Two Messages to Suzhou: Email to a Principal, WeChat to a Host Sister
Tom is preparing two Chinese messages for his sister-school exchange in Suzhou. First, an email of 150–200 characters to 陈校长. His group's workshop is booked for Monday 10:00, but their flight now lands at 09:40 and the airport is 50 minutes from school. He wants to move the workshop to Wednesday morning. The principal approved the original schedule two months ago, and Tom's teacher has told him not to blame the airline, the travel agent or the sister school. The email must apologise, explain, propose an alternative and leave the final decision with the principal. Second, a WeChat message to his host sister 小雨 asking to borrow her bicycle for a 20-minute trip to the supermarket; he will return by 6pm. Tom's draft email opens: 「陈校长，周一的课我们去不了，因为飞机晚了。请改到周三。」 His teacher says the sentence is grammatically correct but will not earn a good result.
1. Explain two problems with Tom's draft opening and rewrite the first two sentences of the email.
Read the worked answer
Problem one: 「去不了」 is a blunt refusal that sounds like cancelling on the principal, and it offers no apology or acknowledgement of inconvenience. Problem two: 「请改到周三」 is a direct command from a student to a principal; it assumes the right to set the schedule and gives the principal no room to negotiate. The draft also omits 您 and gives a bare reason (「飞机晚了」) that reads like an excuse rather than a circumstance.
Rewrite: 「陈校长，您好！非常抱歉，由于航班抵达时间比预计晚，我们恐怕无法按时参加周一上午的交流活动，给您添麻烦了。不知道能否将工作坊改到周三上午？时间由您安排，我们都可以配合。」
Why it works: 您好 and 您 establish respect; 非常抱歉 and 给您添麻烦了 perform the apology; 由于 marks the flight as a circumstance rather than a blame target; 恐怕无法 replaces 去不了 with a softer inability; 不知道能否 is a deferential request form; and 时间由您安排 hands the decision back to the principal, which is what the task requires.
2. What should Tom leave out of the email, and what should he put in the WeChat message that would be inappropriate in the email? Explain the register contrast.
Read the worked answer
Leave out of the email: blame directed at the airline, the agent or the school; complaints about cost; casual particles such as 啊 and 吧; direct modals such as 必须 and 应该; and any implication that moving the workshop is a trivial matter. The email should also avoid over-explaining the itinerary - 150–200 characters forces him to prioritise apology, reason, alternative and thanks.
In the WeChat message he can be specific, informal and personal: 「小雨，我用一下你的自行车可以吗？大概二十分钟，去一趟超市，六点前还你。谢谢啦！」 This includes the duration and return time because they matter to the borrower, and uses 你, 可以吗 and 谢谢啦, which fit a peer relationship.
The contrast is not politeness versus rudeness; it is the same consideration expressed at different distances. The principal receives 您, 麻烦您 and indirect request forms; the host sister receives 你, a direct question and a concrete promise. Using email formality with 小雨 would feel stiff, while using WeChat casualness with 陈校长 would read as disrespectful.
3. Tom's teacher says the draft is 'grammatically correct but not a good result'. What does this reveal about the Level 3 writing criteria, and how should Tom plan the 150–200 characters?
Read the worked answer
It reveals that accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. Level 3 writing is judged on communicative purpose, audience awareness, register, text-type conventions and coherence as well as grammar. A correct sentence can still fail because it does the wrong thing to the reader: here, it refuses and commands instead of apologising, explaining and deferring.
Planning within 150–200 characters means allocating space deliberately. A workable plan: greeting and apology (about 30 characters), circumstance and consequence (about 40), alternative and flexibility (about 50), closing thanks (about 30). That leaves room for cohesion markers such as 由于, 因此 and 如果, which signal the logic of the request.
Tom should also check the text-type features of a Chinese formal email: a title for the recipient, a greeting on its own line, a closing such as 「此致敬礼」 or 「期待您的回复」, and a signature. The word limit is a constraint on elaboration, not an excuse to drop the apology or the alternative - those are the moves the task rewards.