DO Read both fictional headlines with the same neutral voice.
WORK Think-pair-share: word and effect.
RECORD One exact word plus likely reader response.
FINISH Students name positioning in either direction.
CHECK Bias is not defined by whether the student agrees.
Rewrite one unbalanced letter to the editor as a balanced article.Rewrite one unfair letter as a fair article.
DO Distinguish a fair article from having no position.
WORK Complete orally: An editor must keep ___ but remove ___.
RECORD Audience and purpose.
FINISH Students name the job: rewrite one unbalanced letter as a balanced article.
CHECK Balanced does not mean changing sides or equally accepting every claim.
DO Establish the editor's briefing as the only shared fact base.
WORK Box exact proposal details.
RECORD Four details in the organiser.
FINISH Students can separate draft details from predicted outcomes.
CHECK All local details are fictional.
These words praise, shame, alarm or minimise before the reader has weighed the evidence.These words judge the plan before the facts are checked.
Council's disgraceful food-truck scheme would dump a miserable circus on our peaceful square. This reckless plan is a foolish insult to a beautiful public place. Decent people should reject this ugly experiment before it ruins Friday nights.
This reckless food-truck plan would dump a miserable circus on our peaceful square. It is a foolish, ugly idea. Reject it.
Notice: disgraceful, miserable circus, peaceful, reckless, foolish insult, beautiful, ugly, ruins. The letter judges; it does not prove.Notice: reckless, miserable circus, peaceful, foolish, ugly. The words judge.
These words speak for a whole group and shut out disagreement.These words speak for everyone.
Every resident of Seabreeze wants the trucks gone. Nobody in this town supports the trial. All families always use the square for quiet evenings. Anyone who disagrees is not a real local.
Every resident wants the trucks gone. Nobody supports the trial. All families always use the square. Anyone who disagrees is not a real local.
Notice: every, nobody, all, always, anyone. The writer claims to speak for the whole town.Notice: every, nobody, all, always, anyone. The writer speaks for everyone.
The writer claims to know why a person or group acts, but offers no evidence for that private reason.The writer guesses why people act, but does not prove it.
Councillors support the trucks because they want to look popular in photographs. Nearby shopkeepers oppose the trial because they are jealous of new vendors. Residents who ask about parking do it only to stop young people from having fun.
Councillors support the trucks because they want to look popular. Shopkeepers say no because they are jealous. People who mention parking only want to stop young people having fun.
Notice: because they want, because they are jealous, do it only to. The writer mind-reads.Notice: because they want, because they are jealous, only want to. The writer guesses why.
The wording can sound calm. Bias still appears when one side is shown and relevant detail is left out.The words can sound calm. Bias still appears when important details are left out.
A Friday food-truck trial would offer affordable meals and a place to meet after shops close. Different foods would give families a reason to visit the square. Council should approve the trial so the town can enjoy these benefits.
Food trucks would offer cheap meals and a place to meet. Families would enjoy the square. Council should approve the trial.
Notice what is missing: hours, vendor cap, waste stations, accessible path, parking, noise and the later review. The selected benefits may be true; the letter is still one-sided.Notice what is missing: hours, parking, waste, access and the review. The good points may be true, but other details are left out.
A prediction is treated as fact, or the reader is offered only two possibilities.A guess is treated as a fact, or only two choices are allowed.
The trucks will fill the square with noise. Parking will become impossible. Either council approves the full trial tonight or Seabreeze will stay a dead town forever. There is no other option.
The trucks will fill the square with noise. Either council approves the full trial tonight or Seabreeze will stay a dead town forever.
Notice: will, either...or, forever, no other option. A smaller trial, later hours or a review are shut out.Notice: will, either...or, forever. Other options are shut out.
DO Click each card to project a plain example letter. These models are not letters A-F.
WORK Students name the exact words doing the pulling.
RECORD Five labels and two effect explanations.
FINISH Students move beyond simply saying emotive.
CHECK Calm wording can still omit or overstate. Close the popup before moving on.
DO Read A and B from the Reading Pack.
WORK Annotate independently, then compare.
RECORD Three marks per letter plus one similarity.
