Real document
DALF C2 revision: remove a repeated caveat without strengthening the claim
Compare three edits of a cautious French paragraph, removing repeated caveats while retaining a pilot sample limit, uncertainty and the difference between observation and guarantee.
- C2
- Notice
- Read and answer
- Learn this in the C2 notebook →
In short
Delete repeated hesitation, but retain qualifications that restrict evidence or scope. In the supplied paragraph, “dans les deux sites pilotes” and “ne suffit pas à généraliser” do real work. Removing them would change the claim, even if the revised sentence sounds cleaner.
Original and three edits
Original cautious paragraph
Il semble peut-être possible de penser que, dans les deux sites pilotes, le délai moyen pourrait avoir diminué. Les relevés montrent une baisse sur ces deux sites, mais ne suffisent pas à généraliser au réseau.
Edit A: concise and scoped
Les relevés montrent une baisse du délai moyen dans les deux sites pilotes. Ils ne suffisent pas à généraliser au réseau.
Edit B: too strong
Les relevés prouvent que le délai diminue dans tout le réseau.
Edit C: shorter but still vague
Peut-être que le délai a changé, dans une certaine mesure.
The original sentence hesitates repeatedly before finally giving a clearer evidence statement. Edit A uses that statement directly and preserves both the pilot boundary and the limit on generalisation. It does not turn the observed difference into a proven causal effect: nothing in the supplied paragraph identifies what caused the change.
Tap one on the left, then its partner on the right.
A useful revision asks what would become false or unsupported if a phrase disappeared. If the answer is “nothing; the same caution is already expressed”, deletion may help. If deletion expands the population, changes possibility into certainty or erases attribution, preserve or restate that function. This is a practice method for revision, not an official DALF marking formula.