The Concessive Paragraph: Heading or Inference?
You are moderating a Reading Part 5 item. The passage argues: 'It would be easy to conclude that planting more trees is an unqualified good. The evidence for cooling is strong. Yet the same canopy that lowers midday temperatures can trap pollutants in still air, and roots that break pavements fall disproportionately on poorer districts. None of this argues against planting; it argues against planting as a slogan.' The item asks: What is the writer’s attitude towards tree-planting campaigns? A) unqualified support B) outright opposition C) support conditional on careful planning D) indifference. The key is C, but a reviewer wants to change it to A, citing the final clause. In the last session, 38% chose A and 41% chose C. The candidate you are advising chose A and wrote: 'The writer says none of this argues against planting, so they support it.'
1. Adjudicate the key. Use the concessive structure and the final sentence.
Read the worked answer
Key C. The paragraph is built as concession + main claim.
- 'It would be easy to conclude...' signals a view the writer will qualify.
- 'The evidence for cooling is strong' grants a genuine benefit.
- 'Yet' introduces the costs: pollutants, pavement damage and unequal impact.
- The final sentence is not unqualified endorsement: 'None of this argues against planting; it argues against planting as a slogan.' The semicolon contrasts planting (supported) with slogan-driven planting (criticised).
That is conditional support: planting is endorsed if it is planned with pollution, infrastructure and equity in mind. A is too strong because it ignores the 'Yet' clause and the word 'slogan'. B is the opposite error. D has no textual basis.
2. Explain why A is attractive but wrong, and identify the exact word that makes A too strong.
Read the worked answer
A is attractive because the final clause contains the positive word 'planting', and the reviewer is right that the writer does not oppose planting. But the option says 'unqualified support'. The qualifier is the whole second half of the paragraph: the same canopy traps pollutants, roots break pavements, and costs fall on poorer districts. If support were unqualified, those costs would not change the writer’s position.
The sentence 'it argues against planting as a slogan' concedes that some forms of planting advocacy are being criticised. The exact word that makes A too strong is 'unqualified'. A correct option must preserve both the pro-planting conclusion and the planning condition.
3. Write one sentence of feedback to the candidate that does not simply give the answer.
Read the worked answer
Feedback: 'You are right that the writer does not oppose planting. Now find the sentence that tells you what kind of planting the writer does oppose, and ask whether "unqualified" can survive it.'
This points to the reasoning without naming C. It forces the candidate to locate the concessive 'Yet' clause and the 'slogan' contrast. If they still choose A, ask them to rewrite A so it becomes correct - for example, 'support for planting in principle' - and compare it with the original option. The gap between the two rewrites is the qualifier they missed.