A letter is one of the Part 2 options. At C2 it is often written to an editor in response to something published, or to an organisation or someone in authority, and it usually asks you to argue a case: challenge a claim, defend a view, make a recommendation or complain with authority.
The register is formal or semi-formal, set by the reader and the purpose. Examiners expect a letter that is not only correct but persuasive and polished, its tone judged exactly right for the person reading it.
Many C2 letters answer a published claim: an editorial, a feature or a column. Identify the claim precisely and refer to it early, in your own words, so the reader knows exactly what you are responding to.
Then cover everything the task asks for: your view, reasons, perhaps an experience or a suggestion. Every opinion must be justified; bare assertions weaken a letter at this level.
Judge the relationship: an editor or a company director calls for formal, courteous language, while a magazine's readers' page may allow a more personal, semi-formal voice. Whichever you choose, keep it consistent from greeting to sign-off.
Disagree with authority but without hostility. Measured phrases such as I cannot help but question or this seems to me a considerable oversimplification persuade far more than outrage.
Structure your argument like a good advocate: state your position, support it with two or three strong reasons, illustrate with evidence or experience, and deal with the obvious counter-argument before the reader raises it.
End with a paragraph that restates your case or calls for action: what the editor should reconsider, what the organisation should do, what readers should bear in mind.
Give each paragraph one job in the argument, and link them with precise devices: by the same token, it follows that, in view of this, nor is it true that. Reference words avoid needless repetition.
Lay the letter out properly: a greeting, an opening that states your purpose, body paragraphs, a closing and the right sign-off, Yours faithfully for an unnamed reader and Yours sincerely for a named one.
At C2, range should look wide and effortless: inversion (Not once does the article mention...), cleft sentences, complex passives (it has long been assumed) and precise, formal vocabulary used with complete control.
Polished formulas show sophistication too: I would be most grateful if, should you wish to, it would be remiss of me not to mention. Use them where they serve your purpose, not as decoration.
Content: every part of the task addressed and justified. Communicative Achievement: the right tone for this reader, persuasive throughout. Organisation: logical paragraphs and letter conventions. Language: a wide range with precision.
Common traps: ranting instead of arguing, repeating the article's own words, never stating your purpose, and slipping into contractions or casual phrases halfway through.
A national newspaper has published an editorial arguing that music and art should be dropped from secondary schools to make room for more maths and science. Write a letter to the editor responding to this view.
Dear Editor, I am writing in response to your editorial of 14 March, which argued that music and art should be removed from the secondary curriculum to make way for additional maths and science. While I share the writer's concern about standards in these subjects, I believe the proposal is both misguided and short-sighted. The editorial rests on the assumption that the creative subjects are a pleasant luxury, of little relevance to a competitive economy. This seems to me a considerable oversimplification. Employers repeatedly single out creativity, collaboration and independent thinking as the qualities they find hardest to recruit. It is precisely these qualities that a well-taught art or music lesson develops, and that a timetable dominated by examination subjects tends to neglect. Nor is the benefit merely economic. As a secondary school teacher for over a decade, I have watched countless pupils who struggle in conventional lessons discover, through a school orchestra or a painting project, a confidence that then carries over into the rest of their work. For some, these subjects are the reason they come to school at all. To withdraw them would be to abandon the very students who most need a reason to stay engaged. Your editorial is right to point out that timetable space is limited. However, the answer is surely not to sacrifice one area of learning for another, but to recognise that they reinforce each other. Research has linked musical training with improved mathematical reasoning, and the design skills cultivated in art are fundamental to engineering. I would therefore urge you to reconsider a position that, however well intentioned, would narrow our children's education at the very moment it most needs to broaden. I would be most grateful if you would publish this response so that your readers may hear the other side of the argument. Yours faithfully, Daniel Okafor
308 palabras