Letter to the Young Post — In Favour of Parental Monitoring Apps
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 devote these devices to learning.
Write a letter to the Young Post stating whether you agree with these parents’ actions or not. Justify your position with three reasons.
About 400 words. Pages 8–11 of the booklet. The candidate has argued IN FAVOUR of the parents’ actions.
Show original handwritten pages (5)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear — reading reconstructed from context
Booklet p.8 (lines 1–25)
1Dear Editor,
2
3The phenomenon that Asian parents are installing
4apps on their children’s smart phones with to track their
5activities in order to ensure these youngsters use
6these gadgets responsibly has aroused much concern.
7Advocates proclaim that argue that by doing so, parents can do this
8protect their children from using these gadgets
9unconstructively. Yet, skeptics insist that this is
10detrimental to teenagers. Some of disagreement comes
11from their parental disregard, as parents who are
12very young, may not get used to it. Some of the disagreement
13comes from young parents themselves, who may not have
14grown up with these devices and so may not see why
15the worry is misplaced. I am prone to support the idea that
16these parents’ actions are reasonable and inevitable responsible.
17In this letter, I am writing to explain my views/point views.
18
19Of all the reasons why I agree with the parents’
20action actions, none are as significant as the fact that they it
21helps prevent children from using these smart gadgets
22for an unacceptably long period. It is universally
23known that teenagers these days lack self-restraint.
24Given that the internet nowadays would be is filled with
25attractive information, addicts young users can be allowed to
Booklet p.9 (lines 26–49)
26tempted to access their smart device at all hours. Have you ever
27seen kids around upon sticky stuck to their smart phones for the whole
28MTR trip without having a look at the beautiful
29scenery outside the train? I am sure everyone
30experienced has experienced it before. With this in mind, it is the
31parents’ responsibility to help teenagers develop a
32proper image of relationship with phones. By installing these monitoring
33apps, parents can get information about the time
34they can spend on their children spend on the device, and on what their
35children have done online. With these examples or data points or
36information, parents will know it the moment immediately as the
37addiction begins to occur. In this case, you, the young
38generation can set up rules together parents and the young
39generation can set up rules together after that. It helps teenagers
40from being hesitated to stop being held hostage by the mobile phones,
41whereas they should rather focus on what they
42are learning. With this in mind, parents can outright responsibly
43limit their children’s exposure to the phones. Consequently, the
44youngsters can develop an ideal habit in using them,
45helping them to think it is reasonable for parents
46to install these apps on their children’s phones.
47
48Apart from preventing children to be from being overrun by the cell-phone
49stalk, never should we overlook the fact that having
Booklet p.10 (lines 50–72)
50these little devices in children’s phones can give rise
51to another preventive effect leading them to act away from
52acting improperly on the Internet. For the time being, the
53new generation love using smart phones to do something
54improperly, such as cyber-bullying. If parents don’t
55know the way to monitor children’s usage of the
56device, they can be ignorant of the danger.
57Today’s young generation may quit the platform,
58but turn to using more in their children’s phones
59immediately and not be punished. By chatting on
60the web with their friends, teenagers may be tempted to
61spit out let out vicious words or ideas, ideas to express to others
62directed at others. These youngsters are likely to express to
63likely to be exposed to a parents peer group who, in this stage, may not gain a
64thorough understanding of the danger.
65Their parents may already see kids around using their
66smart phones for the whole. Apart from preventing
67such cases, the cell phone is also harmful — these
68little devices in children’s phones can give rise to
69yet another preventive effect.
70
71On top of keeping children away from acting
72improperly on the internet, installing apps on their
Booklet p.11 (lines 73–94)
73mobile phones is also crucial to protect them from
74involvement in matters which are exposure to content that is
75vitally avoidable on the internet. Per These days or so,
76people can upload any information to the internet
77freely. By doing this, web sites websites are full of things,
78content that teenagers are likely to be exposed to stuff
79like apps on an example,. For example, recently some
80app-display companies have introduced a game that needs
81players to decide whether the main character has
82plastic surgery. In the game, the main character has
83refused to have white tried to lose weight but didn’t
84succeed. Therefore, she decided to have a have plastic surgery
85to improve her appearance. Teenagers may seem to be be led
86to believe that ‘appearance’ is the only way to define
87the beauty of a person and ignore the inner self.
88Justify a youth with the negative view is not advisable
89Justifying such a distorted view to young people is not advisable.
90If we allow them to immerse in a virtual environment
91which is full of these distorted values, how will they
92become turn out? How will our future be? This is also unpleasant
93to see — phone apps containing sexual issues. Parents should
94definitely install these apps to monitor their
Supp. sheet S1 (lines 95–112) — conclusion
95children’s usage of phones, in an attempt to protect them
96from the dangerous cyber world. It is conductive conducive
97to the teenager’s enjoyment and the future of our society.