FINISH Students identify equivalent techniques in opposing positions.
CHECK Do not reward position agreement as analysis.
DO Collect a mini-whiteboard response before clicking.
WORK Classify and justify using the exact clause.
RECORD Fingerprint plus explanation.
FINISH Students identify unverified motive.
CHECK First error prompts rereading; second reveals a targeted hint. Show Correct Answer is available.
DO Ask students to point to the exact judgement words.
WORK Decide, justify, then click.
RECORD One loaded word and its reader effect.
FINISH Students distinguish evaluation from a claim about motive.
CHECK First error prompts rereading; second reveals a precise hint.
DO Have students identify who the writer claims to represent.
WORK Compare “every” with a supported report such as “some residents”.
RECORD The generalising word and the effect on dissent.
FINISH Students separate a group claim from a prediction.
CHECK Ask whether the phrase gives evidence for “every”.
DO Ask: can the writer observe this motive, or only infer it?
WORK Replace the mind-reading with attribution: “The writer argues...”
RECORD The claimed motive and a fair reporting stem.
FINISH Students recognise mind-reading even when the sentence sounds plausible.
CHECK A possible motive is still unverified unless evidence is supplied.
DO Teach that omission can bias a sentence without an insult or prediction.
WORK Ask what a reader would still need to know.
RECORD One selected detail and one relevant missing detail.
FINISH Students explain selection as a persuasive choice.
CHECK Omission is about what is absent, not whether the included benefit is false.
DO Invite students to name a third option, such as a smaller or measured trial.
WORK Circle the certainty words and rewrite one with “may” or “could”.
RECORD One false choice and one qualifying word.
FINISH Students can challenge certainty without having to reject the writer's position.
CHECK A strong recommendation can remain after the prediction is qualified.
Foregrounds twelve unavailable spaces and predicts fewer customers. Omits the trial limit, accessible path, waste stations and review.
Foregrounds belonging and a youth-meeting anecdote. Uses vague "many families" and omits noise, access, waste and parking concerns.
DO Read C and D without signalling which is more biased.
WORK Mark foreground, omission and prediction.
RECORD One of each with exact wording.
FINISH Students explain subtle bias without relying on tone.
CHECK A real concern may still be presented one-sidedly.
DO Read E and F and identify the clear position in each.
WORK Annotate four balanced-language moves.
RECORD One phrase per move.
FINISH Students explain why fair representation can strengthen persuasion.
CHECK Balanced does not require supporting the original plan unchanged.
Marina Vale, Square resident
Seabreeze Square is about to be surrendered to a noisy food-truck circus. Reckless councillors appear more interested in colourful photographs than in the people who actually live here. Every resident knows that eight engines, queues and music will destroy the quiet of Friday evenings.
The council calls this a six-week trial, but we all know what that means: once the trucks invade, they will never leave. Parking will become impossible, rubbish will tumble through the streets and local cafes will be abandoned. Nobody asked ordinary residents whether we wanted our square turned into a dining yard.
Council must reject this foolish scheme before permanent damage is done. Either it protects the square now or admits that visitors matter more than residents.
The council wants to hand our square to a noisy food-truck circus. Every resident knows the trucks will ruin Friday nights. The council must stop this foolish plan.
Theo Grant, hospitality student
At last, somebody has offered to rescue our lifeless town centre. Food trucks will fill Seabreeze Square with colour, flavour and laughter. Only the usual whining few could oppose an idea this brilliant.
Everyone knows the square is completely empty on Friday nights. The trial will bring families together, save struggling businesses and give young people a reason to stay in town. Critics complain about parking because they fear any change they did not invent themselves.
There are only two choices: support the trucks or accept a dead town centre. Council should ignore the selfish complainers and approve the full trial immediately.
Food trucks will rescue our lifeless town. Only selfish complainers could dislike this brilliant idea. The council must approve it now.
Ravi Singh, nearby resident
The proposed food-truck trial should not proceed at Seabreeze Square until council solves the parking problem. On each trial evening, twelve spaces beside the square would be unavailable for ordinary vehicles. Those spaces are used by residents and customers of nearby shops.
