The 350-Word Submission
Year 11 student Ana is drafting a 350-word public submission to the council’s transport committee. She argues for a later Friday service on Route 472. Her draft opens with a 90-word anecdote about missing her sister’s netball final, then lists three survey statistics, then a paragraph saying “young people today” are ignored and “the council never listens.” A footnote mentions the bus company’s profit. Her teacher has written: “Your evidence is strong but your structure is working against you.” Ana has one 50-minute period to revise. The committee will read 120 submissions; the chair has said they prioritise “a clear request, local evidence, and a feasible solution.” Ana’s aunt is a bus driver who says the company is short-staffed. Ana wants to keep every word because she believes the anecdote is her strongest point.
1. Identify the most significant structural problem in Ana’s draft and explain why it matters for this audience.
Read the worked answer
The most significant problem is that the request is buried. Ana’s first 90 words are an anecdote, and the actual ask - a later Friday service on Route 472 - is not stated until later. The audience is a committee reading 120 submissions, and the chair has said they prioritise “a clear request, local evidence, and a feasible solution.” A reader skimming for those three things may not reach Ana’s evidence.
The second problem is the paragraph about “young people today” and “the council never listens.” That language positions the committee as an adversary, which is risky when the same people decide the submission. The footnote about profit may also seem irrelevant unless it is connected to feasibility.
The reasoning is audience-first: structure is not just order; it is a signal of what the writer thinks matters. Ana’s evidence is strong, but her structure makes the reader work to find it. A stronger structure would put the request in sentence one, follow with the strongest local statistic, then the anecdote as illustration, then a feasible solution.
2. Rewrite one sentence from the draft to better suit the committee. Explain the change and why it improves the sentence for this context.
Read the worked answer
Original sentence: “Young people today rely on the 472, yet the last Friday service leaves at 5:45 pm.” Rewrite: “The 472’s last Friday service leaves at 5:45 pm, which prevents students who finish work at 6 pm from using it.”
The change removes the generational generalisation “young people today,” which invites resistance, and replaces it with a specific group and a specific constraint. It also turns an abstract complaint into a local, checkable fact. The committee’s criteria include local evidence and a feasible solution, so this sentence now does two jobs: it names who is affected and why the timetable is the problem.
A second possible rewrite is: “A 7:15 pm Friday service would let students who finish work at 6 pm use the bus.” That version is even more solution-focused, but it should be supported by a cost or staffing point. The reasoning is that the committee is not a general audience; it is a decision-making audience, so the sentence should make the decision easier, not express frustration.
3. Decide whether Ana should keep the 90-word anecdote. Justify your decision with reference to the chair’s criteria, and suggest how the anecdote could be used if kept.
Read the worked answer
Ana should not keep the 90-word anecdote in full. The chair’s criteria are clear request, local evidence, and feasible solution; a long personal story delays all three. However, the anecdote is not worthless. It gives the issue a human scale and can make the statistic memorable.
The best decision is to compress it to one sentence and place it after the request, not before it. For example: “I missed my sister’s netball final because the last Friday bus left at 5:45 pm.” That sentence keeps the local detail and the emotional hook but uses 14 words instead of 90. Ana can then spend the saved words on the survey evidence and on the staffing issue her aunt raised. The aunt’s information should be framed carefully: “The company says it is short-staffed; would a later Friday service be possible with the current roster?” This is a feasible question, not an accusation.
The judgement is that anecdote is useful as illustration, not as structure. Keeping every word would protect Ana’s voice but work against her purpose.