Odd-Even Debate With a Dominant Speaker
You are one of ten candidates in a 25-minute group discussion. The topic is: ‘Kathmandu Valley should adopt year-round odd-even vehicle rationing.’ You have mild asthma and personally want cleaner air. The group is given a fact sheet: winter PM2.5 has reached 180 µg/m³; transport contributes about 40% of emissions; public bus service is unreliable; traders' associations oppose the policy. Two minutes in, one candidate has spoken four times and interrupts others; a second candidate has not spoken. The moderator says the group must produce three recommendations in the last five minutes. You have 90 seconds to make your first substantive point. You notice that the loud candidate's data is from 2019, but the fact sheet gives current figures.
1. What is your first intervention, and how would you phrase it to advance the discussion rather than compete for airtime?
Read the worked answer
Use the first intervention to reframe, not to win airtime. Say something like: ‘Can we agree on the goal first-lower exposure during the worst pollution months-and then test whether year-round odd-even is the right instrument? The fact sheet suggests transport is about 40% of emissions, but bus reliability is the binding constraint.’ This does three things: it accepts the public-health aim, it introduces the fact sheet as common ground, and it shifts the group from a yes/no shouting match to a design question. Then propose a concrete option: a time-limited pilot on the most polluted corridors, with bus frequency and fare safeguards, before any year-round rule. Avoid correcting the loud candidate's 2019 data immediately; do that later only if it affects a decision. Your tone should be calm and curious, not competitive.
2. How would you bring in the silent candidate without putting them on the spot, and how would you handle the dominant speaker?
Read the worked answer
Bring in the silent candidate by name with a specific, answerable question: ‘Rita, you mentioned enforcement earlier-what would make odd-even fair for people who depend on two-wheelers?’ Avoid saying ‘You haven't spoken’ or ‘What do you think?’ in a way that makes silence the topic. For the dominant speaker, use a process intervention rather than a personal attack: ‘Let's take one new point per person for the next few minutes, then we can challenge each other.’ If interruption continues, say: ‘I want to finish this point, then I'll take yours.’ You can also credit a useful part of their argument before limiting airtime-‘That's a fair point about traders, and it's why I want to hear two other views.’ The goal is not to silence them but to protect the group's ability to produce three recommendations. If they cite 2019 data, correct it factually once: ‘The sheet gives current PM2.5; can we use that for the decision?’
3. The group must produce three recommendations in five minutes. Propose the three and explain how you would test whether the discussion succeeded.
Read the worked answer
Propose: (1) run an eight-week odd-even pilot on four high-pollution corridors, with clear exemptions and published air-quality data; (2) pair the pilot with measurable bus frequency and fare subsidies before enforcement begins; (3) create a review group including traders, commuters, and health officials, with penalties and a public dashboard. These are specific enough to be actionable and respond to the fact sheet's transport share, bus weakness, and trader opposition. Success should not be measured by whether everyone agrees. Test it by asking: did all ten members contribute at least once? Do the recommendations name an owner, a timeline, and a success indicator? Did the group acknowledge at least one trade-off, such as enforcement cost or impact on traders? If the final list is vague, such as ‘raise awareness’, the discussion failed even if it sounded harmonious. A good close names the three items, checks for missing dissent, and assigns who will present each.