종합 과제 1: 공식 분석문Unit I Assessment: The Formal Analytical Text
Chapter Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Maintain a single, consistent formal register across an extended spoken or written text, without unmarked drift toward everyday polite or casual forms.
- Describe an institutional procedure or requirement clearly, using the administrative language developed in Chapter 2.
- Classify and compare two or more options using the contrastive and data-linked language developed in Chapter 3.
- State a position, support it with cited evidence, concede an opposing view, and respond to a counterargument, using the argumentative language developed in Chapter 4.
- Read and interpret an extended formal analytical text that combines description, comparison, and argument.
- Plan, draft, and revise a formal analytical text (공식 분석문) that integrates all four chapters of Unit I into a single coherent piece of writing and a related spoken presentation.
This is an assessment and synthesis chapter. It introduces no new grammar, particles, honorific systems, sound changes, or speech levels. Every task in this chapter draws only on vocabulary and structures activated in Chapters 1 through 4.
Opening Scenario
박 교수님's seminar has reached the end of its first unit. Over four chapters, 수아 and 민준's class has practiced writing with formal precision, describing institutional procedures, comparing options with evidence, and building an argument that takes an opposing view seriously. Now 박 교수님 asks each student to produce a single integrated document: a short formal analytical text, 공식 분석문, that describes a real or realistic institutional situation, compares at least two options or perspectives, and concludes with a clearly supported position. The task mirrors what learners will be asked to do in real academic, professional, and institutional settings — combine description, comparison, and argument into one coherent, appropriately formal piece of writing, and be prepared to present and defend it aloud.
- You will review and reactivate the language of Chapters 1 through 4 in an integrated way.
- You will read and analyze a model formal analytical text that combines description, comparison, and argument.
- You will plan, write, and present your own 공식 분석문, then check it against a shared rubric.
Unit I Consolidation Map
This chapter does not teach new material. It brings together the principal systems activated in Chapters 1–4 so that they can be used together in a single task. No system below is new; each is being recombined.
| Chapter | Focus | Key language reactivated in Chapter 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Ch. 1 | From B2 to C1: Precision and Register | Consistent formal stance; paragraph discipline; avoiding unmarked register drift. |
| Ch. 2 | Institutional Language and Procedures | Administrative genres; procedure description; formal requests. |
| Ch. 3 | Advanced Analysis and Comparison | Classification; contrast; data-linked explanation. |
| Ch. 4 | Position, Argument, and Evidence | 입장 / 근거 / 물론 ~ 그렇다 하더라도 ~ / 반박하다 |
Every task in this chapter requires learners to move between these four functions within a single text, rather than practicing them one at a time.
Cumulative Vocabulary Review
This chapter introduces no new productive vocabulary set. The following items, drawn from Chapters 1–4, are the core connective and analytical vocabulary that a 공식 분석문 typically requires. Review them before beginning the writing task.
| Korean | Meaning | Source chapter |
|---|---|---|
| 입장 | position, stance | Ch. 4 |
| 근거 | basis, grounds, evidence | Ch. 3–4 |
| -에 따르면 | according to ~ | Ch. 3–4 |
| 물론 ~ 그렇다 하더라도 | of course ~ / even granting that ~ | Ch. 4 |
| 반대하는 사람들은 ~다고 지적하다 | those who oppose point out that ~ | Ch. 4 |
| 결론적으로 / 따라서 | in conclusion / therefore | Ch. 4 |
| 절차 | procedure | Ch. 2 |
| 신청하다 | to apply, to submit a request | Ch. 2 |
| 비교하다 / 대조하다 | to compare / to contrast | Ch. 3 |
| 차이점 / 공통점 | a difference / a similarity | Ch. 3 |
No new items are assessed independently in this chapter. Learners are expected to select and combine these items accurately within their own writing.
Pronunciation and Register Review
This chapter introduces no new sound-change rule. The pronunciation focus is sustaining the measured pacing and even prosody of formal register across an entire spoken presentation, rather than only in isolated sentences. Pay particular attention to the pause before a pivot word such as 그렇다 하더라도 or 따라서, since these mark structural turns in a longer analytical text and should be audible to a listener.
Avoid letting pronunciation loosen toward casual rhythm in the later part of a long presentation. Formal register should sound the same in the conclusion as it does in the opening sentence.
