Begin with the portfolio already built
Portfolio readiness · Four minutes
Lay out the Unit 41 baseline, input map, form record, extended argument, formal debate, accepted repair, complete Lesson 7 essay and audits, spoken handover, listener trace and revision brief.
Confirm that the assessment revises and defends the existing Porto Claro judgement.
- Keep the untouched first draft and verify its exact 440-word body under the recorded convention.
- Name the written revision and spoken retest supported by Lesson 7 evidence; record “no repair evidenced” where recovery was complete.
- State decision, criterion, strongest warrant, rival case and implementation conditions in noun phrases only.
- Keep the unedited Lesson 5 debate and Lesson 6 A/B evidence available. Missing evidence stays marked missing.
Choose the action that preserves valid development evidence.
1. The reader understood the cost condition but could not identify the responsible office. What should be submitted?
2. A grammatical inversion was less clear than its plain control in the Lesson 6 retest. What should the final version do?
Three products, kept distinct
Final Unit 41 evidence package
| Product | Constraint | What it demonstrates |
|---|---|---|
| Final formal essay | Exactly 440 body words; same Porto Claro decision, dossier and architecture developed in Lesson 7 | Written reasoning, evidence boundaries, counterargument, inversion distribution and implementation |
| Formal council argument | Exactly 16 minutes from dossier and noun-phrase notes: opening, live challenges, amendment test and closing | Spoken structure, responsiveness, inversion control, prosody and self-repair |
| Development trail | Baseline, debate, A/B repair, first draft, handover, audience traces and final local revisions | Whether a particular change improved reader or listener recovery |
| Judgement record | Written and spoken dimensions rated separately with exact lines, time stamps or reconstructions | What is secure, emerging or not yet evidenced in this performance |
Match each assessment claim to the evidence that can directly support it.
W Final 440-word essay
S Final 16-minute spoken argument
R Repair and revision trail
D Complete development portfolio
B Authentic-input bridge record
1. The writer keeps the opt-in respondent population beside the 68% figure.
2. The speaker abandons a prepared inversion and answers a new cost challenge.
3. A local wording or prosody change improved recovery of a condition or actor.
4. Control developed from baseline through debate, repair and final performance.
5. A debater and op-ed writer distribute marked and plain syntax differently at comparable turns.
Assessment boundary
Page activities prepare the assessment; they do not calculate a C1 result. The revised essay, unedited spoken argument and evidence record must exist before a Unit 41 can-do claim is made.
Judge six dimensions in each mode
Unit 41 rubric · Not yet · Emerging · Secure
| Dimension | Secure written evidence | Secure spoken evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Public-argument purpose | A precise decision and criterion lead through warrants to an implementable judgement | Motion, burden and stakes remain recoverable as the speaker adapts the case |
| Evidence integrity | Counts, sources, populations, estimates, positions and unknowns retain dossier status | The speaker corrects or narrows a claim when challenge exposes drift |
| Counterargument and responsiveness | The strongest rival case is fair and changes the reasoning or conditions | Answers recover the live claim, respond and update common ground |
| Inversion control | Marked forms have correct clause target, auxiliary, time, completion and job | Forms remain accurate under pressure or are abandoned when no longer earned |
| Discourse and implementation | Evidence leads through warrants to actors, deadlines, remedies and decisions | Marked corrections release into ordinary consequence or action |
| Register and prosody | Marked syntax is proportionate and plain clauses carry the remaining hierarchy | Thought groups, prominence and closure make condition and payoff recoverable |
Match each observation to the single dimension it directly supports.
Choose the judgement the evidence permits.
1. The essay controls inversion, but the speaker doubles auxiliaries under challenge. What follows?
2. One live answer uses a correct should condition. What can it establish?
3. A speaker repairs an overclaim, preserves the warrant and continues to action. How is it treated?
Repair the claim, then build the spoken spine
Correct each line and name the rubric dimension directly evidenced by the repair.
1. The clinic proved that 47 automated decisions were wrong. — evidence identity
2. Only if will the ombuds office define deadlines can the route work. — clause target
3. Had costs exceed the range next year, the charter fails. — conditional form and time
4. Not only does the charter require disclosure. — unfinished payoff
5. All residents support the charter because 68% voted for it. — population and source
6. Never has transparency mattered more, nor can secrecy prevail, nor should delay be tolerated. — over-formality
Order the moves into a formal argument that can respond to challenge. Prepare noun phrases, not a script.
- Respond to revealed challenges and negotiate one amendment without losing the burden.
- Develop the strongest evidence-to-warrant chain with its source and limit.
- Close with judgement, conditions, responsible actors, unresolved risk and next decision point.
- State the decision, motion, criterion and exact scope of the proposed amendments.
- Represent the strongest cost, capacity or security objection before answering it.
Submit the essay and defend the public judgement
Part 1 · Final 440-word formal essay · Eight minutes
Apply only the local changes supported by the Lesson 7 revision brief, then submit the final Porto Claro essay beside the untouched first draft.
Submit exactly 440 body words supporting a defensible public decision and accountable implementation route.
