What is expected?
A reasoned paragraph that distinguishes sporting performance, verified behaviour, media reputation and social impact. The student must take a position, qualify it and support it with at least one reliable fact.
How to raise the level
B1+: state an opinion and give two reasons with because / but / although. B2: compare Murray and Rooney, organise a counter-argument and cite evidence. C1: question the reliability of public narratives, weigh conflicting criteria and use precise evaluative language. C2: expose the assumptions behind “role model”, distinguish reputation from moral judgment and develop a nuanced, rhetorically controlled conclusion.
B1+ model — A great athlete can have a negative public image without necessarily being a poor role model. Andy Murray was sometimes described as grumpy, but he also supported women’s equality in tennis. Wayne Rooney’s reputation was affected by controversies. We should therefore look at facts before judging them.
B2 model — A negative public image does not automatically make an athlete a poor role model. Although Andy Murray was often portrayed as unfriendly, his support for gender equality presents a more positive picture. Rooney’s controversies affected his reputation more directly. However, athletic success, private behaviour and public commitment should be assessed separately before reaching a fair conclusion.
C1 model — The label “poor role model” is too simplistic when it relies mainly on media reputation. Murray’s supposedly gloomy personality became a recurring narrative, yet his advocacy for women in tennis complicates that image. Rooney’s documented controversies invite stronger criticism, but even then, judgment should be proportional and evidence-based. Role-model status is therefore negotiated between conduct, influence and the stories the media chooses to amplify.
C2 model — Calling an athlete a “poor role model” often reveals as much about society’s expectations as about the athlete concerned. Murray’s constructed grumpiness illustrates how temperament can be mistaken for moral failure, whereas Rooney’s controversies raise more substantive questions about accountability. Yet neither celebrity nor sporting excellence creates an obligation to embody flawless virtue. A defensible judgment must separate verifiable conduct from narrative framing, weigh harm against positive influence, and acknowledge that public exemplarity is neither fixed nor morally uncomplicated.
ANGLAIS ACADEMYEnglish for today’s
AJesse Owens · Race & propagandaSOURCE A ↗
BAAGPBL players · Women’s baseball & visibilitySOURCE B ↗
CKathrine Switzer · Rules & gender equalitySOURCE C ↗
DShaquem Griffin · Ability & opportunitySOURCE D ↗
