Joy English · Level C2 · Argumentative essaysjoy-english.com
A discursive essay on efficiency and public life
Name:Date:
Build a balanced, hedged argument in a discursive essay: concede, qualify and conclude with a measured judgement.
Efficiency and the quiet erosion of public life
It is a commonplace of contemporary life that time saved is time gained. Yet the relentless pursuit of efficiency, so often presented as an unqualified good, may be quietly eroding the unplanned encounters on which a healthy public life depends.
The case for efficiency is, admittedly, not easily dismissed. Automated ticket machines, self-service checkouts and online appointment systems spare us queues and paperwork, and the hours they release can be spent on pursuits we value more highly. Nor should we romanticise inefficiency: a slow bureaucracy has seldom enriched anyone's existence, least of all those with the least time to spare.
Nevertheless, what is gained in speed is frequently lost in incidental contact. The conversation with a pharmacist, the passing remark of a neighbour in a queue, the shared grumble about a delayed train: none of these appears on any balance sheet, yet together they weave the loose fabric of trust that binds strangers. Remove the occasions for such exchanges and one is left with a society that functions smoothly but knows itself less well.
It would be mistaken, however, to conclude that technology is the culprit. The fault lies less in the machines than in the assumption that every transaction is merely a means to an end, to be completed at the lowest possible cost in minutes. Where institutions deliberately preserve a human option, as some libraries and post offices have done, people appear to value the choice even when they seldom exercise it. That reluctance to see the option disappear suggests that we sense, if only dimly, what is at stake.
On balance, then, efficiency deserves to be treated as a servant rather than a master. Planners and employers would do well to ask not only how quickly a process can be completed but also what, if anything, will be lost along the way. A public life stripped of friction may prove, paradoxically, a good deal poorer for it.
Stance, hedging and register
Choose the option that is best in a formal discursive essay.
- Which sentence hedges most appropriately?
- ___ its undeniable convenience, the system carries costs that are easily overlooked.
- Which linker signals that the writer is about to qualify their own argument?
- Which is the most suitable way to open a final paragraph?
- Which sentence is the most appropriately impersonal and cautious?
- Efficiency, ___ valuable it may be, should not be pursued at any cost.
- Which sentence rejects an opposing view without overstating?
Complete the essay language
Type one word, or the form in brackets, to complete each sentence.
- The case for efficiency is, ___, not easily dismissed. (a concession adverb)
- None of these appears on any balance sheet, ___ together they weave the loose fabric of trust.
- Planners would do well ___ ask what will be lost along the way.
- The fault lies less in the machines ___ in the assumption behind them.
- It would be mistaken, ___, to conclude that technology is the culprit. (a contrast word)
- Remove those occasions and one is left ___ a society that functions smoothly.
- A public life stripped ___ friction may prove a good deal poorer.
Writing task
Some people argue that cities should be redesigned entirely around convenience and speed. Write a discursive essay on the extent to which you agree. Concede at least one point to the opposing view, use hedging, and finish with a measured judgement.
280–340 words
Check your writing
- I opened with an idea worth questioning, not a statement of the topic.
- I conceded a reasonable point before qualifying it.
- I used hedging (may, appears to, it could be argued) rather than absolute claims.
- Each paragraph has one main idea and links logically to the next.
- My register is formal and impersonal, with no contractions.
- My conclusion offers a measured judgement and does not simply repeat the introduction.
Answer key
Stance, hedging and register
- b) Efficiency may well be eroding public life to some extent.May well and to some extent keep the claim proportionate. The others are absolute and overstate the case.
- a) NotwithstandingNotwithstanding means in spite of and is followed by a noun phrase. Albeit needs an adjective or phrase, whereas needs a clause, and lest introduces a feared outcome.
- b) That said,That said introduces a qualification. Likewise adds a similar point, consequently gives a result and incidentally is a side remark.
- b) On balance, then,On balance, then, is a formal way of weighing the argument. The others are informal or chatty.
- c) It could be argued that the benefits are overstated.It could be argued that is impersonal and cautious. The others are personal or colloquial.
- a) howeverHowever + adjective + subject + may be means no matter how valuable. Although and despite do not take this structure, and whatever cannot precede an adjective here.
- c) Such a view is hard to sustain.Hard to sustain is firm but measured. The others are insulting or dismissive.
Complete the essay language
- admittedly / undeniably / undoubtedly / certainly / grantedAdmittedly (and similar adverbs) concede a point before the writer qualifies it.
- yet / but / and yet / though / althoughYet (or but, though) marks a contrast between the two parts of the sentence.
- toWould do well is followed by the to-infinitive.
- thanLess ... than is the comparative structure for redirecting emphasis.
- however / nevertheless / nonetheless / thoughA contrast adverb such as however introduces the qualification.
- withTo be left with means to remain with something after losing the rest.
- ofStrip something of something is the fixed pattern.
Model answer
Few would deny that a city in which every journey is swift and every service immediate has its attractions. Yet a city designed solely for convenience may turn out to be one that nobody much wants to linger in.
The argument in favour of speed is a serious one. Congestion costs time and health, and those who depend on public transport are the first to suffer when it fails. Wide, fast routes and well-timed connections can therefore be defended as a form of fairness as much as of comfort, and it would be perverse to romanticise the delays that the poorest commuters endure.
Even so, convenience is a narrow measure of what a city is for. Streets built to move people as quickly as possible tend to treat them as freight, to be delivered rather than to be met. The pavement café, the market stall and the bench beside a fountain all slow the pedestrian down, and it is precisely this slowness that gives a neighbourhood its character. Where such features have been removed in the name of flow, residents often report that the place has become easier to cross but harder to belong to.
There is, moreover, a practical objection. A city that is optimised for one purpose is seldom robust. Roads widened for peak traffic invite more vehicles; the extra capacity is absorbed within a few years, and the congestion returns, now accompanied by noise and pollution. Planners who pursue speed alone may thus end up with neither speed nor pleasure.
The sensible course lies between the extremes. Rapid, reliable transport for those who need it should coexist with streets that reward the unhurried, and decisions about each should be tested against a broader question: not merely how quickly can people move, but what kind of life does the movement serve? A city that can answer that question has little to fear from the stopwatch.