Fare Notice Revision at a Transit Authority
The Riverton Transit Authority is revising a 240-word rider bulletin before a public hearing. The plain-language standard requires grade-9 readability and no more than 90 words for the fare section. The current draft reads: 'The new fare structure will comprise three tiers, and riders who purchase weekly passes will be grandfathered into the current rate, which is fortuitous for commuters.' A second sentence says: 'Less than 20 percent of riders use the mobile app, and the agency hopes to mitigate this number by simplifying the login process.' Two reviewers disagree. Reviewer A argues that 'comprise' is misused because the whole comprises the parts, not the reverse, and that 'fortuitous' means accidental rather than lucky. Reviewer B says both words are common enough and should stay because riders will understand them. The bulletin must also state that the fare change takes effect on 1 March and that no rider will lose a pass already purchased.
1. Revise the two draft sentences to meet the plain-language and word-limit constraints, and explain the reasoning behind each replacement.
Read the worked answer
Revision. 'The new fare structure has three tiers. Riders who buy weekly passes will keep the current rate. The change starts 1 March, and no rider will lose a pass already bought.' This is 33 words, well under 90. Why. 'Comprise' is traditionally used as 'the whole comprises the parts'; 'is comprised of' is disputed, and 'will comprise three tiers' reverses the relation. 'Has three tiers' removes the dispute without loss. 'Grandfathered' is jargon that many riders will not parse; 'keep the current rate' states the benefit directly. 'Fortuitous' means happening by chance; even where it carries a lucky connotation, it is less clear than saying the rate is kept. 'Mitigate this number' is a category error: mitigate takes a harm or severity, not a count. 'Reduce' is the precise verb. 'Less than 20 percent' is acceptable because percentages take 'less,' not 'fewer.'
2. Which reviewer has the stronger position, and on what criterion should the agency decide?
Read the worked answer
Reviewer A has the stronger position on the disputed usages, but not because every objection is equally strong. On 'comprise,' A is right: the whole comprises the parts, so 'will comprise three tiers' is at best contested. On 'mitigate this number,' A is right on semantic grounds: mitigate means make less severe, and a count is not severe. On 'fortuitous,' A overstates: dictionaries record a sense of 'fortunate,' so the word is not simply wrong; but in a public notice 'will keep the current rate' is clearer. Reviewer B's argument is empirical ('riders will understand') but no comprehension test is cited, and the binding constraint is the grade-9 standard. B also ignores the real barrier, 'grandfathered,' which is less familiar than either disputed word. So A wins on precision and on the plain-language criterion, while B's tolerance claim would need evidence.
3. The agency wants to keep 'grandfathered' because riders have seen it in prior notices. Evaluate that argument.
Read the worked answer
Precedent is not a readability defense. The agency may have used 'grandfathered' before, but repetition does not make a term transparent; it may simply have spread an unclear term. The standard is whether a rider can understand the rule on one reading, and 'grandfathered' requires knowing a historical metaphor about voting rights. The cost of replacing it is near zero, and the revision is shorter. If the agency wants continuity, it can keep the concept while stating it plainly: 'riders who already bought a pass will keep the rate they paid.' That preserves the policy and satisfies the standard. The only reason to retain the term would be a legal definition that depends on it, and no such requirement is stated.