Preferences and commitments

B1.2 · Reorganise a survey and correct an overgeneralised conclusion.

Early B1: past events, conditions, contrast and simple formal requests.

Model

Unsere Tauschbörse hatte am Nachmittag weniger Besucher als am Vormittag. Im Gästebuch stehen sechs positive Kommentare zur frühen Öffnung. Zwei andere Einträge wünschen sich jedoch mehr Zeit am Abend. Diese Rückmeldungen zeigen unterschiedliche Bedürfnisse, aber nicht die Meinung aller Besucher: Viele haben nichts ins Buch geschrieben.

Für die nächste Börse würde ich die Öffnung am Vormittag beibehalten und zusätzlich einen kurzen Abendtermin ausprobieren. So können wir prüfen, ob tatsächlich weitere Personen kommen. Die Kommentare allein reichen nicht aus, um die Öffnungszeit ganz zu ändern.

Beim nächsten Mal sollten wir die Besucher beider Termine zählen und getrennt notieren, wie viele zum ersten Mal teilnehmen. Dann haben wir eine bessere Grundlage. Das Gästebuch bleibt trotzdem nützlich, weil die Kommentare erklären können, was die Menschen am Angebot schätzen.

1. Viele haben nichts ins Buch geschrieben. · Limits what the comments establish.
2. zusätzlich einen kurzen Abendtermin ausprobieren. · Proposes a trial rather than an irreversible change.
3. die Kommentare erklären können, was die Menschen am Angebot schätzen. · Distinguishes counts from qualitative information.

Task

Fictional case. Write a short German report for the neighbourhood club.

In a survey, 12 members chose one activity each: 7 prefer photography and 5 cooking. The club has 40 members. Only those 12 people replied.

Two people must commit to preparing the activity. One has committed to photography and two to cooking. A draft states: “The whole club wants photography and enough organisers are already available.” The survey did not ask about preparation.

Explain which data support or contradict the draft and recommend a next step. You may propose an activity or defer the decision, but distinguish preferences from commitments.

120–170 words

Planning

1. Identify who responded and to which question.
2. Check each part of the draft against a different source.
3. Choose a recommendation and the supporting fact or condition.

Criteria

1. Identify the respondents and retain preferences without extending them to others.

   Mark “achieved” when the evidence is present and consistent; “partial” when incomplete; “revise” when absent or contrary to the case. Justify the judgement with a quotation from your draft.

2. Distinguish preferences from commitments and evaluate both draft claims.

   Mark “achieved” when the evidence is present and consistent; “partial” when incomplete; “revise” when absent or contrary to the case. Justify the judgement with a quotation from your draft.

3. Give a feasible or conditional recommendation and explain how to proceed without invented replies.

   Mark “achieved” when the evidence is present and consistent; “partial” when incomplete; “revise” when absent or contrary to the case. Justify the judgement with a quotation from your draft.

4. Distinguish facts, evaluation and proposal with clear links and precise quantifiers.

   Mark “achieved” when the evidence is present and consistent; “partial” when incomplete; “revise” when absent or contrary to the case. Justify the judgement with a quotation from your draft.

Review

Keep your first draft. Quote a passage for each criterion and use the three rubric categories. Rewrite a passage to improve meaning or language and explain the effect. If it already meets the criteria, document a specific check. The guide provides examples; it neither matches words nor calculates a grade.

Guide and answers