Plain-Language Summaries: Assumptions and Rhetoric
The following is an extract from an opinion column in a (fictional) civil-service journal.
'EU legislation is increasingly judged by how quickly citizens can understand it, not by how carefully it is drafted. The proposed plain-language summary, published alongside each directive, would cost an estimated €2.4 million a year. That is a trivial sum compared with the €1.8 billion the Commission spends annually on communication. Critics say summaries will oversimplify. But a summary is not a substitute for the legal text; it is an entry point, like the abstract of a scientific paper. If even 5% of the 450 million citizens read one summary a year and understand a right they did not know they had, the investment pays for itself. The real question is not whether we can afford summaries, but whether we can afford to keep law legible only to lawyers.'
1. Identify the author's main conclusion and distinguish it from the supporting claims.
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: plain-language summaries should be published alongside each directive.
The final rhetorical question restates this: refusing summaries is framed as a cost we cannot afford, so producing them is the recommended course.
Supporting claims, not the conclusion:
- the €2.4m cost is small relative to €1.8bn of communication spending (a comparison, not a recommendation);
- a summary is an entry point, not a substitute (a rebuttal to critics);
- the 5%-of-450-million calculation (a projected benefit);
- citizens increasingly judge legislation by comprehensibility (a premise about context).
Why this matters: candidates often select the most vivid sentence ('a trivial sum', 'legible only to lawyers') as the conclusion. Those are premises doing persuasive work. The conclusion is the action the author wants taken.
2. The author claims: 'If even 5% of citizens read one summary a year and understand a right they did not know they had, the investment pays for itself.' Which unstated assumption is required for this to hold?
Read the worked answer
The assumption is that the aggregate value of those newly understood rights is at least €2.4 million a year - and, more precisely, that reading produces genuine comprehension that translates into a benefit of that size.
Break the claim into parts:
- 5% of 450 million is 22.5 million readers. A cost of €2.4m spread over them is about 11 cents each. So the arithmetic is easy to meet if any real value arises - but the author still needs the value to exist and to be countable.
- The word 'understand' is doing heavy lifting. If readers merely open a summary and misunderstand it, the benefit does not arise; indeed, misunderstanding a right can generate costs.
- The claim assumes no offsetting costs: no legal disputes over whether a summary misstated a provision, no drafting burden beyond the €2.4m.
The weakest link is comprehension-to-benefit, not the headcount. A strengthening or weakening question should target that link.
3. Analyse the final sentence: 'The real question is not whether we can afford summaries, but whether we can afford to keep law legible only to lawyers.' What rhetorical move is being made, and does it strengthen the argument logically?
Read the worked answer
The move is a false dilemma supported by loaded framing. It presents two options - afford summaries, or afford illegibility - as though they exhaust the field.
How it works:
- It redefines the debate from 'is this worth €2.4m?' to 'who can afford justice?', a frame the opponent is unlikely to contest.
- The verb 'afford' is reused with different meanings: a budgetary cost, then a social cost. That equivocation makes the comparison feel seamless when the two costs are not commensurable.
- 'Legible only to lawyers' is emotive; it implies the status quo excludes citizens by design.
Does it strengthen the argument? Persuasively, yes; logically, only weakly. It supplies no evidence and ignores middle options (cheaper summaries, piloting, better drafting). A rigorous reader should notice that the €2.4m question was never answered - it was replaced.