It wasn’t me! Really! (Key term: Really)

Think of the child who is caught at the scene of a crime: standing, in shock, before a broken (and very expensive) vase. Or in the spirit of the recent conclusion of the Harry Potter series, the scene where Harry is found standing, all alone, before a petrified Mrs Norris.

The classic response follows: It wasn’t me! Really!

Why might the child add in the word, “really”? Does the term “really” make a difference to this statement? How so?

 

-

The word “really” changes the meaning subtly – it suggests that the child is trying extra hard to convince because he knows that the parent or adult who caught him is doubtful of his innocence.

Similarly, compare these two questions:

Are you going to study for Monday’s General Paper examination?
Are you really going to study for Monday’s General Paper examination?

The first has neutral connotations; the second shows an attitude of scepticism.

The fact that the word “really” makes a difference to one’s meaning tells us one thing: The term “really” cannot be ignored. If an essay question includes this key term, it must be dealt with.

Consider this question:

Will technology really save humankind?

While planning and writing this essay (or any essay with the key term “really”), ask yourself, how is my essay different from one that reads, “Will technology save humankind?” If you can answer this question, and you can identify differences between what you’re saying and what you would say if the word “really” were omitted, you’re probably on the right track. If you can’t see any difference, there’s a good chance you’re not engaging the term “really”.

Task A:

1. Write an argument to show how technology will save humankind.
2. Now write an argument to show how technology will really save humankind.

Task B:

1. Write an argument to show how technology will not save humankind.
2. Now write an argument to show how technology will not really save humankind.

The power of an article (“a” vs “the”)

Every word in an essay question matters. Even a seemingly innocent article, such as “a” and “the”, can make a difference to the requirements of a question.

Consider the difference between these two questions:

1. Should clean energy be a priority for all countries?
2. Should clean energy be the priority for all countries?

The requirement for arguing “a priority” is less demanding than that of “the priority” – if I were to convincingly argue that something should be the priority, I would also be meeting the requirements for arguing “a priority”. In other words, something that is “the priority” is necessarily “a priority”. However, something that is “a priority” isn’t necessarily the priority.

Why?

a priority: Admittedly, “priority” suggests that it must come before everything else; however, the article “a” is an indefinite article, and thus suggests the possibility of multiple priorities existing, and clean energy simply being one of them. Here, one would simply need to prove that clean energy is important and should be pursued.

 the priority: The article “the”, on the other hand, is a definite article. Here, one needs to take on a heavier burden of proof, and show that clean energy should be the most important pursuit – the priority that must come before any other important pursuit.

Get a yardstick! (An illustration using the key term, “main”)

When it comes to analysing an essay question, identifying the key terms and the value terms are rarely a problem. The difficulty we often run is in truly engaging with the value term. To deal with those tricky value terms, we could consider using a yardstick.

For example,

Social media is the main agent of change in today’s world. How far do you agree?

Value term: main

Yardstick (measurement of “main-ness”):  Social media is more important than other agents of change

Note that if you use a value term in your yardstick, that too must have it’s own yardstick. In this case, you’ll need a yardstick for “more important”, and “more important” can be measured in different ways (different yardsticks) in each paragraph.  For instance, one paragraph may consider that social media is more important than other agents of change because it has become so ubiquitous that it is best able to reach large numbers of people.

Key point: I must have a clear, objective sense of how you’re measuring “main”.

Some students tend to measure “main” in numbers. In other words, their yardstick might be that social media is the main agent of change because it is the most commonly used tool to bring about change. This is possible in theory, but do note that it can be difficult to execute in practice because it often degrades into a “but-the-numbers-say-so” point, without any real, substantial, meaty argument:

“Social media is the main agent of change because 80% of the global population has used social media to bring about change.”

Even if this statistic were correct (it’s not), it’s difficult to develop this further. Of course, you could go on to develop it by arguing that because social media is so commonly used, it is the best way of reaching large numbers of people – but that brings us right back to the first yardstick – that “main” is being measured by its importance.

Aside from proving importance, another useful (and, if done well, particularly effective) yardstick is this: Social media is the main agent of change because it is the root cause of change / the underlying factor that triggered off change.

