Essay skills: Take a stand!

A number of posts on this blog talk about crafting more sophisticated stands. However, it is crucial to note that regardless of how you approach the question, you must have a strong stand. Even if you’re trying to say, “it depends“, or if you’re splitting your stand, your voice, your opinion, your stand must be absolutely clear. And, it should come across pretty strongly.

For instance,

Does technology kill the simple pleasures if life?

If you’re trying to argue that the nature of one’s simple pleasure might change, avoid saying things like:

“It depends on whether we consider traditional, old-fashioned simple pleasures or modern, technology-aided simple pleasures. Furthermore technology may, in some cases, enhance the simple pleasures of life.”

Instead, answer the question directly, and take a strong stand:

“The question assumes an old-fashioned concept of traditional pleasures. Our modern society demands that we re-assess how we define simple pleasures, and recognize that technology does not kill the traditional simple pleasures, but merely create new, modern, technology-aided simple pleasures. And even if we were to consider traditional simple pleasures, a closer look reveals that technology can actually enhance them. For this reason, it is far too simplistic to argue that technology has killed the simple pleasures of life. “

Generic counter-argument #2 (evolution)

A lot of the time, we assume that things don’t evolve. This may result in us making statements like:

“Globalisation results in the loss of local cultures, and the Westernisation of many indigenous cultures”

“Technology has killed the simple pleasures of life because we now prefer to spend time on the computer to taking a stroll in the park”

“The media is destroying our moral values”

“The rise of e-books shows how the book has no place in modern society”

However, if we consider that the concepts above – culture, simple pleasures of life or moral values – are not static and that they evolve, we might argue that technically, globalisation doesn’t cause cultures to disappear, they merely evolve (as they always have). Similarly, as a concept, simple pleasures haven’t disappeared, it’s just that their nature has changed. Where we once might have seen a walk in the park as a simple pleasure, we now redefine our simple pleasures as things like lying in bed while listening to our iPods. Likewise for moral values – the concept of having moral values hasn’t vanished, it’s just that our moral values might have evolved with the times (as they always have). With e-books, technically, the very presence of e-books shows that there still is a place for the book – just in an evolved form.

Task

Go through past-year GCE A level essay questions, and identify concepts where this argument applies.

Generic counter-argument #1 (It’s not you, it’s me)

There are many “universal” counter-arguments. Counter-arguments that keep cropping us, or that can be used in response to a certain, class of arguments.

The “it’s not you, it’s me” counter-argument

A common break-up cliche, this applies to arguments that blame one thing for another problem.

For example:

“Globalisation is a problem because it has resulted in the loss of local cultures”
“Scientific research is used to advance a political motive, and this makes it problematic”
“Technology has has killed the simple pleasures of life because nowadays we are more likely to entertain ourselves with a dizzying array of technology-based options, rather than engage in simple pleasures like taking a stroll in the park”

In all examples, one could counter-argue that it’s not the fault of globalisation, or scientific research, or technology (which are all neutral) – it’s man that doesn’t act to stop cultural erosion (which has always existed, even before globalisation), it is man that is politically motivated (not scientific research) and it is man that chooses to play with gadgets rather than walk in the park.

It’s not you, it’s me.

Essay skills: The atypical absolute terms

Typically, when we think of absolute terms, we think of words like “never”, “ever”, “always” or ”nothing”.

These are fairly standard, and common:

2010: The book has no place in modern society. Discuss.

2010: No politician’s reputation can survive the judgement of time. How true is this?

2009: Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research?
2008: Can the presence of a foreign power ever help a country with problems?

2007: The view of the majoriy is always right. Do you agree?

In these cases,  ignoring or not engaging with the absolute term will mean that we will not pass for content.

However, there are some questions that masquerade as regular (non-absolute) questions, but sneakily include atypical absolute terms in them. Usually, if we don’t engage with atypical absolute terms, we’ll still pass (although exceptions exist). However, because most people don’t realise that there’s an absolute term in the question, dealing with it and engaging with the term will make your essay stand out – and make you more likely to really score.

Some examples of atypical absolute terms:

Technology has killed the simple pleasures of life. Do you agree?
How far do you agree that men have lost the battle of the sexes?
No price is too high in the pursuit of perfection. Discuss. (Note: “no” is a typical absolute term)

 

Considering the first question:

Technology has killed the simple pleasures of life. Do you agree?