Removing them will push cars into surrounding streets and make access difficult. The result will be inconvenience for residents and fewer customers for existing businesses. Council should choose another location before approving the trial.
A lively evening program may be worthwhile, but parking must come first.
The trial should not go ahead until parking is solved. Twelve spaces would be lost. Cars will fill nearby streets and shops will lose customers. Parking must come first.
Lena Cho, youth committee member
Seabreeze needs more places where young people and families can spend time together. A Friday food-truck trial would give the square a welcoming purpose after many shops close for the day. At our youth committee meeting, several students said they would attend with friends or family.
The proposal offers different foods and a reason to meet in a public place. Events like this create connection, support new vendors and help young people feel that the town includes them. Many families will enjoy an affordable evening close to home.
Council should approve the trial and show that young residents' ideas matter.
Young people and families need a place to meet. Food trucks would give the square a welcoming purpose after shops close. Many families will enjoy a cheap night out. Council should approve the trial.
Mara Ellis, community volunteer
The food-truck proposal could bring new activity to Seabreeze Square, but nearby residents are reasonable to ask about noise, parking and waste. The draft is a six-Friday trial from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm, not a permanent program, and it caps attendance at eight vendors.
Council should proceed only with the stated accessible path and waste stations in place. During the trial it should record complaints, litter, attendance, parking pressure and feedback from nearby businesses. These measures will not tell us whether every person likes the event, but they will provide better local evidence than confident predictions from either side.
I support the trial because it is limited and reviewable. If the evidence shows unacceptable problems, council should change the hours, reduce vendor numbers or choose another location.
Food trucks could bring people to the square. Residents may also worry about noise, parking and rubbish. Council should try the six nights, count problems and change the plan if needed.
Owen Park, access advocate
Supporters are right that a shared evening event may help people gather, while residents are right that a public square must remain accessible and manageable. The current proposal includes an accessible path and a later review, but it does not yet explain how the path will be monitored when queues form.
Council should begin with four trucks on the first two Fridays, mark the accessible route clearly and station a marshal at the busiest crossing. It should then publish what it observed before increasing the number of vendors. This smaller start would not remove every risk, but it would test the idea without pretending that support or concern is unreasonable.
A careful trial can welcome new activity and protect ordinary use of the square.
People may enjoy a shared event, but the square must stay easy to use. Council should start with four trucks, keep the path clear and check what happens before adding more.
DO Clarify that the displayed order is a starting provocation, not the answer. Click a card to project the letter. Drag to test a class placement.
WORK Place independently in the organiser, then compare and drag the shared order.
RECORD Six placements and two justifications.
FINISH Justifications use published criteria.
CHECK Accept defensible changes to the middle order. Show Correct Answer restores A-F as the starting order. Close the popup before moving on.
DO Require individual selection and a spoken criterion before clicking.
WORK Choose and justify.
RECORD One trust criterion.
FINISH Evidence boundary, attribution or fair concession is named.
CHECK First error prompts criteria; second reveals a hint. Show Correct Answer is available.
Fact, attribution, effect, omission or fair rewrite?Fact, whose view, pull, missing fact or fair sentence?
DO Read the full model, then reveal one decision at a time.
WORK Students name the job before reveal.
RECORD Star one model sentence to imitate.
FINISH Students can explain how attribution preserves accuracy.
CHECK Show Correct Answer reveals all lines; state survives language switching.
DO Start the timer. Students choose one unbalanced letter: A, B, C or D. Green: A or B.
WORK Independent writing, typing, dictation or scribing according to adjustments.
RECORD A balanced article rewritten from one biased letter to the editor.
FINISH Red: 8-10 sentences; green: 5-7. Viewpoint kept; unfair pull removed; a clear action remains.
CHECK Balanced does not mean swapping sides. E and F are models, not source letters.
DO Model feedback that diagnoses without supplying the rewrite.
WORK Partner diagnosis, individual revision, independent exit.
RECORD One visible change and one exit principle.
FINISH Revision preserves the viewpoint while removing distortion.
CHECK Group next teaching by word-effect weakness, omission blindness or attribution errors.
Select a slide to see accompanying pedagogical notes and teaching tips.