Grammar Synthesis
This chapter introduces no new grammar system. It requires learners to combine four systems from Chapters 1–4 within a single coherent text: consistent formal register (Ch. 1), procedure and requirement description (Ch. 2), comparison and contrast (Ch. 3), and position-evidence-concession-conclusion argumentation (Ch. 4).
1. The Four-Part Analytical Structure
A 공식 분석문 typically moves through four functions in order: it describes the situation or procedure that makes the topic relevant (Ch. 2), compares the available options or perspectives (Ch. 3), takes a position supported by evidence while conceding an opposing view (Ch. 4), and closes with a conclusion — all in one consistent formal register (Ch. 1).
- 기숙사 신청 절차는 다음과 같습니다.The dormitory application procedure is as follows. [description, Ch. 2]
- 원룸과 기숙사는 비용과 자율성 면에서 차이가 있습니다.One-room apartments and dormitories differ in terms of cost and autonomy. [comparison, Ch. 3]
- 저는 신입생이 기숙사에 거주해야 한다는 입장입니다.My position is that first-year students should live in the dormitory. [argument, Ch. 4]
2. Register Discipline Across a Full Text
Every predicate ending in a 공식 분석문 should belong to the same formal register established since Chapter 1. A single everyday polite ending in an otherwise formal text is a register error, not a stylistic choice.
[절차/상황 설명] + [두 선택지의 비교: 차이점과 공통점] + [입장] + [근거] + 물론, [반대 관점] + 그렇다 하더라도, [반박] + 결론적으로/따라서, [정리]
기숙사 신청 절차는 학기 시작 한 달 전에 마감됩니다. 원룸과 기숙사는 비용과 자율성 면에서 차이가 있지만, 안전 관리 측면에서는 공통점이 있습니다. 저는 신입생이 기숙사에 거주해야 한다는 입장입니다. 학교 안전 보고서에 따르면 기숙사 거주 학생의 사고율이 더 낮습니다. 물론 원룸이 더 자유롭다는 점은 일리가 있습니다. 그렇다 하더라도 신입생에게는 안전과 적응이 더 중요한 근거가 됩니다. 따라서 신입생 기숙사 거주는 타당한 정책이라고 결론지을 수 있습니다.
The dormitory application procedure closes one month before the semester begins. One-room apartments and dormitories differ in cost and autonomy, but they share common ground in safety management. My position is that first-year students should live in the dormitory. According to the campus safety report, the accident rate is lower among dormitory residents. Of course, the point that one-room apartments are more free does have some validity. Even granting that, safety and adjustment are more important grounds for first-year students. Therefore, I can conclude that first-year dormitory residence is a reasonable policy.
Practice — Recombining Chapters 1–4
- Write one sentence describing an institutional procedure using vocabulary from Chapter 2.
- Write one sentence comparing two options using contrastive language from Chapter 3.
- Write a three-sentence position-evidence-concession-conclusion sequence using the pattern from Chapter 4.
- Read your four sentences aloud and check that the register is identical throughout.
Model Text
박 교수님 shares a model 공식 분석문 with the class before the writing assessment. Read it as a model of the four-part structure.
Context: a short formal analytical text on a familiar institutional topic, written in consistent formal deferential register throughout, as a model for the chapter's writing assessment.
구조 분석 — Structure analysis questions:
- Identify the sentence or sentences that perform each of the four functions: description, comparison, position/evidence, and concession/rebuttal/conclusion.
- Which chapter's vocabulary or grammar supports each function?
- Is the register consistent throughout the text? Identify the ending pattern used in every sentence.
Guided Practice
- Choose an institutional topic familiar from Chapters 2–4 (a campus policy, a service procedure, a public issue) or select a new but comparably familiar topic.
- Write one description sentence, one comparison sentence, and a full position-evidence-concession-conclusion sequence, following the Building Block pattern above.
- Exchange your draft with a partner, or review it yourself, and label each sentence with the function it performs (설명 / 비교 / 입장 / 양보 / 반박 / 결론).
- Revise any sentence whose register does not match the rest of the text.
Listening Assessment
Ask your instructor, a language partner, or a text-to-speech tool to read the following passage aloud at a measured pace. Listen twice without reading, then complete the tasks below.
