Anglais LV1 - Inférence dans un texte et dissertation : de la consigne au plan
Terminale A, épreuve d'anglais LV1, coefficient 2, trois heures : compréhension 10 points, expression écrite 10 points (180-200 mots). Texte support, reproduit intégralement : « When Mrs Ngo Bassong banned mobile phones on Mondays at her school in Buea, she expected a revolt. Instead, the first Monday was quiet - too quiet, she says. By the fifth week, pupils were arriving earlier and the staff room had a new topic of conversation. The results were not so much a miracle as a slow, stubborn change in habits. Would other schools follow suit? The head teacher is careful. 'What worked in Buea,' she says, 'may not travel well. We have four hundred pupils, two generators and a library that opens at seven.' » Le candidat doit d'abord expliquer la phrase clé, puis rédiger une dissertation argumentée sur l'interdiction du téléphone portable au lycée pendant les heures de cours.
1. Explain what the phrase 'not so much a miracle as a slow, stubborn change in habits' reveals about the author's judgement, and what the head teacher's warning ('may not travel well') adds.
Read the worked answer
La structure « not so much X as Y » ne nie pas X : elle le rétrograde. Le miracle est écarté comme explication et remplacé par un changement lent et obstiné. Trois indices convergent : « slow » exclut l'effet immédiat ; « stubborn » suggère un effort répété, une persévérance qui ne cède pas (le mot peut être mélioratif) ; « habits » renvoie à des conduites quotidiennes, non à une conversion spectaculaire. Le jugement de l'auteur est donc prudent et anti-romanesque : il attribue le résultat au temps et à la répétition.
« May not travel well » : le modal « may » exprime une possibilité, non une certitude. La directrice ne condamne pas l'expérience, elle conteste son exportation automatique. La phrase suivante le confirme : « We have four hundred pupils, two generators and a library that opens at seven » - elle énumère des conditions matérielles (effectif, électricité, accès à un lieu de travail), c'est-à-dire ce qui rend la mesure possible à Buea et peut-être pas ailleurs. L'énoncé invite donc à distinguer ce qui se copie (l'idée) de ce qui ne se copie pas (les conditions).
2. Write the plan and a model introduction for the essay: 'Should secondary schools in Cameroon ban mobile phones during class hours?' What must you avoid doing with the support text?
Read the worked answer
Thesis : a ban during class hours is justified, provided it is limited, visible and fairly enforced.
Plan
- Introduction: hook (the Buea experiment), reformulation of the question, announcement of the thesis.
- Argument 1 - attention: phones fragment concentration; a class hour is a collective good, and one pupil's screen affects the others.
- Argument 2 - fairness: not every pupil owns a smartphone; a permissive rule rewards those who can afford data.
- Counter-argument: phones are also tools (dictionaries, past papers) and a ban is hard to enforce; it may push use underground.
- Refutation: this objection concerns how to regulate, not whether; a ban restricted to class hours, with a storage box and a published sanction scale, meets it.
- Conclusion: restate, then open on teacher training and on the difference between class hours and break.
Model introduction (about 50 words) : 'When a head teacher in Buea banned phones on Mondays, lessons grew calmer - but she doubted the recipe could be exported. Her caution deserves attention. Should secondary schools in Cameroon ban mobile phones during class hours? I will argue that they should, provided the ban is limited, visible and fairly enforced.'
What to avoid : copying the support text. Reusing its sentences ('a slow, stubborn change in habits') costs marks in expression, and paraphrasing its argument turns a personal essay into a summary. Borrow ideas, not wording.
3. Correct and justify these two sentences written by a candidate: 'The number of pupils who was absent have decreased' and 'If the school would ban phones, pupils will talk more.'
Read the worked answer
a) The number of pupils who was absent have decreased. Three corrections. (i) The relative pronoun refers to « pupils » : who were absent. (ii) « The number of » is singular : has decreased - to be distinguished from « a number of pupils », which takes a plural verb. (iii) Result : The number of pupils who were absent has decreased. The error is not lexical but grammatical: the candidate confused two quantifier patterns that look alike.
b) If the school would ban phones, pupils will talk more. The conditional has no place in the if-clause of a real hypothesis: If the school bans phones, pupils will talk more (first conditional: present + will). « Would » appears only in the second conditional (If the school banned phones, pupils would talk more), where the hypothesis is unreal. Note that the corrected sentence states a debatable claim - which is precisely the object of the debate - but it is now grammatically sound.