Comprehension: Language use / Author’s intention [Analysis of GCE 'A' Level questions, 2002-2010]

Here are all the language use / author’s intention questions that Cambridge has asked from 2002-2010:

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

Key terms: Should … more

A quick check showed that Cambridge hasn’t, in the past 11 years, asked any question in this form, but two questions from this year’s lot of Preliminary examination questions were phrased in this way:

• 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?

One possible argument against the idea of “more” could consider the manner, rather than the quantity.

For example, perhaps we can’t afford to spend more time playing because of the demands of our hectic lifestyles – but perhaps the answer isn’t in more (quantity), but in changing the way we play, so as to get more benefits. For example, instead of watching online TV alone for three hours a week, we could play a sport with a group of friends instead.

Or instead of giving the poor more money, donor countries could spend the same amount of money on setting up education programmes instead.

The order of your paragraphs could make a difference

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.

The Nature of Science

This excellent link on the nature of science is courtesy of Bok Chong.

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.

When the “Either/or” question becomes a “Pros vs Cons” comparative question

A recent consultation on an “either/or” question revealed that these questions sometimes end up becoming comparative questions. When that happens, the question becomes much more challenging, and the recommendation for most students is to avoid it.

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.

Singapore and quality healthcare

Companies and hospitals here see as much as a 30% growth in demands for medical evacuation procedures, in which wealthy patients from countries like Indonesia pay top dollar to be evacuated to Singapore for treatment.

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

-ST

Singapore and the environment / low income group

A collaborative initiative by the Central Development Council, Maybank Singapore and the National Environment Agency: 4000 low-income households will receive two energy-saving lightbulbs, helping them save up to $40 per year on their electricity bill.

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