L2 Formal Letter: School Board Budget Versus Student Health
You are taking the L2 written examination. The prompt is a formal letter to the school board of your European School. The board has proposed replacing two water fountains with vending machines that sell sugary drinks, citing a budget shortfall of €4,500 per year. You have collected the following data: 300 students attend the school; a survey shows 65% buy at least one sugary drink daily; the vending contract would generate €6,000 annually for the school; installing and maintaining two new water fountains costs €2,800 per year; dental decay among 12–15-year-olds has risen by 18% in the past two years according to the school nurse. The board argues that students prefer sugary drinks and that the school needs the revenue. You must write a persuasive letter in L2 (e.g., French, German, or Spanish) that acknowledges the budget concern but argues for a different solution. You have 120 minutes and a 400-word limit.
1. Outline the structure of your letter, specifying the purpose of each paragraph and the register you will use.
Read the worked answer
Paragraph 1 - Purpose and concession. State the reason for writing and acknowledge the board's €4,500 shortfall. Register: formal, respectful, using titles and impersonal constructions. Purpose: establish common ground rather than attack.
Paragraph 2 - Evidence of harm. Present the nurse's dental-decay data and the 65% daily-purchase figure. Purpose: show that the vending proposal has a hidden health cost, especially for younger students. Register: factual, precise, avoiding emotive exaggeration.
Paragraph 3 - Financial counter-calculation. Argue that the €6,000 vending revenue is not a net gain because it externalises dental and dietary costs, and propose the €2,800 fountain option plus a small fundraising or sponsorship gap. Purpose: answer the budget objection directly.
Paragraph 4 - Alternative solution. Propose a hybrid: keep one vending machine but require at least 50% healthier stock, or seek a local health grant. Purpose: show flexibility and fiscal realism.
Paragraph 5 - Call to action. Request that the board defer the vending decision for one term and commission a student health survey. Register: courteous but firm, with a clear request.
2. Draft the paragraph that addresses the €4,500 budget shortfall. Use a cost-benefit calculation to show that the water fountains are financially viable, and explain why the vending revenue is not a net gain.
Read the worked answer
The board estimates a €4,500 shortfall, but the vending proposal generates €6,000 while the fountain option costs €2,800. At first glance, vending appears €3,200 better off (€6,000 − €2,800). However, this calculation ignores the externalised costs of dental decay: the nurse reports an 18% rise in decay among 12–15-year-olds, and each additional treatment consumes family and public health resources that the school does not book. If even 10% of the 195 daily sugary-drink buyers (65% of 300) require one extra dental visit at an estimated €60, that is 19.5 × €60 ≈ €1,170 in external cost-nearly half the apparent advantage. Moreover, vending revenue is volatile and may decline if students switch to nearby shops. A safer financial plan is to install the fountains (€2,800) and cover the remaining €1,700 through a sponsored walk or a local health grant. This keeps the budget balanced without embedding a health cost in the school's revenue model.
3. Explain how you would adapt your language to persuade a board that values both fiscal responsibility and student welfare, giving two specific examples of phrasing.
Read the worked answer
I would use concessive and evidence-based phrasing rather than moralising. The board values fiscal responsibility, so I would begin with a concession that recognises their constraint: 'We fully understand that the board must close a €4,500 gap, and we appreciate the pressure to find new revenue.' This signals that I am not dismissing their concern.
For student welfare, I would use a concrete, non-judgemental phrase: 'The nurse's data suggest that our current environment is already associated with an 18% rise in dental decay; the vending proposal would increase exposure to the very product implicated.' The word 'associated' is more defensible than 'causes'. I would avoid accusing the board of 'selling out students' health', which would trigger defensiveness. Instead, I would frame the fountain as a fiscally prudent choice: 'The fountain option costs €2,800, leaving a smaller gap than the board anticipates, and it avoids an externalised health cost that families bear.' This combines respect for the budget with a welfare argument, making it harder for the board to reject the alternative as idealistic.