Part 1 essay: summarising two texts versus evaluating them
A CPE candidate plans the compulsory Writing Part 1 essay under exam conditions: 45 minutes, 240-280 words. The question asks candidates to summarise and evaluate the key points in two short texts and include their own ideas. Text 1 argues that remote work drains city-centre footfall and threatens cafes, shops and transport revenue. Text 2 argues that remote work benefits employees and reduces commuting emissions, so cities should adapt rather than resist. The candidate's plan has three paragraphs: a summary of Text 1, a summary of Text 2, and a final paragraph beginning In my opinion, both texts make good points. The draft is 330 words and quotes two phrases verbatim from each text. The teacher must decide what the central failure is and how to model the difference between summarising and evaluating without writing the essay for the candidate.
1. Diagnose the plan's central failure. Why is both texts make good points not an evaluation in the CPE sense?
Read the worked answer
The plan is two summaries plus a verdict, not an essay that evaluates. CPE Part 1 requires candidates to select key points from both texts, show how they relate, and judge them. Both texts make good points is a placatory formula: it does not say which claim is stronger, on what criterion, or under what conditions. The 330-word draft also quotes verbatim, which suggests the candidate is reproducing rather than reformulating. The central failure is lack of a controlling judgement. A stronger plan would establish a tension: Text 1 measures costs to a particular group, city-centre businesses, while Text 2 measures benefits to workers and the environment. The essay should evaluate the two claims against a common criterion, such as who bears the transition costs and whether the losses are permanent. That is evaluation; summary alone is not.
2. Provide a two-sentence model of evaluation the candidate could imitate, and explain what makes it evaluative rather than merely balanced.
Read the worked answer
Model: Text 1 is right that footfall-dependent businesses lose revenue, but it treats that loss as permanent when the evidence in Text 2 suggests demand is relocating rather than disappearing. The stronger claim is therefore conditional: remote work is damaging unless cities convert office space and transport capacity to residential use. This is evaluative because it ranks the claims, identifies an assumption in Text 1 (permanence), uses Text 2 as a countervailing mechanism, and states a condition. Balanced writing gives each side a paragraph and concludes that both have merits; evaluative writing commits to a judgement and makes the criterion explicit. The candidate should imitate the move, not the sentence. In the conclusion, replace both texts make good points with a ranked judgement: which text better captures the long-term effect, and what its argument overlooks.