Letter to the Young Post — Protect Our Children and Monitor Their Mobile Phones
Question prompt — Q4 Learning English through Debating
It has recently been reported that some parents in Asian countries are installing apps on their children’s mobile phones that monitor their activities to ensure that they use these devices responsibly.
Write a letter to the Young Post stating whether you agree with these parents’ actions or not. Justify your position with three reasons.
(~400 words)
Show original handwritten pages (5)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear |
dashed grey box = clause crossed out by the candidate during the exam
Booklet p.8 (lines 1–14) — address, title, opening
1Flat H, 25/F,
2Hung Wah Building,
3Kwun Tong,
4Kowloon
58th April, 2016
6
7The Editor
8Young Post
9Sing Tao Building,
10Kwun Tong,
11Kowloon
12
13Dear Editor,
14Protect Our Children and Monitor Their Mobile Phones
Booklet p.8 cont. (lines 15–23) — thesis
15Three These days, whether the mobile phones of children shall
16be monitored by installing application applications to ensure that children use
17their mobile phones responsibly, has have triggered off vigorous
18controversies in Asian regions. While some content contend that it is
19too strict for parents to monitor activities of children as such
20action can bring more benefits to the inverts and that such monitoring undermines trust,
21I am of the chose view that installing apps on children’s mobile phones
22shall be encouraged. From my point of view, the word
23‘responsibility’ is about as about how the situation that children follow
Booklet p.9 (lines 24–46) — reason 1: responsibility & physical health
24what their parents require them, including the love way of being using
25the public way of using mobile phones effectively. The
26introduction of apps on applications of children, are widely used
27should be monitored by installing apps on their mobile phones.
28
29First, monitoring is necessary to save children from
30protect children against physical harm. failure. These people devices, if used
31too much, may not allow children to be less energetic if
32they get less sleep due to staying glued to electronic devices.
33As for young children, especially those between 5 to 12, they
34may have self-control or discipline as they are immature.
35Their addiction attention may be strayed drawn to the entertainment and
36colourful visual effects in their screen and may be subtitled.
37Now that children may not be able to regulate themselves
38to manipulate their mobile phones in a reasonable time,
39parents shall should bear the brunt of supervising their
40activities. On the condition that children use their
41mobile phones for a long period of time, parents ought
42to remind them the of the importance of rest and accomplishing their
43studies. In such ways, the unwanted demerits of overusing
44mobile phones can be avoided.
45
46With regard to the function children use for entertainment,
Booklet p.10 (lines 47–69) — reason 2: addiction, peer pressure
47parents in Asia, in which it is normal for many people to
48be falling into traps of their children, on the virtual world.
49Numerous cases are told that children are involved in online
50gambling, browsing sites which contain wicked elements or
51cursing and current society might steam users, casting on their
52immature mind. Mobile phones provide easy access for
53children to commit such elements as long as they falsely
54‘claim’ that they are over 18. It is catastrophic as
55such moderate may attract children to follow, which
56will alter their immature mind. Thus, it is crystal clear
57that parents clearly have the an obligation to install
58applications on children’s mobile phones to track their
59‘browse history’ and ‘download record’. Should the children contact
60such inappropriate websites, the parents can act as the
61first line of defence at guiding them to good routes.
62Further and even more importantly, though, that
63young children might easily treat others with no resistance
64which and is inhibitably i.e. inevitably voracious. In recent years, social networking
65sites and instant messaging programmes are prevalent. While
66some assert that it is beneficial for expanding people’s peer
67network, what the public cannot ignore is that the risk
68of immoral individuals may take the chance to lure innocent
69children and young adolescents to perform illegal acts or other
Booklet p.11 (lines 70–91) — reason 3: online dangers
70behaviours which will pose devastating effect effects on themselves.
71If the way of how children communicate with friends and
72the background of friends are not carefully supervised, it
73may give rise to a host of problems including Internet
74fraud, stealing of personal privacy and impersonated dating, which
75all rely on the Internet to undergo transactions. Kids are
76supposed to be responsible netizens who had better stay
77away from these online traps. Nevertheless, children’s
78lack of experience might hinder them from justifying right
79from wrong, and may fall into the traps of immoral criminals
80accidentally. If possible, it is sincerely hoped that parents
81should carry out their responsibilities as supervisors and
82command guide the children to stop communicating with illegal
83behaviours by some individuals and preventing them from
84going astray, once the parents discover anomalies in the
85‘friends’ of children. It is sincerely hoped that children
86can become netizens which act responsibly with the
87reminders from parents.
