Responding to disagreement about a recording
B2.2 · Respond to conflicting positions, negotiate a conditional arrangement and avoid attributing consent.
B2 extended correspondence, contrast, indirect requests and precise reference to other people’s positions.
Model
Hola, Clara y Mateo:
He leído vuestras ideas para la comida del vecindario. Clara propone comprar platos desechables para terminar la recogida más rápido; Mateo prefiere utilizar la vajilla del centro para reducir los residuos. Me parece que la decisión debe tener en cuenta tanto el material como el trabajo que habrá después.
La vajilla está disponible, pero la cocina solo tiene un fregadero y el equipo de limpieza será pequeño. Comprar platos no elimina toda la recogida: todavía habrá que limpiar las mesas y separar las bolsas. Por eso ninguna de las dos propuestas debería presentarse como una solución sin esfuerzo.
Propongo utilizar la vajilla y organizar dos turnos breves para lavarla. Quienes preparen la sala pueden encargarse del primer turno y quienes sirvan la comida, del segundo. Yo puedo coordinar la lista, aunque antes necesito que cada persona indique en qué tarea participará. Esta distribución evita dejar todo el trabajo a quienes se queden hasta el final.
Entiendo que Clara quiera una recogida sencilla. Para comprobar si el plan es razonable, podríamos hacer una prueba con las piezas que usaremos y observar cuánto tiempo ocupa el lavado. Si resulta demasiado lento, revisaremos el menú y el número de utensilios necesarios antes de cambiar de material. Mateo, ¿puedes revisar la vajilla disponible? Clara, ¿te parece que comprobemos juntos el trabajo de cocina? Con esas respuestas podremos repartir las tareas de forma concreta.
Gracias por buscar una opción que funcione para el grupo.
tanto el material como el trabajo que habrá después
· The opening relates two colleagues’ concerns to a shared decision.Esta distribución evita dejar todo el trabajo a quienes se queden hasta el final
· A reason explains the effect of the proposed responsibilities.Si resulta demasiado lento, revisaremos el menú
· A contingency responds to a practical drawback without abandoning the negotiation.
Task
Reply to two colleagues in an internal email about an audio interview for a community podcast. Elena wants the 20-minute conversation available before Monday. Luis agrees to take part only if his personal account is removed from the public version; he still agrees to the discussion of the community project. Luis has not approved an edited recording. The editor says a project-only version could be ready on Friday, but cannot confirm that until hearing the recording. Elena writes, “Luis is against the podcast, so we should use the full interview without involving him again.” You are coordinating the team, not deciding anyone’s permission. Respond to both positions, correct the inaccurate attribution, propose a workable sequence with responsibilities, explain a drawback and a fallback for the Monday deadline, and ask for the confirmations needed. Base permission solely on the conditions given, without making a claim about legal rules. This is an invented case. Write in Spanish. The word range is a guide, not an automatic pass/fail rule. Use the criteria for teacher assessment or self-assessment; there is no automatic mark.
220–280 words
Planning
- Which exact part has Luis accepted, and which part remains conditional?
- How can the editor’s estimate become a plan without becoming a promise?
- What fallback protects the stated condition if the deadline cannot be met?
Criteria
- Respond accurately to both colleagues’ positions and explain the coordination problem.
Negotiation fails when someone’s limited concern is represented as total opposition.
- Keep participation, editing estimates and approval of the public version distinct.
The team needs to know which actions depend on whose response.
- Propose a feasible conditional sequence with responsibilities, a drawback and a deadline fallback.
A negotiated plan needs more than agreement with one side.
- Use tactful but clear language, developed paragraphs and unambiguous references to who must confirm each action.
The message should make disagreement and next steps understandable without attributing consent.
Review
Keep your first draft. For each criterion, quote evidence from your own text and mark evidenced, partial or not yet evidenced. Revise a weak passage and explain how the change helps this reader. If all four are evidenced, justify a specific factual or language check. Compare meaning with the guide; different wording is welcome, and matching the example does not by itself prove success.