98
99For the reasons above, encouraging parents to
100download apps on their children’s phones for monitoring their
101activities is vital for protecting them from
102activities to it and hurting others on the internet
103improper activities and hurting others on the internet. On the premise that
104this can also separate the youngsters from being addicted
105to phones and from the danger-all-around virtual world,
106the danger-all-around virtual world. To conclude, I sincerely
107believe that it is reasonable to do so. It is hoped that
108this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue.
109It is hoped that the young generation in the whole world
110will use mobile phones well and make full use of the benefits
111they can get from these smart devices in order that they can
112enjoy these advantages over the other users of the like.
113
114Yours faithfully,
115Chris Wong
Marks earned: ^20 + ^19 = 39 / 42 (5**, low end of 5**). M1 = ^20, M2 = ^19 — closest-pair adjusted with M1 one ahead of M2. Both markers placed the piece firmly in 5** territory (the band starts at ~38); 39/42 sits two marks under the band ceiling. Same booklet’s Part A (Welcome Speech) earned ^19 + ^19 = 38/42 (also 5** at the floor), so this Part B is the stronger of the two pieces. The candidate’s subject-level overall is 5* (subject mark 565/666) — both Paper 2 pieces are 5**, but the overall grade is pulled to 5* by the weighted blend across all five components (Papers 1, 2, 3, 4 and SBA).
Word count. Approximately 660 words across booklet pp.8–11 plus the supplementary sheet S1 — about 65% over the ~400-word brief. The piece runs out of stamina on S1, where the close knots up (this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue is the wobbliest sentence in the piece). Within the normal envelope for Q4 letter responses.
Position taken. The candidate has argued IN FAVOUR of parents’ actions (committed in paragraph 1: “I am prone to support the idea that these parents’ actions are reasonable and responsible.”). Three reasons delivered in three body paragraphs: (1) preventing screen-time addiction, (2) preventing improper online conduct (cyber-bullying / vicious words), (3) protecting from distorted values (the plastic-surgery game, sexual content). The conclusion echoes the position and adds an aspirational close (young generation will use phones well and make full use of the benefits).
What gets a Q4 letter to 5**. Architecture, named evidence, and a committed rhetorical position — this piece delivers all three. The first paragraph stakes a clear pro-side claim and names the opposition (Yet, skeptics insist…). The three body paragraphs each deliver one substantive reason with one specific image or example (the MTR scenery image; cyber-bullying; the plastic-surgery game). The close commits the position again and offers a forward-looking vision. That five-paragraph spine (intro · 3 reasons · close) is what 5** Q4 letters look like.
The MTR-scenery image is the standout move. “Have you ever seen kids around stuck to their smart phones for the whole MTR trip without having a look at the beautiful scenery outside the train? I am sure everyone has experienced it before.” A Hong-Kong-specific everyday image, framed as a rhetorical question, that turns the abstract claim (teenagers lack self-restraint) into something the marker can visualise. No other 2016 collection piece on Q4 uses an HK-domestic image with this specificity.
The plastic-surgery-game example is the second standout move. “Recently some app-display companies have introduced a game that needs players to decide whether the main character has plastic surgery. In the game, the main character has tried to lose weight but didn’t succeed. Therefore, she decided to have plastic surgery to improve her appearance. Teenagers may be led to believe that ‘appearance’ is the only way to define the beauty of a person and ignore the inner self.” A specific game premise (likely a real reference to one of the Plastic Surgery Princess / Lady Make-Up genre of mobile games that went viral in 2014–15) used as a vehicle for the distorted-values argument. The marker can see the cultural critique through the named example.
Why this isn’t a perfect 42. The M2 = ^19 (two below perfect) almost certainly reflects sentence-level wobbles — the recurring some of disagreement comes from their parental disregard tangle in paragraph 1, the helps teenagers from being hesitated slip mid-paragraph 2, the likely to express to a parents who… mid-paragraph 3, and the S1 sentence (this, in addition with two sides, three anchors…) where the close knots. The argumentative substance is at the perfect-mark level; the surface execution loses two marks. The pro-rewrite below models the close as a fix-the-stamina-collapse stretch toward 42/42.
Word count. Approximately 660 words across booklet pp.8–11 plus the supplementary sheet S1 — about 65% over the ~400-word brief. The piece runs out of stamina on S1, where the close knots up (this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue is the wobbliest sentence in the piece). Within the normal envelope for Q4 letter responses.
