In G2 English, comparing options means judging them against relevant shared criteria, not copying every feature into separate lists. A useful comparison explains which differences matter for the task, who is affected and why one option may be more suitable under the stated conditions.
The quick example is choosing a venue for a class exhibition. A cheaper room is not automatically better if families cannot reach it easily. An accessible room is not automatically the answer if it cannot hold the displays. The writer needs to connect the options to the exhibition’s actual requirements rather than announce a preference from one attractive detail.
This guide uses original school and everyday planning scenarios to make that reasoning visible. It builds on What Is G2 English?, Revising Without Changing Meaning and Building Paragraph Progression. The examples are instructional, not official examination questions or marking schemes.
Find the explanation you need
Understand the meaning · Check the subject framework · See the language skills · Plan practice and support · Read the quick questions
Contents 1–7
1. A More Important Reading-to-Writing Transition Than It First Appears
2. The Hidden Problem: Two Lists Are Not Yet a Comparison
3. G2 English Is the Course Context
4. Define What the Decision Is For
5. Turn the Purpose Into Relevant Criteria
6. Apply the Same Criterion to Both Options
7. Distinguish a Requirement From a Preference
Contents 8–14
8. Explain Why a Difference Matters
9. Trade-Offs Do Not Make a Decision Impossible
10. Missing Information Is Not a Negative Feature
11. Keep the Comparison Consistent With the Audience
12. Organise by Criterion or by Option
13. Comparative Language Must Preserve Meaning
14. A Recommendation Needs a Position and a Reason
Contents 15–21
15. A Full Worked Comparison: Two Class Activities
16. A Full Worked Revision: From Listing to Judgement
17. Test the Recommendation With a Changed Condition
18. Our First-Principles Teaching Sequence
19. A Practice Session That Makes Criteria Visible
20. Parent Support Without Choosing for the Student
21. Repair, Stabilisation and Extension
Contents 22–24
22. What Progress Should Look Like
23. Frequently Asked Questions
24. Helpful Reading and the Next Step
Quick parent check
| What you notice | First teaching check | Evidence to look for next |
|---|---|---|
| Two feature lists, no judgement | Identify the task and shared criteria | Explain why a fresh difference matters |
| Different standards for each option | Apply a consistent relevant question | Compare both options on the same basis |
| Missing detail treated as a weakness | Separate unknown from established information | Keep a new recommendation proportionate |
| Favourite defended regardless of purpose | Change one relevant condition | Explain whether the conclusion should change |
A More Important Reading-to-Writing Transition Than It First Appears
Students may understand two descriptions and still struggle to compare them. They can repeat the features of Option A and then the features of Option B, but the reader is left to decide which differences matter. Understanding information and using it for a decision are connected skills, not identical ones.
Begin by identifying the task’s purpose. Is the student choosing an activity for a whole class, a venue for visitors or a method for completing a project? The purpose establishes what suitability means in this situation.
Then identify the audience and constraints. A plan for younger pupils may require different considerations from a plan for older students. A fixed deadline or limited space can make one feature decisive.
Only after that should the learner evaluate the options. This order prevents a familiar problem: choosing the most appealing option first and searching afterwards for a reason to defend it.
The transition is from collecting details to explaining their significance. A sentence saying that a hall has more seats reports a feature. A sentence explaining that the extra seats allow families to attend together connects that feature to the task. The second gives the reader a reason to consider the hall, while leaving room to examine other relevant limits.
The Hidden Problem: Two Lists Are Not Yet a Comparison
A list can organise information, but it does not automatically show a relationship. A student may write that one venue is affordable, spacious and colourful, while another is accessible, modern and quiet. The features do not line up clearly enough to support a fair judgement.
Ask which feature is being compared. Cost should be examined against cost, access against access and suitability for the activity against the same requirement. If information is missing for one option, state that rather than inventing a matching detail.
Use an original example with two activities. One description gives duration, group size and required equipment. The other gives the same categories. Ask the learner to compare one category at a time before combining the judgement.
Then remove one piece of information. The student should recognise that the comparison is incomplete on that point. Missing evidence is not automatically evidence of a weakness in the option.
The purpose of alignment is not to make every option identical. It is to make the reasoning visible. A reader can assess the judgement when they know which requirement is being applied and what information supports it. Separate attractive descriptions can sound persuasive while hiding that different standards have been used for each option.
