Begin with the claims already tested
Portfolio continuity · Retrieve and map
Open your Lesson 1 note, Lesson 4 brief, Lesson 5 discussion record and Lesson 6 repair ledger. Use the fictional library packet if you need a supplied case; a different public story requires traceable source notes.
State the source-backed event, the public framing and the question your 440-word piece will answer.
- Write a one-sentence thesis that separates what the record establishes from what a headline invites readers to infer.
- Copy the Lesson 6 winning repair and one noun phrase that a reader unpacked correctly. Preserve the original first drafts.
- Name the reader: an academic seminar participant unfamiliar with your source packet. Mark any personal details to fictionalise without changing the claim’s evidential status.
Choose the thesis that the available library record can support.
1. Which thesis gives a formal analysis something defensible to examine?
Give each paragraph an analytical job
Exact 440-word architecture · Planning aid, not model prose
| Paragraph | Words | Argument job | Evidence and form check |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Question and thesis | 70 | Introduce the event, two tellings and the scale of the interpretive question | Name the notice and article; do not announce rescue as fact |
| 2 · Documented sequence | 90 | Reconstruct the leak, shelf move and volunteer account in order | Keep staff and volunteers in recoverable clauses; attribute Mara’s interview |
| 3 · Framing and perception | 100 | Analyse what rescue and visibility suggest to different readers | Distinguish the headline’s rhetoric from Mara’s unmeasured impression |
| 4 · Counter-reading and limit | 110 | Grant what the volunteer action supports, then test the larger institutional claim | State what evidence of closure or changed use would be needed |
| 5 · Qualified conclusion | 70 | Answer the opening question without flattening the smaller event | Use the Lesson 6 repair and leave unknown outcomes unknown |
Match each library detail to the main job it can do in the planned piece.
Q Introduce the question and competing accounts
S Reconstruct the source-backed sequence
F Analyse framing or attributed perception
C Test a counter-reading and its evidential limit
A Answer with a qualified conclusion
1. The notice describes a shelf move; the regional headline calls it a rescue.
2. Staff moved the shelf to the foyer after the leak, and Mara later reported carrying boxes.
3. Mara thought the shelf was more noticeable but had no visitor count.
4. Volunteer help may matter for the service without proving a threat to the entire library.
5. The available record supports a temporary service change and a larger public narrative, with the larger outcome unverified.
Audit every condensed claim
Formal phrase audit
| Question | Evidence to look for | Repair if the answer is unclear |
|---|---|---|
| What is the head noun? | A clear head with modifiers attached to the intended event or source | Move a postmodifier or split the sentence |
| Who acted or reported? | A named actor or attributable source in the phrase or nearby clause | Restore a finite clause such as “staff moved the shelf” |
| What is measured? | Counts only when the packet supplies them | Use “Mara thought…” and state missing figures |
| Does the derivation fit? | A conventional English noun form with a useful discourse job | Check the verb or adjective family; keep a verb if it is clearer |
| Can it be read aloud? | Thought groups expose the head and the claim’s limit | Reduce stacked nouns or add a pause and clause |
Match each phrase to the job it can do in the library analysis.
Choose the edit that preserves the argument while making its evidence recoverable.
1. A draft says “The successful institutional rescue implementation increased public use.” Which edit is supported?
2. The reader can unpack “the temporary relocation of the shelf” and find staff in the next clause. What should the writer do?
Build a defensible passage before the full draft
Order these sentences so the reader encounters evidence before interpretation.
- The regional article described that move but gave it a rescue headline.
- The library notice reported a basement leak and the relocation of the book-swap shelf to the foyer.
- The headline therefore invites a larger conclusion than the source packet establishes.
- It also said that the library remained open during normal hours.
- Mara later told community radio that three volunteers carried fourteen boxes after staff requested help.
Rewrite each candidate sentence for a formal reader; retain source, actor and uncertainty. The models are possible repairs.
Headline assertion to attributed framing
The town’s library was rescued after a major institutional crisis.
Unmeasured result to attributed perception
The foyer relocation produced a verified increase in borrowing.
Hidden agency to accountable clause
The implementation of the relocation was followed by volunteer participation.
