Level: Intermediate 2
Type: Persuasive
Title: “Congestion Charge”
Edinburgh is a very busy, noisy and polluted city. It can only get worse, so
the council decided to have a vote on a congestion charge. The fee would be
£2 to enter two busy areas in Edinburgh. This would make the buses run on
time (all the time) and would reduce pollution. But the main thing and
most important thing is that it would reduce congestion dramatically.
But in the referendum, the people voted against the charges – by a huge
margin. Almost 70% voted No. Congestion charges would have made
Edinburgh healthier and less busy. So why would anyone vote against them?
The obvious reason is that you have to pay money to enter places you need to
go and for some people £2 is a lot of money. Some other people say that
because there would be a charge to enter a certain area, people would try to
avoid paying it by taking side-streets. They think that the roads would be
worse and congestion in some areas would be a lot worse.
Recently I was listening to some adults talking about congestion charges, and
one man claimed there is no congestion in Edinburgh. What was he thinking!
This is Edinburgh, one of the busiest and most polluted cities in Britain!
Another man said that it wouldn’t stop pollution and that it would make it
worse because rich people would still drive into places like Princes Street
with their big engine cars. When this man said this, I could not believe it!
Surely if congestion charges are put into place, there will be less cars
driving into the city, and more people would be taking public transport
so there would be less fumes in the air.
Congestion charges would also be useful since the money from the charges
would go into better public transport. The people who voted against it were
short sighted and not very thoughtful. Only 33% voted for the charges and
this is disappointing. Congestion is a problem in Edinburgh and it can
only get worse. Pollution is rising and public transport is slow. When roads
are more seriously blocked they’ll regret that they didn’t vote for the
charges. In the future they will regret it.
In London they have been doing it for a while and it seems to be working
well: no big car queues or blockages, and less pollution. London is many times
bigger than Edinburgh, and yet there is no problem with the charges. They
have better public transport than us, and this is because of the money they
get from congestion charges. Why can the Edinburgh public not see how
good and useful this would be? I think the roads would be safer, a lot
cleaner and definately less busy. This should have happened and there will be
chaos in the future. The Edinburgh public could resolve this by cutting down
on petrol consumption and using public transport more than using their cars.
When the tramways are built and ready this could help, but in the meantime,
the public should use the transport provided by the council.
Commentary
Good choice of topic – topical and in his own area. Own view is clear and some
attempt to consider opposing arguments. By no means well developed, but it
considers a number of points and line of thought is sustained. Above the
minimum word length (515 words).
Content
Relevant and appropriate for purpose. Outlines the nature and alleged
benefits of the charges, shock at their rejection in the referendum,
possible reasons for rejection, short-sightedness of the voters (supported
by reference to London), and concludes with a plea in favour of public
transport. Better piece might have explored more deeply reasons for the
result ( local politics involved, car owners’ reluctance to give up their
personal transport,) and would not have asserted that the quality of London’s
public transport is a consequence of congestion charges.
Structure
Adequate. Purpose of each paragraph is clear but conclusion is weak.
Expression
Some use of persuasive techniques (“why would anyone vote against them?”,
“What was he thinking!”,)to communicate the writer’s stance powerfully.
Technical accuracy
The piece is consistently accurate.
Award: Intermediate 2: Pass
Level: Intermediate 2
Type: Persuasive
Title: “Should the drinking age be lowered to 16?”
How is it possible that you can set up home, consent to sex, get married and
have a full time job but can not go out and purchase an alcoholic drink in
modern Britain today? This is a question which has sparked a national debate
throughout Britain between Government agencies and British youths. In
this essay I aim to find out the effects lowering the drinking age would have
on Britain and whether the government should lower the drinking age to 16
years old.
