Twenty worked transfers… | Year 12 English · T1 W3–4 · Example Bank

Each entry supplies its actual original fictional mini-source and a worked textual move. These short transfers supplement the complete P/Q/W arguments; they do not replace whole-text study. Places, notices, objects, proposals and people here are invented. On fresh days use these only after first-response capture; they do not preview held facts. A model response is one possible reading or composition, not learner wording or a required position.

Day 11

Public library display

Fictional source: Display: “REPLACE THIS EDITION. Give our shelves a fresh start.” No condition report is supplied. Worked move: “Library readers, a fresh-looking shelf is a purpose, not a condition report. Before this display asks us to replace the edition, it should explain why.” The direct address establishes a public role; the repeated “fresh” challenges the display’s implied link. A writer could instead defend an appearance-led display, while admitting the book’s condition remains unknown.

School art resource

Fictional source: Notice: “NEW PAPER MAKES BETTER WORK. Choose unused sheets for the studio display.” No artworks or comparisons are supplied. Worked move: “Studio organisers, unused paper could be a useful creative constraint; it does not establish that the work will be better. Explain the constraint as a choice for this display.” “Could” supports a qualified proposal. Another writer might oppose the constraint. Neither response can infer actual quality, affordability or who has paper.

Day 12

Council announcement

Fictional source: Council release: “We propose a new path across the square: a direct line for a fresh beginning.” Commentary: “A direct line to where? Explain the journey before praising the beginning.” Neither gives a map or reports construction. Worked move: The release’s “we” adopts an institutional voice and its “fresh beginning” frames change positively. The commentary turns “direct” into a question about purpose. Both discuss a proposal; one announces a direction and the other seeks its rationale. Calling the new path accessible or successful would go beyond both texts.

Fictional source: Newsletter: “Next term we plan a new learning dashboard. A clearer screen will mean a clearer school day.” Opinion: “A new screen could help. First show which information it keeps, changes or removes.” No dashboard has been installed in the story. Worked move: The newsletter’s repeated “clearer” links screen design to the school day with confident future language. The opinion’s “could” accepts a possibility, then requests a comparison. The contrast is certainty versus conditional inquiry, rather than proof that either writer dislikes technology. Neither text reports actual student satisfaction.

Day 13

Community sports gear

Fictional source: Speech: “Let us leave this dead weight behind and begin with new team equipment.” Reply: “Some equipment may need replacing. Calling every older item dead weight skips the question of suitability.” No inspection is supplied. Worked move: “Dead weight” treats older equipment as a burden before distinguishing its condition. The reply concedes possible replacement and narrows the criticism to the blanket metaphor. A fresh opening could say, “Team organisers, compare suitability before choosing what comes next.” This is textual reasoning; it gives no permission to use or test equipment.

Garden tools display

Fictional source: Display: “A second chapter for an ordinary tool.” Caption: “This is a story about a proposed repair, not an inspection or safe-use report.” Worked move: The book metaphor invites readers to see continued use as renewal. The caption restricts that invitation: a chapter is an image, not evidence of condition. A writer could favour the metaphor because the explicit caption qualifies it, or argue that the display should lead with the limitation. Neither position certifies safe use.

Day 14

Museum interpretation

Fictional source: Forum post: “Replace the long museum panel with a short one; a shorter story is a clearer story.” Reply: “Shorter wording may help focus. What would the new account omit?” No real collection, community authority or visitor response is supplied. Worked move: “A shorter panel may help focus; the forum should compare the actual accounts before deciding what to remove.” The concession accepts a plausible purpose without declaring improved comprehension. The reply shifts attention from length to inclusion and omission. A writer can support replacement with an explicit purpose while leaving cultural authority and actual reader results unclaimed.

Household resource choice

Fictional source: Address: “A new container would be convenient; the current one is described only as available. Compare suitability before making the change.” Response: “Convenience can itself be a reason. Explain the intended job before extending the comparison.” All objects and circumstances are fictional. Worked move: “Convenience deserves a place in the choice. The missing piece is the intended job, because neither address tells us what the container needs to do.” This synthesis accepts the second writer’s value and retains the first writer’s request. It does not judge a learner’s household purchases or invent a cost, waste figure or condition report.

Day 15

After-check theatre programme

Fictional source: Programme: “We propose a new entrance for the theatre: a new welcome.” Commentary: “Who is being welcomed, and what should the entrance let them do?” No building change or use is reported. Worked move: After the first response only: The repeated “new” makes a building proposal sound like a social invitation. The commentary interrogates that invitation through purpose and audience. It could support a more specific entrance proposal; it does not prove that the existing entrance excludes someone or that the new one works.

After-check public notice

Fictional source: Notice: “Keep the information board; it gives our announcements a place.” Reply: “Try a simpler page instead, provided the same necessary information remains available.” Neither gives a reader survey or adopted policy. Worked move: After capture: the notice values a shared location through “a place”, while the reply values a simpler presentation and qualifies it with “provided”. A connected comparison explains those purposes before choosing a direction. Supporting the board, a page or a combined proposal is possible; measured readership and community agreement remain unknown.