88
89Although some may adhere to the principle that
90children shall be granted the freedom, especially when they grow
91older and develop into mature individuals. It is of paramount
Supp. sheet S1 (lines 92–113) — opposition rebuttal & close
92importance for them to face obstacles themselves and learn from
93failure. These people may, after a long list of sound evidence
94sustaining their perspectives negative effects and vision. However, if we digest
95look at the statement and chew the cud think it over, any clear-minded person
96can point out that young children should be protected
97by parents as in the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’, a role and is
98widely accepted in society. Freedom may be vital for
99mature adolescents, but not for young children, whose safety
100and correct attitude are is of paramount importance at this stage.
101By and large, that the given the activities of parents in Asian countries who install
102apps monitoring apps on children’s mobile devices to supervise their activities to
103make sure that they use such devices responsibly brings more
104benefits than demerits. benefit than detriment. The problems brought by the Internet monitoring
105are neither formidable nor not insurmountable. Parents clearly
106have the obligation to monitor the activities of
107children and preventing them from going astray. Righteous
108individuals armed with a positive outlook on life can be nurtured by the
109efforts of parents in eliminating the evils and obstacles children
110may face as they grow up.
111
112Yours faithfully,
113Chris Wong
A transcription warning before reading on. The handwriting in this script is dense, the layout runs without paragraph breaks for long stretches, and several sentences collapse syntactically mid-clause. The corrected transcription above stitches the candidate’s clear paragraphs and intent together; the middle sections (running across pages 28–30) are reproduced here in summary rather than verbatim because individual sentences would not parse word-for-word. The argument can be reconstructed; the surface cannot always be. The marks (^16 + ^17 = 33) reflect exactly this: strong argumentative substance, surface execution intermittently fails.
The candidate’s position. The candidate supports the parents’ actions. The title Protect Our Children and Monitor Their Mobile Phones reads almost as a campaign slogan — the title itself is the thesis. Across the body the candidate offers three lines of justification: (1) responsibility-formation & physical-health protection (eyesight, sleep); (2) avoidance of mobile addiction and peer-pressure effects; (3) protection from online dangers (immoral individuals, the lure of illegal acts, loss of personal privacy, unsupervised exposure).
Word count. Roughly 620 words across the main booklet plus supplementary sheet S1 — about 55% over the 400-word brief. Unlike the Part A in the same script, the over-shoot here costs the candidate marks: the second-half thirds of paragraphs 2 and 3 carry the most syntactic collapse, and tightening would have rescued them.
Why this isn’t a 5**. The closest-pair-adjusted marks of 16 + 17 sit at the top of the 5* band, just below the 5** floor (~38). The argumentative substance — three-pronged thesis, opposition acknowledged, conclusion that loops back to the title — is at the 5** level. What docks the piece is sentence-level: at least four sentences run on for 60+ words without a finite verb stabilising them; several collocations are off (save children from failure, chew the cud, the inverts); and the closing paragraph ends with neither formidable nor insurmountable, which is logically inverted (the right reading is not insurmountable; neither…nor… with both adjectives positive collapses the contrast).
How this compares with candidate 2016-002’s Part B. Both candidates earn 5* on Part B in 2016. Candidate 2016-002 wrote on a different prompt; the structural backbone is similar (three reasons, opposition steel-man, looping close). The distinguishing feature of 2016-003’s Part B is the title — using the headline of the letter itself as the rhetorical thesis is a move neither 2016-001 nor 2016-002 makes.
Persona. The candidate signs Chris Wong — consistent with the Part A persona. The return address is the candidate’s residential block in Kwun Tong; the editor’s address is a plausible Sing Tao Building. The opening date 8th April 2016 is exactly the date of the 2016 DSE Paper 2 examination.
The candidate’s position. The candidate supports the parents’ actions. The title Protect Our Children and Monitor Their Mobile Phones reads almost as a campaign slogan — the title itself is the thesis. Across the body the candidate offers three lines of justification: (1) responsibility-formation & physical-health protection (eyesight, sleep); (2) avoidance of mobile addiction and peer-pressure effects; (3) protection from online dangers (immoral individuals, the lure of illegal acts, loss of personal privacy, unsupervised exposure).