G2 English Is the Course Context
G2 is a subject level for English Language under Full Subject-Based Banding. Students within the same level can have different reading and writing needs. Use the MOE Full SBB explanation for the framework and the school’s instructions for the actual task.
This article focuses on comparison and recommendation. It is not a complete syllabus guide or a universal structure for every composition. A narrative or personal reflection may require a different kind of development.
Observe where the comparison first becomes unreliable. Does the learner misunderstand a description? Choose irrelevant criteria? Use different standards for each option? Or understand the judgement but struggle to express it?
Those causes need different lessons. A polished paragraph template cannot repair a misread source. Another explanation of the source may be unnecessary if the student already understands it and needs help connecting evidence to purpose.
The examples here are original practice material, not validated placement tasks. Their role is to make a useful English decision teachable. Formal subject arrangements should be discussed with the school through the applicable process, using wider evidence than one private comparison exercise. The immediate goal is clearer reasoning and communication within the course the learner currently takes.
Define What the Decision Is For
Suitability depends on purpose. A quiet room may suit a discussion but not a performance needing movement. A short activity may fit a limited lesson period but provide too little time for a different goal. Begin with the job the option must do.
Ask the learner to state the decision in one ordinary sentence. “We need an activity the whole class can complete during the weekday session” is more useful than “We need the best activity.” It makes the requirement visible.
Then check the supplied context. The task may name particular aims or audience needs. Use those rather than importing personal preferences that change the problem.
An original scenario might ask for a class activity that includes students with different interests. A student’s favourite sport may be relevant only if they explain how the arrangement serves the wider group. Preference alone does not establish suitability.
This first step also helps revision. When a paragraph wanders into an attractive but irrelevant feature, return to the purpose statement. Does the feature help complete this job? If not, it may not deserve space. A clear purpose acts as a guide for selection without becoming a rigid formula that ignores the actual wording of the question.
Turn the Purpose Into Relevant Criteria
A criterion is a standard used to judge an option. In a school planning task, relevant criteria might concern timing, access, participation, resources or the activity’s purpose. The task determines which ones matter.
Use an original exhibition scenario. Families will attend, displays need tables and the class has a limited preparation period. Access, display space and setup demands are therefore relevant. The colour of the curtains may be less important unless the task gives it a meaningful role.
Ask how each criterion connects to a need. This prevents the learner from producing a standard list regardless of context. “Convenient” becomes clearer when the writer explains convenient for whom and for what action.
Keep the number manageable. A short response may need only the most important criteria. Listing every imaginable factor can obscure the decision and leave little room for explanation.
Then check whether the source provides information for each criterion. If not, decide whether the task allows a conditional recommendation or whether the uncertainty should be stated. Good comparison does not require inventing facts to fill a table. It requires using available information accurately and recognising what remains unknown.
Apply the Same Criterion to Both Options
Fair comparison uses a consistent question. If access matters, ask how each option affects access. Do not praise one option for being close while judging another only by its decoration. The standards should be visible and relevant.
Consider two original venues. Venue A is near public transport but has a smaller display area. Venue B has more display space but requires a longer walk. Compare access with access, then space with space. The trade-off becomes clear.
Ask the student to complete a spoken comparison: “On this criterion, Option A has this advantage, while Option B has this limitation.” The wording is a teaching support, not a compulsory final sentence.
Keep the conclusion proportionate. A difference on one criterion does not automatically settle the whole decision. The student still needs to explain how important that criterion is for the task.
This method can also reveal unsupported assumptions. If the source says nothing about one venue’s cost, do not describe it as expensive merely because it is larger. A consistent standard needs accurate information. The learner should be able to point to the source detail or identify the uncertainty, rather than fill the comparison with plausible-sounding facts that were never provided.
Distinguish a Requirement From a Preference
Some criteria are essential to the task, while others are desirable. Confusing them can produce a recommendation that looks attractive but cannot do the required job.
An original activity must finish within one lesson because the class has another scheduled commitment. That time limit is a requirement in the scenario. An appealing activity that needs twice as long does not become suitable merely because students might enjoy it more.
A preference might concern whether the activity is indoors or outdoors when either setting can meet the purpose. It can influence the decision, but its status differs from a fixed constraint.
