuasive Piece That Forgets Its Audience
The writing task: write a 400–500 word letter to the editor of a local newspaper arguing that a planned apartment block should include public green space. The stimulus gives facts: 320 apartments, 40% of buyers expected to be families with children, the nearest park 2.3 km away, and the developer's estimate that green space would add 4% to construction cost. One student, Huy, writes 480 words. He opens with 'Trong xã hội ngày nay, môi trường là vấn đề quan trọng' and closes with 'Vì vậy chúng ta cần bảo vệ môi trường'. He uses the 4% figure once, mentions the 2.3 km once, and does not use the 40% figure at all. He addresses the reader as 'các bạn trẻ'.
1. Diagnose Huy's problems against the task requirements and the stimulus data.
Read the worked answer
Four distinct failures:
- Genre/audience mismatch. A letter to a newspaper editor is read by ratepayers, councillors and the developer - not 'các bạn trẻ'. 'Các bạn trẻ' narrows the audience and signals a school essay voice. The correct register is formal address to an informed public (kính gửi toà soạn; thưa quý vị độc giả).
- Generic opening and closing. 'Trong xã hội ngày nay…' and 'chúng ta cần bảo vệ môi trường' are content-free. They consume roughly 40 words and could open any essay. A persuasive letter should open on the specific proposal.
- Under-used evidence. He has three strong data points and uses two, once each. The 40% figure is the most persuasive item available - it converts 'green space is nice' into 'green space serves the people who will actually live here'. Omitting it wastes the stimulus.
- No rebuttal. The only counter-argument in the material is the 4% cost figure, and he neither anticipates nor answers it. A persuasive piece that ignores the strongest objection reads as unaware.
Word count is compliant (480), so length is not the issue - allocation is.
2. Outline a revised structure for Huy's letter, specifying where each stimulus fact goes and what the rebuttal should say.
Read the worked answer
Revised structure (target ~460 words):
| Section | Words | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Salutation + opening | ~50 | Address the editor and readers; state the specific proposal and Huy's position in one sentence. No generalities. |
| Argument 1 - who lives there | ~110 | The 40% figure. 128 of 320 apartments will house families with children. Children need outdoor space within walking distance. |
| Argument 2 - distance | ~100 | Nearest park is 2.3 km. For a 6-year-old that is not walkable; it is a car trip, which excludes households without cars. |
| Rebuttal | ~110 | Concede the 4% cost figure openly, then reframe: 4% of construction cost is a one-off; the cost of not building green space is borne permanently by residents and by the council. Suggest the 4% be recovered through a modest adjustment to the apartment mix rather than dropped. |
| Conclusion + call to action | ~70 | Ask the council to make green space a condition of approval. Specific, actionable, addressed to a decision-maker. |
| Sign-off | ~20 | Formal close with name and suburb. |
The rebuttal is the mark-earning section: it shows Huy can hold a concession and still argue. The 4% should be quoted accurately and answered, not avoided.