Newsletter opinion piece: balancing concession, evidence, and register
You are writing a 400–500-character opinion piece for your school's Japanese newsletter. The prompt is: 「高校生はアルバイトをするべきか。」 Your editor asks you to include at least two different perspectives, one counterargument to your own view, and a clear recommendation. You have 25 minutes and may not use dictionaries. You must use です・ます体 because the newsletter is read by teachers and whānau, and you must refer to one specific example from your own experience or observation. Your draft opening is: 「私は高校生のアルバイトに賛成です。しかし、反対意見も理解できます。」 Your teacher warns that a list of opinions without justification will not meet the 'explore and justify' criterion. The newsletter will be printed for 300 students and 40 staff. You need to decide how to balance personal voice with the newsletter's public audience, and how to make the counterargument do real work rather than appear as a token sentence.
1. Plan the structure of the piece and explain how each section meets the requirement to explore and justify varied ideas.
Read the worked answer
A workable plan is: (1) opening that states a position and signals awareness of the other side (the draft opening already does this); (2) a personal example that grounds the argument - e.g. a part-time job teaching time management - with concrete detail; (3) a counterargument section that presents the strongest opposing case (study time, safety, family rules) and concedes its force before responding; (4) a recommendation that is specific, such as a 10-hour weekly limit or a school approval system. The 'explore' criterion is met by giving the counterargument real reasons, not a token 「反対意見もあります」. The 'justify' criterion is met by linking each claim to evidence or experience: なぜなら, たとえば, その結果. The register must stay です・ます throughout, including in the concession.
2. Write the counterargument paragraph (120–150 Japanese characters) in です・ます体, including a concession and a response. Then explain two language choices.
Read the worked answer
「確かに、アルバイトは勉強の時間を減らすかもしれません。私もテスト前にシフトを減らしてもらった経験があります。しかし、時間の使い方を自分で考える力もつきます。だから、週に10時間までという学校のルールがあれば、勉強と仕事の両立は可能だと思います。私はそのルールを提案します。」 The paragraph uses 確かに to concede the strongest point, かもしれません to avoid overstating the opponent's case, a personal example (テスト前にシフトを減らしてもらった) to show experience rather than assertion, しかし to pivot, and a concrete policy proposal (週に10時間まで) that makes the response actionable. です・ます is maintained throughout, including と思います and 提案します. The concession is not a token: it names a real cost and then answers it with a rule.
3. Explain how you would adjust your language if the same argument were posted in a club group chat rather than the printed newsletter. Give two specific changes and the reason for each.
Read the worked answer
In the group chat I would switch to plain form (だ・である or peer-appropriate タメ口) because the audience is classmates and the setting is informal; the newsletter's です・ます would sound stiff and distant. I would also shorten the concession and end with a question such as 「みんなはどう思う？」 because chat is interactive and invites immediate response, whereas print assumes a reader who cannot reply in the moment. The content would still need justification - a concrete example and a reason - but the relationship-marking changes: fewer formal connectives, more direct address, and no honorific framing of the reader. The key judgement is that register follows audience and medium, not just topic.