Success: replace emotionally forceful certainty with accurate, consequential language. (AC9E8LY03, AC9E8LA05)
- Contrast · 2 min. Read “Everyone cycles” and “In this rack sample, 16 of 20 reported cycling.” Ask which reaches further.
- Model · 4 min. Join a condition and main clause: “Although 16 of 20 respondents by the racks reported cycling, this location may overrepresent cyclists.” Label both clauses. Compare the embedded clause in “The rack sample, which was taken beside bicycles, may overrepresent cyclists”; it adds a source detail inside the main sentence.
- Guided consequences · 5 min. Ask who could be affected if a bus shelter were removed. Keep focus on the decision, not personal travel disclosures. Learners choose which of the two model sentences makes the sampling limit clearest.
- Independent revision · 7 min. Learners recast the post into a short cautious update with one complete complex sentence and one evidence question.
- Peer check · 4 min. Remove dependent clause: does the main clause still stand? Ask whether the wording acknowledges people not counted.
- Exit · 3 min. “Does the rack sample justify removing the shelter?” Key: no; it is not representative and does not establish needs or effects.