Read the draft first
The lesson below refers to this draft.
Later Library Hours
Overview
A substantive argument gives a clear recommendation and treats a competing concern as something to answer. Fair acknowledgment names the concern's practical basis rather than inventing motives. The response may add conditions, compare alternatives, or propose evidence. It should not declare success before evaluation.
The later-hours draft offers access for people finishing work after closing. Staffing costs are a real competing consideration. Saying critics dislike helpful change does not answer it. A costed coverage plan does, because it identifies additional hours, arrangements, and expense. Demand evidence supports the benefit but cannot alone establish staffing feasibility. Specifying continuation criteria before the trial makes both use and cost matter; approving expansion for any evening use would erase the stated tradeoff. The thesis and conclusion should reflect the conditional pilot.
The garden-path draft has another genuine tension: accessible width and limited planting space. A fair account explains that a smaller plot can reduce planting options without alleging hostility to visitors. Comparing measured widths alongside affected areas lets the committee evaluate both goals. Tradition can explain why the path is narrow, but it does not decide whether present needs are met. A sentence rejecting change on tradition alone undermines the proposed comparison. A balanced claim still commits to an accessible route rather than indefinitely subordinating access to existing choices.
For a new argument, distinguish acknowledgment from surrender and response from dismissal. Ask what evidence would address the objection itself, rather than merely repeat the original benefit. Check whether the conclusion preserves a meaningful goal and its implementation criteria. Respectful wording matters because it represents the competing position accurately, but a courteous sentence still needs relevant reasoning.
Apply the method to a complete new context
Read the whole passage before choosing an answer.
Draft: Sunday Afternoons on Elm Street
[1] The city should close two blocks of Elm Street to cars on Sunday afternoons this summer as a trial. [2] Families have asked for a safe place to walk and ride bicycles near the shops. [3] Some shop owners worry that customers who drive will go elsewhere if they cannot park near the stores. [4] (sentence to be added) [5] At the end of the summer, the council should review those results before deciding whether to continue.
Which sentence, added as sentence 4, best answers the shop owners' concern? A. Owners who object simply dislike change, so their worry should not delay the plan. B. During the trial, the city should track Sunday sales and the use of nearby parking. C. Many families have already said they would enjoy walking down the closed street. D. Customers who drive should be told to do their shopping on another day of the week.
The supported answer is B: During the trial, the city should track Sunday sales and the use of nearby parking. The owners' concern is lost sales from lost parking, and tracking sales and parking use collects evidence on exactly that, which sentence 5 then reviews. Choice C is courteous and true to the draft but only repeats the families' benefit without addressing the owners' objection.
A fair response to an objection proposes evidence or a safeguard that addresses that objection, not just the original benefit.