Can poverty ever be eliminated?

While following the abovementioned advice and arguing against the absolute (arguing that it can be eliminated) is definitely possible, I felt that it was equally (if not more) convincing to agree with the absolute and argue that poverty can never be eliminated.

When discussing this question in class, I would explain that there are always exceptions in GP, and this is one of those exceptions to the “always disagree with the absolute” advice. However, when a similar question came out in the 2011 paper (“Can prejudice ever be eliminated?”), it became obvious that it wasn’t an exception – it’s just a slightly different type of absolute question.

Both questions are actually “double absolute” questions.

The double absolute question has two absolute terms, both having different directions. Agreeing with the question means that you will agree with one of the absolute terms but disagree with the other. Likewise for disagreeing with the question – you’re agreeing with one term, but disagreeing with the other. Since either stand means you’re disagreeing with the absolute, the advice holds – angle your argument such that you’re disagreeing with the absolute term. The only difference is that you have a choice as to which absolute term to disagree with, and in the process, you can’t help but agree with the other.

To illustrate:

Can poverty ever be eliminated?

STAND 1: Yes, poverty can (one day) be eliminated
(Disagree with the absolute “never” (agree with “ever”); agree with the absolute “eliminated”)

STAND 2: No, poverty can never be eliminated
(Agree with the absolute “never”; disagree with the absolute “eliminated”)

Can prejudice ever be eliminated? (GCE ‘A’ Level 2011)

STAND 1: Yes, prejudice can (one day) be eliminated
(Disagree with the absolute “never” (agree with “ever”); agree with the absolute “eliminated”)

STAND 2: No, prejudice can never be eliminated
(Agree with the absolute “never”; disagree with the absolute “eliminated”)

 -

This post on the ‘absolute’ question has been updated to include the ‘double absolute’

-

Task

Choose one of the above questions and write one argument for each stand. For both arguments, angle your argument so that the focus is on disagreeing with the absolute. For example, for STAND 2, your argument should emphasise that you are disagreeing with “eliminated”. Avoid emphasising that you are (by virtue of the double absolute) agreeing with “never”.

As I see it, this is the age in which we have the knowledge, technology and imperative to formulate a truly sustainable way of living rather than pursuing approaches that simply mitigate negative impacts.

What are some of the most interesting examples, apart from the Eden Project, of existing architecture that uses biomimicry as its guiding principle?

Pier Luigi Nervi’s Palazzetto dello Sport, an indoor arena in Rome, is a masterpiece of efficiency inspired by giant Amazon water lilies. Many of Nervi’s projects were won in competitions and the secret to his success was his ability to produce the most cost-effective schemes. In a satisfying parallel with the refining process of evolution, the combination of ingenuity and biomimicry led to a remarkable efficiency of resources.

The Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, by Mick Pearce is based on termite mounds. It manages to create comfortable conditions for the people inside without air-conditioning in a tropical environment.

Full article from The Economisthere

While the answers will come form the passage, the skill to note is the way you structure your answers.

For questions that ask you to identify similarities or resemblances, you should not simply paraphrase the two lines in the text that are similar. Instead, you need to give an overarching similarity that encompasses both line references. Your answer should look like this:

Both __________ and ______________ are similar in that ________________________.

e.g.

Both children and the pups of hunting animals are similar in that they use play to find out about their environment. (2009)

When it comes to differences, phrase your answer in this manner:

While ___________ [subject 1] _____________ [characteristic of subject 1], ________________ [subject 2] is different in that ____________________ [contrasting characteristic of subject 2].

e.g.

[Note: Here, there are three subjects; subjects 1 and 2 are being contrasted with subject 3]

While animals [subject 1] have to act as their natural urges direct them [characteristic of subject 1] and inanimate objects [subject 2] submit to whatever their surroundings do to them [characteristic of subject 2], humans [subject 3] are distinct in that who have the free will to make decisions [characteristic of subject 3 which contrasts with the characteristics of both subjects 1 and 2]. (2004)

2004

‘arguably not unconnected with this increase’ (lines 23-24). What is the author suggesting in this phrase?
What does ‘arguably’ say about her suggestion?  (2m)

TWO parts:

(1)          What is the author suggesting in this phrase?
SKILL: Definition in context

[answer omitted]

(2)          What does ‘arguably’ say about her suggestion?
SKILL: Meaning of ‘arguably’ in the context of the passage

‘Arguably’ suggests the author’s belief that her argument is a very likely / plausible one / it can be challenged.

