Food-Pantry Proposal for a Fee Committee
A student government writer must produce a 2-page proposal asking the college to fund a campus food pantry. Data: a survey of 120 students found 38% skipped meals in the past month due to cost; the survey had a 14% response rate and was promoted on social media. A nearby campus pantry reports serving 90 students weekly but has no formal evaluation. The budget is $18,000 for one year: $11,000 for shelving and refrigeration, $5,000 for food, $2,000 for training. The writer wants to open with a vivid story, include a counterargument about cost, and end with a specific ask. The audience is a student fee committee that has rejected two previous proposals for lacking evaluation plans. The proposal must fit exactly two pages, including a one-page budget table.
1. What organizational plan best fits the audience and purpose, and why?
Read the worked answer
Use a problem-evidence-proposal-feasibility-evaluation-ask structure. Open with a two-sentence story to make the need concrete, then state the survey result and its limitation. Next describe the pantry, the one-year budget, and why the line items are necessary. Then add the cost counterargument-$18,000 is significant-and rebut it with the survey need, the nearby pantry's weekly use, and the evaluation plan. End with the specific ask. This order fits a fee committee because it moves from need to cost to accountability. A compare-contrast or narrative-only structure would not answer the committee's likely questions: How many students are affected? What will the money buy? How will you know it worked? The two prior rejections for lacking evaluation make an evaluation section non-negotiable.
2. How should the writer present the survey limitation without weakening the case?
Read the worked answer
State the limitation directly and then explain how it affects the claim. For example: 'The survey had a 14% response rate and relied on self-report, so it may overrepresent students who use social media. It still shows that 38% of respondents skipped meals, which is a minimum signal of need, not a precise prevalence estimate.' Then triangulate with the nearby pantry's 90 weekly users and any national data. This approach protects credibility: the committee will trust a proposal that names its weak evidence more than one that hides it. The writer should not call the survey representative. The recommendation can be framed as a one-year pilot with usage tracking, which turns the limitation into a reason for evaluation rather than a reason to reject the proposal.
3. Draft a closing ask that is specific and audience-appropriate.
Read the worked answer
Closing ask: 'I ask the committee to allocate $18,000 for a one-year pilot: $11,000 for shelving and refrigeration, $5,000 for food, and $2,000 for training. The pantry will report usage, student satisfaction, and food inventory at six months and again at twelve months; renewal should depend on those results.' This is specific about amount, line items, time frame, and accountability. It matches the audience's rejection history by building evaluation into the request rather than adding it as an afterthought. It also avoids a vague plea to 'support students in need,' which does not tell the committee what to fund or how success will be judged.