Recent shocking figures have shown that British teenagers are drinking
alcohol at a younger age and more heavily. Results in a survey conducted by
the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 11% of 11 and 12 year olds
thought of themselves as “regular drinkers” while 72% of 15-16 year olds
thought they were “regular drinkers”. Through my own experience I feel
that these figures are right as many of my fellow classmates and friends
drink alcohol regularly and started drinking at lower ages of 12 and 13 years
old. These statistics, I feel, could be lowered especially in younger youths as
if the government reduced the drinking age to 16 years old then many teen’s
wouldn’t feel like they would be getting a “buzz” out of doing something that
was illegal as many drink alcohol to get excitement out of breaking the law.
Also, if the age was lowered off-licenses, nightclubs and pubs would all look
set to gain larger profits as they would have a larger customer market and
would also solve the problem of under age youths in nightclubs.
Another point of view being that many people are classed as “adults” when
they turn 16 years old by other adults such as parents and teachers. Also,
there is the point that you can get married and consent to sex at 16 years
old but you still can’t have an alcoholic drink. There are exceptions to the
law, as if your 16 years old you can legally buy a drink if you’re having a meal,
however, the only permitted drinks are beer and cider. I feel that if a 16
year old can drink alcohol with a meal then they should be legally allowed to
drink elsewhere.
Fresher’s week at university is publicly advertised through flyers and
handouts. However, a minority of university students are only 17 years old.
Therefore, they are unable to legally take part in many activities involving
alcohol. I think this is wrong as it means many miss out on an important week
and probably won’t get the chance again.
As the issue has been publicly discussed, many large organisations have said
that they totally disagree with lowering the legal drinking age to 16 years
old. Alcohol Focus Scotland are totally against the proposal as they claim: “If
the age was lowered, significant problems in health could arise such as liver
disease”. Alcohol Focus Scotland goes on to mention that starting to drink at
a lower age can also cause social problems in later life.
I disagree with Alcohol Focus Scotland as I don’t think that it would cause
social problems in later life as there is already a social problem as teenagers
are underage drinking and this is the root of social problems. Also, if the age
was lowered, it may also reduce the number of 18-19 year olds ending up in
hospital with alcohol poisoning on their 18th birthday celebrations.
Another point being, that if the government don’t reconsider the legal
drinking age then the large number of under-age drinkers in Britain may
continue to rise. A point made by a number of youths is that if alcohol is not
necessarily bad and can be something that people can be sensible with and
socialise with. Also, if the age was lowered it may also lower the number of
underage drinkers as many may stop as it would take the “buzz” out of doing
something illegal. Alcohol Focus Scotland feels there is much publicity on
drinking binges and drinking quickly. They feel drinking shots such
as tequila and aftershock is bad as it encourages “hard” drinking”. However
many see it as a way to enjoy themselves on special occasions such as hen
and stag nights.
In conclusion, I feel the drinking age should be lowered to 16 years old as it
may reduce the number of under-age drinking. Secondly, if it is legal to get
married then, I personally, think that you should be allowed to legally drink
alcohol as well. I think its time for the government to think carefully about
drinking laws – it would be for the better not the worse.
Commentary
Despite its length and apparent organisation, this essay is quite badly
flawed. Repetitiveness and muddled thinking render the piece
unsatisfactory. It opens promisingly, but loses control quite early on and
never regains in. Despite evidence of some research in the details from the
Rowntree Foundation and Alcohol Focus Scotland, the candidate does not
convince that she has much grasp of the issues involved or has thought them
through in sufficient depth.
Content
The candidate succeeds in making the basic points that it is (to her) illogical
that other activities be allowed at 16 but not the purchase of alcohol and
that the current restriction may actually encourage youngsters to break the
law. Occasionally, the argument is weakened through failure to develop some
of the points raised, eg she often asserts that reducing the age limit would
reduce the number of underage drinkers, but never attempts to prove this.
Structure
There is some attempt to organise the piece, but the lack of clarity in the
argument is mirrored in the structural weaknesses of the essay. The last
sentence in paragraph 2, for example, has little obvious connection with the
rest of the paragraph, and the whole of the penultimate paragraph lacks
coherence.
