Sport writing: a 10-line post/article — bad effects + at least three ways, OR an opinion/preference with at least three sound arguments

Idea: this instruction has one part — the dangers — and a number: at least three. Nothing asks for solutions, so the ten lines go to three developed dangers; one closing line may send the readers to the coach, but a paragraph of solutions would take the lines the dangers need.

Model article (about ten lines).

Pain is a message, not a test

Every week, one of us limps into the changing room and says nothing to the coach. We think silence proves that we are strong. It does not. The first danger is that a small injury becomes a serious one: a sprained ankle that is never rested can end in a torn ligament and months away from the pitch. The second danger is hidden: to protect the painful part, we change the way we run or jump, and the extra load soon injures a knee or the back. The third danger concerns the whole team, because the coach picks the players for a match on false information and an injured player may let everyone down on the day that matters. Hiding pain does not keep your place — it can cost you your season. Talk to the coach today.

What is credited — criteria printed for the Sport writing task in the official corrections (2019 principale, 2022 contrôle):

• Adherence to task and content adequacy (3 marks): three distinct dangers, each developed with its consequence (a worse injury, a second injury, the team let down); an article with a title, written to teammates in a warning tone.
• Lexical appropriacy and grammar accuracy (3 marks): ordinals that let the examiner count (The first / second / third danger), cause and result (because, soon, can end in), may for a risk.
• Mechanical accuracy (punctuation, capitalization and spelling) (2 marks): full stops, the colons that introduce the first two explanations, the spelling of injury / injuries, ligament, season.

The trap. A copy that gives one danger and then five tips to avoid injuries writes another task: the instruction asks you to warn by stating at least three dangers.

Idea: the opinion asked for is about the proposal — the baccalaureate over two years — not about the difficulty itself, which the instruction already states. Say in the first line whether you agree, disagree or partly agree, then give three different reasons for that stance.

Model post (about ten lines, one possible stance).

Two years for the bac? Yes, for some of us

I have read my teammate's proposal and I agree with it, at least for athletes who compete at national level. First, our weeks are already full: two training sessions a day and matches every weekend leave almost no time to revise, so some of us fail although we are not weak. Second, a longer final year would give us time to prepare each subject properly instead of cramming the night before a tournament. Third, it would end the cruel choice between a sports career and a diploma: nobody should have to give up one to keep the other. Of course, the option should be limited to athletes selected by their federation; otherwise everyone would ask for it. With that condition, it is a fair solution.

What is credited — criteria printed for the Sport writing task in the official corrections (2019 principale, 2022 contrôle):

• Adherence to task and content adequacy (3 marks): the stance on the proposal is in the first line; three different arguments (time, quality of preparation, not having to choose); the limit in the last lines shows a mature opinion but does not count as one of the three; a post with a title that refers to the proposal.
• Lexical appropriacy and grammar accuracy (3 marks): I agree with, First / Second / Third, the conditional would for a measure that does not exist yet, should for the condition.
• Mechanical accuracy (punctuation, capitalization and spelling) (2 marks): capitals, the colons that introduce an explanation (first and third arguments), a semicolon or a full stop before otherwise.

The opposite stance is just as valid. A student may disagree: an extra year delays university and the start of a career; the real problem is the timetable, which a sports high school can adapt; a two-year bac might be seen as a lesser diploma. It is marked on the same criteria — one stance, three sound arguments.

Idea: Do you think that it is a good decision? is a yes/no question. Answer it in the first sentence (yes, no, or yes, on one condition), then support that answer — and only that answer — with three arguments.

Model article (about ten lines, one possible stance).

Crossing the ocean with a racket and a notebook

Is it wise to leave for an American university at eighteen? I believe it is a good decision for most young athletes. First, these scholarships pay for both training and studies, so a family no longer has to choose between a child's sport and a diploma. Second, the level is high: athletes train every day with qualified coaches, doctors and equipment that few clubs here can offer. Third, they come back with a degree and a second language, which protects them if an injury ends their career. It is true that living so far from home is hard at eighteen, but video calls and summer holidays make the distance bearable. For a motivated athlete, the chance is worth taking.

