How to do this drill
- Name the strongest relevant alternative benefit.
- State its contextual limit.
- Return explicitly to the main criterion and choice.
Material
Choose between a weekly curbside food-scrap pilot in two neighbourhoods and staffed weekend drop-off hubs in four neighbourhoods. You favour curbside collection because routine convenience and direct collection-logistics evidence are your criteria, but the hubs have broader geographic reach and educational workshops.
Your tasks
- Write a three-sentence concession.
- Explain why dismissing the workshops as useless would weaken the argument.
Check your work
Finish the tasks first, then open the answer to compare.
Show the answer
Answer
Acknowledge broader reach and education, then explain that the first pilot's main question is whether routine household collection works operationally and consistently.
How to reach it
- Represent alternative fairly.
- Apply the chosen criterion to its limit.
- Restate the original choice.
Evidence
Model: ‘The drop-off hubs would reach more neighbourhoods and could teach waste-prevention habits. However, attendance would not directly test a weekly pickup routine. Because the first priority is reliable collection evidence, curbside service remains the stronger initial pilot.’
Review your attempt
- Would a supporter of the alternative recognize its benefit?
- Does the criterion—not insult—resolve the comparison?
Take it further
Write the opposite concession while choosing the hub option.
