Synthesising evidence for a transport recommendation
B2.2 · Synthesise contrasting notes into a reasoned recommendation, preserving each source’s scope and uncertainty.
B2 reports, comparison of evidence, qualified recommendations and counterargument.
Model
El consejo del barrio estudia convertir la plaza en una zona sin coches durante algunas tardes. El boletín vecinal defiende la propuesta porque permitiría organizar actividades al aire libre. La nota de los comercios, en cambio, advierte de las dificultades para recibir mercancías. No son dos descripciones incompatibles de un mismo uso: destacan necesidades diferentes del lugar.
El registro municipal indica que las entregas autorizadas se realizan por la mañana. Esa información ayuda a precisar la objeción comercial, pero no significa que todos los vehículos de la tarde estén vinculados a entregas. También debemos distinguir una regla escrita de lo que ocurre realmente: los comercios pueden explicar si existen excepciones o problemas que el registro no refleja.
Mantener la circulación ofrecería continuidad y evitaría una nueva organización, aunque dejaría pendiente la petición de espacio para actividades. Cerrar algunas tardes permitiría probar otro uso, pero exigiría comunicar los horarios y comprobar cómo acceden los servicios necesarios. Ninguna opción responde por sí sola a todos los intereses.
Recomiendo reunir primero al grupo vecinal y a los comercios para revisar esas necesidades concretas. Si las entregas y los accesos pueden organizarse, propondría una prueba en una tarde fija, con un registro de incidencias y comentarios. Si aparecen dificultades sin solución, habría que modificar el horario o reconsiderar el cierre. La propuesta aprovecha las tres fuentes sin atribuir al boletín la perspectiva comercial ni presentar la norma como una observación completa de la vida de la plaza.
destacan necesidades diferentes del lugar
· The synthesis identifies the distinct viewpoint of each source.distinguir una regla escrita de lo que ocurre realmente
· A documentary rule is not treated as a complete record of behaviour.sin atribuir al boletín la perspectiva comercial
· The conclusion preserves attribution while combining evidence.
Task
Write a recommendation for the community centre’s committee about transport after evening classes. Source A, a sign-up sheet, contains 24 requests for a shared return minibus; it does not record destinations or days. Source B, a one-evening exit count, records 15 people leaving at 21:00, including 6 walking; it does not identify whether they signed A. Source C, a transport company’s estimate, offers a 16-seat minibus for 90 euros per trip on one route, but the route and stopping points have not been agreed. The centre has 180 euros for a pilot and classes on Tuesday and Thursday. A committee member says, “A and B prove 39 people need the bus, and two trips will cover everyone.” The committee can instead spend the pilot budget on a staffed waiting area while it gathers transport information. Compare these options, correct the member’s reasoning, make a conditional recommendation and explain what additional evidence would change your recommendation. Do not invent destinations, fares or demand for either evening. 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 groups may overlap, and which numbers do not measure transport need?
- What can the quoted price establish, and what cannot it establish?
- Which missing information matters for choosing and assessing a pilot?
Criteria
- Synthesise the three sources into a recommendation suited to the committee’s decision.
A synthesis connects evidence and purpose instead of copying notes.
- Preserve the scope of each source and evaluate the member’s combined claim.
Claims drawn from several records must be justified by what each record actually measures.
- Compare the options, justify a conditional choice and specify evidence that could change it.
Reasoning should remain responsive to missing information, not defend a fixed answer at any cost.
- Build a coherent argument with precise attribution, concessions and a conclusion proportionate to the evidence.
Readers must distinguish known costs, possible demand and the writer’s proposed decision.
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.