Learner uses a what-cleft to hold a claim back until the end of the sentence, and knows it emphasises differently from an it-cleft.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
Five parts. The plain sentence is given above.
Build a what-cleft that delays the point to the end. The plain sentence is: *the report recommended a complete ban*.
Six contexts. Two of them call for the plain sentence.
What matters most is funding. What does this do?
The frame, the difference from the it-cleft, and where it earns itself.
What matters most is funding.
What + clause + is or was + the point.
Everything before is sets up. The point lands at the end.
Eight contexts. Three are plain.
Your reader thinks staffing was the problem. It was funding. →
Opening a paragraph about what the report said. →
Closing a paragraph on a surprising finding. →
The previous sentence asked: so what actually decides it? →
Listing three steps of a process in order. →
Correcting a date the reader has wrong. →
Delivering the paragraph's central claim after two sentences of set-up. →
A neutral background fact nobody disputes. →
One claim, three versions, and what the rejected ones cost.
Your claim: Enforcement is what most schemes get wrong.
Write it three ways: plain, as an it-cleft, and as a what-cleft.
Then say which you would submit, and what each of the other two would have cost you.
Label each.
One or two sentences.
Six cards. Three of them name the plain version as the answer.