Following an exciting lesson with T27 today, I spoke to three colleagues about the arguments we brainstormed. All were convinced throughout the first three parts of the argument, but the fourth level of development was not as well received. One blamed this on a personal bias, of personally being cynical of the trustworthiness of leaders; another suggested shifting the focus of the fourth level slightly.
Clarity is crucial in all essays, but it gets increasing important as your arguments become more complex and sophisticated. An unfortunate reality is that when I mark the scripts of students I don’t know, I find myself re-reading points I don’t understand if it is well-expressed, and I will try my best to understand their point. I am more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it is my fault when I don’t understand them. Conversely, if it is poorly expressed, it makes it a lot more difficult to understand an already poorly-expressed point, and when I get too tired trying, I stop trying. Harsh, but true.
This post aims to emphasise the importance of clarity, and of linking your argument back to the question constantly and consistently, and to illustrate how this might be achieved.
How far can our leaders be trusted to do what is right?
[This is the well-received paragraph. Stand: Our leaders generally cannot be trusted. Read the text in black first, then re-read the paragraph, along with the comments (blue text)]
Humans are fallible. None of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes. Even our genes, peppered with mutations, serve as a somewhat depressing reminder of this – mistakes and errors are encoded in the very strands of life. Couple our imperfect, fallible nature with a position of power, and we might be more likely to make mistakes, to be selfish, to act in our own self interest and not that of the people we lead. For this reason, one can question whether our leaders can be trusted to do what is right – what is best for the people they lead. [Always LINK your argument back to the question – do this consistently throughout your essay, at the end of every point you make.] But [“but” signals a change in direction. Always signpost your argument clearly – this “but” signals that the following argument opposes the previous one] a cursory look around the world reveals mainly democratic governments running our countries. This means that the political leaders we elect are the ones that received the majority vote – they represent the interests of the majority, and can thus be trusted to do what is best, at least for most people [here, “right” is defined – the reader now has a sense of how the writer is interpreting “right” – as what is best for most people]. In addition, democracies are in-built with checks and balances – leaders are not in power permanently, but are subjected to re-elections and the possibility of getting kicked out of power at the next election if their actions, be they poor decisions or impractical policies [again, we see a definition of “right” – this adds detail and makes the writer’s interpretation of “right” clearer], are not right in the eyes of the people. Aside from the checks and balances in-built in the democratic process, there are additional checks and balances in society, such as our media watchdogs and social media [by this point, three sub-points to the concept of “checks and balances” have been provided], both of which have proven their worth. Through all these checks and balances, our leaders are under pressure to serve their people well, and it would appear that the presence of these systems in society ensures that we can trust our leaders [Another LINK back to the question. Here, note that “appear” signposts that this conclusion is not the author’s stand]. But can we? [This follows up on the “appear” signpost. The “but can we” signposts the author’s actual stand – it questions whether we can, and, when taken together with the “appear” in the previous sentence, shows that the author thinks we can’t] After all, the very need for such extensive checks and balances suggests that we cannot trust our leaders, surely? Thus, is not our leaders that can be trusted – it is simply the checks and balances in society that we can place our trust in. [Final LINK in the paragraph – this is the author’s stand. What I love about this rebuttal is that it is an "in fact" rebuttal - see post on "rebuttal tiers" for further explanation.]
If this is your last paragraph in your essay, you could add a final bit of insight in your conclusion. Reinforce your stand – make it very clear that you believe that our leaders cannot be trusted because our faith is in the system of checks and balances, not our leaders. Then you could add this final question for your reader to chew on: Ultimately, though, does it matter whether our trust is in the leader or the system? After all, the outcome is the same either way.
[This is the paragraph that wasn’t so well received. It’s an edited version of the original that was discussed in class, such that it is now reasonably (but still not sufficiently) convincing to most tutors polled. However, the conclusion I came to after several long conversations on this was that this stand takes an idealistic worldview, one that ultimately believes our leaders are in that position for noble reasons. The idealistic stand, somewhat sadly, is one that tends to be less convincing, because it tends to be harder to justify. Stand: Our leaders generally cannot be trusted. Note how some of the signposts have been altered (red text) to signal that the stand in this piece is that our leaders can be trusted (opposite of the stand in the previous paragraph)]
Humans are fallible. None of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes. Even our genes, peppered with mutations, serve as a somewhat depressing reminder of this – mistakes and errors are part of us. Couple our imperfect, fallible nature with a position of power, and we might be more likely to make mistakes, to be selfish, to act in our own self interest and not that of the people we lead. For this reason, one can question whether our leaders can be trusted to do what is right – what is best for the people they lead. But a cursory look around the world reveals mainly democratic governments running our countries. This means that the political leaders we elect are the ones that received the majority vote – they represent the interests of the majority, and can thus be trusted to do what is best, at least for most people. In addition, democracies are in-built with checks and balances – leaders are not in power permanently, but are subjected to re-elections and the possibility of getting kicked out of power at the next election if their actions, be they poor decisions or impractical policies, are not right in the eyes of the people. Aside from the checks and balances in-built in the democratic process, there are additional checks and balances in society, such as our media watchdogs and social media, both of which have proven their worth. Through all these checks and balances, our leaders are under pressure to serve their people well, and it would appear that the presence of these systems in society ensures that we can trust our leaders.
However, some might still question whether this really is reason enough to trust our leaders. But can we? After all, they argue that the very need for such extensive checks and balances suggests that we cannot trust our leaders, surely? and that it Thus, is not our leaders that can be trusted – it is simply the checks and balances in society that we can place our trust in. However, it is important for us to ask two questions: Are our checks and balances effective? And will untrustworthy leaders be willing to subject themselves to the scrutiny of such checks and balances, which, in the case of media watchdogs and social media, often strips them of their privacy? Where our checks and balances are effective, we can be sure that any untrustworthy political leader will have his misdeeds found out, and will either not get voted into public office, or will get kicked out if they are already in power. With the knowledge that such checks and balances are effective and that they often intrude into one’s private life, few people with questionable motives will be willing to put themselves through such a system. To have your past – and that of your family members – dug up, to have the media questioning your every action, to have the Twitterverse opine on your capabilities – all this makes it far more likely that those who still choose to be our leaders are those who really do have our interests at heart. These are the leaders who can and deserve our trust.
Note: Neither piece incorporates any real, specific examples – this is a significant area for improvement.
Recent comments