What is credited — criteria printed for the Sport writing task in the official corrections (2019 principale, 2022 contrôle):

• Adherence to task and content adequacy (3 marks): the question is answered at once (I believe it is a good decision); three arguments that all support yes (money, level, a future after sport); the objection is answered in the same sentence, so it does not contradict the stance; an article with a title.
• Lexical appropriacy and grammar accuracy (3 marks): opinion markers (I believe), First / Second / Third, so and which to add consequences, It is true that … but … for the concession.
• Mechanical accuracy (punctuation, capitalization and spelling) (2 marks): a capital letter for American, a question mark after the opening question, spelling of scholarship, equipment, career.

The opposite stance is just as valid: leaving at eighteen cuts athletes off from their clubs and national teams, many never come back, and a scholarship can be lost after an injury. Three such arguments, clearly on the no side, are marked in the same way.

Idea: a forum post answers the thread: say whether you agree with the members' claim, then give three arguments. The issue is athletes' health and careers, so choose arguments about breathing, the heart and performance rather than general statements about health.

Model post (about ten lines, one possible stance).

Re: "E-cigarettes are harmless" — I disagree

Hi everyone. I have followed this discussion, and I cannot agree that e-cigarettes are harmless for athletes. First, most of them contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and makes the heart beat faster — exactly what an athlete does not need before an effort. Second, the vapour is not just water: it carries chemicals and fine particles that irritate the throat and the lungs, and good breathing is the basis of every sport. Third, doctors still do not know the long-term effects, because these products are recent, and a sports career is too short to be used as a test. No tobacco does not mean no danger. If you want to stop smoking, ask a doctor for help instead of switching to another habit.

What is credited — criteria printed for the Sport writing task in the official corrections (2019 principale, 2022 contrôle):

• Adherence to task and content adequacy (3 marks): a clear answer to the claim of the thread; three distinct arguments (addiction and the heart, the lungs, unknown long-term effects), each linked to sport; the conventions of a forum post (Re:, Hi everyone, reference to the thread).
• Lexical appropriacy and grammar accuracy (3 marks): I cannot agree that, relative clauses (which is highly addictive, that irritate), because for a cause, instead of + -ing.
• Mechanical accuracy (punctuation, capitalization and spelling) (2 marks): inverted commas around the quoted claim, the dash, spelling of nicotine, addictive, vapour (or vapor).

A partly-agree stance is also acceptable — for example, that e-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes for a smoker who is trying to quit — provided the post takes that position from the first line and supports it with three sound arguments.

Idea: a preference task asks you to choose one of the two options. Name it in the first line, then give three reasons why it is better; you may mention the other option to show its limit, but a post that ends with « both are good » states no preference.

Model post (about ten lines, one possible choice).

Why I would try several sports first

If I had a younger brother, I would let him play several sports until sixteen before choosing one. First, football, swimming and athletics develop different skills at once — speed, balance, endurance — and these make a better athlete later, whatever the final sport. Second, repeating the same movements every day from the age of eight tires the same muscles and joints, and many sports doctors link early specialisation to overuse injuries. Third, a child who changes sports keeps the pleasure of playing, while one who has trained for a single sport since childhood often gives up at fourteen, exhausted. Some sports, like gymnastics, may need an earlier start, but for most children variety comes first. So, let them play everything!

What is credited — criteria printed for the Sport writing task in the official corrections (2019 principale, 2022 contrôle):

• Adherence to task and content adequacy (3 marks): one option chosen in the first line; three reasons in its favour (all-round skills, fewer overuse injuries, lasting motivation); the exception (gymnastics) limits the choice without cancelling it; a Facebook post with a title and a closing call.
• Lexical appropriacy and grammar accuracy (3 marks): the second conditional for a preference (If I had…, I would…), while for contrast, the present perfect with since (has trained … since childhood).
• Mechanical accuracy (punctuation, capitalization and spelling) (2 marks): commas after First / Second / Third, the exclamation mark of the call, spelling of specialisation, endurance, exhausted.

The other option is just as valid: early specialisation lets a child master the technique while the body is young, gives clear goals, and prepares for early selections in sports such as gymnastics or swimming. Chosen clearly and supported by three reasons, it earns the same adherence marks.