84173889...
9c6cad34...
fa408f00...
cb115463...
590360a4...
614fecca...
Learner uses impersonal reporting structures to attribute a view without naming a source, and knows what that costs in an argument.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
Six claims. Three name nobody — and that is not always wrong.
It is often argued that private cars should be banned from city centres. Who argues it?
The frame, what it buys, and what it costs.
It is argued that + clause
It has been suggested that + clause
X is thought to have + participle
It is often argued that private cars should be banned.
The scheme is thought to have reduced congestion.
A view on the page without saying whose.
Eight frames, four jobs.
Terms
Definitions
Eight claims. Four go impersonal, four get owned.
Concede the opposing view. Private cars should be banned from city centres. → private cars should be banned from city centres.
This is your own position, in your conclusion. It is believed that free transport is worth its cost. →
Report a contested finding. The scheme reduced congestion. → The scheme reduced congestion.
This is your own thesis statement. It has been suggested that fees deter poorer applicants. →
Concede a view held by a nameable group. The subsidy is unaffordable. → the subsidy is unaffordable.
This is your own recommendation. It is thought that cities should trial the scheme first. →
Cite a genuinely widespread view with no single source. Cars are the main cause of urban pollution. → cars are the main cause of urban pollution.
This is your own judgement on the evidence. It appears that the trial was successful. →
One conceded view, one owned position.
Prompt: should governments make public transport free?
Sentence 1: concede the view you disagree with, using an impersonal frame. Sentence 2: state your own position, owned outright.
The second sentence should contain no hedging at all.
One per line.
If an examiner asked who argues it, what would you say?