Eight Minutes Left: Argument-Level versus Sentence-Level Revision
The task: write 180-220 words arguing whether universities should require internships. Tomas drafts 196 words. His first two sentences summarise the history of internships; the thesis, 'Internships should be optional, not required', is the fourth sentence. Body claim 1 reads: 'Internships help students, many graduates say their internship led to a job.' Body claim 2 reads: 'Moreover, requiring internships disadvantages students who must work for pay; this is unfair.' There is no counterargument. The final sentence introduces a new point: 'Universities should also reduce tuition.' Eight minutes remain in the 30-minute writing section. He must choose between revising for cohesion (thesis-first opening, fixing the comma splice) and adding a counterargument.
1. Rank Tomas's three possible revisions by likely score gain and justify the ranking.
Read the worked answer
1) Thesis first. The rubric rewards a clear position. A reader who meets two sentences of history before the claim may record the paragraph as lacking a thesis even though one exists. Moving sentence 4 to the front takes 20 seconds and changes the first impression of everything after it.
2) Remove or rehome the tuition sentence. This is a relevance problem, not a grammar problem: it opens a topic the paragraph never addresses, and an unsupported new claim in the final line reads as an undeveloped argument. Cut it, or move it to a second paragraph if the task permits.
3) Fix the comma splice. Real but cheap. A rater expects some sentence-boundary errors at this level, and one splice in 196 words will not move the band much.
Ranking rule: argument-level fixes outrank sentence-level fixes under time pressure, because one thesis problem affects every criterion at once while a comma splice affects one.
2. Fix the comma splice two ways and say which repair suits this task.
Read the worked answer
Original: 'Internships help students, many graduates say their internship led to a job.'
A (full stop): 'Internships help students. Many graduates say their internship led to a job.'
B (colon): 'Internships help students: many graduates say their internship led to a job.' The colon is defensible when the second clause explains the first, but the evidence remains anecdotal.
C (recast): 'Many graduates report that an internship led to a job offer, which suggests the benefit is real but unevenly distributed.'
C is best here. It removes the splice, replaces the vague 'help students' with a testable claim, and supplies the qualification the argument needs before the counterargument arrives. A and B are correct but merely tidy - they fix punctuation without improving the reasoning the rubric actually scores.
3. Should he add a counterargument with eight minutes left? Decide and justify the trade-off.
Read the worked answer
Yes - one sentence, then stop. A 196-word argument that never acknowledges the opposing case usually loses more on task response than a tidy but thin paragraph gains on accuracy, and one concessive sentence costs about 90 seconds.
Use the standard shape: 'Requiring internships would be defensible if placements were paid and evenly distributed; they are neither, which is why the requirement should stay optional.' That concedes the strongest case for the other side and turns it back into support for the thesis.
Then spend the remaining minutes on the thesis move and the sentence boundary, not on new content. What he must not do is begin a second counterargument or a fresh topic in the final minutes: unfinished additions read as disorganised and cost more than they earn.