Position taken. The candidate has argued IN FAVOUR of parents’ actions (committed in paragraph 1: “I am prone to support the idea that these parents’ actions are reasonable and responsible.”). Three reasons delivered in three body paragraphs: (1) preventing screen-time addiction, (2) preventing improper online conduct (cyber-bullying / vicious words), (3) protecting from distorted values (the plastic-surgery game, sexual content). The conclusion echoes the position and adds an aspirational close (young generation will use phones well and make full use of the benefits).
What gets a Q4 letter to 5**. Architecture, named evidence, and a committed rhetorical position — this piece delivers all three. The first paragraph stakes a clear pro-side claim and names the opposition (Yet, skeptics insist…). The three body paragraphs each deliver one substantive reason with one specific image or example (the MTR scenery image; cyber-bullying; the plastic-surgery game). The close commits the position again and offers a forward-looking vision. That five-paragraph spine (intro · 3 reasons · close) is what 5** Q4 letters look like.
The MTR-scenery image is the standout move. “Have you ever seen kids around stuck to their smart phones for the whole MTR trip without having a look at the beautiful scenery outside the train? I am sure everyone has experienced it before.” A Hong-Kong-specific everyday image, framed as a rhetorical question, that turns the abstract claim (teenagers lack self-restraint) into something the marker can visualise. No other 2016 collection piece on Q4 uses an HK-domestic image with this specificity.
The plastic-surgery-game example is the second standout move. “Recently some app-display companies have introduced a game that needs players to decide whether the main character has plastic surgery. In the game, the main character has tried to lose weight but didn’t succeed. Therefore, she decided to have plastic surgery to improve her appearance. Teenagers may be led to believe that ‘appearance’ is the only way to define the beauty of a person and ignore the inner self.” A specific game premise (likely a real reference to one of the Plastic Surgery Princess / Lady Make-Up genre of mobile games that went viral in 2014–15) used as a vehicle for the distorted-values argument. The marker can see the cultural critique through the named example.
Why this isn’t a perfect 42. The M2 = ^19 (two below perfect) almost certainly reflects sentence-level wobbles — the recurring some of disagreement comes from their parental disregard tangle in paragraph 1, the helps teenagers from being hesitated slip mid-paragraph 2, the likely to express to a parents who… mid-paragraph 3, and the S1 sentence (this, in addition with two sides, three anchors…) where the close knots. The argumentative substance is at the perfect-mark level; the surface execution loses two marks. The pro-rewrite below models the close as a fix-the-stamina-collapse stretch toward 42/42.
Strengths to praise
1. The opening stakes the position by paragraph 1 line 15
“I am prone to support the idea that these parents’ actions are reasonable and responsible.” — the candidate commits explicitly in the first paragraph, after a balanced two-sentence steel-man of the opposition (Advocates argue… Yet, skeptics insist…). Q4 letters that stake their flag in paragraph 1 give the marker something to track from the start. The standard structural move for 5** debate-genre responses.
2. The MTR-scenery image — an HK-specific everyday observation
“Have you ever seen kids around stuck to their smart phones for the whole MTR trip without having a look at the beautiful scenery outside the train? I am sure everyone has experienced it before.” The candidate doesn’t argue that teenagers are addicted — they invite the marker to remember something they’ve already seen. The rhetorical question + shared-experience appeal is a debating technique transposed into a letter; very effective. Localising the image to the MTR makes it HK-specific in a way a generic on the bus example wouldn’t.
3. The three reasons are clearly demarcated and don’t overlap
Reason 1 (paragraph 2): screen-time / addiction prevention. Reason 2 (paragraph 3): preventing improper online conduct / cyber-bullying. Reason 3 (paragraph 4): protecting from distorted values / sexual content. Each paragraph carries one reason; no reason is repeated. The structural backbone is clean — exactly the ‘three reasons’ the prompt asks for, each given its own paragraph and its own specific example.
4. The plastic-surgery-game example as concrete cultural evidence
“Recently some app-display companies have introduced a game that needs players to decide whether the main character has plastic surgery… she decided to have plastic surgery to improve her appearance. Teenagers may be led to believe that ‘appearance’ is the only way to define the beauty of a person and ignore the inner self.” A specific game premise rather than a vague claim (games encourage bad values). The example almost certainly references a real category of mobile games (Plastic Surgery Princess-genre apps that went viral around 2014–15) — the candidate is engaging with actual contemporary digital culture. Q4 markers reward this kind of cultural specificity.
5. The opposition steel-man dignifies the ‘skeptics’
“Advocates argue that by doing so, parents can protect their children from using these gadgets unconstructively. Yet, skeptics insist that this is detrimental to teenagers. Some of the disagreement comes from young parents themselves, who may not have grown up with these devices…” The candidate gives the opposition a full sentence and even a sociological explanation (young parents not grown up with these devices) before refuting. The phrase skeptics insist dignifies the opposition rather than dismissing them — a 5*+ move that makes the candidate’s pro-position read as considered rather than reflexive.
