The Concession Before the Rebuttal
In a 90-minute LK reading paper, students analyse a 700-word comment piece headlined 'The real cost of your screen time is not your willpower'. The author writes: 'Critics on the left are right that detox retreats are a privilege - a week offline in a cottage is not a policy. But the privilege objection is not an argument against boundaries; it is an argument against selling them.' The piece also cites '2,617 phone touches a day', attributed to a 2016 study, and closes by calling for enforceable design standards. Item 2 asks: 'What is the author's view of digital detoxes?' Lena answers: 'The author thinks detoxes are useless because a critic says they are a privilege.' For item 3, on the headline's function, she writes: 'It summarises the text.' She has 15 minutes left, three items, and a 120-word limit per answer.
1. Explain the concessive move Lena missed and rewrite her answer in two sentences.
Read the worked answer
The sentence 'Critics on the left are right that...' is a concession: the author grants the privilege point. The pivot 'But...' carries the author's own claim: the privilege objection attacks the commercial packaging of detoxes, not the practice of setting boundaries. Lena treats the quoted critic's view as the author's because she stops at the first clause.
A two-sentence rewrite: 'The author agrees that commercial detox retreats are a privilege and no substitute for policy. However, she argues that this does not invalidate boundaries themselves - only the way they are sold - so the real target is individualised marketing, not limits.' This keeps concession and claim separate and uses 'however' to signal the author's position.
2. Why is 'It summarises the text' insufficient for the headline-function item? What should a stronger answer include?
Read the worked answer
A headline in a comment piece rarely summarises; it frames. This one negates a common explanation ('not your willpower') and thereby sets up the author's structural argument: screen time is a design and regulation problem, not a personal failing. 'Summarises' gives no account of the negation, the evaluative stance, or the reader positioning.
A stronger answer names the function - to challenge the individual-responsibility frame and align the reader with the call for enforceable design standards - and supports it with the closing line. It should also note the tone: combative but policy-focused, not merely informational.
3. Lena wants to quote '2,617 phone touches a day' as proof of the author's argument. Should she, and how should she use it?
Read the worked answer
She should not present it as proof. First, attribution: the figure is credited to a 2016 study, so the author is citing evidence, not generating it. Second, function: in a comment piece the number is selected to make scale vivid and to support the design-regulation thesis; it does not by itself show that design causes harm.
Lena can use it as illustrative evidence: 'The author cites 2,617 daily touches to dramatise the scale of low-level interaction, then moves to design standards.' That analyses the use of the statistic. If she writes 'this proves phones are addictive', she commits a non sequitur and loses the line reference.