(7) The EMBEDDED CONTEXT question [Analysis of 2000-2010 GCE 'A' Level questions]

The embedded context question is one that should be approached with caution. I’ve seen far too many such questions go horribly wrong. The general advice is to avoid these questions, unless you’ve done multiple such questions before and have always met requirements.

7.

Conditional statements /

embedded context

2009

• As long as people in the public eye do their job well, does it matter what they do in private? (2009)

2008

• ‘The more science advances, the more religion will decline.’ To what extent do you agree? (2008)

2007

• Should poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met? (2007)
• Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress? (2007)
• Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? (2007)

Essay Practice: Embedded context

Recap: Dealing with embedded context

Practice:

1. Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress? (2007)

2. Should poor countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met?

3. Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? (2007)

-

If you’re stuck on the first question, read the first comment below for hints on how to tackle this question. However, it is advisable that you attempt to plan this yourself first, and only refer to the hints to check whether you were on the right track.

GP Essays: Common mistake #3

Pay due attention to additional terms or any embedded context in the question. Examiners put such terms/phrases there for a reason – they aren’t simply there to make the question longer or to give you extra information; they need to be dealt with. With this in mind, it might be helpful to ask yourself:

1) What would I argue if the additional terms / embedded context were absent?

Once you have an answer, ask yourself:

2) How would I modify my argument to show an awareness of the additional terms /embedded context?

If you find that your argument is the same for both questions 1 and 2, it is likely that you’re missing part of the question requirements.

For example:

In a world where borders are vanishing, is it futile for Singapore to persist in building a national identity?

First, ask:
1) What would I argue if the additional terms / embedded context were absent? In other words, if it read:
“Is it futile for Singapore to persist in building a national identity?”

In this case, you might argue that no, it is not futile because there is value in Singapore persisting in building a national identity (then proceed to explain the value)
e.g. “SA national identity helps to build social cohesion, which is important in a multi-racial country like Singapore. Thus, Singapore must persist in building a national identity.”

[Note: the above example does not meet question requirements yet]

Next, ask:
2) How would I modify my argument to show an awareness of the additional terms /embedded context? In other words, considering the full question:
“In a world where borders are vanishing, is it futile for Singapore to persist in building a national identity?”

Here, you might argue that no, it is not futile because there is value in Singapore persisting in building a national identity, despite the fact that we might now also identify ourselves as global citizens (then proceed to explain why the two concepts (national identity vs a global identity) are not mutually exclusive and why national identity is still relevant in a globalised world).
e.g. “A national identity helps to build social cohesion, which is important in a multi-racial country like Singapore. Although cohesion might be achieved by our common identification as global citizens, being able to build a common national identity – over and above our common global identity - is likely to foster social cohesion even more effectively as it gives us one more thread of connectedness to our fellow citizens”

[Note: This now meets question requirements]

Task 1:

Write a thesis statement that answers the question, “In a world where borders are vanishing, is it futile for Singapore to persist in building a national identity?” Your thesis statement must show an appreciation of the requirements behind the embedded context (“in a world where borders are vanishing”). You may choose to agree or disagree with the question.

 

Task 2:

Read the sample essays (see “Sample essays” on the sidebar) on this question. Pick out the arguments raised, and highlight how the embedded context was included in the argument.

Example 1:
Argument: Building a national identity is futile because it is impossible, given that we are constantly influenced by other cultures which erode our Singapore culture.
Embedded context:”given that we are constantly influenced by other cultures which erode our Singapore culture”

Example 2:
Argument: Globalisation has resulted in the rise of soft power. However for Singapore to excercise soft power, she must have a national identity – making it crucial that Singapore persists in building one.
Embedded context: “Globalisation has resulted in the rise of soft power.”