Learner recognises that words for institutional change carry a verdict on the change, and selects one consistent with the position being argued.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
One staffing decision, two accurate sentences. Work out what has been asserted before you read on.
A hospital trust closes two administrative offices and reduces its clerical staff from 340 to 210.
The trust has streamlined its administration.
The trust has retrenched its administration.
Neither sentence is inaccurate. Neither adds a number the other leaves out. Both would be marked correct.
What has each of them asserted that the figures did not?
How a verb leaks a position, the four-second check that catches it, and the two words in this sprint whose loading is genuinely disputed.
Both positions have merit. Supporters argue that automation streamlines production and frees workers from repetitive tasks, while critics point out that the resulting upheaval falls hardest on those least able to retrain. On balance, the evidence supports a managed transition.
That paragraph looks balanced and is not. Streamlines is inside the supporters' clause and upheaval is inside the critics' — so far so good, because each is reported as that side's language.
Now the failure version, which is the one candidates actually write:
Automation streamlines production, and the upheaval it causes falls hardest on those least able to retrain.
Both verdicts are now the writer's own. The sentence approves and condemns the same event in twelve words, and the reader cannot tell what the writer thinks — which is a Coherence problem as well as a Lexical Resource one.
One factory floor, one afternoon, two people naming what is happening. Neither of them is lying.
Same floor, same afternoon, same figures. The word tells you who is holding it.
Six sentences where everything except the change word has been held neutral. Read what the verb committed you to.
In the first three, decide what the sentence has committed its writer to. In the last three, you are given the position the essay is arguing and must choose the sentence that matches it. Three of the six are correctly answered with a neutral word — that is not the easy option, it is the accurate one.
"Since 2015, unlicensed private tutoring centres have proliferated in the country's largest cities." What has this sentence committed the writer to?
Three chains. Decide what your own paragraph is arguing before you decide which verb it can afford.
Chain 1
Your essay: Discuss both views and give your own opinion on whether governments should subsidise electric vehicles. You are writing the paragraph that presents the case AGAINST, before your own view appears.
The event: subsidies were withdrawn in one country after four years.
Candidates: capitulated / withdrew
Step 1 — Whose sentence is this: yours, or the side you are reporting?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: In 2021 the government the subsidy.
Chain 2
Your essay argues that a licensing regime was necessary. Your paragraph has already established: 3,000 unregistered operators by 2018, two fatal accidents, and no route for a complaint.
Candidates: increased / proliferated
Step 1 — Has the paragraph established that there were more of them than there should have been?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: Unregistered operators in the years before the regime.
Chain 3
Your essay argues that a hospital reorganisation was necessary but poorly communicated. The paragraph is reporting what the trust said at the time.
Candidates: streamlining / cutting
Step 1 — What does putting the loaded word inside the trust's own reported speech let you do?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: The trust described the changes as .