Writing: A Costed Proposal Under a Budget Cut
A candidate must write a 220-260-word proposal to a professional association's conference committee. The committee has cut the hybrid-format budget by 40% and asked for 'costed, realistic' proposals. The candidate's draft recommends streaming all sessions and hiring a production company at 18,000 euros. The association's last event had 420 attendees, 18% online. A member survey (n=96) found 61% of online attendees would not travel, but the survey had a 9% response rate. The draft includes an anecdote about one overseas member and uses 'obviously' twice. The rubric rewards a clear recommendation, justification, and awareness of counterarguments. The word limit is strict; the candidate is at 248 words and wants to add a second recommendation about recording sessions.
1. Should the candidate keep the 18,000-euro production company recommendation? Decide and justify using the budget and evidence constraints.
Read the worked answer
No. The committee has cut the hybrid budget by 40%, so an 18,000-euro production contract is likely to consume most or all of the remaining funds. The attendance profile also makes the cost hard to justify: 18% of 420 is about 76 online attendees, so the proposal would spend a very large sum on a minority group. The survey cannot rescue the case because its 9% response rate makes it weak evidence of demand. A stronger proposal would prioritise a low-cost core: stream plenary sessions, record workshops with existing equipment, and train volunteers. That keeps the hybrid offer visible while showing the committee that the candidate understands 'costed, realistic' as a constraint, not a slogan.
2. How should the candidate handle the 61% survey finding given the 9% response rate? Write a revised sentence that uses it responsibly.
Read the worked answer
The candidate should report the finding as indicative, not representative. A revised sentence could be: 'Although the survey had only a 9% response rate, 61% of respondents who had attended online said they would not travel; this suggests there may be real demand for a remote option, but it should be treated as indicative rather than representative.' This keeps the useful signal while disclosing the limitation. The candidate should not write '61% of online attendees would not travel', because that turns a small self-selected sample into a population claim. In a proposal, acknowledging the weakness of your own evidence can strengthen credibility, especially when the rubric rewards awareness of counterarguments.
3. The candidate is at 248 words and wants to add a second recommendation about recording sessions. What should they cut or compress, and why?
Read the worked answer
The candidate should cut the anecdote about the overseas member and remove both instances of 'obviously'. The anecdote is vivid but low-value under a strict word limit and a rubric that rewards justification and counterargument. 'Obviously' adds no evidence and can sound dismissive to a committee that has just cut the budget. The candidate can also compress 'stream all sessions' into 'stream plenary sessions and record workshops', which is both cheaper and more realistic. That compression creates space for the recording recommendation without weakening the main argument. The revised proposal should spend its words on costs, trade-offs, and feasibility, not on decoration.