Turning a rant into a directed letter for Paper 2
Jonah, a Year 12 candidate, has 50 minutes to write a 600-word directed response for Paper 2. The task: 'A local charity has proposed converting a disused railway shed into a youth music studio. The council has instead allocated the site for a 60-space car park. Write a letter to the editor of the Ely Weekly News arguing for the music studio.' Jonah's draft opens 'So, you want another car park? Seriously?' and contains six rhetorical questions in the first 120 words, two exclamation marks, a long anecdote about his cousin's band, and a statistic he cannot source. He has written 340 words and has not mentioned the charity's business plan, which would create three part-time jobs and run free Saturday workshops. His teacher has commented: 'This is a rant, not a letter to an editor; the audience is not your friends.'
1. Identify the two most urgent revisions to Jonah's draft and justify them in terms of audience and purpose.
Read the worked answer
Revision 1: replace the rhetorical questions and exclamation marks with a reasoned proposition. The opening So, you want another car park? Seriously? addresses the editor as if they were a friend and assumes a hostile reader. A letter to an editor is read by an unknown public, including councillors and residents who may support the car park. Six rhetorical questions in 120 words make Jonah sound combative rather than credible. He should state his purpose in one sentence, acknowledge the counter-argument briefly, then advance his case.
Revision 2: use the charity's business plan as evidence. The three part-time jobs and free Saturday workshops are concrete benefits that answer the council's likely objection that the studio is not economically viable. Jonah's unsourced statistic damages his ethos; the business plan gives him verifiable material. The anecdote about his cousin's band can stay only if compressed and used as illustration, not proof. The teacher's comment is right: the register should be polite, controlled and audience-aware, while still allowing a distinctive voice.
2. Draft a revised opening of no more than 80 words that keeps a lively voice but suits the editor. Explain your choices.
Read the worked answer
One possible version (78 words):
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the council's decision to allocate the disused railway shed to a 60-space car park rather than the youth music studio proposed by local charity SoundShed. I understand the pressure for parking, but the charity's plan would create three part-time jobs and free Saturday workshops for young people. A car park would serve the town for a few hours a day; a music studio could serve it for years.
Yours faithfully, Jonah Reed
The choices are deliberate. The salutation is formal because the editor is not a personal acquaintance. The opening states the issue without accusing the reader. The concession I understand the pressure for parking signals fairness and makes the following argument harder to dismiss. The business-plan evidence replaces the unsourced statistic. The final contrast is still vivid, but it is controlled: it uses a concrete comparison rather than a rhetorical question. The closing is conventionally polite, which protects Jonah's credibility.
3. How should Jonah use the unsourced statistic?
Read the worked answer
Jonah should not keep a statistic he cannot source. In a letter to an editor, an unsourced figure is a liability: if a councillor or reader challenges it, the whole argument loses credibility. He has three defensible options: (1) replace it with a figure from the charity's business plan or the council's consultation, naming the source; (2) convert it into a personal observation clearly marked as such ('in my experience, the nearest practice rooms are a 40-minute bus ride away'); or (3) drop it and strengthen the argument from the business plan. The worst option is to write 'studies show' without a source. Paper 2 rewards audience awareness, and an editor is likely to cut or challenge unsupported claims. The revision should also check that any statistic is used to support a claim, not just to sound impressive.