How should you compare an Academic Discussion draft with its revision?
For Academic Discussion, ETS asks you to express and support an opinion in an academic exchange. Our comparison therefore looks at concrete functions: answering the question, explaining a reason, responding to an idea, and connecting details to the position. It does not reproduce an official assessment.
First read each version separately. Paraphrase its decision and main reason, then compare them. If the revised version uses more words, ask what they do. A longer repetition is not an explanation. Conversely, a simple sentence can serve an important purpose by clearly stating the proposed solution.
What changes between the draft and its revision?
The professor, students, and project are fictional. The effects mentioned in the revision are argumentative hypotheses, not research findings. Read both texts, then identify three specific improvements before opening the analysis.
Professor Vale: The library may turn a silent study room into a recording booth during lunch hours. Should it do so? Nia: Students without microphones would gain access to useful equipment. Omar: Some students can study only at lunchtime and need a quiet place. Version A — first draft: “I agree with Omar. The library is very important for students. Recording booths are useful too, but silence is better and students need it. There are many examinations. Therefore, the university should make the best decision for all students.” Version B — revised draft: “I would keep the room for silent study unless the library can show that recordings would be inaudible nearby. Omar’s concern matters because lunch may be the only study period available to students with afternoon classes. A short recording can still interrupt a difficult calculation several times, forcing a reader to restart. Nia is right that access to recording equipment is useful, but that benefit does not require this particular room. The library could first offer supervised recording sessions in an existing media room and measure demand. That would test the service without removing a space whose purpose depends on quiet.” Identify three changes that make Version B’s argument more precise. Explain the function of each change.
Enter your answer before viewing the review.
The solution, step by step
Three possible observations: B states a conditional decision; it explains why an interruption could hinder work; it acknowledges the benefit Nia mentioned and suggests another way to test it.
The method in action
- B’s first sentence chooses to keep the room and states the condition that could change that decision. A ends with “the best decision,” which does not specify what the university should do.
- The interrupted calculation makes the cost of noise to the work clear. A only says that students need silence; B develops a reason connected to how the room is used.
- The suggestion to hold sessions in an existing media room separates the goal, providing equipment access, from the contested method, converting this particular room. Other observations may also be relevant if you connect them to a function in the argument.
Why does B’s qualified response still take a position?
B does not simply say that everyone is right. It recommends keeping the room, then states what could resolve the concern: checking whether recordings would be audible nearby. The condition makes the reasoning concrete and open to discussion. The reader can ask how to check it and knows what matters to the decision.
A already expresses a preference for silence, but its conclusion weakens that preference by referring to the best choice for everyone. In your own revision, look for conclusions that become vaguer than the opening. Replace them with the decision you actually support; you do not necessarily need to add a concluding paragraph.
What does the interrupted calculation example show?
The example connects a disturbance to an activity: noise interrupts the reasoning process, which then has to be resumed. It makes the reason for preserving quiet understandable. It does not prove that every booth would be noisy; the initial condition identifies exactly that point for checking.
This distinction helps you annotate without exaggerating. Write “the sentence explains a possible effect” rather than “it proves booths are bad.” A good example can be modest. Its value comes from its connection to the position, not from dramatic details or an invented statistic.
How can you apply this comparison to your next response?
Take one of your own drafts and write each sentence’s function in the margin. “Opinion,” “reason,” “example,” and “response to an objection” are enough. A sentence with no clear function can be removed or clarified. A missing function shows what still needs development.
For a new discussion, change the topic and keep only the techniques: state a decision, explain an effect, consider a concern, and suggest a condition or another approach. You do not need to reproduce all of these functions every time. Choose the ones that make your position clear in the discussion at hand.
The pitfall
Turning the revised version into a script to memorize
Memorizing B does not teach you how to answer another question. The same text would be off topic in a discussion about class schedules. Keep the functions of the sentences, then rebuild the connections with new ideas.
We do not assign a score to A or B, and we do not present B as perfect. The analysis shows observable improvements in these texts; it guarantees neither a language level nor an official result. This limitation lets us practice revision without confusing a teaching example with an officially validated response.
Key takeaways
- Compare the functions of the sentences, not just their length.
- A qualified position states a decision and an understandable condition.
- An example should explain a relevant effect without claiming to prove more.
- Reuse the annotation method with another topic instead of memorizing the response.