발표 자료: 캠퍼스 카페 운영 시간 변경
캠퍼스 카페의 운영 시간 변경 절차가 최근 학생회를 통해 공지되었습니다. 기존 운영 시간과 변경안은 이용객 수와 인건비 면에서 차이가 있습니다. 저는 변경안에 찬성하는 입장입니다. 이용객 통계에 따르면 오후 늦은 시간의 이용률은 매우 낮은 것으로 나타났습니다. 물론 늦은 시간에 카페를 이용하는 일부 학생들에게는 불편이 따른다는 점은 일리가 있습니다. 그렇다 하더라도 전체 이용객 수와 운영 비용이라는 근거를 고려하면 변경안이 더 합리적이라고 생각합니다. 결론적으로 이 변경안은 타당한 결정이라고 볼 수 있습니다.
듣기 과제 — Listening task: Listen and answer in English.
| 질문 | 답 |
|---|---|
| What situation or procedure does the passage describe? | ______ |
| What two things are compared, and along what dimensions? | ______ |
| What position does the speaker take, and what evidence is cited? | ______ |
| What concession is made, and how is it answered? | ______ |
Reading Assessment
Read the following extended formal analytical text, then answer the questions that follow.
글: 캠퍼스 재활용 분리배출 제도 개선에 대한 분석
캠퍼스 내 재활용 분리배출 제도는 작년부터 시행되어 왔습니다. 학생들은 지정된 장소에서 종류별로 쓰레기를 분리하여 배출해야 하며, 이를 지키지 않을 경우 안내문을 통해 재교육을 받습니다. 기존 제도와 새로 제안된 제도는 편의성과 효과 면에서 차이가 있습니다. 기존 제도는 분리배출 장소가 제한적이라는 공통의 불편이 있지만, 새 제도는 건물마다 분리배출함을 설치하여 접근성을 높이는 것을 목표로 합니다. 저는 새 제도를 도입해야 한다는 입장입니다. 환경팀 보고서에 따르면 분리배출함이 가까울수록 실제 분리배출 참여율이 높아지는 것으로 나타났습니다. 물론 새 제도를 도입하면 초기 비용이 든다는 점은 일리가 있습니다. 그렇다 하더라도 장기적인 참여율 상승이라는 근거를 고려하면 이 비용은 충분히 감수할 만합니다. 반대하는 사람들은 예산 부족을 근거로 제도 개선에 반대하지만, 참여율 상승으로 인한 장기적 효과를 고려하면 이 우려는 반박될 수 있습니다. 결론적으로 새로운 분리배출 제도는 초기 비용에도 불구하고 도입할 가치가 있는 정책이라고 생각합니다.
내용 이해 — Comprehension questions:
- Summarize the situation or procedure described at the beginning of the passage.
- What two systems are compared, and what is the key point of comparison?
- What is the writer's position, and what evidence supports it?
- What concession does the writer make, and how is it answered?
- What counterargument is raised, and how does the writer respond?
- Summarize the passage's conclusion in one English sentence.
Writing Assessment: 공식 분석문
This chapter's writing assessment asks you to write a complete formal analytical text (공식 분석문) that describes a situation or procedure, compares at least two options or perspectives, states and supports a position, concedes an opposing view, responds to it, and closes with a conclusion — all in one consistent formal register, following the structure of the Model Text and Reading Assessment above.
[비교 — 두 선택지의 차이점과 공통점, 한두 문장]
[입장 — 저는 ~라는 입장입니다]
[근거 — ~에 따르면 / 근거는 ~]
[양보 — 물론 ~라는 점은 일리가 있습니다]
[반박 — 그렇다 하더라도 ~]
[결론 — 결론적으로/따라서 ~]
[Comparison — differences and similarities between two options, one or two sentences]
[Position — my position is that ~]
[Evidence — according to ~ / the basis is ~]
[Concession — of course, the point that ~ does have some validity]
[Rebuttal — even granting that, ~]
[Conclusion — in conclusion / therefore, ~]
- Choose your topic. Select a familiar institutional situation with two comparable options or two reasonable sides (a campus, workplace-adjacent, or public-life topic drawn from Chapters 2–4 or a comparably familiar new topic).
- Describe the situation. Open with one or two sentences describing the relevant procedure or situation, using Chapter 2 language.
- Compare the options. Add one or two sentences comparing the options, naming at least one difference and one similarity, using Chapter 3 language.
- State your position and give evidence. Use 입장 and either 근거 or -에 따르면.
- Concede a point and respond. Use 물론 and 그렇다 하더라도 to acknowledge and then answer an opposing view.
- Close with a conclusion. Use 결론적으로 or 따라서 to restate your position.
