Lesson 15, Task 2: Upgrading to Level 11
You already have a structure that works. This lesson is about the last two bands.
Assumes Lessons 13 and 14.
Where the last two bands actually live
A student who follows Lesson 14 accurately will land somewhere around 9. Getting to 11 isn’t about a different structure, it’s about four specific upgrades applied inside the same shape.
| Upgrade | What it does |
|---|---|
| 1. Claims become arguments | Turns “this is good” into “this is good, and here’s the mechanism” |
| 2. The concession earns its place | A genuine acknowledgement, not a token one |
| 3. Precision replaces intensity | ”considerably” and “substantial” instead of “very” and “a lot” |
| 4. The loop closes visibly | Intro → Body 1, Body 2 → conclusion, with no drift |
Everything below is one of these four.
Upgrade 1, turn claims into arguments
A claim asserts. An argument shows the mechanism.
| Claim (Level 8) | Argument (Level 11) |
|---|---|
| “A park is good for the community." | "A park serves everyone, children, older residents and families would all use it daily, which is precisely what makes such spaces where neighbors actually meet." |
| "Working from home saves time." | "Removing a daily commute returns roughly ten hours a week to staff, time that is far more likely to be spent resting than working." |
| "Longer opening hours would help." | "Extending opening hours by two hours would allow anyone working full-time to use the center at all, which is currently impossible.” |
The move: after every claim, add a clause beginning which / and this means / the practical effect is. It costs eight words and converts an assertion into reasoning.
Test your draft: if you can delete a sentence and lose no information, it was padding. If deleting it removes a reason, it was an argument.
Upgrade 2, make the concession genuine
The concession move is the single highest-value sentence in Task 2. But there’s a weak version and a strong one.
| ❌ Token concession | ✅ Genuine concession |
|---|---|
| ”Some people prefer the other option, but I disagree." | "While it is true that parking in the area is genuinely limited, adding spaces tends to attract additional traffic rather than relieve congestion." |
| "The other option has some advantages." | "The alternative does offer a quicker and cheaper solution; the difficulty is that it addresses the symptom rather than the cause.” |
What makes it genuine: you name a specific, real strength of the other option, something a reasonable person would actually say, and then defeat it on the merits. Vague concessions (“it has advantages”) demonstrate nothing.
Use it exactly once, at the start of Body 2. More than once and your position starts to look uncertain.
Upgrade 3, precision over intensity
Weak writing reaches for intensifiers. Strong writing reaches for precise words.
| Instead of | Write |
|---|---|
| very important | crucial · vital · decisive |
| a lot of people | a substantial proportion · the majority of residents |
| very expensive | prohibitively expensive · a considerable outlay |
| really bad | detrimental · counterproductive |
| very good for | genuinely beneficial to · of measurable benefit to |
| a big problem | a significant drawback · a persistent difficulty |
| many | numerous · a considerable number of |
And the stance verbs: replace “I think”, you’ll otherwise use it four times.
I would firmly support · I remain convinced · I come down decisively on the side of · in my view · it seems clear to me that
Upgrade 4, close the loop visibly
Covered in Lesson 13; here’s what it looks like at sentence level.
Intro: “…primarily because of the long-term value it would offer residents.” Body 1 opens: “The most compelling argument in its favor is that a park serves everyone.” Body 2 closes: “…a parking area would serve only those residents who own cars, excluding a substantial proportion of the neighborhood.” Conclusion: “…the wiser investment, particularly given how few people the alternative would genuinely benefit.”
The conclusion’s final clause is a direct echo of Body 2’s final idea. Nothing drifts.
Three more model answers
Model 2, remote work
Question: Your workplace is considering a change. Option A: staff work from home two days a week. Option B: everyone stays in the office but Friday hours are reduced. Choose one. Choice: A.
Employers everywhere are reconsidering how the working week should be structured. Of the two proposals, I would firmly support allowing staff to work from home two days a week, principally because of the productivity gains it would deliver.
The most persuasive argument is that removing the commute returns a substantial amount of time to employees. For many staff that amounts to close to ten hours a week, time far more likely to be spent resting than sitting in traffic, and rested employees are demonstrably more effective. Furthermore, home offers uninterrupted space for concentrated work, which open-plan offices rarely provide.
