Reading: The pedestrianisation survey with 41 respondents
An NCEA Level 3 Spanish reading paper includes a letter to the editor in a Montevideo community newspaper. The writer, a resident of Calle Durazno, argues that the street should be pedestrianised. He writes: 'Una encuesta reciente muestra que el 68% de los vecinos apoya la peatonalización.' Later he admits: 'La encuesta fue respondida por 41 de los 1.200 residentes de la zona.' He also quotes a shop owner: 'Durante la prueba de tres meses, mis ventas cayeron un 12%, aunque el número de visitantes aumentó.' The writer concludes: 'Por lo tanto, la peatonalización es claramente beneficiosa para todos.' Candidates have a bilingual dictionary and 15 minutes. The task asks them to evaluate the strength of the evidence and the writer's purpose. A candidate writes: 'The statistic proves most residents support the plan.'
1. Explain why the 68% figure is weak evidence for the writer's claim, using two details from the text.
Read the worked answer
The figure comes from 41 respondents out of 1,200 residents, which is about 3.4% of the local population. That is a small and potentially self-selected sample: people who feel strongly are more likely to reply, and the text gives no information about how respondents were chosen. So '68% of vecinos' really means '68% of 41 people who answered', not most residents. The shop owner's detail also weakens the claim: during the three-month trial, sales fell 12%, even though visitor numbers rose. That suggests a trade-off, not a benefit for everyone. The writer's conclusion uses 'claramente' and 'para todos', but the evidence is mixed and limited. A strong answer separates the percentage from the population it is supposed to represent.
2. What is the writer's likely purpose, and which sentence reveals a gap between evidence and conclusion?
Read the worked answer
The writer's purpose is to persuade readers and decision-makers that pedestrianisation is desirable. The letter is not a neutral report: it selects a favourable statistic and then overstates it. The gap is most visible in 'Por lo tanto, la peatonalización es claramente beneficiosa para todos.' The evidence includes a small survey and a shop owner reporting a 12% sales drop, yet the conclusion claims clear benefit for everyone. 'Por lo tanto' presents the conclusion as following logically, and 'claramente' adds confidence that the evidence does not support. A precise answer should identify the persuasive aim and explain that the conclusion ignores the sales evidence and the sample limits.
3. What should a careful reader check before accepting the claim? Give two specific checks and explain how each could change the conclusion.
Read the worked answer
First, check how the 41 respondents were selected. If the survey was open to anyone or promoted by the pro-pedestrianisation group, it may over-represent supporters; a random sample of 41 from 1,200 would still be small but more defensible. Second, check the sales figure: a 12% fall during a three-month trial could be caused by seasonality, construction, or a nearby supermarket opening, not pedestrianisation. If sales fell only in one shop, the claim 'beneficial for all' is unsupported; if many shops recovered after the trial, the picture changes. A reader should also ask what 'vecinos' means (residents, not businesses) and whether opponents were included. These checks matter because the writer's conclusion depends on generalising from limited and mixed evidence.