Compare these three different versions of an extract from an essay on the subject ‘Should a global language be introduced?’

Which one uses evidence and sources most effectively?
Which argument is the most convincing and why?

Version 1

The introduction of a global language would facilitate business and academic pursuits. Without English, for example, people would not benefit from international contacts made possible by advances in communication technology (Crystal, 1997). Those with English as a first language are most likely to participate in international meetings (Jones et al, 2001). Scientists who present their research in languages other than English are sometimes ignored by the international community (Humphrey, 2000). Crystal (1997) argues that linguistic competence is possible if a language is taught early enough.

Version 2

The main argument used to support the introduction of a global language is that it would facilitate business, trade and academic pursuits. It is argued that without English, for example, people would not benefit from valuable international contacts made possible by advances in communication technology (Crystal, 1997). However, this argument does not take into account the risk that those who do not have English as a first language could find themselves at a disadvantage compared with their colleagues.

In a recent study of international meetings within the corporate sector, researchers found that those with English as a first language were most likely to participate (Jones et al, 2001). There is also evidence that scientists who present their research in languages other than English have their work ignored by the international community (Humphrey, 2000).

While Crystal (1997) argues that linguistic competence is possible if a language is taught early enough, many countries do not have the financial resources for such an education program. If governments are unable to educate all their citizens, only an elite minority would achieve the level of language competence necessary to participate on an international level. Consequently, already marginalised groups would be disadvantaged even further.

Version 3

The main argument used to support the introduction of a global language is that it would facilitate business, trade and academic pursuits. English is already a widely spoken language and we can see that this allows people from different countries to communicate via technology, and therefore to do global business more easily.

This means, however, that people who do not speak English are at a disadvantage. Scholars who do not write in English probably find it more difficult to get published. People with valuable knowledge could be ignored because they don’t speak the desired language.

Perhaps this could be overcome if all countries were to educate their citizens in a global business language from an early age. However, some countries may not have the resources to do this.