-

2005

Why does the author include the word ‘significantly’ in line 13? [1]

The word ‘significantly’ was used to emphasise / underline the fact that the aggressive nature of man’s first invention, the flint, confirmed the importance of the aggressive instinct in man. [1m]

-

2010

Explain the author’s use of the word ‘even’ in the phrase ‘even the labelling and packaging’ (line 73).

The author uses ‘even’ to emphasise that  everything / so many things about food can be questioned to the extreme that insignificant details like labelling and packaging are also questioned

• Should play have more of a place in modern society?
• The rich should shoulder more of the poor’s burden. To what extent is this true?

Consider the following essay plans. There’s nothing wrong with the order of the paragraphs in Plan 1, but Plan 2 illustrates how re-ordering the paragraphs can make a difference.

PLAN 1

[Content is courtesy of Ezra]

Thesis
The rich are already doing a lot to shoulder the poor’s burden. Furthermore, there are problems with the status quo which make shouldering more of the poor’s burden unnecessary and possibly counter-productive. As harsh as it might sound, the truth is that until we solve the problems in the status quo, the rich should not shoulder more of the poor’s burden.

Paragraph 1
Explanation of the status quo and how the rich are already doing a lot / enough.  Engagement of counter-arguments to show an understanding of why some might argue for shouldering more of the poor’s burden.

[Paragraphs 2-4: Problems with the status quo]

Paragraph 2
Donor countries are unwilling to provide more aid. In fact, existing levels of aid provision are not being met enthusiastically. Thus, asking for more aid is pointless.

Paragraph 3
Problems with the provision of aid render aid ineffective, as donors may not understand the needs of the country (e.g. providing technology that the locals have no means of maintaining)

Paragraph 4
Problems in the recipient country make aid ineffective. One key problem is corruption in the government, which means that much aid never actually gets to the intended recipients.

Paragraph 5
When aid is provided, recipient countries often become trapped by the debt burden which they may never escape

Paragraph 6
Donor countries often have their own problems to deal with, and it’s the responsibility of the government to look after their own people first.

PLAN 2 

Thesis
(as above)

Paragraph 1
(as above)

[Paragraphs 2-4: Problems with the status quo]

Paragraph 2
Problems in the recipient country make aid ineffective. One key problem is corruption in the government, which means that much aid never actually gets to the intended recipients.

Paragraph 3
Some might argue that the problem is with the way* we give aid, and that we should still shoulder more of the poor’s burden, but do it in a way that circumvents the problem of corruption. One way is to stop providing money, and instead, actually go into a country to set up education programmes, or build roads / irrigate farms / etc.  However, we see that even when donor countries go into a country to provide aid directly to the intended recipients, further problems with the provision of aid render aid ineffective, as donors may not understand the needs of the country (e.g. providing technology that the locals have no means of maintaining)

Paragraph 4
In light of this, some may propose going back to the idea of giving money (thereby preventing the problem of providing technology that the poor cannot upkeep), but only shouldering more of the poor’s burden in countries that do not face severe problems of corruption (thereby preventing the problem of aid being taken by corrupt governments or being misused). In other words, by providing more aid to only suitable recipient countries. And this might seem like a possible solution – until one considers that when aid is provided, recipient countries often become trapped by the debt burden which they may never escape.

Paragraph 5
Of course, opponents might argue that this problem can be avoided – with a big dose of altruism. Debts have been cancelled in the past, so perhaps if we provided gifts, rather than aid that needs to be repaid, we would finally be fulling our moral obligation of truly, genuinely, altruistically shouldering the burden of the poor. But yet again, problems arise – the potential for overdependency, for one, as well as the simple fact that even donor countries often have their own problems to deal with, and it’s the responsibility of the government to look after their own people first.

