Two ways to start
Two openings for the same piece.
A. Nowadays technology is changing public services very fast, and there are advantages and disadvantages, as this article will discuss.
B. The county council announced on 3 October that all housing-benefit claims would be made online from January.
Four questions.
1. How many checkable facts are in opening A?
2. How many are in opening B?
3. Why does would be made rather than will be made?
4. In 320 words, what does opening A cost?
The model · 314 words
The digital claims system: summary and critique
The county council announced on 3 October that all housing-benefit claims would be made online from January. It said the change would cut processing times by "up to forty per cent", and confirmed that phone and paper routes would remain available "for those who need them".
A local advice charity published figures on 20 October. It reported that in the three months since a pilot began in the north of the county, the number of claims closed for non-response had risen from 41 to 118. It suggested that the increase was linked to the pilot, but stopped short of claiming a causal connection, noting that the period had also included a change to the reminder letters.
The council said the two changes could not be separated, and pointed out that overall claim volumes had risen as well. A cabinet member insisted that nobody would lose a payment because of the format of their claim. The charity’s director said she had asked twice for a breakdown by age and had not received one.
What the coverage did not do was ask the question the charity’s own report raises on page four: the pilot area has the county’s lowest rate of home internet access. If that is so, then "for those who need them" is doing a great deal of work, and whether the phone route is adequately staffed becomes the whole question. No staffing figures for it have been published.
Two things follow. The forty per cent has been reported as a finding when it is a projection — the words "up to" appeared in the press release and in none of the coverage I read. And the charity’s figures are real without yet being evidence of anything: three months, one district, two changes at once.
The useful next question is not whether digital is better. It is who was asked before January was chosen.
Four questions about the model.
1. The first three paragraphs contain no opinion at all. What are they doing?
2. Where does the writer’s own voice first appear?
3. What is the critique actually about?
4. Why does the piece credit the charity for its own limitation?
Repair a weaker one
The five moves: what was announced, and by whom · what somebody else found, in their terms · the exchange, attributed on both sides · the question nobody asked, marked as yours · what follows, stated narrowly.
Below, a second piece with four sentences removed.
Four sentences have been removed. Put each one back where it belongs.
The transport authority said on Monday that punctuality on the eastern line had improved by nine per cent over the year. [1]
A passenger group disputed the figure. [2] The authority replied that the measure had been agreed with the regulator in 2019 and had not changed since.
[3] The authority’s own annual report gives both figures, on facing pages, without comment.
None of this shows that anybody has been dishonest. [4] And a measure that was agreed with a regulator five years ago is still a measure that suits whoever proposed it.
The question worth asking is not whether the number is true. It is what a passenger would have to know to use it.
Register, and the verbs it carries
Rewrite each line for a written summary and critique. Keep the claim; lose the speech and the verdict.
Spoken → written summary
So the council basically just said everything’s going online and it’ll be way faster, obviously.
Opinion → attributed claim
The whole thing is a disaster and people are losing their benefits because of it.
Spoken → written summary
They said me the phone line is still there but who knows if anyone actually answers it.
Overstated → precise
The study proves that later school starts make children do better in exams.
Loaded → neutral where you have no evidence
The council admitted that the system is working well.
Six sentences from drafts. Four are grammar or stance; two are about what 320 words can afford.
1. In this piece I am going to summarise and critique a news story. — 320 words
2. The council admitted that the change would speed things up. — the council’s own claim
3. The charity accused the council to have caused the rise.
4. The report revealed that the two changes might be connected.
5. In conclusion, technology has both good and bad sides.
6. A spokesperson said me that the line was fully staffed.
Write it
Task card · Writing · Alone · 17 minutes
Write a 320-word summary and critique of a story you have actually read.
Five moves, in order. Seventeen minutes writing, six checking.
- Open with what was announced or published, by whom, and when. No announcement paragraph.
- Attribute every claim. If you cannot say who said it, either find out or leave it out.
- Choose each reporting verb, and be ready to defend it against "why that one?"
- Mark where your own voice starts, in a phrase the reader can see.
- Aim the critique at method — how something was measured, defined, chosen or counted.
Task card · Checking · Pairs · 6 minutes
Swap. You are the desk. Four questions, answered in the margin.
Six minutes, four answers, written where the writer can see them.
- Circle every claim with no source and write "who?" beside it.
- Circle every reporting verb that is not said and write "why?" beside it.
- Find the sentence where the writer’s own voice begins. If you cannot, say so.
- Is the critique about method, or about whether the writer agrees? Say which.
The last question is the hardest to pass. A critique that says the policy is wrong is an opinion piece wearing a summary’s clothes. A critique that says a projection was reported as a finding is doing something a reader cannot do for themselves.
What the desk marked
Two questions.
1. How many "who?" notes did you receive?
2. Was your critique about method or about agreement?
Sourced, chosen, and about method
Two questions. Twenty seconds.
1. Where should a critique aim?
2. What has to be visible to the reader?
Next. The same story, spoken, to a desk that will ask who said what — and a look back at the unit.