Ask what happens if the criterion is not met. Does the plan become impossible under the stated conditions, or simply less appealing? This helps the learner explain why some differences matter more than others.
Avoid treating every preference as trivial. An audience preference can be important when participation is central to the task. The point is to describe its role accurately and not let an attractive feature silently override a requirement. A useful recommendation shows that the chosen option can satisfy the essential job before arguing for the additional benefits that make it preferable.
Explain Why a Difference Matters
Comparison needs a link between feature and consequence. “Venue A is closer” identifies a difference. “Venue A’s shorter walk would make arrival easier for families with younger children” explains its relevance in a particular scenario.
Ask the learner what changes for the people involved. Does the feature reduce setup work, allow more participation, support the activity or create a practical difficulty? The explanation should follow reasonably from the information.
Do not turn a plausible consequence into a guarantee. Easier access can support attendance without ensuring that every family will attend. The wording should match the strength of the reasoning.
Use a short contrast exercise. Give one sentence reporting a feature and another explaining its significance. Ask which helps the reader evaluate the option and why. Then let the student develop a fresh feature independently.
This step often makes a paragraph more useful without requiring advanced vocabulary. The writer is doing more thinking, not merely adding decoration. A well-chosen ordinary sentence can show the practical connection clearly. The reader should understand not only that the options differ, but why that difference affects the decision the task asks them to make.
Trade-Offs Do Not Make a Decision Impossible
An option can have an advantage and a limitation. Students sometimes treat this as a reason to avoid choosing. A useful comparison can acknowledge the trade-off and still recommend the option that better serves the task’s priorities.
Use an original venue choice. The accessible room costs more, while the cheaper room creates a difficult journey for the intended visitors. If visitor access is central, the writer may recommend the accessible room while explaining a permitted way to manage the cost.
The adjustment must fit the task and available information. Do not invent a confirmed discount or assume extra funding. A conditional suggestion can be identified as a suggestion rather than a fact.
Ask which limitation can be managed and which would undermine the core purpose. The answer may differ in another scenario. If the task has an absolute budget limit, cost may become decisive.
This teaches a flexible principle: suitability depends on the interaction of requirements, evidence and priorities. It is not a search for a perfect option with no disadvantage. A clear recommendation explains why the remaining limitation is acceptable, manageable or less serious than the alternative under the stated conditions.
Missing Information Is Not a Negative Feature
When a description omits a detail, the learner should not automatically assume the worst. If a venue’s equipment is not mentioned, that does not establish that no equipment exists. It establishes that the supplied description does not answer that question.
In an examination-style teaching task, use only the information and reasonable development the instructions permit. A student may need to state a condition or focus on the available comparison rather than invent a complete profile.
In a real planning situation, ask the responsible person for clarification before making a consequential arrangement. A precise question identifies the missing information that affects the decision.
Use an original pair of options where one description includes transport access and the other does not. Ask what can be compared confidently and what remains uncertain. This prevents the learner from treating uneven descriptions as though they were complete evidence.
The distinction improves honesty in writing. “The information provided does not state whether tables are available” is different from “There are no tables.” Choose wording suited to the task’s purpose and response length. The aim is not to fill every paragraph with uncertainty, but to preserve the difference between an established limitation and an unanswered question.
Keep the Comparison Consistent With the Audience
The same option can suit one audience better than another. A recommendation for a whole class differs from a personal choice. The writer must keep the intended reader and participants in view.
An original activity involving a long walk may suit a group specifically seeking physical challenge. It may be less appropriate for a class task intended to include students with varied participation needs. The source information and purpose determine the judgement.
Ask who benefits from the feature and who might face difficulty. Do not assume that the writer’s own preference represents everyone. At the same time, avoid inventing detailed needs that the task does not establish.
A useful response can explain an arrangement that broadens participation where the task permits it. For example, different roles may allow students to contribute through planning, recording or practical work. Present the arrangement as a proposal if it is not supplied as a confirmed fact.
Audience awareness also affects tone. A message to a teacher should make the recommendation and its reasons easy to assess. It does not need repeated declarations that the choice is obviously best. The reader needs a clear connection between the option, the participants and the job the activity must perform.
Organise by Criterion or by Option
Two common structures can work. A criterion-based structure compares the options under each relevant standard. An option-based structure examines one option and then the other before drawing the relationship. The best choice depends on the task and response length.