Paragraph 6
Finally, all the above arguments assume that countries are more than comfortable with the existing amount of aid they’re providing, and that they would be more than willing to shoulder more of the poor’s burden. However, the unfortunate reality is that donor countries are unwilling to provide more aid. In fact, existing levels of aid provision are not being met enthusiastically. Thus, asking for more aid is pointless.

-

What makes Plan 2 a better essay is not just the fact that the paragraphs are ordered differently. You also must show why you’re ordering the paragraphs in that way. Show that the way you’ve ordered your paragraphs is not arbitrary, but it was done to show the development of your essay on a macro scale. And that explains the importance of the blue text in Plan 2 – the blue text shows the link between one paragraph and the preceding one, and shows your reader that you don’t just know how to develop individual arguments (paragraph development), but you are also developing the entire thesis (essay development) as you move from one paragraph to the next.

-

*See this post which considers dealing with the key term “more” by considering the manner rather than the quantity.

If anyone else has content to share, do feel free to send the links to me – amidst the competitiveness of education and society in general, my soul always appreciates doses of generosity, be it for my benefit, or for the benefit of others.

-

The link above includes:

1. THE SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

1.1 The World Is Understandable
1.2 Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change
1.3 Scientific Knowledge Is Durable
1.4 Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions

2. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

2.1 Science Demands Evidence
2.2 Science Is a Blend of Logic and Imagination
2.3 Science Explains and Predicts
2.4 Scientists Try to Identify and Avoid Bias
2.5 Science Is Not Authoritarian

3. THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

3.1 Science Is a Complex Social Activity
3.2 Science Is Organized Into Content Disciplines and Is Conducted in Various Institutions
3.3 There Are Generally Accepted Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Science
3.4 Scientists Participate in Public Affairs Both as Specialists and as Citizens

-

Many of the above points overlap with what was covered in the Nature of Science lecture:

1. WHAT IS SCIENCE

1.1 Intellectual and systemic study
1.2 Practical activity
1.3 Observation and experimentation

2. FUNCTIONS OF SCIENCE

2.1 Explaining the world
2.2 Finding solutions to problems

3. METHODS OF SCIENCE

3.1 Induction
3.2 Deduction
3.3 The scientific method

4. PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE

4.1 Scientific knowledge is provisional
4.2 Socially constructed nature of science and the subjectivity of human senses
4.3 Science is not value free

-

If any of the above sounds unfamiliar, and if you’re hoping to do a science and/or technology question, please familiarise yourself with the content above, and check that you know how to make use of it by trying to incorporate it into an essay plan or a paragraph.

How does an “either/or” question become a comparative question? Consider the following question:

Modern technology – dream or nightmare?

Approach 1

STAND: Dream

Paragraph 1

CA: Some argue that modern technology is a nightmare because ( reason X).
R: However,  reason X is not true / is not truly a nightmare because (reason Y). Thus, modern technology is not a nightmare.

Paragraphs 2-4

A: In fact, modern technology is a dream because (state reason)

In this approach, no comparison is necessary, and the question is not very challenging. However, what if reason X (in Paragraph 1) is something that cannot be denied? What if it shows that it is actually a nightmare, and cannot be reconciled with a simple”not true” rebuttal (see point 1 in this post)? How then can you justify that technology is a dream? In these situations, many students will adopt a very sensible approach:

Approach 2

Here, students will reconcile their counter-argument by showing that although there are genuine reasons why it may be viewed as a nightmare, the reasons why it is a dream far outweigh the reasons why it is a nightmare. This approach is logical and sensible. However, the question has now become a “pros vs cons” comparative question – which is a challenging type of question to deal with. When this happens, it might be easier to simply pick an easier question. However, for those who still choose to attempt it even when it becomes  a “pros vs cons” comparison, read this piece of advice on tackling “pros vs cons” comparative questions.

One company that provides this service is Express Medical Assistance. At least five companies provide this service.

-ST

Maybank will fund the purchase of lightbulbs through a campaign on which it will pledge $1 for each of its customers who switches from paper statements to electronic statements.

-ST