Revising an Editorial: Word Choice and the Closing Question
A student drafts an editorial for the school paper: "The council's curfew slammed into our summer plans. The rule, which begins at 10 p.m., applies to anyone under 17. Supporters point to a 12% drop in late-night complaints; opponents note the drop started a year before the rule took effect. So who is this curfew really protecting?" A peer reviewer proposes two edits: replace "slammed into" with "changed," and delete the final question, arguing that opinion writing should end with a clear position statement. The writer wants to keep both.
1. Explain how the verb "slammed" shapes tone and the writer's stance, then judge whether the reviewer's substitution strengthens or weakens the piece for this audience.
Read the worked answer
What "slammed" does: it borrows the language of collision, implying force, speed, and a victim. It casts the curfew as an aggressor and students as people acted upon, so the phrase delivers an evaluation, not just information. "Changed" reports the same fact with no judgment.
Judging the swap: for a school-paper audience that includes curfew supporters and the adults who set policy, "slammed" costs credibility - a reader who doubts the editorial's fairness may dismiss the data that follow. "Changed" is safer but flat, and the writer loses the sense of disruption students actually felt. The stronger revision is not either word but a version that earns the strong verb with specifics (for example, describing plans that ended early). The reviewer is right that loaded language precedes any evidence here, and right that the piece's persuasion depends on the 12% figure being taken seriously.
2. Evaluate the reviewer's advice to delete the final question, using the paragraph's structure as evidence for your position.
Read the worked answer
Structure first: the paragraph moves claim ("slammed into our summer plans") → definition of the rule → supporter evidence (12% drop) → counter-evidence (the drop began a year earlier). That last move is a timing objection, which undercuts a cause-and-effect claim rather than denying the number. So the paragraph's structure is argument-by-undermining, not a simple complaint.
Judgment on the question: the closing question is not decorative. After the timing objection, it asks the reader to supply the inference the writer cannot prove, and that inference - the rule may not be doing the protecting it claims - is exactly what the evidence supports. Deleting it and substituting a flat position statement would force the writer to assert more than the 12% timing detail can carry, which weakens the piece. Keeping the question is the better choice here, but only because the preceding sentences give it something to rest on; a question with no evidence behind it would read as evasion.