The One-Page Reusable-Container Brief
A student government committee has drafted a 380-word policy brief urging the campus dining director to pilot a reusable-container program in two dining halls. The brief must fit on one page (250 words max) and be read aloud at a meeting where senators have competing budget concerns. The draft includes this sentence: 'A decision was made by the committee to conduct a review of the feasibility of implementing a pilot program, and it was found that student support was significant.' It also alternates among 'single-use plastics,' 'disposables,' and 'throwaway items' without defining them. The evidence section cites a student survey with 212 responses, but the draft says 'students overwhelmingly support this' without giving the percentage. The committee chair wants the brief to sound urgent but not overstate the data. The dining director has said a pilot would require upfront costs and a semester of staff training.
1. Revise the quoted sentence to be active, concise, and readable aloud. Explain what information you keep, cut, or move.
Read the worked answer
The original buries the actor and stacks nominalizations: 'a decision was made,' 'conduct a review of the feasibility of implementing.' I would revise to 'The committee reviewed whether a pilot program was feasible and found significant student support.' This keeps the two findings, makes the committee the actor, and cuts eight or nine words. For reading aloud, I would break it into two sentences: 'The committee reviewed whether a pilot was feasible. It found significant student support.' The short sentences are easier to follow in a meeting. I would not keep 'it was found,' because the empty 'it' hides who found it and sounds like a formal report. I would also reserve the actual percentage for the evidence section rather than calling the support 'significant' here without a number.
2. The draft uses three terms for the same concept. Explain how this inconsistency affects cohesion and what revision policy you would adopt.
Read the worked answer
Using 'single-use plastics,' 'disposables,' and 'throwaway items' for the same concept makes readers wonder whether the brief is describing different categories. That weakens cohesion and can create a policy ambiguity: are reusable containers replacing plastic clamshells only, or all disposable foodware? I would choose one term that matches the policy, such as 'single-use foodware' if the pilot covers forks, cups, and containers, and define it once in the first paragraph. After that, I would use the same term consistently and vary only with a pronoun or 'the items' when the reference is clear. Consistency matters especially in a one-page brief read aloud, because listeners cannot reread a definition. If the committee wants to include plastics specifically, it should say 'single-use plastic foodware' and use that phrase throughout.
3. The draft says 'students overwhelmingly support this' based on 212 responses. Decide how to revise the claim to be accurate and still persuasive, and explain the role of the response rate.
Read the worked answer
'Overwhelmingly' is a conclusion that the 212 responses may or may not support, and the draft does not give the percentage or the response rate. I would revise to 'In a survey of 212 students, X% supported the pilot' and add the response rate if known, for example, 'of 1,200 invited, 212 responded.' If the percentage is high but the response rate is low, the brief should say 'among respondents' rather than imply all students. That is still persuasive because precision is more credible than a vague intensifier, especially to senators worried about costs. The revision should also avoid treating support as the only criterion: the brief can note that support was strong while acknowledging that upfront costs and staff training remain questions. That balance fits the chair's request for urgency without overstatement.