6. The future-oriented close ties the personal to the civic
“It is conducive to the teenager’s enjoyment and the future of our society.” The candidate scales the individual-level argument (one kid, one phone) up to the collective-level argument (the future of our society). This is the standard rhetorical pivot for 5*+ persuasive writing: the personal claim is grounded by a civic stake.
7. The letter format conventions are observed
The opening (Dear Editor), the explicit position-taking (In this letter, I am writing to explain my views), and the sign-off (Yours faithfully, Chris Wong) all match the letter-to-editor convention. The marker doesn’t have to look for the format — it’s where it should be. A surprising number of Q4 letter responses skip the sign-off; this one doesn’t.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(lines 3–5) Asian parents are installing apps on their children’s smart phones with their activities in order to ensure… → …installing apps on their children’s smart phones to track their activities in order to ensure… |
The sentence is missing the verb that links the app to the monitoring. With their activities doesn’t parse — the intended sense is that track or to track. Without the verb, the syntax collapses. |
(lines 7–8) Advocates proclaim that parents can do this protect their children → Advocates argue that by doing so, parents can protect their children |
Two issues. (i) Proclaim takes a direct object or a finite clause, but the candidate has stacked do this + protect without a connector. (ii) By doing so is the cleaner connector for the means. |
(lines 10–12) Some of disagreement comes from their parental disregard, as parents who are very young, may not get used to it → Some of the disagreement comes from young parents themselves, who may not have grown up with these devices… |
Heavy recast required. Three issues. (i) Some of disagreement needs the article: some of the disagreement. (ii) Parental disregard means parents’ lack of concern, the opposite of the candidate’s intended sense. (iii) The dangling comma + clause (as parents who are very young, may not get used to it) is ungrammatical. The intended sense is young parents themselves are sometimes skeptical because they didn’t grow up with these devices. |
(line 16) actions are reasonable and inevitable → actions are reasonable and responsible |
Inevitable means unavoidable, certain to happen — doesn’t match the intended sense (the parents’ actions are justified, not unavoidable). Responsible, justified, well-founded all fit. |
(lines 20–21) none are as significant as the fact that it helps prevent children → none are as significant as the fact that they help prevent children |
The antecedent of it / they is the parents’ actions (plural). Subject-verb agreement: they help, not it helps. |
(line 24) the internet nowadays would be filled with attractive information → the internet nowadays is filled with attractive information |
The conditional would be doesn’t fit a present-time statement of fact. Present simple: is filled. |
(lines 25–26) addicts can be allowed to access their smart device → young users can be tempted to access their smart device at all hours |
Two issues. (i) Addicts presupposes the conclusion (the candidate is arguing about people who might become addicted, not people who already are). (ii) Allowed to access doesn’t match the context — nothing is permitting them; they want to. Tempted to matches the candidate’s argument. |
(line 27) kids around upon sticky to their smart phones → kids stuck to their smart phones |
The candidate is reaching for glued to / stuck to / fixated on. Upon sticky isn’t a phrase in English; the intended image is the kid whose eyes are physically attached to the screen. |
(lines 29–30) I am sure everyone experienced it before → I am sure everyone has experienced it before |
Present-perfect with before: have you ever / I am sure everyone has experienced. The past simple experienced needs has when the time-reference is indefinite. |
(lines 42–43) parents can outright their childrens’ exposure → parents can responsibly limit their children’s exposure |
Three issues. (i) Outright is an adverb / adjective, not a verb — can’t take an object. (ii) The plural possessive is children’s, not childrens’ (children is already plural). (iii) The intended verb is limit / control / monitor. |
(lines 39–40) It helps teenagers from being hesitated by the mobile phones → It helps teenagers to stop being held hostage by their mobile phones |
Word-choice scramble. Hesitated doesn’t fit (the candidate isn’t saying phones make teenagers hesitant) — the intended sense is held hostage / dominated / consumed by. Help X from -ing is also not a structure in English; help X to stop -ing or prevent X from -ing are the alternatives. |
(line 48) preventing children to be overrun by the cell-phone stalk → preventing children from being overrun by the lure of the cell phone |
Two issues. (i) Prevent takes from + -ing: prevent X from being Y, not prevent X to be Y. (ii) Cell-phone stalk isn’t a phrase; the intended sense is the pull / lure / grip of the cell phone. |
(line 61) spit out vicious words → let out / hurl vicious words |
Spit out works literally (spit out food) but reads oddly for words. Hurl insults, let out harsh words, throw vicious comments all match the register better. |
(lines 62–63) likely to express to a parents who, in this stage, may not gain a thorough understanding → likely to be exposed to a peer group who, at this stage, may not gain a thorough understanding |