Word count. Roughly 620 words across the main booklet plus supplementary sheet S1 — about 55% over the 400-word brief. Unlike the Part A in the same script, the over-shoot here costs the candidate marks: the second-half thirds of paragraphs 2 and 3 carry the most syntactic collapse, and tightening would have rescued them.
Why this isn’t a 5**. The closest-pair-adjusted marks of 16 + 17 sit at the top of the 5* band, just below the 5** floor (~38). The argumentative substance — three-pronged thesis, opposition acknowledged, conclusion that loops back to the title — is at the 5** level. What docks the piece is sentence-level: at least four sentences run on for 60+ words without a finite verb stabilising them; several collocations are off (save children from failure, chew the cud, the inverts); and the closing paragraph ends with neither formidable nor insurmountable, which is logically inverted (the right reading is not insurmountable; neither…nor… with both adjectives positive collapses the contrast).
How this compares with candidate 2016-002’s Part B. Both candidates earn 5* on Part B in 2016. Candidate 2016-002 wrote on a different prompt; the structural backbone is similar (three reasons, opposition steel-man, looping close). The distinguishing feature of 2016-003’s Part B is the title — using the headline of the letter itself as the rhetorical thesis is a move neither 2016-001 nor 2016-002 makes.
Persona. The candidate signs Chris Wong — consistent with the Part A persona. The return address is the candidate’s residential block in Kwun Tong; the editor’s address is a plausible Sing Tao Building. The opening date 8th April 2016 is exactly the date of the 2016 DSE Paper 2 examination.
Strengths to praise
1. The title is the thesis
“Protect Our Children and Monitor Their Mobile Phones” — the title couples the means (monitor their phones) to the end (protect our children) with a coordinating conjunction. The reader knows the candidate’s position before reading the first sentence, and the title is itself a memorable seven-word slogan. No other 2016 Part B script in the collection uses the letter title this aggressively.
2. Three substantive reasons, each independent
Reason 1 (responsibility / physical health), reason 2 (addiction / peer pressure), reason 3 (online dangers / privacy / lure of immoral individuals). The prompt asked for three reasons; the candidate produces three, each in its own paragraph, none repeating the other. The structural compliance with the brief is exact.
3. The framing of parents as ‘guardian / supervisor’
“Young children should be protected by parents as the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’, and is widely accepted in society. Freedom may be vital for mature adolescents, but not for young children.” The candidate names the parents’ role with two clean noun phrases (guardian, supervisor), then uses the maturity distinction (young children vs mature adolescents) to head off the obvious counter-argument about teen autonomy.
4. The opposition is acknowledged at the top
“While some contend that it is too strict for parents to monitor activities of children … , I am of the view that installing apps on children’s mobile phones shall be encouraged.” Stating the opposition’s position in the same sentence as one’s own thesis is a debate-grade rhetorical move. The candidate doesn’t wait until the rebuttal paragraph to acknowledge the other side.
5. The conclusion loops back to the title
The closing paragraph ends with “Righteous individuals armed with a positive outlook on life can be nurtured by the efforts of parents in eliminating the evils and obstacles children may face as they grow up.” The phrase eliminating the evils and obstacles children may face echoes the title’s Protect Our Children. Title and close are bound together — closed-loop composition.
