Key terms: Command words

Task 1

Think of the differences in the requirements between the following command words:

• Is it?
• Should it?
• Could / can it?
• Will it?

Task 2

Go through all the essays in your file and identify any other command words that you have encountered. Consider the requirements behind those key (command) terms.

Rebuttal Tiers: Adding depth to counter-arguments and rebuttals

Some of you have been doing this consciously; most of you have been doing this subconsciously (or sometimes, not at all). How exactly do you counter-argue or rebut an argument? For those of you who do this subconsciously, this post aims to develop metacognitive awareness – to make you aware of how you think – in the hope that (1) you’ll find it easier to come up with good counter-arguments and rebuttals when you’re stuck and you don’t instinctively know how to do it and (2) you’ll be able to push yourselves further and improve by packing in more tiers of evaluation in your writing. This applies to both your essays (where you’ll need counter-arguments for balance, and rebuttals to reconcile those counter-arguments) and your AQs (where, assuming all other requirements are met, the quality of your evaluation separates the good from the average).

The rebuttal tiers 

(Note that this also applies to counter-arguments and evaluative comments)

1. NOT TRUEThe “not true” tier is the first and most basic tier. It is a direct counter to the previous argument presented, and it is exactly what the name suggests – it says that the previous argument presented is just plain wrong. Note that it is possible to have multiple “not true” tiers, as something could be wrong for multiple reasons.
2. EVEN IF
   This is the second tier, and, once again, it is exactly what its name suggests – that even if the previous argument presented is true, it still doesn’t negate the fact that your stand holds, and that of your opponent falls. In other words, you are conceding that your opponent’s argument is factually accurate, but you are saying that, say, there are other problems with their overall stand that makes you right, and them wrong. To signpost this tier, instead of using “even if”, you might also use “despite the fact that (opponent’s argument) …”
3. IN FACT
   This is definitely my favourite tier. It’s often quite difficult to use, so I get particularly excited when it’s done correctly – and when I’m happy, I gladly give you extra marks for insight and originality. In this tier, you have to use the exact same argument that your opponent presented previously, and use that same argument  to prove your stand. Wow. You’re ripping the words out of your opponent’s mouth and saying, “Hey, thanks for that – actually, you’ve just proved my stand!”
4. FURTHERMORE
   As with the “not true” stand, there could be multiple “furthermore” tiers in a counter-argument or rebuttal.  I find this tier is the most difficult to define, because it is often a matter of presenting any additional, related argument that further develops your main argument.

-

Example

Is chocolate better than sex?

Argument:

Chocolate is better than sex because it will never disappoint a chocolate lover. We rarely hear of people complaining that they have been disappointed by chocolate. However, it is not uncommon to hear people complain that sex disappointed them.

Counter-argument:

It is not true that chocolate never disappoints a chocolate lover. It could well disappoint someone if they’re simply not in the mood for a sweet treat – perhaps they’re craving something salty or spicy instead, or perhaps they’ve just has an obscene amount of food and trying to consume more – chocolate or not – will push them over the edge and make them hurl. But even if it were true that chocolate never disappoints, this does not mean that chocolate is better than sex, as some of the reasons that make sex better than chocolate are more significant than the mere fact that chocolate never disappoints. In fact, one can argue that it is precisely because chocolate never disappoints that it is not better than sex. The state of never disappointing means that there are never any surprises, there’s never any anticipation on whether or not one will be disappointed. Just uniform happiness. Uniformity is dull; variation is exciting. Furthermore, if one still stubbornly insists on arguing that uniformity is better, it can be said that sex, too, is comparable to chocolate in how often it disappoints – as with chocolate, it might never disappoint some people, and it might sometimes disappoint others, depending on their mood. Ultimately, it cannot be said that chocolate is better than sex. (Note: The final “furthermore” tier can also be seen as an “even if” tier.)

-

In the above example, all four tiers were used. However, although it is possible to use all four tiers in a counter-argument or rebuttal, it is highly unlikely that they will all apply. Often, it is impossible to concede the point (in the “even if” tier) without sounding contradictory. And sometimes, you simply cannot deny the factual accuracy of you opponent’s argument (meaning you won’t be able to use the “not true” tier). So typically, you’re looking at using two or three of these tiers. And while these tires are best suited to counter-arguments and rebuttals, the “furthermore” tier can also be used to add layers of depth to your main arguments. As a general rule, the more (correctly executed, logical) tiers you have, the stronger your counter-argument or rebuttal.