Three issues. (i) Express to doesn’t mean encounter / face — possibly a slip for exposed to. (ii) A parents mixes the singular article with a plural noun. The intended sense from context is a peer group, not parents. (iii) In this stage → at this stage (the standard preposition for the stage idiom). |
(line 75) Per this day or so, people can upload any information → These days, people can upload any information |
Per this day or so isn’t a phrase in English. The intended sense is nowadays / these days / in the present day. |
(lines 80–81) a game that needs players to decide the main character has plastic surgery → a game that asks players to decide whether the main character has plastic surgery |
Two issues. (i) Needs players to doesn’t fit — requires / asks players to is the standard pattern. (ii) Missing whether: decide whether, not decide [that]. |
(lines 82–83) the main character has refused to have white → the main character has tried to lose weight (best reconstruction from context) |
Word-choice scramble or transcription unclarity. Refused to have white doesn’t parse against the surrounding context (but didn’t succeed… she decided to have plastic surgery). The intended sense from context is tried to lose weight or tried to look pretty in other ways — some prior attempt that failed and pushed her to surgery. |
(line 88) Justify a youth with the negative view is not advisable → Justifying such a distorted view to young people is not advisable |
Three issues. (i) Justify as a bare verb at sentence-start needs justifying (gerund) to be the subject. (ii) A youth with mismatches — the candidate means this view to young people, not a young person with this view. (iii) The negative view → such a distorted view for register. |
(line 96) conductive to the teenager’s enjoyment → conducive to the teenager’s enjoyment |
Wrong word. Conductive = able to conduct electricity. Conducive = making something likely; favourable. The candidate means conducive. Common HK English slip. |
(line 108) it is hoped that this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue → I hope that, with this argument from both sides, you and your readers can reach a sound position on this issue |
This is the most tangled sentence in the piece — almost certainly written under time-pressure on the supplementary sheet. In addition with isn’t standard; two sides, three anchors doesn’t parse. The reading reconstructed from context is what the candidate seems to be reaching for. |
Style suggestions (where 5** could become perfect)
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 letter to the editor.
What would lift this from low-5** toward top-5**: the M2 = ^19 score reflects sentence-level wobbles — the recurring scrambles in paragraph 1 (the ‘some of disagreement’ sentence), the mid-paragraph slips (hesitated by phones, cell-phone stalk, likely to express to a parents), and the runs-out-of-stamina close on S1. The argumentative substance is at top-band level; the surface execution loses two marks.
What would lift this from low-5** toward top-5**: the M2 = ^19 score reflects sentence-level wobbles — the recurring scrambles in paragraph 1 (the ‘some of disagreement’ sentence), the mid-paragraph slips (hesitated by phones, cell-phone stalk, likely to express to a parents), and the runs-out-of-stamina close on S1. The argumentative substance is at top-band level; the surface execution loses two marks.
Suggestion 1 · the opening paragraph could commit the position one sentence earlier
Text-type fit
lines 3–17
Original: “The phenomenon that Asian parents are installing apps… has aroused much concern. Advocates argue… Yet, skeptics insist… Some of the disagreement comes from young parents themselves… I am prone to support the idea that these parents’ actions are reasonable and responsible.”
Try: “Dear Editor — I am writing to support the parents in your recent report on monitoring apps. Their actions are not surveillance; they are responsibility. The debate has produced two camps: advocates who see the apps as protection, and skeptics who see them as intrusion. The skeptics are wrong, and I would like to explain why in this letter, with three reasons.”
The candidate’s opener takes seven sentences to commit the position (I am prone to support…). Markers reading a letter-to-editor want the position by the end of sentence two — this is a journalistic convention. The pro version puts the stance in line two (I am writing to support), reframes the argument as a moral one (not surveillance; they are responsibility), and announces the three-reason structure explicitly. Same word count, much more impact.
Suggestion 2 · the MTR-scenery image could be one sentence shorter and harder-hitting
Fluency
lines 26–30
Original: “Have you ever seen kids around stuck to their smart phones for the whole MTR trip without having a look at the beautiful scenery outside the train? I am sure everyone has experienced it before.”
Try: “Walk through any MTR carriage on a weekday afternoon. Half the secondary-school students you pass will not look up once between Tai Wai and Central. The scenery outside the window doesn’t exist for them anymore.”
The candidate’s image is the right move; the pro version makes it specific (a route, a time, a number) and ends on a sharper conclusion (doesn’t exist for them anymore). The shared-experience appeal still works without the explicit I am sure everyone has experienced it — the marker doesn’t need to be told.