6. Letter-form conventions executed in full
Return address (writer’s home), date, recipient address (editor with publication name), Dear Editor, centred headline, body, Yours faithfully, signature. None of these are missing. The Young Post genre is a published-letter genre, and the candidate has produced a publishable shell.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
Three days, whether the mobile phones … has triggered off → These days, whether the mobile phones … have triggered off |
Two slips. Three for These — near-homophone error. And the subject of has triggered is the embedded clause (or the implicit plural the questions); plural have is the safer agreement here. |
While some content that… → While some contend that… |
Content (adj. = satisfied) for contend (v. = assert in argument). A homophone-class slip; the meaning the candidate wants is contend. |
I show that … shall be encouraged → I am of the view that … should be encouraged |
The candidate writes I show, which has the meaning I demonstrate — too strong for a thesis statement. I am of the view that… is the conventional letter-to-editor opener. Also: shall be encouraged reads as legislative; should be encouraged is the right modal in opinion writing. |
installing application to ensure → installing applications to ensure |
The plural applications is needed because each child’s phone has its own installation. |
save children from failure → protect children against physical harm |
Save from failure is a translation of a Chinese phrase; in English, failure means academic / business failure, not physical harm. The candidate means protect from physical or moral harm; rewrite accordingly. |
chew the cud → think it over / look at it carefully |
Chew the cud is a literal idiom from livestock farming meaning to think slowly. In an opinion letter to a teen newspaper it is a register mismatch. Think it over or look at it carefully is what the candidate intends. |
as the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’, and is widely accepted → in the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’ — a role widely accepted in society |
Two fixes: in the role of (preposition: in, not as) and a free-standing predicate (and is widely accepted) that has no subject. The corrected version names a role as the implicit subject of the second clause. |
neither formidable nor insurmountable → not insurmountable |
The closing sentence intends to say the problems can be overcome. Neither formidable nor insurmountable says neither hard nor impossible — logically the candidate wants the problems to be formidable but not insurmountable (= challenging but solvable). The single word not insurmountable says it cleanly. |
Righteous individuals armed with positive outlook on life → Righteous individuals armed with a positive outlook on life |
Outlook in this sense is countable and takes the article a: a positive outlook on life, a negative outlook. |
trigger off → trigger |
The verb trigger is transitive on its own — the particle off is redundant. Compare set off (which does take the particle). |
the inverts (page 27) → candidate’s intent unclear — probably the introverts or the youngsters |
An unclear noun on page 27. From context, the candidate seems to be referring to children or to the introverted side of children’s online behaviour. Either reading is a stretch; the sentence works better without the noun (and such monitoring brings more benefits than drawbacks). |
going astray — correct usage |
One to keep. Go astray meaning ‘take a wrong turn morally or behaviourally’ pairs well with children and with the guardianship argument the candidate is making. Standard idiom, used correctly. |
vigorous controversies → vigorous debate |
Controversies is plural where the candidate means a single ongoing debate. Vigorous debate in the singular is the more natural collocation. |
at this stage — correct usage |
One to keep. At this stage for ‘at this point in life / development’ is the right preposition (not in this stage). |
Style suggestions (where the 5* could become 5**)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow, collocations, rhythm.
Authenticity places that sound student-y or translated; how a native voice would say it.
Text-type fit matching the conventions of the genre — here, a Young Post opinion letter.
Suggestion 1 · break the first paragraph into short, declarative sentences
Fluency
Original: the opening paragraph runs to roughly 110 words in a single sustained sentence-cluster, with the thesis statement (I am of the view that…) embedded mid-paragraph.
Try: “Should parents install monitoring apps on their children’s mobile phones? In recent weeks the question has triggered vigorous debate across Asia. Some hold that such monitoring is too strict; I disagree. Children’s phones should be monitored — for three reasons.”
A Young Post letter is published with a teen audience in mind. The four short sentences in the rewrite each carry one job: question, context, opposition acknowledged, thesis-plus-roadmap. The original’s 110-word sentence-cluster does all four jobs at once, which is what loses the marker’s tracking.
Suggestion 2 · the ‘guardian / supervisor’ line is the strongest line; promote it
Text-type fit
Original: “…young children should be protected by parents as the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’, and is widely accepted in society. Freedom may be vital for mature adolescents, but not for young children…”
Try (open the second paragraph with it): “Parenting is, at root, the work of a guardian. The role is widely accepted by society for one reason: young children are not yet ready for the freedoms that mature adolescents claim. Monitoring apps simply give this role a modern tool.”
The candidate’s strongest argumentative move is buried in the middle of paragraph 2. Lifting it to the topic sentence of paragraph 2 lets it organise the rest of the argument; the marker reads the paragraph forward instead of having to dig.
Suggestion 3 · the ‘immoral individuals’ danger argument needs a concrete example
Text-type fit
Original: “…the public cannot ignore is that the risk of immoral individuals may take the chance to lure innocent children and young adolescents to perform illegal acts or other behaviours…”
Try: “Last year’s Hong Kong Police Force statistics recorded 47 cases of teenagers groomed for sexual or criminal exploitation by strangers met through mobile chat apps. None of those cases would have been detected by parents who did not monitor.”
The candidate’s argument about ‘immoral individuals’ is plausible but unanchored. A statistic (real or illustrative) anchors the danger to data the reader can verify; the second sentence closes the loop by showing why monitoring specifically would have helped.
Suggestion 4 · replace the ‘chew the cud’ idiom
Authenticity
Original: “…if we digest the statement and chew the cud, any clear-minded person can point out…”
Try: “…but on closer reading, any clear-minded person would point out…”
The original chains two consumption idioms (digest, chew the cud) that don’t pair in modern English. On closer reading is the natural register-fit replacement for both.
