Y10W43WR Should Political Advertising Be Fact-Checked Before Publication?

Part 1

How to Write

Persuasive – Submission

A persuasive submission argues for a clear position on an issue and aims to influence a specific decision-maker. It is written for a formal audience — often a committee, council or leadership group — and must be credible and well-reasoned. The tone should be confident and respectful, demonstrating careful thinking about the issue.

  • Ideas & content: Take a clear position and develop it with logical, well-supported reasons. Acknowledge complexity where it exists, but always return to your core argument.
  • Structure & cohesion: Open with your position, develop your reasons in a logical order and close with a clear recommendation. Use connecting language to move from point to point smoothly.
  • Voice & audience: Write for your specific audience — formal, measured and credible. Avoid emotional exaggeration. Show you understand the issue from multiple sides, even while arguing one position.
  • Language choices: Use precise, formal vocabulary. Control modality carefully — words like should, must and strongly recommends signal conviction. Vary sentence structure for impact.
  • Conventions: Spell key terms correctly. Use punctuation to manage complex sentences. Check that your sentences are as clear as they are persuasive.

Common pitfalls: Arguing from passion alone without evidence or reasoning — a good submission shows logical thinking, not just strong feeling. Failing to acknowledge the other side even briefly, which makes your argument look one-sided.

Part 2

Your Task Plan for Today

The brief

Question: Write a submission to the committee arguing for or against requiring all political advertising to be independently fact-checked before publication. Take a clear position, support it with reasoning and address at least one argument on the other side. Your submission will be considered as part of the consultation.

Stimulus: A parliamentary committee is examining whether all political advertising should be required to pass independent fact-checking before it can be published or broadcast. Supporters argue that false or misleading political claims distort democratic decisions and that voters deserve verified information. Opponents argue that such a requirement would allow unelected bodies to make judgements about political speech and that independent fact-checkers are themselves subject to bias. The committee has invited written submissions from members of the public and interested organisations.

Task Analysis: This task asks you to make a compelling case for a position you genuinely hold. You must build a logical argument while showing you understand and respect counterarguments. A strong response demonstrates both conviction and intellectual honesty about what is genuinely complicated.

Quick Plan

Before you write, plan:

  • Your position — what exactly do you believe and why?
  • Why it matters — what real problem are you addressing? What’s at stake?
  • Your strongest arguments — what evidence, logic or reasoning best supports you?
  • The strongest counterargument — what’s the best case against your position?
  • Your rebuttal — why are you still convinced you’re right despite those concerns?

Thesis/position

State your position clearly and directly. Don’t hedge or apologize for what you believe. Make it clear what you want your reader to think, believe or do.

Evidence chain

Build your case point by point. Each argument should strengthen and build on the previous one. Use real evidence—examples, data, reasoning—not just assertion or opinion.

Counterargument

Acknowledge the strongest objection to your position. Show you understand what the other side values and worries about. This deepens your credibility.

Rebuttal

Explain why your position, despite those real concerns, is more compelling. Show maturity in recognising trade-offs rather than pretending objections don’t exist.

Modality control

Use precise language about certainty. ‘Research suggests…‘ is stronger than ‘obviously…‘ because it’s honest about what we actually know. Qualified claims are more credible.

Call to action

End with clarity about what you want. Not abstract agreement but specific change: ‘therefore, schools should…‘ or ‘this means we need to…‘