Suggestion 3 · the cyber-bullying argument could name a specific platform or incident
Text-type fit
lines 52–64
Original: “The new generation love using smart phones to do something improperly, such as cyber-bullying… By chatting on the web with their friends, teenagers may be tempted to let out vicious words or ideas, directed at others.”
Try: “WhatsApp group chats, Instagram comments, the anonymous question apps that pass around HK secondary schools every few months — these are the channels where bullying happens now. Not behind the bike sheds, but in the seven seconds it takes to type and send a message that the victim will read fifteen times before bed.”
The candidate’s argument is right but stays abstract (cyber-bullying, chatting on the web with friends). Named platforms (WhatsApp, Instagram, anonymous Q-and-A apps) plus a concrete behavioural detail (seven seconds to type, fifteen times before bed) make the same argument visualizable for the marker. Q4 markers reward specificity.
Suggestion 4 · the plastic-surgery-game paragraph could land the cultural critique harder
Text-type fit
lines 79–89
Original: “Recently some app-display companies have introduced a game that needs players to decide whether the main character has plastic surgery… Teenagers may be led to believe that ‘appearance’ is the only way to define the beauty of a person and ignore the inner self.”
Try: “Open the App Store and search ‘princess makeover’. The first ten results are games where the player’s job is to give a cartoon girl liposuction, a nose job, and a chin sharpening — with cheerful music and a five-star rating from 11-year-olds. This is what teenage girls learn about female bodies when their parents don’t look.”
The candidate’s example is doing the right work but tells the reader instead of showing. The pro version invites the marker to take an action (open the App Store), names the surgery types specifically, names the demographic (11-year-olds), and lands on a sentence that ties the example back to the prompt (when their parents don’t look). The candidate’s ‘app-display companies’ is also slightly off-register; game developers is the standard term.
Suggestion 5 · the steel-man could acknowledge the privacy argument specifically
Text-type fit
lines 9–15
Original: “Yet, skeptics insist that this is detrimental to teenagers. Some of the disagreement comes from young parents themselves, who may not have grown up with these devices…”
Try: “The strongest opposing argument is the privacy one: that teenagers have a right to a private digital life, and that monitoring apps create a chilling environment in which honest mistakes become evidence. I take this argument seriously, but I think it answers a different question. The point of monitoring apps is not to read every message; it is to know if your fourteen-year-old has spent six hours on TikTok at 2am for the past three weeks. Privacy is a real concern; serious harm is a bigger one.”
The candidate’s steel-man (young parents not grown up with these devices) is an interesting sociological note but doesn’t engage with the strongest opposition argument, which is privacy. A 5** version names the strongest opposing position, takes it seriously, and shows why the pro-side still wins on the trade-off. The marker rewards this kind of disciplined argument over flat dismissal.
Suggestion 6 · ‘phenomenon’ in line 3 is the standard HK-essay opener — vary it
Authenticity
lines 3–6
Original: “The phenomenon that Asian parents are installing apps on their children’s smart phones… has aroused much concern.”
Try: “Your recent report on parents in Korea, Japan and Singapore installing monitoring apps on their children’s phones has provoked a useful debate.”
Almost every Q4 letter response opens with The phenomenon that… has aroused much concern. Markers see this opener five times an hour. The pro version (i) addresses the Young Post reference directly (your recent report), (ii) names specific countries (Korea, Japan, Singapore) instead of the vague Asian countries, and (iii) uses a verb (provoked) that’s active rather than passive (has aroused). Three small lifts that distinguish the opener.
Suggestion 7 · the second body paragraph runs out of focus around the ‘peer group’ slip
Fluency
lines 59–64
Original: “By chatting on the web with their friends, teenagers may be tempted to let out vicious words or ideas, directed at others. These youngsters are likely to be exposed to a peer group who, at this stage, may not gain a thorough understanding of the danger.”
Try: “The danger is that the same teenagers who would never insult a classmate to their face will type something cruel to that same classmate from a bedroom three streets away. The screen muffles the consequence. The monitoring app puts it back.”
The candidate’s sentence (likely to be exposed to a peer group who… may not gain a thorough understanding of the danger) loses the thread: who’s exposing whom to what? The pro version puts the mechanism on screen (face-to-face vs from a bedroom three streets away) and uses a two-sentence aphoristic close (The screen muffles the consequence. The monitoring app puts it back.) that earns the rebuttal.