Suggestion 5 · the closing logical slip needs fixing
Fluency
Original: “The problems brought by the Internet are neither formidable nor insurmountable.”
Try: “The problems are real, but they are not insurmountable — provided parents act.”
The candidate’s neither formidable nor insurmountable denies both adjectives, which logically means the problems are neither hard nor impossible. The candidate intends the opposite: the problems are hard but can be overcome. The rewrite uses the correct concessive structure.
Suggestion 6 · the Young Post letter convention: a one-line tag at the foot
Text-type fit
Original: signs off with Yours faithfully, Chris Wong.
Try: “Yours faithfully,
Chris Wong
Form 6 student, Kwun Tong”
Chris Wong
Form 6 student, Kwun Tong”
Published Young Post letters typically include a one-line identifier after the signature (Form X student, district / school). The candidate already has the right address; appending the school-stage line aligns the sign-off with the convention.
Suggestion 7 · the three reasons could be numbered for the teen reader
Text-type fit
Original: the three reasons are signalled by transitional phrases (First, In such ways, Some assert that…) that don’t form a parallel set.
Try: First, Second, Third. Or, more rhetorically, The first reason is… The second is… The third — and the most urgent — is…
Reader-friendliness is a Young Post-genre virtue. Numbered reasons let a 14-year-old reader skim the letter and still see the structure. The candidate’s transitions are competent but don’t form a parallel set; numbering would.
Suggestion 8 · compress toward 400 words
Text-type fit
Original: ~620 words.
Aim: ~50 words opening + 3 × ~90 words for reasons + ~50 words opposition + ~30 words close = ~400.
The over-shoot is in the second halves of paragraphs 2 and 3, which is where sentence-collapse happens. A tighter draft would force the candidate to make hard cuts; in this case the cuts are the very sentences the marker had to work hardest to follow.
Professional rewrite — the opening & reason 1 (the weak moments to model)
For comparison only, not a correction. The candidate’s opening and first reason carry the most syntactic collapse — not because the thinking is unclear, but because the sentences run on. The rewrite shows the same argument in roughly 65% of the words, with the same three rhetorical moves (thesis, opposition, first reason).
The candidate’s opening + reason 1 (corrected, abbreviated)
These days, whether the mobile phones of children shall be monitored by installing applications to ensure that children use their mobile phones responsibly have triggered vigorous controversies in Asian regions. While some contend that it is too strict for parents to monitor activities of children and that such monitoring undermines trust, I am of the view that installing apps on children’s mobile phones should be encouraged. First, monitoring is necessary to protect children against physical harm. Mobile phones, if used after a long list of evidence sustaining their negative effects, harm their eyesight and vision. However, if we look at the statement and think it over, any clear-minded person can point out that young children should be protected by parents in the role of ‘guardian’ or ‘supervisor’ — a role widely accepted in society. Freedom may be vital for mature adolescents, but not for young children, as their safety and correct attitude are of paramount importance at this stage.
Rewritten by a professional Young Post letter-writer
Across Asia, parents are quietly installing monitoring apps on their children’s phones. The debate that followed has been noisy and one-sided: critics call the practice intrusive; few have asked what it is actually for. I would like to make the case for what it is for.
The first reason is the simplest. Young children are not yet ready for the freedom an unmonitored phone gives them. A 9-year-old left alone with TikTok at 1 am is not exercising autonomy; she is being kept awake by an algorithm built by adults. Parents have always played the role of guardian — the dictionary’s definition has not changed because the threat has moved from the street to the screen. Monitoring apps simply give the guardian a modern tool. They do not replace trust; they make sure the child is alive and rested enough to be trusted tomorrow.
The first reason is the simplest. Young children are not yet ready for the freedom an unmonitored phone gives them. A 9-year-old left alone with TikTok at 1 am is not exercising autonomy; she is being kept awake by an algorithm built by adults. Parents have always played the role of guardian — the dictionary’s definition has not changed because the threat has moved from the street to the screen. Monitoring apps simply give the guardian a modern tool. They do not replace trust; they make sure the child is alive and rested enough to be trusted tomorrow.
What the rewrite is doing differently (text-type fit + authenticity):
- The opening is four short sentences, each with one job. Setup → observation → counter-observation → thesis. The candidate’s opening tries to do all four in one sentence-cluster.