For a short recommendation, criterion-based writing can make the decisive differences visible quickly. One paragraph might compare access and another compare space, followed by a clear recommendation if the task requires it.
An option-based structure can be useful when each option needs a coherent explanation. It still needs explicit comparison rather than two isolated descriptions.
Ask the learner to explain why the order helps the reader. If the response repeats features without showing significance, changing the structure alone will not solve the problem. The reasoning still needs development.
Avoid teaching one arrangement as a universal examination rule. Follow the actual instructions and school guidance. The student should understand the relationship between structure and purpose. A useful plan gives each paragraph a distinct job and leads towards the decision, rather than using a memorised number of paragraphs as a substitute for a coherent comparison.
Comparative Language Must Preserve Meaning
More suitable, cheaper, easier and more accessible express relationships. They should be used only where the source or reasoning supports the comparison. A positive description of one option does not automatically prove it exceeds another.
An original source says that Venue A has step-free access. If Venue B’s access is unknown, “Venue A is more accessible than Venue B” may go beyond the information. The writer can state the known feature and explain why it matters without inventing the missing comparison.
Words such as whereas, while and compared with can help signal contrast. Their usefulness depends on a real relationship between the ideas. They cannot make unrelated features comparable.
Ask the learner to explain the sentence in ordinary language. What is being compared, on which criterion and on what basis? If those answers are unclear, revise before adding more sophisticated wording.
This also helps prevent accidental exaggeration. Slightly less convenient is different from impossible to use. A longer journey is not automatically unsafe. Keep the degree accurate. Good comparison expresses the difference the evidence supports, then explains its relevance to the task without inflating every limitation into a decisive failure.
A Recommendation Needs a Position and a Reason
A student may compare accurately yet never state the choice the task requires. Another may announce a choice without enough reasoning. A useful recommendation connects both.
An original concise position might say, “I recommend Venue A because its access arrangements better fit the needs of the invited families, while its smaller space can still hold the planned displays.” The sentence establishes a reason and acknowledges a relevant limit, where the scenario supports both.
The rest of the response can develop those points rather than repeatedly announce the recommendation. Explain the audience connection and the evidence that the space is adequate.
If a key condition remains unresolved, state it appropriately. “Subject to confirming that the display tables fit…” is a conditional recommendation, not a confirmed fact. Use such wording only where it serves the actual task.
The learner should be able to answer why this option is preferred under these conditions. A preference that would remain unchanged regardless of the source details may not be based on the comparison at all. Testing the recommendation against a changed condition helps reveal whether the student is reasoning from the task or simply defending the first option they liked.
A Full Worked Comparison: Two Class Activities
Here is an original scenario. The class needs an activity that can take place during a weekday session and include all classmates. Option A is an outdoor trail scheduled for Saturday, with roles centred on walking and navigation. Option B is a reading-pack project completed in school, with planning, writing and assembly roles.
Begin with the requirements: weekday timing and whole-class participation. The Saturday schedule conflicts with the first requirement as stated. The varied roles in Option B provide a basis for discussing participation, though the writer should not guarantee that every student will enjoy every role.
A useful recommendation could favour Option B because its confirmed timing fits the available session and its different tasks allow varied contributions. The response should connect those features to the class’s needs rather than list them separately.
Now change the scenario: the class is specifically organising a Saturday navigation challenge. The relevant priorities change, and Option A may become more suitable. This demonstrates why an option is not permanently better independent of purpose.
Ask the learner to explain the changed judgement. The target is applying criteria consistently and reasoning from the scenario. Memorising that the reading-pack project is always the correct choice would miss the lesson. The same information can support different conclusions when the legitimate task requirements differ.
A Full Worked Revision: From Listing to Judgement
An original draft says, “Venue A is near the station and has tables. Venue B is large and colourful. I choose Venue B because it is better.” The response includes features but does not establish relevant shared standards or explain the final judgement.
First identify the task. Suppose it is a small exhibition for visiting families, and the supplied information confirms that Venue A has adequate space. Access and display facilities become useful criteria. Colour is not necessarily irrelevant, but the draft has not shown why it matters.
A stronger response might recommend Venue A because families can reach it more easily and the available tables support the displays. If Venue B has a genuine advantage, acknowledge it accurately and explain why it is less decisive for this particular event.
