An answer promises better support, wide consultation and balanced interests, yet the reader still cannot tell what to approve. Three links are often missing: the gap in existing provision, the mechanism that would address it and why the benefit justifies the cost. Try the six exercises below in two or three sentences each before opening the reference analysis.
The teaching direction draws on Professor Wilson Wong's 2016–2018 civil-service preparation series; JREHK created the scenarios and responses. Those articles share experience and opinion, rather than a current official marking scheme. The current Civil Service Bureau description specifies three hours, one question in each language, background materials for both and completion of both questions. Follow the actual task. Do not assume that Chinese questions have no materials or that a fictional city is automatically Hong Kong.
1. Identify what the new proposal adds
Original fictional scenario: A city already operates daytime cooling centres. A proposal would add night centres for residents who work outdoors after dark. A weak response says that popular daytime centres justify night centres. What evidence is missing?
Read the reference analysis after writing
Daytime usage establishes daytime demand, not an equivalent night-time need. Examine heat exposure after dark, the target group's working locations and transport home. Then compare extending existing opening hours with separate night centres. The additional effect is the unmet need addressed for a particular group and time, rather than the merits of existing provision repeated.
Build the chain: existing provision, remaining gap, new mechanism and expected change. Renaming a programme without changing its reach or mechanism does not explain why extra resources are warranted.
2. Set comparison criteria before listing advantages
Original fictional scenario: Two options seek to reduce waiting. Option A requires online appointments; Option B keeps assisted walk-in access alongside online booking. Calling A efficient and B fair gives the reader different measures.
Select criteria tied to the task, such as total time to complete the service and access for people without digital equipment. Apply each criterion to both options:
| Criterion | Online only | Two channels |
|---|---|---|
| Time to complete the service | May reduce queues; include failed bookings and repeat visits | Assistance needs staff; may reduce repeat visits caused by booking difficulty |
| Access | Requires equipment and ability to use it | Retains help; needs rules for capacity and duplicate appointments |
Neither option wins by definition. Significant digital exclusion may support two channels. If reliable assistance already exists under A, include it in A's assessment. Let evidence guide the decision instead of selecting criteria to suit a preferred option.
3. Give consultation a decision endpoint
Rewrite this: “Set up a working group to study night-time noise, consult widely and decide later.” Name the question it must resolve and an action that can proceed while evidence is collected.
Read a more complete response
The group should compare the timing and sources of noise with gaps in existing management, then propose targeted options. Meanwhile, the responsible unit can improve complaint records and follow-up. The recommendation should set out each option's likely mechanism and cost so the authorised decision-maker can choose the next step.
Research and consultation can be useful. Explain which judgement they will inform. Do not invent legal powers or a mandatory deadline to sound precise. Where the task permits a proposed timetable, identify it as your design and explain why it allows the necessary evidence to be gathered.
4. Separate stated concerns from assumed motives
Original fictional scenario: A street improvement removes some loading spaces. Traders object that delivery costs may rise. A weak answer says they care only about profit, replacing a testable burden with an assertion about motives.
Record the specific concern, then examine delivery times, the distance to alternatives and the effects on businesses of different sizes. If the evidence supports higher costs, compare shared time slots, designated loading hours and better alternative sites. Check whether each adjustment still achieves the pedestrian-safety objective.
Stakeholder analysis identifies who bears which cost and which need remains unmet. Residents are not a single group, and opposition is not automatically selfish. A motive not established by the materials is at most a hypothesis to investigate.
5. Transition arrangements also carry costs
Original fictional scenario: A city proposes energy-efficient equipment requirements. Small businesses raise concerns about upfront costs. Permanent exemptions may secure support but leave inefficient equipment in use and treat similar businesses differently.
Compare a time-limited transition, needs-based assistance and phased compliance. For every safeguard, ask whose burden it reduces and which part of the objective it weakens. An exemption needs eligibility criteria and review arrangements; financial assistance needs eligibility and resource limits. These costs support a decision more clearly than a promise that everyone will benefit.
6. Revise a judgement when relevant evidence changes
You originally supported online-only booking because the materials said most users could book independently. A follow-up introduces new information: older people who need assistance account for most demand for this particular service. Insisting on the original position would now ignore evidence directly relevant to access.
Read a reference response
I initially supported online-only booking on the assumption that most users could complete it independently. The new information indicates a greater access risk, so I would retain online booking with assisted access. The objective of reducing total waiting remains, while the delivery method changes.
This revision identifies its premise and reason. It differs from changing an answer merely to please the questioner. Whether you maintain or revise a recommendation, explain whether the evidence changes the criteria that informed it.
Record one change for the next attempt
After a timed practice, record four things: an unfinished task, where time went, the missing link in the weakest argument and one observable change for next time. “Write the mechanism for each recommendation while outlining” is easier to check than “work harder”. Complete both language questions. A historical account alone cannot establish that English has a greater official weighting.
Try these short exercises, then apply the skills in question practice. When using the writing guide, match the structure to the task. No practice sequence here is an official scoring formula.
Reading and attribution
Relevant reading in the CUHK MPUP collection of Wilson Wong's articles includes Series 2 on the task perspective, Series 3 on analytical responsibility, Series 4 on feasibility, Advanced 1 on decision criteria, Advanced 3 on transition arrangements and the 2018 post-exam article on reflection. The articles date from 2016–2018; the 2024 upload path is not a content-update date. No source paragraphs or worked cases are reproduced here, and no endorsement by the author, university or government is implied.
Now put it into practice
The JREHK app carries writing drills for both the Chinese and English papers, worked model answers, and a policy-issue library with the analytical frameworks to go with it — so the method you just read becomes something you actually use.