Suggestion 8 · the close on the S1 sheet is the wobbliest stretch — replan the ending
Text-type fit
lines 107–112
Original: “It is hoped that this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue. It is hoped that the young generation in the whole world will use mobile phones well and make full use of the benefits…”
Try: “I’ll close with this: the phone is not the enemy and the parents are not the police. The app is a hand on the shoulder. It says, ‘I see what you’re doing, and I’m here.’ Every teenager I know would secretly like that, even if they would never admit it. Sincerely — Chris Wong.”
The S1 sheet is where the piece’s stamina runs out (two sides, three anchors is the most tangled sentence in the piece). The pro version models a close that’s preplanned: a metaphor (a hand on the shoulder), a quoted line in the parent’s voice (‘I see what you’re doing, and I’m here’), and a final emotional claim (every teenager would secretly like that). Writing-fatigue collapse is a common phenomenon on supplementary sheets; the fix is to draft the last paragraph mentally before reaching it.
Professional rewrite — rescuing the S1 close (text-type fit + fluency)
The Part B is firmly 5** across pp.8–11; the writing collapses on the supplementary sheet where the stamina runs out and the close knots up. The rewrite below preserves the candidate’s structural moves (pro-position recap, civic stake, forward-looking close) and lands them in clean letter-genre register. This is the single biggest stretch toward 42/42.
The student’s close (S1, lightly corrected)
For the reasons above, encouraging parents to download apps on their children’s phones for monitoring their activities is vital for protecting them from improper activities and hurting others on the internet. On the premise that this can also separate the youngsters from being addicted to phones and from the danger-all-around virtual world, to conclude, I sincerely believe that it is reasonable to do so. It is hoped that this, in addition with two sides, three anchors you and ours in this issue. It is hoped that the young generation in the whole world will use mobile phones well and make full use of the benefits they can get from these smart devices in order that they can enjoy these advantages over the other users of the like.
Rewritten as a Q4 5** letter close
Three reasons, then: phones are addictive and children lack the brain chemistry to push back; the screen muffles the cruelty teenagers wouldn’t commit face-to-face; and the values on offer in the average app store would horrify their parents if those parents knew. The monitoring app addresses all three. It is not surveillance; it is the digital version of the hand on the shoulder that every previous generation of parent has used to keep their children safe.
The phone is not the enemy. Used well, it is the most powerful tool any teenager has ever had. The parents in your report are not trying to take it away — they are trying to teach their children how to hold it. I hope the readers of the Young Post will see the same when they next look at a parent with the monitoring-app icon on their own phone.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Wong
The phone is not the enemy. Used well, it is the most powerful tool any teenager has ever had. The parents in your report are not trying to take it away — they are trying to teach their children how to hold it. I hope the readers of the Young Post will see the same when they next look at a parent with the monitoring-app icon on their own phone.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Wong
What the rewrite is doing differently (text-type fit + fluency):
- Recaps the three reasons in one sentence. Phones are addictive… the screen muffles cruelty… the values on offer would horrify their parents. The student’s recap meanders through two long sentences; the pro version condenses the entire argument into a single tricolon-paragraph. Letter-genre convention: recap, don’t re-argue.
- The ‘hand on the shoulder’ metaphor. Frames monitoring as continuity with the parenting that every previous generation has done. This reframes the debate — the question stops being ‘should parents monitor?’ and becomes ‘why would this generation be the exception?’
- The aphoristic close. The phone is not the enemy. Used well, it is the most powerful tool any teenager has ever had. The parents in your report are not trying to take it away — they are trying to teach their children how to hold it. Three short sentences that land the position with parallelism. The candidate’s original closes with enjoy these advantages over the other users of the like — flat by comparison.
- Names the publication once more. I hope the readers of the Young Post will see the same…. Letter-genre convention: the close acknowledges the audience and the venue. The candidate’s original close says the young generation in the whole world — addresses no specific reader and lands no specific punch.