Do not invent details to make the revision work. The teacher should supply a complete original scenario appropriate to the exercise. Where information is absent, keep the judgement conditional or limited.
Finally ask the student to revise a fresh comparison independently. They should identify the purpose, align criteria, explain significance and state a proportionate recommendation. A polished model is useful only if it helps the learner make those decisions elsewhere rather than copy a preferred venue and its wording.
Test the Recommendation With a Changed Condition
A useful check changes one relevant condition and asks whether the reasoning still holds. This reveals whether the recommendation follows the task or merely expresses a fixed preference.
Use an original venue scenario in which access is the main priority. After the learner recommends a nearby room, explain that the new audience will attend remotely and the task now depends on suitable recording equipment. The access advantage may become less decisive, while another feature becomes more important.
Ask what changed and what did not. The room has not become intrinsically worse. The task’s needs have changed. A good explanation identifies the effect on the criteria rather than simply reversing the answer because new information appeared.
Try a smaller change too. If the starting time moves slightly but both options still fit the session, the recommendation may remain the same. Not every altered detail should change the judgement.
This exercise helps students reason about relevance and priority. It also supports clearer writing because the learner can explain why a particular difference is decisive here rather than claim that one option is always best. Keep the scenarios hypothetical and the information complete enough for a fair comparison. The aim is a transferable decision process, not a game of guessing which answer the adult now wants.
Our First-Principles Teaching Sequence
Begin with a small independent comparison. Ask the student what the task is for and which differences they used. Observe whether the first problem concerns source understanding, criteria, significance or expression.
Teach one contrast. Compare a feature list with a developed explanation, or compare the same option under two different purposes. Make the decision visible in accessible language.
Use the Fencing idea to keep the response within the task’s requirements and available evidence. Include relevant criteria and reasonable development. Exclude invented facts, unrelated preferences and unsupported claims about the other option.
Then let the learner compare a fresh pair using the same kind of reasoning. Change the topic so they cannot rely on memorised conclusions. Reduce prompts and revisit later in a complete writing task.
The aim is not a perfect comparison table created with adult help. It is a student who can identify what matters, apply a consistent standard and explain the resulting judgement. The table or plan is a support for that thinking. Once the learner can make the decisions reliably, the support can be reduced without losing the quality of the reasoning.
A Practice Session That Makes Criteria Visible
Start with two options and a clear purpose. Ask the learner to identify one requirement before looking for a favourite. This checks whether the task rather than attraction is guiding the decision.
Introduce a short criterion comparison together. Explain how a feature affects the intended audience. Then let the student compare a second criterion independently.
Change one condition and ask whether the recommendation should change. A fixed budget, different participants or another time window can alter the reasoning. The learner should explain the effect, not assume that changing any detail reverses the answer.
Finish with a concise recommendation paragraph. Check whether it states the choice, develops a relevant reason and preserves any necessary condition.
This is an illustrative teaching design, not a statement about lesson duration or results. A manageable session should leave the learner with a decision they can explain and repeat. More option lists are useful when they provide varied practice and feedback. They are less useful when the student repeatedly copies features without learning how to judge their relevance to the task.
Parent Support Without Choosing for the Student
Parents can ask what the decision is for and which criterion matters. Let the learner make the recommendation and explain it. The goal is not agreement with the adult’s personal preference.
If a reason is weak, ask how the feature affects the audience. If the standards differ between options, ask the same question about both. Keep the feedback specific.
Accept a different conclusion when it is supported by the scenario and task. Some comparisons allow more than one defensible recommendation. The quality lies in the reasoning and expression, not guessing which option an adult likes.
If the learner’s choice depends on an invented fact, return to the source. Distinguish a possible proposal from information actually provided. This is a useful reading and writing lesson, not a reason to dismiss the whole attempt.
Bring the task, response and support given to a teacher or tutor when the difficulty persists. They can identify whether teaching should focus on comprehension, criteria, paragraph development or language. A precise discussion supports a better next step than simply telling the child to compare more carefully without explaining which decision needs repair.
Repair, Stabilisation and Extension
Repair is needed when the learner cannot connect purpose to criteria or distinguish a feature from its significance. Use explicit contrasts and accessible options. Keep unrelated vocabulary demand manageable.
Stabilisation is needed when a good comparison depends on prompts or a familiar table. Change topics, reduce labels and revisit after a delay. Check whether the learner selects criteria independently.