A common argument would go along the lines of:

Technology has killed the simple pleasures of life because nowadays, many people, particularly the youth, are more likely to choose a game of Call of Duty: Black Ops than a stroll in the park. With the exception of parts of the world where such technology is limited, we are now able to entertain ourselves with a dizzying array of technology-based options – readily-available options that saturate the lives of people. In light of this, the probability of engaging in an activity that is technology-based is far greater than that of engaging in a simple pleasure that is untouched by the pervasive influence of technology.

However, this doesn’t really engage with the term “killed”. To show an engagement with the (atypical) absolute term “killed”, one might say:

Some might argue that technology has killed the simple pleasures of life because nowadays, many people, particularly the youth, are more likely to choose a game of Call of Duty: Black Ops than a stroll in the park. With the exception of parts of the world where such technology is limited, we are now able to entertain ourselves with a dizzying array of technology-based options – readily-available options that saturate the lives of people. In light of this, the probability of engaging in an activity that is technology-based is far greater than that of engaging in a simple pleasure that is untouched by the pervasive influence of technology. However, does this actually mean that the simple pleasure has been killed by technology? Despite the fact that technology is pervasive and omnipresent, can a person, if they wish, choose not to engage in the (somewhat puzzling) pastime of catapulting Angry Birds at green pigs on their iPhones? If a person wishes, can they still go for that stroll in the park? And we see that technology hasn’t actually killed these simple pleasures, because one still has the option of engaging in them. All technology does is give us more choice. Where we find simple pleasures absent from our lives, it is not technology that killed them – it is us.

–

When it comes to atypical absolute questions, it is worth noting that such questions are far more common in college examination papers (across various colleges) than in the actual ‘A’ Level papers. However, they are interesting questions nonetheless, and they do occur occasionally in the ‘A’ Levels. In addition, unlike regular absolute questions, atypical absolute questions do not require you to deal with the absolute term – but I would always advise students to engage with the term, as it shows a greater appreciation of language and its nuances.

Task 1

Consider the other questions with atypical terms given above and write an argument showing how you would engage with each of these atypical terms.

Task 2

Identify and explain how personal voice was used in the arguments above.

GP Essays: Common mistake #6 (cherry picking arguments / discussing the non-contentious, rather than the contentious)

Consider this question:

‘The tourist does not see the country the inhabitants know.’ How far is this true of your country?

General form: The question presents an opinion, then asks you to contend with this opinion.

Common mistake:

If we disagree with the opinion presented, a common mistake is to “cherry pick” arguments that support your stand. Here, we might show instances where tourists see the real country:

Singapore is a multi-racial, clean and green society, and this is evident to tourists.

However, this is not convincing enough because we’re picking issues that aren’t contentious to begin with. Instead, to convincingly disagree with this stand, we should pick arguments that are contentious, and refute them:

Some argue that tourists will not get a feel of the day-to-day lives of heartlanders because attractions are in “touristy” areas. However, one must recognise that it is the tourist’s fault for not visiting the heartlands – if they choose, they can go “off the beaten track”. In fact, this is becoming more common thanks to initiatives like “Couchsurfing”, which encourages tourists to explore a country through the eyes of a local, and benefit from a more authentic experience by living with them, interacting with them – and (quite literally) sleeping on their couch.

 

Note: This mistake is more likely to occur when we disagree with this particular stand; if we agree, we will tend to focus on the contentious issues anyway.

 

Task:

Considering the same question above, write one weak argument that deals with something non-contentious, and one stronger one that zooms in on a contentious issue.

Essay skill: Attention to detail (in examples)

For some essay questions, attention makes a huge difference; for others, attention to detail may be deemed trivial, unnecessary or a slight digression. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a particular signal, word or question type that helps us identify these detail-loving questions, so it comes down to assessing each question as they come.

Here’s one example of a question where attention to detail really brings our response to a new level:

Why read the book when you can watch the film?

 

This calls for us to look specifically at film adaptations of books, and identify ways in which the book adds something the film doesn’t. Note that we don’t actually have to prove that the book is better than the film – it is not a “more than” comparison; it’s another form of comparison.

