9.4 Question 3 Practice And Model Response

A transport company director argues that lower fares are the best solution. She says price is the main barrier and refers to a company survey of 2,000 app users.

Argument B

A school principal argues that safe walking and cycling routes are better. He cites a local road-safety audit and says active travel improves health, although he gives no data on journey distance or weather.

Plan Before Writing

Comparison Plan

Argument A strength: large survey and direct focus on fares.
Argument A weakness: app users may not represent non-users; company vested interest.
Argument B strength: independent local safety evidence and wider health reasoning.
Argument B weakness: no evidence about distance or weather; expertise may be limited.
Provisional judgement: B may be more convincing because it recognises more than one benefit, but the audit method must be considered.

Model Response

Question 3 Model

The principal of the school presents the more convincing argument overall, although both arguments contain useful evidence. The transport director supports her conclusion with a survey of 2,000 users, which appears to provide a substantial amount of quantitative evidence. However, the sample consists only of people using the company’s app. It may therefore exclude students who currently avoid buses, even though their reasons are essential to the question. The director also has a financial interest in a policy that could attract more passengers, so the survey design and wording would need independent checking.

The principal uses a local road-safety audit, which is directly relevant to walking and cycling conditions. His reasoning also connects transport with health, giving the argument a broader set of benefits. However, he does not provide evidence about journey distance, weather or students who cannot walk or cycle, so the proposed solution may not be suitable for everyone. His argument is therefore incomplete rather than fully balanced.

Both arguments rely on relevant local evidence, but the director’s evidence measures the views of existing app users and may be influenced by commercial interest. The principal’s argument has gaps, yet the independent safety audit is more closely connected to whether active travel is realistic. For these reasons, the principal is slightly more convincing, provided that distance and accessibility are investigated before the policy is adopted.

Model Commentary

Features Of The Response

Both arguments are analysed and evaluated.
Evidence quality is discussed, not simply counted.
Possible bias and vested interest are explained.
The response compares the arguments explicitly.
The judgement is qualified and consistent.

Improvement Challenge

Rewrite

Write a response arguing that the transport director is more convincing. You must address the sampling weakness and show why price evidence is still more useful than the principal’s safety evidence.

Question 3 Checklist

Self-Check

Have I identified both main conclusions?
Have I evaluated reasoning and evidence?
Have I explained any bias or vested interest?
Have I compared throughout?
Does my final judgement match my evaluation?

Lesson Summary

Question 3 assesses argument quality rather than personal agreement.
Evidence must be evaluated for relevance, source and representativeness.
Both arguments need balanced coverage and explicit comparison.
A qualified judgement can be stronger than an absolute one.