Expression
The piece opens in an appropriately direct style, but this is not maintained
beyond the use of “shocking”, “I think this is wrong” and “I disagree with
Alcohol Focus Scotland”. Several sentences are very loosely structured, eg
the final sentence in paragraph 2 and the second sentence in paragraph 5.
There is over-dependence on the word “as”.
Technical accuracy
There are some slips but technical accuracy is acceptable.
Award: Intermediate 2: Fail
Level: Intermediate 2
Type: Argumentative
Title: “Why Learn a Foreign Language?”
For four years of Secondary school I was forced to learn French. I confess
I have not been very successful (I doubt if I could make myself understood
to the average Frenchman and I know I wouldn’t understand anything he
said). So I wonder how sensible it is to make every Scottish pupil learn a
foreign language at school.
Those in favour claim it is important to be able to communicate with people
in a foreign country, so if you are in France you will be able to speak French
if you are lost or maybe need to buy something and the other person doesn’t
speak English. It is also polite to speak the native language and not rely
on them speaking our language. You might even feel proud of being able to
speak the foreign language.
Nowadays jobs are more international so it is important for some jobs that
you can speak a foreign language. Being able to speak more than just your
own language will help you become more employable and might let you work in
interesting and exciting places all over the world.
Learning a foreign language can also help you to know a little about the
culture and history of the country. For example, if my French was better I
could watch a French film without subtitles. Also it is a good thing to know
about the culture and history of a country other than your own. It helps to
break down prejudices that many British people have about foreigners.
There is also the point that learning another language helps you with your
English, for example some words are in both languages so that expands your
vocabulary and learning the grammar and rules in French gives you a better
understanding of how other languages works. This is supposed to help you
speak and write better English. I accept there is some truth in these points,
but there are strong arguments on the other side.
Firstly, if I go abroad, it is not likely to be to France – more likely to Spain
or Turkey so it might at least be more sensible to learn Spanish or Turkish. I
don’t suppose schools could offer classes in dozens of languages, but why is
it just French or German?
Secondly, so many foreigners speak English that it hardly seems necessary
for us to learn their languages. Isn’t English the most international language,
the language of pop music and Hollywood movies, the language of the
Internet? Perhaps in the not too distant future, nearly everyone will speak
English, so there will be no need for us to learn foreign languages. Foreigners
always seem to be keen to speak English, while we are usually embarrassed.
Lastly, it takes up so much time. Three periods a week for 40 weeks for 4
years – I make that 400 hours, and after that I don’t know much French and
neither do most of my classmates. Just think if all these hours had been
spent on something more worthwhile like IT or on something I really wanted
to do. When I heard a discussion on the radio about learning languages
somebody said that anyone who really wanted or needed to learn a foreign
language could go on a specialised course and be reasonably fluent in about
20 hours. So why are we wasting all that time in school?
As far as I am concerned, the arguments against having to learn a foreign
language at school are stronger than the arguments for.
Commentary
Interesting topic with relevant points. Fair degree of thought and though
many points lack development, there is attention to the task as a whole.
Content
Relevant arguments put forward for both sides. Lack of conviction in the
points for and no attempt to challenge them, but to be expected, given the
writer’s opinion. An honesty which give this piece some character.
Structure
Very clear and ideally suited to this type of writing. Straightforward intro,
four points in favour of learning a foreign language, a “turning point”, three
points against and a simple conclusion.
Expression
Tone is appropriate to the task (“So I wonder how sensible it is…”). Balanced
and measured approach (“there is some truth in these points…”) but the
personal conviction is evident (“why are we wasting all that time”).Expression
occasionally lacks sophistication (note the frequency of “also”,),but satisfies
the relevant performance criterion.
Technical accuracy
Spelling, grammar and punctuation are consistently accurate.
Award: Intermediate 2: Pass