Summary Plus Device-Spotting Is Not a Commentary
In a 120-minute LK practice exam, students write a 900-word commentary on an op-ed excerpt arguing that schools should ban smartphones entirely. The task requires a clear thesis, analysis of the author's line of argument with two or three textual references, and a reasoned counterargument. Tarek's essay has five paragraphs: a definition of smartphones, a history of mobile phones, a summary of the op-ed, an anecdote about his cousin, and a conclusion: 'In conclusion, smartphones have advantages and disadvantages, so schools must decide.' He also lists rhetorical devices - 'the author uses a rhetorical question and anaphora' - without linking them to effect. His teacher's margin note reads: 'This is summary plus device-spotting, not Analyse/Kommentar.' He has 25 minutes left, 600 words written, and no thesis.
1. Explain why Tarek's structure fails the Analyse/Kommentar requirement and propose a revised outline with a word budget for 900 words.
Read the worked answer
The task's operators are analyse and comment. Definition and history are background knowledge, not analysis of the excerpt; the summary repeats the author's claims without examining how they are made; the cousin anecdote is unanchored evidence; and the conclusion refuses the evaluative judgement the task requires. The rhetorical-device list is also unproductive because 'the author uses a rhetorical question' names a feature but not its effect on the reader or its role in the argument.
A workable outline: introduction with thesis (120); three body paragraphs, each with a claim, a short quotation, and an evaluation of whether the claim holds (3 × 190 = 570); a counterargument paragraph that concedes a point and rebuts it (130); conclusion that restates the judgement (80). Total 900. The budget forces selection: three textual references, not ten.
2. Write an arguable, text-anchored thesis for this task and explain why it is stronger than 'both sides have good points'.
Read the worked answer
Thesis: 'The op-ed's blanket ban is rhetorically effective but logically overreaches: it conflates distraction with harm and ignores schools' own duty to teach digital judgement.'
It is arguable because a reasonable reader could defend a ban on harm-reduction grounds; it is text-anchored because it names two moves the author makes (conflation and omission of digital literacy); and it commits the writer to an evaluation. 'Both sides have good points' is not a thesis: it cannot be proved or refuted, it gives the reader no interpretive angle, and it usually produces a summary of two positions rather than a judgement. A thesis must be contestable and specific enough that the body paragraphs have something to establish.
3. Rewrite Tarek's conclusion in 60-80 words so that it returns to the thesis and concedes one point.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite: 'A total ban is an appealing slogan, and its supporters are right that unmanaged phones damage attention and classroom relationships. But the op-ed turns a real problem into a simple prohibition, conflating distraction with addiction and ignoring what schools owe students: practice in judging when and how to use a device. The stronger policy is not a ban but enforceable limits paired with digital-literacy teaching.' (69 words)
The moves are a concession in the second clause, a restatement of the thesis as a contrast ('not a ban but...'), and a forward-looking policy judgement. It does not introduce a new argument, which is the common failure in conclusions.