The Ninety-Second Revision
Five-minute writing task: 'Describe a place that changed how you think.' A candidate submits 76 words: 'The place that changed my thinking is my grandmother's village. I went there when I was 15 years old. It is a very small village. It is near a river. Life there is very slow. People there are very kind. I learned that you do not need many things to be happy. Before, I always wanted to buy new things. Now I think differently about money and about time.' The text contains no grammatical errors. Ninety seconds remain. The candidate wants to know whether to keep writing or to revise what is there, and worries that revising will 'waste' the time.
1. Rank the levers - length, lexical range, syntactic variety - using evidence in the text. Which yields the most gain in 90 seconds?
Read the worked answer
Ranking: syntactic variety first, then lexical range, then length.
- Syntactic variety. Every sentence is simple and short (6–8 words). Openers repeat: 'It is', 'It is', 'I', 'I', 'Before, I', 'Now I'. There is not one subordinate clause. This is the most visible weakness to a rater and the cheapest to fix.
- Lexical range. The vocabulary is generic and intensifier-dependent: 'very small', 'very slow', 'very kind', 'many things'. Three 'very + adjective' is a signal of a thin lexicon, and each can be replaced by a single precise word.
- Length. 76 words is on the low side but not alarming; more importantly, adding words in the current style just adds more six-word sentences. Length should rise as a by-product, not as the target.
Critical fact: there are no grammatical errors. That means the risk normally attached to restructuring - introducing mistakes - is unusually low here. The candidate is accurate but simple, which is exactly the profile that should be pushed.
2. Produce the revision you would actually make in 90 seconds, and justify each move.
Read the worked answer
Revised (from 76 to ~85 words, no new content invented):
'My grandmother's village - a slow river settlement where people share what they have - changed how I think about money. I went there at 15, expecting a boring summer. Instead I noticed that nobody there was in a hurry, and nobody seemed poor. Because life was so unhurried, I came back wanting less and noticing more. I still spend too much, but I now ask why I am buying something.'
Moves and their justification:
- One appositive and one relative clause ('a slow river settlement where people share…', 'Because life was so unhurried') - adds subordination, the single biggest complexity gain, using words already in the text.
- Two intensifiers replaced ('very slow' → 'unhurried'; 'very kind' → folded into 'people share what they have').
- 'I learned that…' → a cause-and-effect clause. It shows the reasoning the prompt asked for ('changed how you think') instead of asserting it.
- A final concession ('I still spend too much, but…') - hedged, evaluative language reads as mature and costs one clause.
Note: no new ideas were introduced. Adding a vivid detail is tempting but riskier in 90 seconds than re-engineering sentences already on the page.
3. Under what conditions would you advise the opposite - just keep adding sentences?
Read the worked answer
Add rather than revise when one of these holds:
- The text is well under any plausible length floor (say under 50 words with two minutes left). Response length is one of the more heavily weighted surface features in timed writing, and a short text cannot show range no matter how polished.
- The candidate makes frequent grammatical errors. Restructuring multiplies opportunities for error; a writer at, say, 60% accuracy should stay inside structures they already control and bank length instead.
- The revision would consume the whole buffer. A partial rewrite that leaves the last sentence hanging is worse than a clean, simple, complete text.
- The prompt's content is thin. Here the content is adequate and the form is the problem; if it were reversed - strong form, no example - new content would be the lever.
Finally, reframe the candidate's fear: the 90 seconds is not 'wasted' by revision. A rater reads the finished text, not the process, and the finished text is what changes.