Day 16

Public transport conversation

Fictional source: Forum address A: “Before replacing the route page, label the date and explain what information would change.” Address B: “A date matters, but replacement should have a purpose. What question is the page meant to answer?” No actual service or timetable is named. Worked move: “Forum readers, keep the date visible and state the page’s job before choosing a replacement.” This opening synthesises A’s information request with B’s purpose question. The writer addresses an imagined public and uses “before” to propose a sequence. It cannot tell passengers where to travel or claim that a service has changed.

Robotics club resource

Fictional source: Club notice: “Put an information station beside our proposed equipment-renewal display.” Reply: “A station is one option. A take-away comparison sheet could also show the missing information.” No equipment specification, budget, adviser or trial is supplied. Worked move: “Club members, compare the station with a take-away sheet before choosing what to prepare. The notice gives us a location; the reply gives us another format, but neither shows actual use.” The opening establishes a public role and a reason for comparison. A different writer can defend either proposal without promising equipment performance or giving repair instructions.

Day 17

Community noticeboard

Fictional source: Draft notice: “Shorter notices will keep everyone informed.” Counterpoint: “A short notice may help focus, provided the necessary qualification stays visible.” No actual notice trial or reader result is supplied. Worked move: “Shorter notices may help focus; the qualification still needs a place.” The semicolon joins two complete clauses and keeps concession beside constraint. Two sentences can do the same job. “May” replaces the draft’s unsupported universal promise. The chosen punctuation is useful because of the relationship, rather than automatically being more sophisticated.

School resource budget

Fictional source: Budget argument: “The fictional project has a limited materials budget, so the organisers should accept the first proposal.” Reply: “A limit makes comparison important; it does not make the first proposal the only possible choice.” No amount or offers are supplied. Worked move: “The limit matters; the organisers could still explain how they compared the options.” The sentence concedes the fictional constraint and challenges the inference drawn from it. “Could” makes the next step a proposal. A writer may defend a quicker decision, but cannot invent prices, actual affordability or a real procurement result.

Day 18

Audio-guide proposal

Fictional source: Script: “Our guide has not been trialled. / I propose that its next version explain each picture in words as well.” The slash marks an intended pause between source status and proposal. Worked move: The wording already distinguishes the absent trial from the proposed revision. If spoken, an actual pause could emphasise the distinction; this slash alone is a plan. In a saved script, two sentences and their punctuation are available written features. Evaluate the features actually present without inferring sound, listener understanding or a verified translation.

Classroom panel segment

Fictional source: Panel script version A: “Ask what changes. Ask what stays. Then choose.” Version B: “Compare what the proposal changes and keeps before choosing.” No panel meeting or delivery is supplied. Worked move: A’s repeated “Ask” gives the written invitation a patterned rhythm; B states the same comparison more plainly. A learner can choose either and explain the intended purpose. The text is available for written analysis now. Audible rhythm, signing features, a listener’s notice and agreement require actual enactment or feedback with their roles accurately recorded.

Day 19

Exhibition handout

Fictional source: Draft exhibition paragraph: “The proposed guide will answer everyone’s questions.” Available source note: “Fictional proposal. No visitor trial is reported.” Worked move: Revised paragraph: “The proposed guide could answer questions about the display; its wording still needs comparison with the questions visitors might ask.” The revision narrows “everyone” and retains proposal status. Keep the fictional source note beside it. This saved paragraph is an actual model text; a printed handout, real visitor consultation or successful exhibition has not occurred.

Workplace suggestion page

Fictional source: Suggestion draft: “Everyone wants the instructions changed.” Supplied fictional meeting note: “One writer proposes shorter instructions. Another asks which detail would be removed.” No staff survey, employer or adopted decision is supplied. Worked move: “One writer proposes shorter instructions; I support comparing the versions before deciding what to remove.” This revision separates the source position from the model writer’s own contention. It replaces imaginary consensus with a specific textual connection. A private edition can address an invented workplace without requiring a learner’s job history or claiming actual staff endorsement.

Day 20

After-check music programme

Fictional source: Programme proposal: “Choose fewer pieces so each has room.” Reply: “More pieces could show a wider selection. Explain the purpose before choosing the length.” No actual pieces, performers, cultural permissions or event are supplied. Worked move: After capture: “Programme organisers, choose the purpose before choosing the length. A shorter selection could offer more room per piece; a wider one could offer another kind of variety.” The address synthesises the competing values and leaves both directions open. It cannot claim that a real audience enjoyed a programme or that any work is cleared for performance.

After-check shared tool guide

Fictional source: Guide proposal: “Use one large picture per page.” Reply: “Keep a brief description beside each picture so readers can use another route.” These are invented presentation proposals, with no actual tool, trial or approved instructions supplied. Worked move: After the first response: “Guide writers, a large picture can be one route; retain a brief description so the page also offers words.” This is a proposed presentation choice grounded in the reply, not a result about actual readers. A different coherent argument might separate formats while keeping both available. Do not infer safe-tool testing, implemented policy or community consensus.