Of course, the stronger you make your counter-argument, the more difficult it will be to rebut it – and reconciling your counter-arguments with strong rebuttals is crucial. This does not mean you should intentionally present a weak counter-argument – your examiners will see right through that one. What you’re aiming to do is to present a good, solid counter-argument – then blow us away with an even better rebuttal. But what if you can’t think of a rebuttal that’s better than your counter-argument? What if your counter-argument really is that impressive? I have gotten these questions before, and I find them most befuddling – if your counter-argument really is that strong, just argue the opposite stand instead!

Sample essay: How effective are international efforts to ease the problem of global hunger?

Read the essay here.

What I love is the content knowledge shown. Meeting requirements might be absolutely crucial to pass, but beyond just passing, it’s solid, (relevant) content knowledge that makes me want to give you marks. Read, and remember what you read. Commit facts and examples to your memory the same way you would for any of your other subjects. Sure, I’m biased because I actually like GP and used to enjoy studying for it, but why should GP be any different? Why do so many students dismiss it as the subject that “doesn’t need to be studied for”? Why, despite not reading widely, do students keep asking, “how am I supposed to know that?” when I tell them they didn’t engage with the correct issues that the question was hinting at? And, most frustratingly, despite not studying, why do students then wonder why they never get more than 13-15 marks for content?

Fact: Solid, relevant content knowledge shows me that you are better than the average person who gives me vague, general references to what’s happening in the world. It shows me that you care enough for the subject to deserve the elusive A-grade. It makes me want to give you that A.

 

[UPDATE: 25/8/2011]

While there are a lot of students who do not study for GP, there is the other extreme – those who have tonnes of content knowledge but who use it indiscriminately. This, of course, will not help. The key assumption in the above post is that the content knowledge you display is relevant to the question.

Should the US federal government be allowed to impose these advertisements on tobacco companies?

This video was shamelessly stolen off Mr Lim’s blog. What is your opinion?

 

Here‘s the response by the tobacco companies, courtesy of Mr Foo.

 

Yet more AQ help

Check out this post by Mr Lim, with particularly helpful sample answers to the 2010 (Food) AQ, as well as answers to a modified version of the 2006 (Freedom) AQ.

If you scroll to the end of the sample answers, there are hints and tips for this year’s upcoming Prelims.

More AQ help

To tie in very nicely with my last post on the AQ, do check out Mr Foo’s recent AQ post: http://geepeeland.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/application-question-f-a-q/

How to structure your AQ

Templates and I have a love-hate relationship. When it comes to anything in GP, there will be occasions where the rules (in this context, a certain “correct” structure) will need to be broken at your own discretion. However, in most cases, adopting the following AQ structures will work.

First, you need to identify the general form of the AQ, as different AQs require slightly different structures.

Single passage, one requirement
General form of the question: Author A argues that (thesis A). Do you agree / Are you in sympathy with / How relevant is / (any other possible question) his views?

First paragraph: The focus paragraph
State your stand clearly. Answer the question directly, using the same key words as the question.

• If the question asks whether you agree, say, “I agree/disagree with Author A that (thesis A).
• If the question asks how relevant his view is, say, “I find his view that (thesis A) highly relevant/only slightly relevant“.
• Etc.

Middle paragraphs: The body paragraphs
Make reference to specific arguments from the passage that make sense in the context of (thesis A). 

• Author A argues that (thesis A) because “(refer to a specific argument that is a reason which supports thesis A)”. 

Link this argument to the question

• If the question asked how relevant you think his view is, continue with, “I find this view highly relevant because (explain)“

Now evaluate

• Although some might argue that (evaluation), they fail to realise that (evaluation + explanation)

Now exemplify

• For example, (state example).

Now link back to the question and the author’s argument

• Thus, I find Author A’s view that (state specific argument) highly relevant.

(repeat for all other body paragraphs)

Last paragraph: Conclusion

Conclude by restating your stand (as in your focus paragraph)

• In conclusion, I find Author A’s view that (thesis A) highly relevant/only slightly relevant.

