Adopting and maintaining a role

Overview

What a named role does and does not change about an answer, what has to stay objective whoever you are told to be, and whether a role may recommend the option it would be expected to oppose.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   You are told to answer as a named role - a planning officer advising a council, say. What actually changes about your reasoning?

   Model answer

   The role fixes your remit, your priorities and your audience. It tells you which criteria matter most (a planning officer weighs policy compliance, public benefit and deliverability), what you have the power to recommend, and who you are writing for. What does not change is the evidence base or the standard of reasoning: you still have to read every resource honestly and weigh every group's position.

2. 2

   What must stay objective no matter which role you are given?

   Model answer

   The evidence. You must report figures accurately, acknowledge data that weakens your preferred option, treat other stakeholders' concerns fairly and admit uncertainty where it exists. The role changes the lens through which you weigh evidence and the priorities you apply; it never licenses you to misquote a resource, suppress an inconvenient finding or dismiss an opposing group without argument.

3. 3

   What does maintaining a role look like in practice across a whole answer?

   Model answer

   Consistency of voice and of criteria from the opening to the recommendation: you keep addressing the audience the role reports to, keep applying the same priorities, and reach a decision that role has the standing to make. Drifting into a neutral essay voice halfway through, or suddenly arguing from the standpoint of a different group, breaks the exercise and loses the credit attached to sustaining the role.

4. 4

   Why is it a mistake to let the role turn you into an advocate from the first sentence?

   Model answer

   Because a role such as adviser, officer, consultant or committee chair is expected to appraise options, not campaign. Announcing the conclusion at the outset and then selecting only supporting evidence produces an answer with no genuine evaluation in it. Adopt the role's priorities, then let them do their work openly on all the evidence, so the conclusion arrives as a result rather than an assumption.

5. 5

   Suppose the role you are given has an obvious interest - an environmental consultant, or a developer's agent. How do you keep the answer from reading as mere special pleading?

   Model answer

   By stating your priorities explicitly rather than smuggling them in, engaging seriously with the strongest opposing evidence, and conceding the genuine costs of what you recommend before explaining why they are outweighed or can be mitigated. A partisan role argued honestly is credible; the same role arguing that its option has no drawbacks is not, and is easy for a reader to discount.

6. 6

   Can a role legitimately recommend the option that role would be expected to oppose?

   Model answer

   Yes, if the evidence takes you there and the role has the standing to make that recommendation - a conservation officer might accept a limited development that funds long-term habitat management. What matters is that the reasoning is consistent with the role's priorities. An unexpected recommendation reached openly from the evidence is strong; a recommendation that simply forgets the role is not.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.