- Minutes 1–3: apply the documented revision or record “no repair evidenced”; preserve successful language elsewhere.
- Minutes 4–5: verify the 60 + 90 + 105 + 85 + 100 architecture and the jobs of thesis, warrant, counterargument, options and implementation.
- Minute 6: audit every count, source, population, estimate, range, stakeholder claim, enforcement power and unknown against the dossier.
- Minute 7: check every inversion for clause target, auxiliary, time, completion, bounded meaning, discourse job and ordinary-order release.
- Minute 8: verify exactly 440 body words under the recorded convention and freeze the submitted version.
Live council challenge cards · Reveal after the opening
| Card | Council pressure | Required response |
|---|---|---|
| A · Public support | “Sixty-eight percent supports the charter, so the city has already decided.” | Restore the opt-in respondent population and explain what the result can and cannot warrant |
| B · Proven harm | “Forty-seven wrong decisions show that every system should be suspended now.” | Correct the enquiry evidence, preserve the identification problem and justify a proportionate remedy |
| C · Capacity | “Small bodies have no staff, so citywide duties are impossible.” | Represent the gap fairly, preserve the unknown effect of central support and defend a testable response |
| D · Supplier risk | “Any disclosure would expose trade secrets and invite manipulation.” | Attribute the concern, request field-specific evidence and define a narrow reviewable exception |
Part 2 · Formal council argument · Exactly 16 minutes
Speak from dossier and noun-phrase notes. A chair reveals two challenge cards and may interrupt, correct a premise or ask who must act. Working alone, reveal prompts on a timer and record one unedited take.
Defend the written judgement with responsive evidence, controlled inversion and an implementable close.
- Minutes 0–3 · opening: state motion, position, criterion, strongest warrant, key evidence boundary and the burden the rival case must meet.
- Minutes 3–7 · first challenge: recover the exact claim, correct or concede where necessary, answer it and release any marked form into consequence or action.
- Minutes 7–11 · second challenge: respond with a different evidence chain and revise the position if the dossier requires it.
- Minutes 11–13 · amendment test: negotiate deadlines, central support, exception review or cost triggers; state what changes and what remains non-negotiable.
- Minutes 13–15 · closing: give the judgement, strongest answered objection, conditions, responsible actors, unresolved risk and next decision point.
- Minute 15–16 · listener record: the chair states the recovered decision, criterion, limit, concession and implementation route without coaching.
- Across the performance, attempt one negative or restrictive and one conditional inversion only when the live turn earns them. Plain responses remain valid selection evidence.
Part 3 · Evidence judgement · Six minutes
Judge the final essay and unedited spoken argument against all six rubric dimensions only after both products exist.
Mark not yet, emerging or secure separately by mode and cite one exact observation for every rating.
- For writing, cite a sentence, paragraph job, evidence boundary, counterargument response, inversion or implementation chain.
- For speaking, cite a time stamp, challenge response, recovered proposition, prosodic cue or successful self-repair.
- Preserve disagreement between writer intent and audience recovery; it identifies the next test.
- Record Brazilian-Portuguese transfer only when repeated learner evidence supports the link and a predicted English listener effect; otherwise mark transfer unverified.
Required submission package
| Artifact | Traceability check |
|---|---|
| Final essay | Exactly 440 body words plus visible paragraph counts and counting convention |
| Written development | Lesson 7 first draft, audits, revision brief and exact final change |
| Final speaking | Unedited 16-minute argument with two revealed challenge cards |
| Spoken development | Lesson 5 debate, Lesson 6 A/B repair, Lesson 7 handover and final listener trace |
| Judgement record | Separate written and spoken ratings across all six dimensions |
| Source bridge | Exact debate and op-ed locations with bounded comparison to learner choices |
Close the unit with bounded evidence
Choose the conclusion justified by the stated evidence.
1. The essay is accurate and controlled, but live answers repeatedly ignore the challenger’s actual claim. Which judgement fits?
2. The speaker abandons an over-formal opening, answers the cost claim directly and states a proportionate condition. What does this show?
3. The negative inversion is secure, while conditional time remains unstable in both modes. What follows?
Close the Unit 41 record
Review all written and spoken rubric ratings after confirming that every cited artifact exists.
Write one bounded can-do claim, one remaining test and one development statement.
- Complete: “In this formal essay and argument, I can ___, as shown by ___.”
- Complete: “I still need to test ___ when ___, using ___ as evidence.”
- Complete: “From the Lesson 1 baseline to Lesson 8, the clearest development is ___ between ___ and ___.”
- Name one inversion choice that became more accurate or selective and cite exact before-and-after evidence.
Carry selective control into everyday language
Choose the Unit 41 principle that transfers into Unit 42.
1. What should remain stable when formal public argument gives way to everyday narrative?
Bridge record
Archive the final observations from the full Intelligence Squared debate and high-quality op-ed with exact locations and no extended copied wording. Record one marked and one plain choice, the argumentative job and audience effect. For Unit 42, bring a two-minute everyday-life story told naturally to a familiar listener. Do not insert inversion or idioms for display; preserve the recording as a baseline of register-sensitive language selection.