Again, you can use this yardstick throughout your essay, or you can use multiple yardsticks in your essay.

 

-

FAQ – on essay structure

Where do you put the yardstick?

If you have just one yardstick running through the whole essay, it makes sense to put it in the introduction. If you have multiple yardsticks that apply to different paragraphs, you should make it clear in the appropriate paragraph.

On necessity (Key terms: necessary / unnecessary)

A common problem with essays on necessity is that they devolve into a “good vs bad” or a “benefits vs detrimental effects” sort of argument.

Consider this question:

Advertising is unnecessary. Comment.

[Key term: Unnecessary]

A common mistake is to talk about the problems of advertisements/advertising. For example, “Advertising is unnecessary because it often exaggerates information” or “Advertising is unnecessary because it encourages people to buy products they do not need”. Here, it is important to note that “unnecessary” is not the same as “bad”.  [see note (1) for further explanation]

However, the fact that something is bad could further develop an argument on necessity:

“Advertising is unnecessary because it is a waste of money, given that the information being advertised can be obtained quite easily from other sources“

The important thing to note is that “unnecessary” must be proven (see text in italics above), and the fact that it is also bad highlights how it is “especially unnecessary”.

All the above arguments rely on one assumption though – that the purpose (here, providing information) is, in itself, important. If one could prove that the very purpose is not important, that would also show that something is unnecessary: “Advertising is unnecessary because no one actually needs to know about the products being advertised”. This argument probably won’t work in this case (for it is difficult to prove that having information is not important). But in other cases, it could be relevant. [see note (2) for further explanation]

Tip for addressing “unnecessary”:

Ask yourself, is a purpose being achieved?  If there’s no purpose, or if the intended purpose isn’t being achieved, one might argue that something is unnecessary. Alternatively, if the purpose itself is not important, one might argue that something is unnecessary.

But does this then mean that achieving a purpose makes something necessary? [Key term: Necessary]

For example,

“Advertising is necessary because it provides people with information” or “Advertising is necessary because it encourages consumption which drives the economy”.

Although this does consider that a purpose is being achieved, the concept of necessity is stronger than that. To show a better appreciation of what the term means, you might say,

“Advertising is necessary because it provides people with information in a way that other sources of information cannot match” or “Advertising is necessary because it encourages consumption which is a significant and important component of economic growth”.

Tip for addressing “necessary”:

To prove the necessity of something, you could show that not only does it serve a purpose, but it serves either a unique or important purpose, or that it serves its purpose best. In other words, there are no viable alternatives.

Recap

To prove that something is unnecessary:

• The intended purpose/s is/are not being achieved
• There are alternatives that can achieve the exact same purpose
• The purpose itself is not important / useless

To prove that something is necessary:

• It serves a unique purpose (there are no viable alternatives)
• It serves its purpose best / better than alternatives (there are no viable alternatives)

-

[UPDATE: 7/8/11]

From 2002-2010, Cambridge has never asked a question with the key terms “necessary” or “unnecessary”. However, they are extremely important key terms to understand because the idea of “necessity” comes up in a number of other essays, with key terms that Cambridge has asked (which are common enough), such as importance, purpose and place. In addition, the argument “…because it is necessary” is a relatively common argument that can be used in a number of essays that do not mention necessity (in any form) in the question)

Remember, just because the exact terms you are familiar with (here, “necessary” and “unnecessary”) do not occur in a question, this does not make the skill behind the key term irrelevant. Always develop a sensitivity to the links between different key terms; transfer the skills learnt from one question to another and avoid compartmentalising your knowledge.

-

Notes:

(1) Understanding ideas through analogies: If you struggle with these ideas, you could try using simple analogies to help you understand them better. For example, I might argue that chocolate is bad for my health because it gives me a sore throat. But if I derive extreme satisfaction from eating chocolate, I might still say it is necessary. Because of this, saying that “chocolate is unnecessary because it gives me a sore throat” doesn’t make sense. Again, “unnecessary” isn’t the same as “bad”.

(2) Although eating chocolate gives me great satisfaction (serves a unique purpose), it is not important that I have great satisfaction in my life (purpose itself is not important) . Thus, eating chocolate is unnecessary.