Descriptive paper: repairing an emotional letter opening and a hollow essay opening

Judgement: it loses marks on all three counts. First, it opens with emotion and a threat before stating a single fact, so the reader still does not know the claim number, the amount or the delay. Second, a threat of media and consumer court in line one is counter-productive: the Branch Manager is not the authority who decides the merits, and the letter has now read as an escalation rather than a request. Third, 'a bunch of cheats' is an unsupported allegation against identified people - the kind of sentence that turns a service complaint into a defamation risk, and it is the sentence an examiner remembers for the wrong reason.

Rewrite: 'I am writing about claim number [X] for ₹47,000, submitted on [date] in respect of my father's cataract surgery at [hospital] on [date]. The claim has been pending for 63 days. One page of the discharge summary reached your office after the original submission, and I accept that this delay was on my part.'

Tone rules applied: fact before feeling; one admission, stated once; no unsupported accusation; no threat in the opening; and every sentence carries a claim number, a date or an amount, which is what a claim hub can act on. Fifteen words of facts beat forty of anguish.

Concede exactly one thing, once. One page of the discharge summary came late. Say so plainly, give the date it was sent, and stop - no repeated apologies, no elaborate excuses. Repeating the admission invites the office to treat the late page as the reason for the delay when the delay is 63 days.

Demand four specific things: (a) written acknowledgement that the claim file is now complete; (b) the name and desk number of the officer handling it; (c) a decision within a stated period, say ten working days of the letter; (d) if the claim is to be rejected or reduced, the rejection in writing with the clause relied on. Item (d) is the one most candidates omit and it is the reason a letter works: a written, reasoned rejection is what a policyholder needs in order to escalate.

Mention escalation as a right, once, at the close, calmly. 'I would prefer to resolve this with your office, and I would be grateful for a reply within ten days so that I do not have to take the matter further.' That signals that you know the next step exists without threatening the reader. Close with the claim number, policy number, your address and a phone number - a letter that cannot be matched to a file is a letter that gets a template reply. The letter is 10 marks: clarity of facts and a specific demand earn them; adjectives do not.

Judgement: the opening would fit almost any topic. 'Very important topic in today's world' fills space, and 'since time immemorial' is a stock phrase that introduces nothing - the examiner can predict the rest of the paragraph, and probably the essay. With 22 minutes left and a habit of long introductions, the introduction must be two or three sentences and must contain a position.

Rewrite (about 45 words): 'Insurers already use automated rules to approve straightforward health claims within minutes. The same systems also reject claims that no human being has read. The real question is not whether artificial intelligence should be used, but which decisions must still carry a human signature.'

Take a conditional side, not a see-saw. In 250-300 words a purely balanced essay reads as indecision. Recommended stance: AI may decide clean, low-value, rule-based claims, but a human must review repudiations, high-value claims and fraud flags, and the insurer must be able to explain any refusal in plain language.

Structure: intro with the thesis (about 45 words); two reasons - speed and consistency, with the flip side that a model trained on past rejections reproduces past bias; one acknowledgement that automation saves cost and cannot be switched off; conclusion that states the line between machine approval and human refusal. Plan for 3 minutes, write for 15, and keep 4 to check for repeated openings, which is the habit that costs marks.