- Replaces the tangled ‘two sides, three anchors’ sentence entirely. Writing-fatigue collapse is the most fixable single thing about this piece. A pre-planned final paragraph — even just one sentence held in reserve — would have prevented the collapse and won the additional two marks.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word / phrase | Definition | Usage notes | Synonyms / alternatives |
|---|---|---|---|
| phenomenon | (n.) a fact or situation that is observed, especially one whose cause is in question. | Common Q4-letter opener (The phenomenon that… has aroused much concern). Plural: phenomena. So overused that it’s a marker tell — vary with trend, development, practice, debate. | occurrence, event, trend, development |
| aroused (much concern) | (v., passive) provoked, stirred up. | Pairs with concern, debate, suspicion, controversy, anger: aroused much debate, aroused public concern. Mid-formal register; standard letter-to-editor opener. | provoked, stirred up, sparked, triggered |
| unconstructively | (adv.) in a way that does not contribute to building something useful. | Pairs with spend, use, engage, behave: using these gadgets unconstructively. The candidate’s use is precise; uncommon but well-placed. | unproductively, wastefully, idly, pointlessly |
| detrimental (to) | (adj.) tending to cause harm. | Pairs with health, development, environment, education: detrimental to teenagers, detrimental to public health. Formal register; standard policy-essay vocabulary. | harmful, damaging, injurious, deleterious |
| prone to (support) | (adj. phrase) inclined to; likely to. | Two patterns: (i) prone to + noun (prone to error); (ii) prone to + verb (prone to support). The candidate uses pattern (ii); both work. | inclined to, disposed to, apt to, given to |
| self-restraint | (n.) control over one’s feelings or impulses. | Pairs with exercise, show, lack, develop: teenagers lack self-restraint, exercise self-restraint. Mid-formal register; standard debate-essay vocabulary for adolescent-behaviour arguments. | self-control, self-discipline, restraint, willpower |
| universally known | (adj. phrase) known by everyone. | Pairs with that, fact, truth: it is universally known that…. Slightly stronger than widely known; useful for asserting common ground. | widely known, commonly accepted, universally acknowledged |
| unacceptably (long) | (adv.) to a degree that cannot be accepted. | Pairs with long, high, low, slow, expensive: unacceptably long, unacceptably high. Mid-formal register; useful for setting a moral threshold. | excessively, intolerably, unreasonably |
| stuck to (something) | (adj. phrase) physically or figuratively attached and unable to move. | Figurative use is common with screens: stuck to their smart phones, stuck to the TV. Stronger versions: glued to, fixated on, transfixed by. | glued to, fixated on, transfixed by |
| cyber-bullying | (n.) bullying conducted through digital channels. | Modern compound; pairs with commit, fall victim to, suffer, perpetrate: fall victim to cyber-bullying. Standard Q4 / Q5 vocabulary for adolescent-digital-life prompts. | online harassment, digital abuse, internet bullying |
| vicious (words) | (adj.) cruel or malicious. | Pairs with attack, cycle, rumour, dog, words, comments: vicious comments, a vicious attack. Strong negative-evaluative. | cruel, malicious, spiteful, venomous |
| improperly | (adv.) in a way that is incorrect or unsuitable. | Pairs with use, behave, act, dressed: act improperly online, use a device improperly. Mid-formal register; standard policy-essay vocabulary. | incorrectly, unsuitably, inappropriately, wrongly |
| distorted (values) | (adj.) pulled out of true shape or meaning. | Pairs with view, value, image, perception, idea: a distorted view of beauty, distorted values. The candidate’s use in the plastic-surgery paragraph is precise. | warped, twisted, skewed, perverted |
| immerse (in) | (v.) to involve deeply in something. | Pairs with in, oneself, completely, fully: immerse them in a virtual environment, immerse oneself in study. Mid-formal register; precise for digital-environment arguments. | engross, absorb, plunge, submerge |
| virtual environment | (n. phrase) a simulated digital space or world. | Pairs with immerse in, navigate, create, explore: immerse in a virtual environment. Technology-policy vocabulary; standard for Q4 prompts about digital culture. | digital space, online world, cyber environment |
| conducive (to) | (adj.) making something likely or possible. | Pairs with to + noun: conducive to learning, conducive to growth, conducive to harmony. The candidate’s conductive needs correction to conducive — common HK English slip. | favourable to, beneficial to, helpful to, advantageous to |
| cyber world | (n. phrase) the digital realm; the online space. | Pairs with dangerous, navigate, enter, explore: the dangerous cyber world. Mid-formal register; standard digital-policy vocabulary. | cyberspace, the internet, the digital realm, the online world |
| on the premise that | (prep. phrase) on the basis that; assuming that. | Pairs with that-clause: on the premise that this can also separate…. Formal register; useful for connecting one claim to a prior assumption. | given that, assuming that, on the basis that, provided that |
| make full use of | (v. phrase) to take maximum advantage of. | Pairs with opportunities, benefits, resources, time: make full use of the benefits, make full use of these advantages. Standard solution-paragraph vocabulary. | take full advantage of, capitalise on, exploit, maximise |
| held hostage by | (idiom) figuratively, controlled or dominated by. | Pairs with by + noun: held hostage by their phones, held hostage by deadlines. Strong-evaluative metaphor; useful for arguing against addiction or over-dependence. | dominated by, controlled by, in thrall to, enslaved by |
| a hand on the shoulder | (metaphor) a gesture of guidance and presence. | Pairs with put, lay, feel, need: a hand on the shoulder. Useful for reframing what might look like control as care or guidance — the model move in the pro-rewrite’s steel-man. | guidance, presence, reassurance, supportive nudge |
Leave a Reply