The New Takeaway and the Bus That Doesn't Run
Riverton is a town of about 4,200 people. A fried chicken outlet opened in February, 200 metres from the high school gate, selling $5 lunch combos and running a "two for $8" after-school deal. The most recent community health profile put obesity among Year 9–13 students at 31%, compared with 13% nationally. The town has one bus service that leaves the school at 4:30pm and does not run at weekends. The school pool has been closed for two years after an earthquake assessment; the nearest public pool is a 40-minute drive. The district council has $60,000 for one youth health initiative this year and has narrowed it to three options: subsidise after-school bus fares so students can reach the pool and sports hub, fund a mobile active-recreation programme that visits the school ground twice a week, or negotiate healthier default options and pricing with the takeaway owner. Councillors are arguing that "people just need to make better choices."
1. Sort the factors in this scenario into structural and individual factors, and explain why an explanation that focuses on individual food choices is weak.
Read the worked answer
Structural: the outlet's location 200 m from school, its $5 price point, the single 4:30 bus, no weekend service, the closed pool, the 40-minute drive to the nearest pool, and the $60,000 cap on what the council can do. Individual: what a student buys at lunch, whether they walk or take the bus.
The "better choices" argument is weak because the choice set is already shaped. A student who finishes at 3:15, has no bus until 4:30 and no pool within 40 minutes is not choosing between active and inactive - they are choosing between what exists. The $5 combo is cheaper and faster than most alternatives. Blaming individuals also hides who holds the levers: the council controls the bus and the pool, and the outlet controls price and placement. That does not make individual choice irrelevant; it means individual choice explains very little of a 31% versus 13% gap. A strong answer names this as the difference between a deficit explanation (the person is the problem) and a determinants explanation (the conditions are the problem).
2. The council can fund only one option. Recommend which one and justify your choice, including one limitation or risk.
Read the worked answer
Recommend the mobile active-recreation programme first, with a caveat. Reasoning: it reaches the most students at low cost, does not depend on a bus timetable, and can start within a term. The bus subsidy only helps students who can already reach and pay for pool entry, and the takeaway negotiation is voluntary and slow.
But the honest limitation: twice a week does not replace daily activity, and if it is run by outside providers it may not last past the funding. So the answer should sequence: fund the mobile programme for 12 months, with a condition that the council also fixes the bus timetable in the next annual plan and writes healthy default standards into the outlet's lease or consent. If forced to choose one and only one, I would pick the bus subsidy only if pool entry is also free - otherwise it subsidises a trip students still cannot afford. A good answer states the criteria it is using (reach, cost per student, durability, who controls the lever) rather than just naming a favourite.