Reading an Op-Ed on Pedestrian Zones: Stance, Source, and Anecdote
You are taking the VWO Engels reading exam. Text 3 is a 700-word op-ed from a British newspaper arguing that city councils should remove pedestrian zones to make room for e-bikes. The author, a transport consultant, cites a 2023 trial in Utrecht: 'accidents fell by 18% after e-bikes were allowed on shopping streets.' She also tells a story about a delivery driver who lost two hours a day. In the final paragraph she writes, 'Of course, safety matters - but so does getting to work on time.' The exam asks: What is the author's attitude toward pedestrian zones? How reliable is the Utrecht figure? What is the function of the delivery driver anecdote? You have 12 minutes left for this text and two other questions.
1. What is the author's attitude toward pedestrian zones, and which two details best support your answer? Explain how the details function, not just what they say.
Read the worked answer
The attitude is sceptical and instrumental rather than outright hostile: pedestrian zones are treated as a barrier to e-bike commuting, not as an absolute good or evil. Two details carry that stance. First, the Utrecht trial is used as a conditional concession - safety improved, so the obvious objection is neutralised before the author pivots. Second, the closing sentence concedes that 'safety matters' but ranks 'getting to work on time' above it. The anecdote about the driver adds an emotional cost. A weak answer says 'she hates pedestrian zones'; a stronger answer notes she never calls for all zones to go, only for shopping streets to allow e-bikes. The phrase 'get to work on time' frames the issue as economic access, not as a denial of safety.
2. How reliable is the Utrecht figure as used in the op-ed? Consider source, comparison, and missing context.
Read the worked answer
The figure is rhetorically useful but evidentially thin. First, no source is given: 'a 2023 trial' is not a citation, so we cannot tell whether it was peer-reviewed, commissioned by an e-bike lobby, or measured only minor injuries. Second, 'accidents fell by 18%' lacks a baseline: 18% of what number, over what period, and compared with which streets? Third, the trial is in Utrecht, a cycling city with infrastructure; generalising to British shopping streets is a context leap. Fourth, correlation is not causation: e-bikes may have coincided with lower traffic or new signage. The figure can support a limited claim - one trial found a reduction - but not the implied claim that removing pedestrian zones is broadly safe. Reliability is therefore medium-low as used.
3. What is the function of the delivery driver anecdote in the argument? How would the op-ed change if it were removed?
Read the worked answer
The anecdote personalises an abstract policy. It shifts the scale from accident statistics to daily time loss, making the reader feel the cost of pedestrian zones. It also creates a sympathetic figure who is not a reckless e-bike rider but a worker, which pre-empts the objection that e-bikes are a luxury. If removed, the argument would rest on the Utrecht trial and the closing concession; it would be more evidence-based but less emotionally persuasive. The anecdote does not prove a general trend - one driver's two hours is an illustration, not data - so its function is illustrative and persuasive, not evidential. A strong answer distinguishes those roles rather than treating the story as proof.