The alternative is considerably weaker. While reducing Friday hours would be welcomed, it leaves the underlying problem untouched; staff would still commute five days a week, and the time saved would be minimal by comparison. In addition, shorter hours risk reducing output without improving wellbeing in any meaningful way.
For these reasons I remain convinced that remote working is the stronger option, particularly since the alternative addresses the symptom rather than the cause.
184 words. Note the concession (“While reducing Friday hours would be welcomed”) and the loop, the conclusion echoes Body 2’s “symptom rather than cause.”
Model 3, library funding
Question: A town has funding for one project. Option A: renovate the public library. Option B: build a new sports facility. Choose one. Choice: B, the sports facility.
Towns with limited budgets frequently face decisions of this kind, and opinion is usually divided. Having weighed both proposals, I would support building the new sports facility, largely because of the breadth of need it would meet.
The strongest argument is that the town currently has no dedicated indoor sports space at all. Residents travel to neighboring towns for anything beyond casual exercise, which excludes anyone without a car and discourages participation generally. A local facility would remove that barrier entirely. Furthermore, such spaces are heavily used by younger residents, a group with few organized activities available to them here.
The library proposal is harder to justify at present. Admittedly the building is dated; even so, it remains fully functional, and borrowing figures have fallen steadily for a decade. Renovating a building that fewer people use each year is difficult to defend when the alternative would create something the town genuinely lacks.
On balance, therefore, the sports facility is the wiser investment, particularly given that it would meet a need currently going unaddressed.
181 words. Note “Admittedly… even so” as an alternative concession structure, and that arguing against a library, an unpopular position, is entirely fine.
Model 4, Template B (one side)
Question: A company is choosing a staff benefit. Option A: an annual training budget. Option B: extra paid leave. Choose one. Choice: A. Structure B, no discussion of the alternative.
Questions of how best to invest in staff arise in almost every organization. In my view, an annual training budget is clearly the better choice, largely because of the lasting value it creates for both employee and employer.
The first and most important consideration is that training produces benefits that do not expire. A qualification or a new skill remains useful for the rest of someone’s career, and it tends to open opportunities that would otherwise stay closed. For many employees, this alone would justify the decision.
A further advantage is the effect on retention. Staff who feel their employer is genuinely investing in them are considerably more inclined to stay, and the cost of replacing an experienced employee is substantial. Over time, a training budget is therefore likely to pay for itself rather than simply representing an expense.
Having weighed the options, I remain firmly of the view that a training budget is the more sensible investment, particularly in light of the long-term savings it is likely to generate.
178 words. No mention of the alternative anywhere, that’s deliberate. It still closes its loop: the conclusion picks up Body 2’s retention/savings theme.
Sentence-level before → after
| Level 8 | Level 11 | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| ”It is good for the community." | "It serves everyone, children, older residents and families alike.” | Specific beneficiaries |
| ”Many people would use it." | "A substantial proportion of residents would use it weekly.” | Precision replaces vagueness |
| ”The other option is not very good." | "The alternative is considerably less convincing.” | Precise, formal register |
| ”It costs a lot of money." | "The outlay would be considerable, and difficult to justify.” | Upgrade + added reasoning |
| ”I think this is the best choice." | "I remain convinced this is the wiser investment.” | Committed stance verb |
| ”This is bad for traffic." | "Adding spaces tends to attract traffic rather than relieve congestion.” | Mechanism, not assertion |
| ”Also, it helps young people." | "Furthermore, such spaces are heavily used by younger residents.” | Connector + precision |
Grade your own upgrade
Run this on a response you’ve already written:
- Every point has a mechanism: a which / this means / the effect is clause
- One genuine concession naming a specific strength of the other option
- Zero uses of “very”
- “I think” replaced with a committed stance verb
- Three or more precise upgrades (considerable, substantial, decisive, prohibitively)
- The conclusion’s final clause echoes Body 2, not Body 1
- At least three complex sentences
- One correctly used semicolon
- Nothing could be deleted without losing a reason
8+ ticks = you’re writing at 10–11.
Your practice
Open one set on Celpora and put today’s lesson to work.
Practice Task 2: Survey. 26 min · 150–200 words · AI feedback