 

Less detailed:

 

Even though one could watch the film, one should read the book because it does justice to the author as it truly tells the story as the author envisioned. This is because film adaptations are often trimmed down to fit into a two-hour movie, and certain scenes, sub-plots or minor characters may need to be cut out of the film. In addition , after these cuts, changes to the sequence of scenes, or other changes, may need to be made to the movie for it to make sense to the viewer. This was evident in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series, particularly in later installments, where large sections in the books needed to be cut, as the 400-page long books would never be able to be presented completely in a two-and-a-half-hour movie.

 

Another reason why one should read the book even when they can watch the film is that movies might omit details from the book, and this might falsely portray the author as being a poor writer who did not fully conceptualize and think through the little details in a story. This is unfair, as movie-goers might judge the author for these “mistakes”, without realizing that it was actually due to constraints faced in making the movie, or because the director had a different vision for the movie. This was seen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1), where the attention to detail and complete, detailed explanation of certain events was omitted in the film.

 

The above arguments work, but for this particular question, adding specific details really helps in the illustration:

 

Even though one could watch the film, one should read the book because it does justice to the author as it truly tells the story as the author envisioned. This is because film adaptations are often trimmed down to fit into a two-hour movie, and certain scenes, sub-plots or minor characters may need to be cut out of the film. In addition , after these cuts, changes to the sequence of scenes, or other changes, may need to be made to the movie for it to make sense to the viewer. This was evident in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, where close to nothing was mentioned about Hermione’s involvement in setting up the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (SPEW), despite the fact that this sub-plot was crucial for an appreciation of the role of house elves (including Harry’s own house elf, Kreacher) in the last installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Seeing that the director of the Goblet of Fire omitted SPEW from the movie, it appears that he did not read the last book and failed to realize the significance of SPEW – illustrating that more than just reading the book the film is based on, in the case of a series, one might need to read all the books before watching the film – especially if one is a director! A similar situation was seen in the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1). Here, the opening scene shows Hermione erasing every trace of herself from the lives of her parents, before wiping their memory of any knowledge of her. In the book, this was revealed much later – a good 300 or so pages in. Outside the Harry Potter franchise, a far more drastic deviation from the book was seen in Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights (where the film released under the US title, “The Golden Compass”). While the book has clear, strong references to the evils of the Catholic Church, the movie showed cowardice by staying clear of all religious undertones, lest ticket sales are affected by the Pope declaring the movie sinful – which the Pope did anyway. In all these examples, the story in the movie is not told the way the author envisioned it, and it does the original work an injustice if one does not read the book.

 

Another reason why one should read the book even when they can watch the film is that movies might omit details from the book, and this might falsely portray the author as being a poor writer who did not fully conceptualize and think through the little details in a story. This is unfair, as movie-goers might judge the author for these “mistakes”, without realizing that it was actually due to constraints faced in making the movie, or because the director had a different vision for the movie. This was seen in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1). In the film, nothing was mentioned about how the trio kept getting caught by death eaters (there was a taboo placed on the name “Voldemort”, which made one’s location known by Death Eaters the minute the name was mentioned). It is this detail, the little things, which show JK Rowling’s complete conceptualization of the wizarding world. And because the absence of these details may keep movie-goers wondering about the gaps in the explanation, making it look almost as though it was an oversight on the part of the author, watching the movie without reading the book really is a slap in the face of literary genius.

 

Granted, the above paragraphs show an over-reliance on Harry Potter examples, and this is a limitation of the paragraphs. However, the skill to note is that for this particular question, the attention to detail really makes a difference to your answer. However, it is crucial to note that this skill cannot be unthinkingly applied to all essay questions – some essay questions, because of the nature of their demands, will not credit (and may even penalise) such specific detail.

 

 

Task

“The tourist does not see the country the inhabitants know.” Do you agree?

Consider how attention to detail can improve the quality of an argument for the question above. Write one less detailed argument and one more detailed argument to illustrate this.

 

 

 

Essay tip #2: Structuring essay content

1. Structuring content according to aspects

It is common for us to structure essays according to the aspects of our content. Is greater connectedness is more of a threat than a promise? Perhaps the main body of our essay might explore the following:

Paragraph 1: Is globalisation is more of a threat economically?
Paragraph 2: Is globalisation is more of a threat culturally?
Paragraph 3: Is globalisation is more of a threat politically?