체크리스트 — Checklist:
- The text includes all four functions: description, comparison, position/evidence, and concession/rebuttal/conclusion.
- Every predicate ending is in consistent formal deferential register from the first sentence to the last.
- At least one comparison sentence names both a difference and a similarity.
- At least one piece of evidence uses 근거 or -에 따르면.
- A genuine concession appears and is followed by a clear pivot back to the writer's position.
- Spacing, particles, and Hangeul spelling are accurate throughout, with no romanization.
- No structure beyond Chapters 1–4 has been used productively.
Speaking Assessment
통제 연습 — Controlled practice: 분석문 발표하기
Read your written 공식 분석문 aloud from the Writing Assessment section, maintaining consistent formal register and clear pacing at the four structural pivots (description → comparison → position → concession/conclusion).
의사소통 과제 — Communicative task: 질의응답
With a partner or small group, present your position aloud, then answer one follow-up question about your evidence or your response to the opposing view, staying in formal register throughout your answer.
혼자 하는 연습 — Solo alternative
Record yourself presenting your 공식 분석문 in full. Listen back and check that the register, pacing, and pivot points remain consistent from beginning to end, and that all four structural functions are audible.
Culture and Communication
In Korean academic and institutional writing, a text that clearly separates description, comparison, and argument, and that explicitly acknowledges an opposing view before responding to it, is generally read as more credible and better organized than a text that presents only one side of an issue without structure.
Register consistency across an entire text or presentation is itself a marker of formality and care in Korean institutional and academic communication. A single lapse into everyday polite or casual language partway through a formal text can be noticed by a reader or listener even if the content itself is strong.
The specific procedures referenced in this chapter's model texts, such as library reservation systems or recycling programs, are illustrative examples of the language pattern, not descriptions of any single institution's actual policy. Real procedures vary by university, workplace, and country.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Error: Moving directly from a description of the situation to a position statement, with no comparison sentence — this omits one of the four required functions.
Correction: Add at least one sentence naming a difference and a similarity between the options before stating a position, as in 두 제도는 비용과 편의성 면에서 차이가 있지만, 목표 면에서는 공통점이 있습니다.
Error: Beginning a text in formal deferential style and shifting to everyday polite style by the conclusion, often because the writer is focused on content rather than form.
Correction: Check every predicate ending after drafting is complete, not only while writing. Read the text aloud from the last sentence to the first to catch drift more easily.
Error: Ending the analytical text on the concession itself, so the reader is unsure whether the writer still holds their original position.
Correction: Always follow a concession with 그렇다 하더라도 or a similar pivot, and close with a conclusion that restates the position, as required in the checklist above.
Chapter Review
Section A — 어휘 (Vocabulary Review)
1. Sort the following items by source chapter (Ch. 2, Ch. 3, or Ch. 4): 절차, 근거, 비교하다, 입장, 신청하다, 차이점.
Section B — 문법 (Grammar Synthesis)
1. Identify the four structural functions in the Model Text and name the chapter that introduced the language used in each.
2. Write one sentence for each of the four functions on a topic of your choice.
Section C — 독해 이해 (Reading Comprehension)
1. Summarize the recycling-system reading passage in four or five English sentences, naming its description, comparison, position, concession, counterargument, and conclusion.
Section D — 쓰기 (Writing Assessment)
1. Complete the Writing Assessment 공식 분석문, following the steps and checklist above.
Section E — 말하기 (Speaking Assessment)
1. Present your 공식 분석문 with a partner, group, or recording, followed by one question and answer, as described in Speaking Assessment above.
누적 복습 — Cumulative review
This chapter recycles register discipline (Chapter 1), institutional procedure language (Chapter 2), classification and comparison (Chapter 3), and argumentation (Chapter 4) as a single integrated task. It introduces no new productive system and closes Unit I, 공식 담화와 분석 (Formal Discourse and Analysis).
Unit I Performance Task
수행 과제 — Unit I Assessment Task
공식 분석문 작성과 발표 — Composing and Presenting a Formal Analytical Text
You will read an extended formal analytical text, listen to a related passage, write your own complete 공식 분석문, and present it aloud with a follow-up question and answer.
- Reading: Read the recycling-system passage and answer the comprehension questions above.
- Listening: Listen to the café-hours passage and answer the listening task questions above.
- Writing: Write a complete 공식 분석문 following the Writing Assessment model and checklist, including all four structural functions.
