15e592ef...
a1ba3271...
7fe57c3a...
535b5675...
56a8c488...
92f00ca3...
f462fb7c...
Learner concludes by stating what the argument established, rather than restating the introduction in different words.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
Two conclusions to the same essay. Only one of them contains information.
An essay has argued that free public transport is worth its cost. Its body made two points: that fare revenue covers only a fifth to a half of running costs, so the money is spent either way; and that four in five of the lowest-earning fifth do not own a car, so they gain from a service and lose nothing from a charge.
Here are two conclusions.
A. In conclusion, there are arguments on both sides of this issue. While free public transport has clear advantages, it also has significant disadvantages. Ultimately, it is a complex question, and societies will need to consider it carefully in the years ahead.
B. The cost objection turns out to be a question about who pays rather than whether. Once that is granted, the distributional case decides it: the group most often invoked against the policy is the group that gains most from it.
Which one could you have written before reading the essay?
Six frames and the specific content each one demands. One of them demands almost nothing, and you should know which.
It reports the outcome of the argument. Not the position you started with — the thing the body did to that position.
Three questions your conclusion can answer, and it only needs one:
Which consideration won? — and you must name it.
What did the argument turn out to be about? — often not what it looked like at the start.
What is now settled, and what is not? — which is the honest close when the question is genuinely open.
Each of the phrases below is a frame for one of those. None of them supplies the answer.
the decisive consideration — the most demanding phrase here. It requires you to name one consideration and say it outweighed the others.
The decisive consideration is who currently pays: fares fall on travellers, and four in five of the poorest do not travel by car.
You cannot write this frame without having weighed things in the body. If your essay gave three reasons and never ranked them, this phrase has nothing to point at.
the weight of evidence — requires that there was evidence, and reports which way it points.
The weight of evidence is on the side of the smaller schemes: the two that reported gains were both under 300,000 people.
If your body contained no figures, no cases and no studies, this phrase is a lie about your own essay, and it is a very visible one.
what emerges — the strongest anti-template phrase in the sprint, because emerges claims novelty: something appeared during the argument that was not visible at the start.
What emerges is that the disagreement is about the discount rate, not about the transport at all.
Use it when your essay genuinely discovered something. It is very hard to fake, which is exactly why it is worth having.
on balance — requires you to say which way the balance tipped and why. It is the frame for a verdict after weighing, and it is the most common of the four.
On balance the cost objection is the weaker one, because it counts a single outlay against a benefit that recurs.
Eight frames and what each one obliges you to have. None of the right-hand entries is a definition.
Terms
Definitions
Eighteen closing sentences. Apply the transplant test to each — could it survive on a different essay?
Sort each item into the correct category
Three chains. Identify the finding from the body first — the frame is the last thing you choose.
Chain 1
The body: The scheme cost £40m and saved £3m a year. The internal papers show the department projected exactly those figures before approving it. No other justification was recorded.
Step 1 — What did that body establish that the introduction could not have contained?
Step 2 — Which frame demands exactly that, and nothing else? Write it: is that the department was not trying to save money at all.
Chain 2
The body: Four cities reported gains. All four have populations under 300,000 and dense historic centres. The three that reported no change are all above two million.
Step 1 — What kind of thing did that body supply — a ranking, a discovery, or measurements?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: is on the side of the smaller cities: every one that gained is under 300,000.
Chain 3
The body: The essay gave three reasons for the policy and one against. It argued at length that the reason against — cost — collapses once you notice the money is spent either way, and did not rank the three reasons for.
Step 1 — Can you use the decisive consideration here? Say why or why not.
Step 2 — Therefore the expert opens with a frame that only asks which way it tipped and why: the case holds, because the one argument against it turned out to be an argument about who pays.