Reading the 12% Cycling Statistic: What Counts as a Justified True/False?
A Std XII candidate is answering an unseen non-fiction passage printed in the paper. The passage says: « Depuis 2019, Paris a ajouté 150 km de pistes cyclables. Le nombre de cyclistes a augmenté de 40 % entre 2019 et 2023. Pourtant, les accidents impliquant des cyclistes ont augmenté de 12 % sur la même période, surtout aux intersections sans feux. La mairie prévoit 50 millions d'euros pour sécuriser 200 carrefours d'ici 2026. » Question 3 asks: « Vrai ou faux : “Les accidents de vélo ont augmenté parce que les pistes cyclables sont dangereuses.” Justifiez avec le texte. » The candidate writes: « Vrai, car il y a plus d'accidents et les pistes sont dangereuses. » In Question 4 the candidate writes: « La mairie va dépenser 50 millions pour tous les carrefours de Paris. » The paper awards 2 marks for each true/false item with justification and 2 marks for the inference item. The candidate's overall French is otherwise secure at B1.
1. Mark Question 3 out of 2 and explain the decision in a way a reviser could apply to the next unseen passage.
Read the worked answer
Award 0/2. The candidate has matched two words from the passage (“accidents”, “augmenté”) but has not answered the actual claim. The passage gives a figure for accidents and locates many of them at intersections without traffic lights; it does not say that the cycle lanes are dangerous or that they caused the increase. The connector « Pourtant » signals a contrast between more cycling and more accidents, not a causal explanation.
A reviser should apply three steps:
- Locate the precise claim: “X because Y”. Both the fact and the causal link need textual support.
- Check the exact wording: “surtout aux intersections sans feux” narrows the location; it does not identify the lanes as the cause.
- Quote or paraphrase only what is written: a correct answer would be « Faux / non justifié par le texte : le texte dit que les accidents ont augmenté, surtout aux intersections sans feux, mais il ne dit pas que les pistes cyclables sont dangereuses. »
Marking convention: 1 mark may be available for a relevant quotation in some schemes, but here the quotation is used to support the wrong truth value, so it cannot earn credit.
2. Mark Question 4 out of 2 and rewrite it so that it is accurate but still concise.
Read the worked answer
Award 1/2. The candidate has retained the correct sum, 50 millions d'euros, which earns the first mark. The second mark is lost because « tous les carrefours de Paris » changes the scope: the passage says 200 carrefours, not every junction in Paris, and it gives a deadline, d'ici 2026, which the candidate omits.
A concise correction: « La mairie va consacrer 50 millions d'euros à la sécurisation de 200 carrefours d'ici 2026. »
Reasoning to teach: in reading answers, quantifiers such as tous, chaque, jamais, toujours are high-risk. Compare the candidate's version with the text word by word. Replacing “tous” with “200” is not cosmetic; it changes the factual claim. The deadline is also part of the information, so a full-credit answer should normally include it unless the question asks only for the amount.
3. The candidate asks whether outside knowledge about Paris traffic can earn marks. What advice do you give, using this passage?
Read the worked answer
Advice: do not import outside knowledge. The question says « Justifiez avec le texte », so marks depend on textual evidence, not on whether the candidate has read news about Paris. Even if the candidate personally believes that some cycle lanes are badly designed, that belief cannot turn “Vrai” into a supported answer here.
Use the passage as the boundary:
- Supported: cycling increased by 40%; accidents rose by 12%; many accidents were at intersections without lights; the city plans to spend 50 million euros on 200 junctions by 2026.
- Not supported: cycle lanes are dangerous; the lanes caused the accidents; all junctions will be fixed.
- Legitimate inference: the targeted spending on 200 junctions is consistent with the passage's emphasis on intersections without lights, but this is an inference about priorities, not proof of causation.
A useful classroom rule: “If I cannot point to the line or paraphrase the line that licenses my answer, it is outside knowledge.” That protects the candidate from over-reading statistics and from the common trap of treating correlation as cause.