The essay is Part 1 of the C2 Proficiency Writing paper, and it is compulsory. You read two short texts on the same topic, usually from different angles, and write an essay that summarises and evaluates the key points of both, adding your own view.
Your reader is educated and critical, so the register is formal and academic. The real test is to show you have understood the ideas by expressing them in your own words: copied phrases earn nothing and suggest you have not fully grasped the argument.
Each text usually contains two key ideas. Read both carefully and identify the four points you must cover; watch for the one tucked into a subordinate clause or the final sentence.
Notice how the texts relate: do they contradict or complement each other? That relationship gives your essay its shape and your evaluation its focus.
Examiners check that you can reformulate ideas. Change both the words and the structure: pilot schemes have shown promising results might become early trials suggest the policy has real merit. Only unavoidable topic words may stay.
Paraphrasing also saves words. Condense each point into a sentence or two and leave room for evaluation, which is where the higher marks lie.
Summary alone is not enough. For each point, assess it: is it convincing, exaggerated, supported by evidence, blind to an obvious objection? Phrases such as this argument carries considerable weight or this rather overlooks signal evaluation.
Your own view must come through clearly, but it can be nuanced. Agreeing partly with both writers is often the most intelligent position, provided you make it plain exactly where you stand.
Keep the tone formal and impersonal: no contractions or chatty asides, and I used sparingly, mainly in the conclusion. Hedging (arguably, to some extent, it could be contended) makes claims sound measured.
Show C2 range naturally: inversion (Nor is it clear that...), cleft sentences, nominalisation (the erosion of trust rather than people trust less) and precise, less common vocabulary used with complete control.
A reliable plan is an introduction, a paragraph on each text (summary plus evaluation) and a conclusion with your view. Organising by theme also works well when both texts discuss the same aspects.
Guide the reader between the texts with precise signposting: the first writer contends, by contrast, the second text takes issue with, what neither author considers. The texts should talk to each other in your essay.
Content: all key points from both texts summarised and evaluated, plus your view. Communicative Achievement: an academic essay for an educated reader. Organisation: coherent, well-linked paragraphs. Language: wide range with precision.
Common traps: lifting phrases from the texts, summarising without evaluating, missing a key point, piling on unrelated new ideas, and going over 280 words.
Two texts on remote working: the first says working from home makes staff more productive and gives them a better work-life balance; the second argues it weakens creativity and deprives young employees of learning from colleagues. Write an essay summarising and evaluating both, with your own view.
The shift towards working from home, accelerated dramatically in recent years, has divided employers and employees alike. The two texts approach the issue from opposing angles, one celebrating the freedom it offers and the other warning of what may be lost. The first writer maintains that remote work makes people more efficient, since hours once wasted on commuting can be devoted to the job itself, free from the constant interruptions of a busy office. There is considerable force in this argument, and numerous surveys appear to support it. The writer further claims that flexibility allows employees to balance professional and family commitments more successfully. This, too, is persuasive, although it perhaps underestimates how easily the boundary between work and home can become blurred, leaving some people feeling they are never truly off duty. The second text, by contrast, focuses on the collective cost. Its author argues that creativity depends on spontaneous exchanges that video calls cannot replicate, and that junior staff in particular are deprived of the informal guidance they would once have absorbed simply by sitting beside experienced colleagues. The latter point strikes me as the more compelling, as it concerns not only present productivity but the development of the next generation of professionals. On balance, neither extreme seems entirely convincing. Remote work undeniably offers real benefits to individuals, yet it is equally clear that organisations cannot thrive on isolated efficiency alone. A hybrid arrangement, in which teams meet regularly in person while retaining a degree of flexibility, would seem to capture the advantages of both positions while minimising their respective drawbacks.
263 słowa