However, there are many other methods of structuring the content of your essay, and, depending on the question, this might make for a more sophisticated essay. For example:

2. Structuring essays according to big ideas

Paragraph 1: Is greater empowerment caused by globalisation more of a threat?
Paragraph 2: Is greater exchange of information more of a threat?
Paragraph 3: Is greater freedom of choice more of a threat?

3. Structuring essays according to yardsticks/criteria

Paragraph 1: If  the threats can be effectively managed, is globalisation more of a threat?
Paragraph 2: If threats are multi-causal (and not due to globalisation alone), is globalisation more of a threat?
Paragraph 3: If the threats only exist in the short run, but the promises persist in the long run, is globalisation more of a threat?

So the next time you plan your essay, do consider whether other approaches to structuring your content could add a touch of sophistication to your essay.

GP Essays: Picking the right essay question

Before we pick a question, we should consider:

The skill(s) tested:

• General form of the question
• Number and type of value words used
• Identifying the underlying issues
• Embedded context
• Defining vague terms

The topic

How much do you know about the topic? It is common to jump into questions where the topic is familiar – if you’ve just been doing globalisation in class, you might think you know more about globalisation than a seemingly random topic that has never been covered in class – like the risks of eating, for example. However, sometimes, you have more knowledge than you realise about the random topics – so remember not to be too quick in dismissing questions just because the topic wasn’t covered in class.

 

Picking the right question

The complexity of a question is influenced by the above factors – and more. But what might be complex to some, others will find easy.

Everyone has different strengths. Some people might struggle with absolute terms, but excel in comparative questions. Some might find that the exact opposite is true for them. Some are likely to miss out the nuance of questions, while others might be really good at spotting and addressing such underlying issues. If I were to generalise, I might say, “avoid the comparative questions, those are tricky”. Or, “favour questions with fewer value terms.” However, this advice won’t work for everyone, because everyone has different strengths.

So expose yourself to a wide variety of questions, and discover your strengths. Ultimately, when it comes to picking the question that is right for you, play to your strengths.

 

Essay tip #1

It’s common for us to adopt a bi-polar, yes-no thought process when we encounter essay questions. Is image everything? Yes it is, no it isn’t. If we argue no, we’ll just chuck in some “yes” arguments for balance.

And this works. Well, sort of. You’ll pass, but it’s a bit simplistic. One tip to get you thinking about more sophisticated ideas is to think, “it depends”. Is image everything? It depends.

It depends on whose point of view we’re considering. Consider the relative value of one’s image, in terms of one’s individual, outward appearance, to the following people:

A)    Average person in poverty

B)    Average 6-year-old

C)    Average working adult

D)    Average rockstar

E)    Average anorexic

Is the degree to which their image matters to each person likely to be the same, or different? Might one or a few value their image to such an extent that it could be considered “everything”? So is image everything? It depends on whose point of view we’re considering – to some people, image may be their everything; to others, image may be important, but not everything. And to others still, image may hardly matter to them.

 

Or perhaps it depends on how we define everything:

A) An outward appearance; superficial qualities only
B) The sum of an outward appearance, inner qualities, skills, talents, words, actions, beliefs, values, etc.

Would one of the above definitions make a conclusion of “it’s everything” more likely? So is image everything? It depends on how we define everything – a superficial consideration of image is likely to lead us to saying no; an all encompassing definition might lead us to say yes.

 

Of course, this technique won’t work for all essay questions, but for questions that allow for such a response, it certainly beats a vague, general, yes-or-no stand. So next time you think of stating your stand simply as “Yes, image is everything”, stop. A firm, clear stand doesn’t mean you’re limited to a yes-or-no response. Instead, be firm and clear in your stand, but with a touch more sophistication – tell me that “whether image is everything depends on whose point of view we consider, and on how we define image. Image is everything to people who obsess over their image, but not to those who do not. Image is everything if we consider an extremely broad, all-encompassing view of image, but not if we consider image as merely the superficial, outward appearance of a person (or country or organisation). Ultimately, whether image is everything depends on the situation.”