B2 Project: Research a Public Issue, Write a Report, and Defend a Recommendation in Spanish

B2 Project: Research a Public Issue, Write a Report, and Defend a Recommendation in Spanish

This project integrates B2 reading, listening, source comparison, report writing, data commentary, argumentation, and interaction. You will research one public issue using available sources, write a report with attributed findings, make a recommendation, present it orally, respond to objections, and revise the recommendation if the evidence requires it.

Project question

¿Cómo podría una ciudad reducir los tiempos de espera en su red de autobuses sin aumentar el presupuesto de forma desproporcionada? — How could a city reduce waiting times in its bus network without increasing the budget disproportionately?

Stage 1: define the scope

Write a narrow research question.

Example:

¿Qué cambios de frecuencia o distribución de vehículos podrían reducir las esperas entre las siete y las nueve en las líneas con mayor demanda? — What changes in frequency or vehicle allocation could reduce waiting times between seven and nine on the highest-demand routes?

This is more manageable than trying to solve every transport problem in the city.

Stage 2: collect available sources

Your source set should include at least:

• one written report or notice
• one interview, speech, or audio source
• one table, chart, or set of numerical findings

Do not invent sources that are not available in the project task.

Stage 3: build a source table

For each source, record:

• quién habla o publica — who speaks or publishes
• qué afirma — what they claim
• qué evidencia aporta — what evidence they provide
• qué limitaciones reconoce — what limitations they acknowledge
• qué recomienda — what they recommend

Stage 4: identify agreement and conflict

Example agreement:

Las tres fuentes coinciden en que las esperas son mayores durante la franja de siete a nueve. — The three sources agree that waiting times are longer between seven and nine.

Example unresolved difference:

La asociación recomienda añadir vehículos, mientras que el departamento de transporte propone primero redistribuir los ya disponibles. — The association recommends adding vehicles, while the transport department proposes redistributing the existing ones first.

Do not erase the difference before evaluating the evidence for each option.

Stage 5: analyze the evidence

Ask:

• What does each number actually measure?
• What is the baseline?
• Is the sample representative?
• Is a claimed cause actually demonstrated?
• What important information is missing?

Stage 6: write the report

Recommended structure:

• Objetivo — Objective
• Alcance y fuentes — Scope and sources
• Resultados principales — Main findings
• Interpretación — Interpretation
• Opciones — Options
• Recomendación — Recommendation
• Limitaciones — Limitations

Model recommendation

Recomiendo una prueba de seis semanas en las tres líneas con mayor demanda. Durante la prueba, el departamento redistribuiría algunos vehículos hacia la franja de siete a nueve y mediría tiempos de espera, ocupación y puntualidad. Solo después de evaluar esos datos debería decidirse si hace falta aumentar permanentemente el número de vehículos. — I recommend a six-week trial on the three highest-demand routes. During the trial, the department would redistribute some vehicles toward the seven-to-nine period and measure waiting times, occupancy, and punctuality. Only after evaluating those data should it be decided whether a permanent increase in the number of vehicles is necessary.

Connect recommendation to evidence

Reason:

Los datos disponibles muestran concentración de demanda en una franja concreta, pero no demuestran todavía que el problema requiera más vehículos durante todo el día. — The available data show concentrated demand during a specific period, but they do not yet demonstrate that the problem requires more vehicles throughout the entire day.

State a limitation

No disponemos de datos completos sobre el coste operativo de cada opción. — We do not have complete data on the operating cost of each option.

This should affect the confidence and scope of the recommendation.

Stage 7: oral defense

Opening:

Mi recomendación es realizar una prueba limitada antes de hacer un cambio permanente. — My recommendation is to run a limited trial before making a permanent change.

Then present:

1. the problem
2. the strongest evidence
3. the proposed action
4. the expected information the trial will produce
5. the main limitation

Respond to an objection

Objection:

Si ya sabemos que hay demasiados pasajeros, ¿por qué no comprar más autobuses directamente? — If we already know there are too many passengers, why not buy more buses directly?

Response:

Sabemos que hay presión en ciertas horas, pero todavía no sabemos si el problema se debe al número total de vehículos o a su distribución. La prueba permitiría distinguir esas dos posibilidades antes de asumir un coste permanente. — We know there is pressure at certain times, but we still do not know whether the problem is due to the total number of vehicles or their distribution. The trial would allow those two possibilities to be distinguished before taking on a permanent cost.

Revise the recommendation when evidence changes

New evidence:

Suppose the trial shows that redistribution reduces waiting on two routes but creates serious delays on another.

Revision:

Con esos resultados, no mantendría una redistribución general. Propondría ajustes específicos por línea y estudiaría si una de ellas necesita capacidad adicional. — With those results, I would not maintain a general redistribution. I would propose route-specific adjustments and study whether one of them needs additional capacity.

Project deliverables

1. a source table
2. a one-page research synthesis
3. a structured report
4. a recommendation tied to evidence
5. a five-minute oral presentation
6. responses to at least two objections
7. a short revision note explaining whether your recommendation changed

Project assessment criteria

1. Research question and report scope are coherent.
2. Sources are attributed accurately.
3. Numbers and qualifications are preserved.
4. Findings, interpretation, and recommendation are separated.
5. The recommendation follows from the evidence rather than personal preference alone.
6. Objections are answered with relevant evidence or acknowledged limits.
7. The learner can modify the recommendation when new evidence changes the case.
8. Written report and oral defense remain consistent with each other.

From the B2 Project to the Comprehension Checkpoint

You can now integrate research, report writing, and oral defense at B2 level. The next lesson is the B2 comprehension checkpoint, where you interpret extended speech, arguments, and unfamiliar texts without relying on translation during the independent attempt.