-

Single passage, two (or more) requirements
General form of the question: Author A argues that (thesis A). Do you agree / Are you in sympathy with / (other question) his views? How relevant are his views to your society / (other question) ?

First paragraph: The focus paragraph
State your stand for each requirement clearly. Answer the questions directly, using the same key words as the question.

• If the two questions are on whether you agree and how relevant his views are, say, “I agree with Author A that (thesis A) and find his views highly relevant to Singapore.“

Middle paragraphs: The body paragraphs

Option 1: (see “body paragraphs” above). However, for each argument from the passage that you choose to engage with, use it to address both requirements:

• Argument from passage, link to the first requirement
• Next paragraph: extend your argument by linking the same argument from the passage to the second requirement.
• Repeat for other arguments from the passage that you choose to engage with

Option 2: (see “body paragraphs” above). Address only the first requirement in the first few body paragraphs. Address the other requirement in your next few body paragraphs

• e.g. If you have four body paragraphs, the first two should address the first requirement; the next two should address the second requirement.

Personally, I prefer Option 1.

Last paragraph: Conclusion

(as above)

-

Double passage, one requirement

Same structure as in the “single passage, one requirement”. The only difference is that half the arguments chosen in your main body paragraphs should be from Passage A; the other half from Passage B.

-

Double passage, two (or more) requirements

Same structure as in the “single passage, two (or more) requirements”. The only difference is that half the arguments chosen in your main body paragraphs should be from Passage A; the other half from Passage B.

-

-

Example

CJC Prelims 2010

Schoch argues for the pursuit of happiness while Wilson criticizes the American obsession with happiness. With which of the two authors are you most in sympathy? Explain the reasons for your choice.  How relevant are the views raised by both authors to your society? 

Double passage, two (or more) requirements

Focus paragraph

I am most in sympathy with Schoch in that we should pursue happiness. While Schoch’s views are highly relevant to Singapore, Wilson’s view, that we are obsessed with happiness and that this is undesirable, is generally not relevant to Singapore. 

Main body paragraphs
Schoch argues that we should pursue happiness because (reference to passage). I greatly sympathise with this view because … (continue with Ex + Ev + e.g)

This view is highly relevant to Singapore because …

Wilson criticizes the American obsession with happiness because (reference to passage). I do not sympathise with this view because …

This view is generally not relevant to Singapore because …

.

.

.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I am most in sympathy with Schoch and find his views highly relevant to Singapore. However, I find Wilson’s views generally irrelevant to Singapore and do not sympathise with them.

Stephen Fry, on language

There are so many things about this piece that I absolutely adore. But I do disagree with some of the views raised by Stephen Fry.

Watch the video, and practice your AQ skills by answering the following question.

 

Application Question

Stephen Fry argues that there is no need to be too particular about certain aspects of language use. Do you agree with his views? How relevant are his views to your society? 

Essay: When attempts at insight go horribly wrong

I love seeing essays that attempt to be insightful. Unfortunately, these attempts sometimes crash spectacularly, which is such a shame. Depending on the nature of the insightful argument that is being attempted, a different structure or approach is needed to prevent your clever comment from crashing. However, the following approach tends to work in most cases:

[Essay question]

First, answer the question “normally” – do not attempt to be insightful here.

Next, devote at least half* your essay to a balanced discussion (this means that you need to engage with and reconcile at least one significant counter-argument) of the question, based on a “normal” approach.

This is the point where you can start being insightful. In a lot of cases, being insightful relies on breaking or questioning an assumption in the question. This is what you need to state clearly. You need a transition paragraph (or a few transition sentences) that state something along these lines:

“The above discussion shows that [your "normal" stand]. However, this assumes one (or two, or three) thing(s): [state assumption]. Once this assumption is broken [note: This must be a reasonable challenge - some assumptions should not be challenged], it can be said that [insightful argument + continue with an explanation of your insightful argument. This could be just one short paragraph, or it might be up to half your essay].”

Finally, conclude by stating your “normal” stand, then clarifying that your “normal” stand is only relevant when the assumptions hold. Then state that once the assumptions are broken, a more accurate stand would be [modified stand].

For example,

The key to good health is lifestyle rather than medicine. How far do you agree?