- The first reason gets a concrete child. A 9-year-old left alone with TikTok at 1 am — one image that the reader can picture, instead of an abstract claim about negative effects on eyesight.
- The ‘guardian’ line gets a metaphor. The dictionary’s definition has not changed because the threat has moved from the street to the screen. The candidate’s guardian / supervisor framing is preserved but extended into the digital era, which is the actual subject of the letter.
- The closing of the paragraph addresses the trust objection directly. They do not replace trust; they make sure the child is alive and rested enough to be trusted tomorrow. The candidate’s piece carries the same idea (monitoring helps build responsibility) but never says it this directly.
- Word count. The rewrite is ~180 words versus the candidate’s ~220 for the same content — about 80% as long. Multiplied across all three reasons + opposition + close, this is roughly how to get from ~620 words to ~400.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word / phrase | Definition | Usage notes | Synonyms / alternatives |
|---|---|---|---|
| contend (that) | (v.) to assert or maintain in argument. | Followed by a that-clause. Distinct from content (adj. = satisfied). Pairs with some contend, critics contend, the author contends. | argue, claim, maintain, assert |
| vigorous (debate) | (adj.) strong, energetic, and active. | Common with debate, discussion, opposition, defence, exercise. Slightly more formal than lively. | energetic, robust, lively, spirited |
| trigger | (v.) to cause to happen suddenly. | Transitive on its own — no particle. Trigger off is unnecessary; set off is the comparable form that does take a particle. | cause, prompt, set off, spark |
| controversy | (n.) prolonged public disagreement. | Often singular when referring to one issue (a controversy); plural when listing separate disputes (two recent controversies). The candidate’s vigorous controversies reads as singular meaning. | dispute, debate, argument, disagreement |
| monitor | (v.) to observe and check the progress of over time. | Common in technology and parenting contexts: monitor activities, monitor traffic, monitor health. The activity is ongoing, not one-off. | observe, supervise, oversee, keep watch on |
| supervise | (v.) to observe and direct the execution of something. | Stronger than monitor — implies authority. Pairs with children, students, project, staff. | oversee, direct, manage, control |
| guardian | (n.) a person responsible for the care of someone unable to care for themselves; a defender or protector. | Legal sense (parent/legal carer) and figurative sense (protector). The candidate uses both senses interchangeably, which is appropriate here. | protector, custodian, caretaker, keeper |
| paramount | (adj.) more important than anything else; supreme. | Common in of paramount importance, paramount concern, paramount duty. Formal register. | supreme, foremost, chief, greatest |
| go astray | (idiom) to become lost; to take a wrong moral or behavioural path. | Often used of children or weaker individuals being misled. Pairs with prevent from going astray, leading astray, gone astray. | be led astray, take a wrong turn, fall into bad ways |
| nurture | (v.) to care for and encourage the growth or development of. | Used with abstract goods: nurture talent, nurture confidence, nurture values, nurture relationships. | cultivate, foster, develop, encourage |
| righteous | (adj.) morally right or justifiable. | Slightly old-fashioned but still in use. Common in moral / religious discourse. Compare self-righteous (pejorative). | upright, virtuous, moral, principled |
| outlook (on life) | (n.) one’s general attitude or point of view. | Countable; takes article a in this sense: a positive outlook on life, an optimistic outlook. Different from outlook = future prospects (the economy’s outlook). | attitude, perspective, view, mindset |
| demerit | (n.) a fault or disadvantage of a person or thing. | Pairs as opposite of merit: weighing the merits and demerits. Also a school-discipline term (a demerit point). | drawback, disadvantage, fault, shortcoming |
| formidable | (adj.) inspiring fear or respect through being impressively powerful or difficult. | Used both positively (a formidable opponent) and negatively (a formidable obstacle). The candidate uses it in the obstacle sense. | daunting, intimidating, awe-inspiring, fearsome |
| insurmountable | (adj.) too great to be overcome. | Pairs with obstacle, problem, barrier, difficulty. Often used in the negative: not insurmountable = solvable. | insuperable, unconquerable, impossible to overcome |
| advocate (for) | (v.) to publicly recommend or support. | Direct object (advocate change) or for (advocate for change). Both are now accepted. | support, champion, promote, endorse |
| irrefutably | (adv.) in a manner that cannot be denied or disproved. | Adjective: irrefutable. Pairs with evidence, proof, conclusion. Formal. | undeniably, indisputably, conclusively, beyond doubt |
Leave a Reply