- Speaking: Present your 공식 분석문 aloud, then answer one follow-up question in formal register.
| Criterion | What is evaluated |
|---|---|
| Reading and listening comprehension | Description, comparison, position, evidence, concession, and conclusion are correctly identified in both passages |
| Structural completeness | The written and spoken text includes all four functions: description, comparison, position/evidence, and concession/rebuttal/conclusion |
| Comparison quality | At least one difference and one similarity between the options are named accurately |
| Evidence and support | 근거 and/or -에 따르면 are used accurately to support the position |
| Concession and response | 물론 and 그렇다 하더라도 are used to acknowledge and respond to an opposing view |
| Register consistency | Every predicate ending in the written text and the spoken presentation matches formal deferential register, with no drift |
| Hangeul and spacing accuracy | Accurate spelling and level-appropriate spacing throughout, no romanization |
| Scope discipline | No structures used productively beyond Volume III, Chapters 1–20, or Volume IV, Chapters 1–5 |
Answer Key
Model Text — Structure Analysis
- 설명 (description): the opening sentences about the library seat reservation system's introduction and rules. 비교 (comparison): the sentence contrasting the reservation system and the first-come system on fairness and efficiency. 입장/근거 (position/evidence): the sentence stating support for the reservation system and citing usage statistics. 양보/반박/결론 (concession/rebuttal/conclusion): the final three sentences.
- 설명 draws on Chapter 2's institutional language; 비교 draws on Chapter 3's contrastive language; 입장, 양보, and 반박 draw on Chapter 4's argumentation language; register consistency throughout draws on Chapter 1.
- The register is consistent formal deferential style throughout; every predicate ends in the -습니다/-ㅂ니다 pattern.
Listening comprehension
- The passage describes a recently announced change to campus café operating hours.
- The existing hours and the proposed change are compared in terms of number of users and labor cost.
- The speaker supports the proposed change, citing usage statistics showing very low use in the late afternoon.
- The speaker concedes that some students who use the café late in the day will be inconvenienced, then responds that the overall usage numbers and operating costs make the change more reasonable.
Reading comprehension
- The campus recycling separation system has been in effect since last year, requiring students to sort waste by type at designated locations, with re-education for noncompliance.
- The existing system and a newly proposed system are compared; the key point of comparison is convenience and effectiveness, particularly the number and accessibility of sorting stations.
- The writer supports adopting the new system, citing an environmental team report showing that closer sorting stations increase participation rates.
- The writer concedes that the new system involves initial cost, then responds that the long-term rise in participation justifies the cost.
- Opponents cite budget shortages; the writer responds that the long-term effect of higher participation outweighs this concern.
- Overall, the writer concludes that the new recycling system is worth adopting despite its initial cost.
Chapter Review — Section B
1. 설명: Chapter 2 (institutional/procedural language); 비교: Chapter 3 (comparison and contrast); 입장/근거/양보/반박: Chapter 4 (argumentation); register consistency across all four: Chapter 1.
2. Sample response: 동아리 예산 신청 절차는 매 학기 초에 진행됩니다. 온라인 신청과 서면 신청은 편의성과 처리 속도 면에서 차이가 있습니다. 저는 온라인 신청 방식을 유지해야 한다는 입장입니다. 처리 시간 통계에 따르면 온라인 신청의 평균 처리 기간이 더 짧습니다. 물론 서면 신청이 더 익숙하다는 점은 일리가 있습니다. 그렇다 하더라도 처리 속도라는 근거를 고려하면 온라인 신청이 더 합리적입니다. 결론적으로 온라인 신청 방식을 유지하는 것이 타당하다고 생각합니다.
Section D — Sample response
Check that: the text includes all four structural functions in order, every ending matches formal register, at least one comparison names both a difference and a similarity, evidence uses 근거 or -에 따르면, a genuine concession is followed by a pivot, and the text closes with a restated conclusion.
Looking Ahead
지금 할 수 있는 것 — What you can do now
You can describe an institutional situation or procedure, compare options with attention to both difference and similarity, state a supported position, concede an opposing view genuinely, respond to a counterargument, and close with a clear conclusion — combining all of this into a single coherent formal text and presentation. This completes Unit I, 공식 담화와 분석 (Formal Discourse and Analysis), in Speak and Write Korean Volume IV: Professional, Academic, Media, and Institutional Korean.