Your learning plan · Continue · Review →
Writing: propose a change and weigh objections
도입됨저장된 위치는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. 계속하기는 수업을 완료하거나 질문에 답하는 것이 아닙니다.
Give the reader grounds to decide
-
A proposal is more than an opinion with a polite ending. It helps a reader choose an action by connecting problem → evidence → option → tradeoff → recommendation.
-
Starting check: explain the difference between some students reported noise and noise reduced everyone's results. The second requires evidence the first does not provide.
Match the strength and scope of your recommendation to the evidence you actually have.
Watch a proportionate recommendation
I propose a four-week trial of quiet study tables in the library's east room. In an informal survey of 24 regular users, 15 reported difficulty concentrating near group conversations. This small sample suggests a need but does not represent every student. Reserving six tables would preserve the west room for discussion. The main drawback is reduced flexible seating at busy times. Staff could record occupancy and collect comments weekly, then decide whether to continue or revise the arrangement.
- Notice how the writer names the sample limitation, preserves another group's needs and uses a reversible trial. The survey figures belong to this invented practice scenario, not to a published study.
What does the library survey establish?
난이도 1/5 · 100 코인 + 오늘 첫 완료 시 소액 보너스
The reported result describes the sample and its response. Neither universal preference nor exam gains was measured.
Acknowledge the strongest objection
- Compare: Everyone wants silence. Quiet tables will solve the problem completely.
An informal sample cannot establish everyone's preference, and a seating change cannot guarantee concentration. These claims make a potentially useful proposal less credible.
- Repair: The responses suggest demand for a quiet area, although collaborative users still need discussion space. Another valid approach is to trial quiet hours rather than reserve tables; explain its different costs.
Which outcome directly evaluates the seminar proposal?
난이도 1/5 · 100 코인 + 오늘 첫 완료 시 소액 보너스
Broader participation matches the identified problem. A score change would require a different, more careful evaluation.
Build the argument before polishing
-
Make a five-line plan: the decision, the best evidence, a feasible option, the main downside and a way to evaluate it.
-
Use although to concede a limitation and therefore only when the conclusion follows. A number does not become strong evidence merely because it is precise. Ask who was counted, how and for what purpose.
What is the most defensible next step for the bicycle scenario?
난이도 1/5 · 100 코인 + 오늘 첫 완료 시 소액 보너스
The one-evening count identifies a possible access issue but does not establish a safe site or everyone's preference. More targeted observations support a proportionate choice.
Independent proposal
-
Fresh scenario: In an invented seminar group of 18, eight students said they rarely speak because two confident speakers often answer first. The teacher has suggested a one-minute pair discussion before whole-group answers. Write a short proposal weighing participation, time cost and how to evaluate a two-week trial.
-
Do not claim that a pair discussion improves learning unless you have evidence for that outcome. The observed concern is participation.
Fresh scenario: In an invented seminar group of 18, eight students said they rarely speak because two confident speakers often answer first. The teacher has suggested a one-minute pair discussion before whole-group answers. Write a short proposal weighing participation, time cost and how to evaluate a two-week trial.
Do not claim that a pair discussion improves learning unless you have evidence for that outcome. The observed concern is participation.
Write your response, then compare with the model and checklist.
Compare meaning, completeness and tone. Several answers can meet these criteria; this is a self-review, not an automatic score.
Revise the weakest link
-
Mark each claim as observation, interpretation or recommendation. Find the link that is least supported.
-
If your draft promises better grades, narrow it to an opportunity to contribute. If it ignores lesson time, acknowledge that cost. Revise one consequential point and compare versions; a more cautious claim can be a stronger argument.
Transfer to an unfamiliar decision
-
New scenario: A neighbourhood group is considering evening bicycle parking near a hall. In an invented one-evening count, 12 bicycles were attached to a railing and three people reported difficulty passing. Residents worry that a rack would narrow the path.
-
Propose an investigation or limited trial. Explain what the count can and cannot establish, address path access, and name evidence needed before a permanent installation.
New scenario: A neighbourhood group is considering evening bicycle parking near a hall. In an invented one-evening count, 12 bicycles were attached to a railing and three people reported difficulty passing. Residents worry that a rack would narrow the path.
Propose an investigation or limited trial. Explain what the count can and cannot establish, address path access, and name evidence needed before a permanent installation.
Write your response, then compare with the model and checklist.
Compare meaning, completeness and tone. Several answers can meet these criteria; this is a self-review, not an automatic score.
Revisit evidence after a delay
-
Tomorrow, write the proposal's five-line plan without using this page. Test it on a new question, such as changing a club's meeting time, with different evidence.
-
Next, present the strongest objection and your response aloud in B2 speaking. For evaluating a writer's evidence, revisit B2 reading.
Without looking back, name one useful revision you made and explain why it helps your reader. Tomorrow, try the fresh situation described in the last step.
A useful reflection connects a concrete change with its purpose. It does not establish delayed recall until you return and attempt the work later.