One essay I read (see Example 1 in this post) stated in the introduction that both lifestyle and medicine are important for good health. I failed this essay because he has not real stand – he’s sitting on the fence. Turns out he was trying to be clever because what he meant was that taking medicine is actually part of a lifestyle, so “they’re both important”. But even this doesn’t answer the question directly – what he needed to do is find a way to incorporate this idea, while still making a stand. Here’s what he could have done:

Stand: Yes, lifestyle rather than medicine is the key.

[First, begin with two to four paragraphs on why lifestyle rather than medicine is the key, with counter-arguments and rebuttals included where necessary (so that balance is present).]

[Then insert this paragraph:] The above discussion shows that lifestyle, not medicine, is the key to good health. However, this assumes that lifestyle and medicine are mutually exclusive. But what if one were to consider the possibility of medicine being a subset of lifestyle? After all, someone with kidney failure would argue that weekly trips to the hospital for dialysis is now part of their lifestyle. Or an obsessive (vitamin) pill-popper might consider taking a handful of multi-coloured pills, and washing it down with an amino acid milkshake every morning part of his lifestyle. In this situation, we see that medicine becomes part and parcel of one’s lifestyle. But although both medicine and lifestyle are now part of the equation, we still see that lifestyle is key – for medicine is merely a subset of the larger idea. It all boils down to this: lifestyle.

[Conclude:] Thus, whether or not we see lifestyle and medicine as mutually exclusive, it is always lifestyle that is the key to good health.

-

This structure can also redeem an essay that intends to sound insightful, but ends up sounding contradictory.

The book has no place in modern society. Discuss. 

The failed attempt at insight:

Stand: No place

Main argument 1: There is no place because of the rise of alternatives to books (e-books, the internet, etc.) which have edged books out.

Main argument 2: Actually e-books are books, therefore there is a place.

Conclusion: Since e-books are books, there is a place for books. It’s just that the nature of books has evolved.

This essay fails because the stand is contradictory. However, the essay can be redeemed quite easily.

Redeemed essay (option 1):

Stand: There is a place

Counter-argument: Some argue that books have no place due to the rise of alternatives to books (e-books, the internet, etc.) which have edged books out.

Rebuttal: Thanks to the internet, the traditional book might no longer have a place in our libraries (or in Borders). However, the very fact that e-books are on the rise shows that there still is a place for books because e-books are, after all, books too. While there may not be a place for the traditional book, there certainly is a place – and a growing one at that – for the evolved descendent of the paperback: e-books in one’s Kindle or iPad.

Conclusion: Therefore, though traditional books might have lost their place, the book certainly has not, for it has merely evolved and adapted to fill a new “ecological niche” in society.

Redeemed essay (option 2):

Stand: No place

[First, begin with two to four paragraphs on why (traditional) books have no place.]

[Then insert this paragraph:] The above discussion shows that books no longer have a place in modern society. However, this assumes that the book is will never evolve; that it must be something that consists of pages, bound together at the spine.  But what if one were to consider the possibility of books evolving? After all, surely one could argue that an e-book too, is essentially a book. In this situation, we see that it is only the traditional book that has no place. If we were to break down this assumption and accept e-books as books, it is clear that the book hasn’t lost it’s place – rather, it’s place in modern society is growing.

[Conclude:] Thus, it is true that the book has no place in modern society. However, we must recognise that this conclusion is only valid if we assume the concept of a traditional book. Once this assumption is broken, the book has certainly not lost its place.

Note: Although this essay is redeemed, it would still make more sense to just edit the stand in the introduction and state, right from the beginning, the same stand that is used in the conclusion. Of course, if this is done, a signpost at the very start of the first main body paragraph will also be needed – something along the lines of “The traditional book has no place because…”. All other paragraphs will be the same from there.

Essay: The mortal sins

Committing any one of the following essay sins puts you in serious danger (read: exceedingly high likelihood) of failing:

1. Having no stand
2. Contradicting your stand
3. Failing to engage (correctly) with key terms
4. Flaws in logic
5. Adopting the wrong approach* to the question

*Note: Many questions allow for multiple approaches, all of which would be acceptable; other questions actually require a certain approach. See the recent post on “Addressing the wrong debate” for an explanation of one such incorrect approach.

These essay sins may not cause you to fail, but are serious problems nonetheless, because chances are, you won’t get any more than 13m for content:

1. No balance
2. Vague arguments (no examples)
3. Limited scope