Extension is appropriate when the process is dependable. Introduce a trade-off, missing information or a condition that changes the judgement. Ask which uncertainty matters and why.
The pathways can differ across stages. A student may compare well aloud but need sentence support in writing. Another may write fluently while choosing irrelevant criteria. Observe both reasoning and expression.
These are instructional distinctions, not official G-level placement standards. Formal arrangements should be discussed with the school through the applicable process. Clearer comparison remains valuable within the current course: it helps the learner read information purposefully, make a defensible judgement and communicate the reason rather than leave the reader to assemble it from separate lists.
What Progress Should Look Like
Progress includes identifying relevant criteria, applying them consistently and explaining why differences matter. It also includes recognising missing information without converting it into an unsupported criticism.
Compare tasks of similar demand and note support. A comparison built through adult questions does not show the same independence as a fresh recommendation completed alone. Both can be useful stages when described honestly.
Look for transfer across topics and formats. Can the learner compare venues, activities and methods using the same purpose-led reasoning without applying a fixed list mechanically?
Keep a small sample of plans and final paragraphs. Ask the student to explain one judgement and what would change it. This reveals more than counting comparative words or transitions.
There is no universal timetable for a grade gain. A credible review identifies which decisions are more dependable, what remains unstable and what the next task will address. The aim is a learner who can connect evidence to a suitable recommendation, not a promise that one preferred structure or a set number of criteria guarantees success in every English assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must every feature be mentioned?
No. Select the information relevant to the task and develop it sufficiently. A long list can hide the decisive differences. Follow the actual instructions, which may require particular points, and avoid discarding a required detail simply because another feature seems more attractive.
Can two students recommend different options?
Sometimes, if the task permits more than one defensible judgement and both use the evidence accurately. The recommendation should follow the stated needs and constraints. A personal preference unsupported by the scenario is not equivalent to a reasoned alternative.
Is a table compulsory?
No. A small table can align criteria during teaching or planning. It is a support, not a universal final format. Reduce it when the learner can compare reliably and follow the response format required by the actual task.
What if one description gives more information?
Do not invent matching facts for the other option. Compare what can be established and identify relevant uncertainty where appropriate. In real planning, seek clarification from the responsible person. In a learning task, follow the supplied information and instructions.
Should the cheapest option always win?
No universal rule applies. Cost may be a fixed constraint or one consideration among others. Explain its role in the scenario and whether the option can satisfy the essential purpose. The same principle applies to convenience, size and other attractive features.
Can this help other English levels?
Yes. Purpose-led comparison is useful across levels. Adjust text complexity, support and expected development. This guide uses a G2 learning context, not a claim that all courses have identical assessment demands or that one exercise establishes readiness for another level.
Helpful Reading and the Next Step
Return to What Is G2 English? for the wider learning map. Use Building Paragraph Progression to organise contributions and Revising Without Changing Meaning to improve the final response.
Choose one comparison task. State its purpose, identify the relevant shared criteria and explain one difference’s significance. Then write a recommendation that follows from those reasons and preserves any important condition.
That is the useful next step: not copying more features, but showing why the information matters. Clear comparison gives the reader a judgement they can understand and assess, while giving the student a reasoning process they can use again.
Continue the English learning series
Explaining a Problem Clearly · Comparing Options Against the Same Criteria · Reading Ambiguous Sentences Without Guessing · Learning from Model Answers Without Copying
Explore the eduKateSG English collection for connected reading, writing and language-learning guides. This practical teaching guide was prepared on 16 October 2026. Teaching examples and learning maps in this article are illustrative; use your school’s instructions and the syllabus for your own cohort.
To discuss whether current support is suitable for your child’s English learning needs, contact eduKate Singapore. Bring the actual subject level, recent marked work and a realistic picture of the student’s weekly workload. Confirm current English provision directly before making arrangements.
Connect this task to the wider English guides
Use the G1, G2 and G3 English Explainer Library to find all sixteen guides in this series and choose a practical next reading step. For the broader subject, return to the English Learning Hub.
Paragraphs and Development helps you develop a comparison rather than leave two separate lists. Read the explanation, then return to a fresh example of the student’s own task.
Cohesion and Coherence helps you connect criteria, reasons and the recommendation. Read the explanation, then return to a fresh example of the student’s own task.