The Counterview That Argued the View
In a Class XII writing-skills test, students have 25 minutes to write a counterview paragraph of 120-150 words on the statement: 'Social media does more harm than good to teenagers.' The rubric is 2 marks for format (single paragraph, appropriate opening and closing), 2 for content (at least two counter-arguments with support), and 2 for language. Student R writes 170 words. The paragraph begins, 'I strongly believe social media is harmful because it distracts students and damages sleep.' It then lists three harms, uses two rhetorical questions, and ends, 'Therefore, social media should be banned in schools.' The language is accurate and varied. The teacher is marking 40 scripts overnight and is tempted to award 4/6 because the writing is fluent. A colleague says content should be 0 because the student argued the view rather than the counterview.
1. What score should Student R receive? Break down the rubric and explain the decisive criterion.
Read the worked answer
Award 3/6: format 1, content 0, language 2. Language is the easy part: the sentences are accurate and varied, so 2 is fair. Format is not a total loss because the answer is a single paragraph with an opening and a closing, but the opening is a view statement and the closing is a recommendation, not a counterview frame, so 1 is more accurate than 2. Content is the decisive criterion. The prompt asks the student to counter the view that social media does more harm than good. R instead supports that view with three harms. The points may be true, but they answer a different question. The colleague's '0' is therefore right on content, though the overall mark should not be 2/6 because language and basic paragraphing still earn credit. The 170-word length is a minor issue; do not let it drive the mark.
2. Rewrite the opening two sentences so that they perform the counterview function.
Read the worked answer
Original: 'I strongly believe social media is harmful because it distracts students and damages sleep.' Counterview rewrite: 'Although social media is often blamed for distracting teenagers and damaging sleep, the same platforms can give isolated students a support network and access to study material.' The rewrite keeps the opposing claim in a subordinate clause ('although ...'), then gives the counter-position and two supports. It does not pretend the harms do not exist; it disputes the sweeping conclusion 'more harm than good'. That is the move R missed.
3. What feedback and classroom follow-up would prevent this error from repeating?
Read the worked answer
Feedback should name the error precisely: 'You argued the view, not the counterview.' Then use a two-column plan-'What the statement claims' and 'What I can set against it'-before drafting. Give a 10-minute drill with three prompts and require students to underline the opposing words in the question. For R, ask for a second draft of only the first two sentences, not the whole paragraph, so the correction is focused. The teacher should also check the rubric wording in class: format marks are not a reward for length or neat handwriting.