Write the complete formal-academic piece
Portfolio draft · Exact 440-word body
Write for an academic seminar reader who has not seen your sources. Analyse how the fictional library event became a public story, or use the traceable public case you have studied since Lesson 2. Treat your academic-journalism and London Review of Books reading as style observations, not as factual sources for the library case.
Produce an exact 440-word formal-academic analysis with a qualified thesis, source-backed account, fair counter-reading and recoverable noun phrases.
- Minutes 1–3 · map: identify source, event, actor, published framing, reported perception, uncertainty and the strongest counter-reading. Place the Lesson 6 winning repair where its reader test supports it.
- Minutes 4–7 · Paragraph 1, 70 words: introduce the case and distinguish the notice’s event from the headline’s larger suggestion. End with the question or thesis your analysis will answer.
- Minutes 8–11 · Paragraph 2, 90 words: reconstruct the sequence with sources and actors. State that the main library remained open and the basement exchange’s return date was unknown if using the supplied case.
- Minutes 12–15 · Paragraph 3, 100 words: analyse the headline’s rescue framing and Mara’s visibility impression without turning either into a measured outcome.
- Minutes 16–19 · Paragraph 4, 110 words: grant what the volunteers’ action can support; explain why it does not alone establish institutional rescue. State what further evidence would change your conclusion.
- Minutes 20–22 · Paragraph 5, 70 words: answer the opening question with a bounded conclusion. Show why the small service change matters without enlarging the factual claim.
- Minute 23 · form audit: underline one purposeful verb-derived noun, one adjective-derived noun and one complex noun phrase. Name each job; if a form forces an unsupported claim, replace it with a clause and record that decision.
- Minute 24 · source audit: mark each claim as notice, interview, article or inference. Check who moved the shelf, who carried boxes, who only thought visibility changed and what remains unmeasured.
- Minute 25 · prosody audit: read the densest two sentences aloud in thought groups. Restore a clause wherever the actor, head noun or limit disappears.
- Minute 26 · count: reach exactly 440 body words: 70 + 90 + 100 + 110 + 70. Exclude title, paragraph labels and a separate source note; count a hyphenated form as one word and each numeral as one.
- Minutes 27–28 · cold read: ask an unfamiliar reader to state the event, framing, counter-reading and conclusion, plus one claim they cannot trace. Working alone, reconstruct after a delay without source notes.
- Minute 29 · preserve: save the complete first draft, word count, source map, reader trace and one revision hypothesis for Lesson 8. Keep the first version intact.
Submission record
| Requirement | Evidence to mark |
|---|---|
| Exactly 440 body words | 70 + 90 + 100 + 110 + 70; title, labels and separate source note excluded |
| Argument line | Thesis, source-backed sequence, framing analysis, counter-reading and qualified answer |
| Source integrity | Notice, interview and article claims distinguished from the writer’s inference |
| Form control | Purposeful derived nouns and complex phrase; actor and scope recoverable or a recorded clause replacement |
| Uncertainty | No invented closure, visitor count, borrowing rise or return date |
| Reader trace | First draft, count, recovered claims and one revision hypothesis saved for Lesson 8 |
Choose the revision the reader’s account supports
Choose the narrowest change supported by the cold read.
1. The reader thinks the whole library closed, although the draft meant only the basement exchange was unavailable. What should the writer inspect?
2. The draft is 449 words. Which nine-word cut is safest?
Lesson 8 revision brief
Place the cold reader’s reconstruction beside the untouched 440-word first draft.
Record one local written revision and one spoken retest, or “no repair evidenced” if recovery was accurate.
- Quote the exact sentence, intended claim, recovered claim and the source that settles the difference.
- Propose the smallest change that restores actor, scope or uncertainty without making the prose less readable.
- Keep the first draft, count, source map and reader trace for final written and spoken assessment.
Bring the whole portfolio package to assessment
Choose the complete package for Lesson 8.
1. What should remain available for final written and spoken assessment?
Standing informal-input bridge
Revisit one complete academic-journalism essay and one London Review of Books piece. Record creator, title and paragraph location of one complex noun phrase whose surrounding prose makes its actor or source recoverable. Compare its job with one phrase in your own 440-word piece; do not borrow outside claims as evidence for the fictional library case. Bring the observation and complete portfolio package to Lesson 8.