The Campus Bike-Lane Editorial and the Style Guide
At a weekly editorial meeting, the editor-in-chief of a campus newspaper hands you a 520-word draft arguing that the university should build a protected bike lane on College Avenue. The paper's style guide caps editorials at 500 words and discourages second-person address, but the editor wants to keep the writer's direct, slightly impatient voice. The draft contains this sentence: 'Neither the administration nor the student government have explained why the protected lane, which was promised in 2021, has not been built, and they have not released the cost estimate.' Later, the draft reads: 'Cyclists need a safe route, the current bike lane on College Avenue ends at a four-way intersection with no signal.' A fact-checker confirms the 2021 promise and the missing cost estimate. The editor asks you to make sentence-level corrections without flattening the argument or adding claims the reporter cannot support.
1. Revise the first quoted sentence to fix the agreement and pronoun-reference problems, and explain your choices. Keep both the administration and the student government as targets of criticism.
Read the worked answer
With 'neither ... nor,' the verb agrees with the nearer subject, 'student government,' which is singular, so 'have explained' should become 'has explained.' The pronoun 'they' is the harder problem: it could refer to both bodies or only the student government, and the sentence criticizes both. I would replace it with 'neither body' or 'the two offices' so the reference is explicit. A workable revision is: 'Neither the administration nor the student government has explained why the protected lane, which was promised in 2021, has not been built, and neither body has released the cost estimate.' This keeps both targets, preserves the factual claim the fact-checker confirmed, and avoids changing the writer's impatient tone. I would not rewrite 'which was promised' as 'that was promised' unless the style guide requires it; the lane is specific, so 'which' is defensible.
2. The second quoted sentence is a comma splice. Write two revisions: one that uses a semicolon and one that subordinates one clause. Then recommend which fits the editorial's momentum and explain why.
Read the worked answer
A semicolon version: 'Cyclists need a safe route; the current bike lane on College Avenue ends at a four-way intersection with no signal.' A subordinated version: 'Because the current bike lane on College Avenue ends at a four-way intersection with no signal, cyclists need a safe route.' The semicolon keeps the two claims as equally weighted observations, which fits the editorial's accumulation of evidence. The 'because' version makes the unsafe ending explain the need, which may be the clearest causal link. I would recommend the semicolon if the next sentence capitalizes on the danger, and the 'because' version if the paragraph is explaining why the lane matters. The key is to avoid the comma splice without flattening the argument. A 'but' version would also work, though it makes the first claim concessive and slightly weakens it.
3. The writer elsewhere uses 'you' once: 'You cannot call this lane safe.' The style guide discourages second person. Revise the sentence and explain whether the change costs rhetorical force.
Read the worked answer
Second person can be effective in an editorial, but the paper's style guide discourages it, and 'You cannot call this lane safe' makes an absolute claim that invites a defensive response. I would revise to 'No one can reasonably call this lane safe' or 'By any reasonable standard, this lane is not safe.' The first keeps some directness; the second sounds more measured. I would avoid 'students' if the editorial is addressing administrators, because it narrows the claim. The change costs a little immediacy but gains consistency with the publication's voice and makes the claim harder to dismiss as mere rhetoric. If the editor values direct address, I would argue for keeping one 'you' only if the style guide permits a deliberate exception, not as an accident.