Structured-Essay Question Revision

Perspective

Structure for SEQ Perspective

• Intro: Agree and disagree with the statement. (Argument)

• Para 1: Agree with the statement. Show how the given perspective has its merits.

• Para 2: Disagree with the statement. Show how the alternative perspective has its merits.

* Have at least 3 well developed PEAL in total for both perspectives.

• Para 3: Conclusion. If you agree with the given perspective, need to show the limitations of the alternative perspective and reinforce the merits of the given perspective. (vice-versa)

Cnet review: “The iphone is better than the Nokia 97 phone in keeping people

connected.” Do you agree? • Scenario: You want to buy a phone that will help

you to keep in touch with your friends/family. • Given perspective: iphone is better.• Alternative perspective: Nokia 97 is better.• Should you talk about Samsung Omnia?• Better in what? Not price or number of

functions/games per se, but “in keeping people connected.”

• Once again, what is your definition of ‘better’? More useful?

• Relevant functions: Call, SMS, email, post personal videos/photos on YouTube/ Facebook.

Structure• Intro: Nokia 97 + iphone are both good phones in keeping

people connected, because… • Para 1: Show how the iphone helps to keep people connected.-Example: Illustrate functions.-Analysis: How do these functions help to keep people

connected?• Para 2: Show how the Nokia N97 helps to keep people

connected• Conclusion: Pick one perspective, and expose the limitations of

the other. VERDICT.N97 is better in keeping people connected because it is more user-friendly than the iphone. The N97 has a QWERTY keyboard that makes it less of a hassle to type a long email to somebody, as opposed to the iphone’s touch screen function that makes typing long messages rather time-consuming and may thus undermine efforts to keeping in touch with loved ones. Therefore, I do not agree with the above statement.

Some useful tools to help you to decide:

Cost > Benefits? (Cost-benefit analysis)

Long term vs. Short term?

“The policy of Appeasement was a severe miscalculation on the part of Chamberlain” Do

you agree with this statement? EYA.

In conclusion, Given my present understanding of that period, I can conclude that in retrospect, Appeasement was a miscalculation as it bought temporary peace at a huge cost. Ultimately, Appeasement backfired because it could not prevent war, but merely delayed it, and made it more deadly when it finally erupted, given that the British and German war machines were fully mobilized. Hence in retrospect, it would have been a lot more effective had Chamberlain denied Hitler firmly from the start rather than indulge him and allow Germany to become a formidable enemy.

Alternative perspective: Appeasement was not a severe miscalculation.

Need to define: miscalculation. Intention ≠ outcome

“Japan’s expansionist foreign policy is justifiable given that it was more a defensive rather than an offensive measure.”

Do you agree? EYA.

In conclusion, although I agree that Japanese actions were initially defensive in nature, and in reaction to perceived attempts to limit Japan’s growth, it became a lot more offensive as Japan tried to pre-empt some of these threats, which resulted in the bombing of the Pearl Harbour and the Marco Polo Bridge incident which heralded the Sino-Jap war. This tendency towards pre-emptive attacks is seen clearly in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which was an infringement of international law, as it had not declared war on the USA, but carried out a sneak offensive on it, in order to wipe out its pacific fleet. This is entirely unjustifiable. Therefore, I disagree to a large extent with the above statement, as Japan increasingly took unjustifiable offensive actions that asserted her national interest at the expense of others.

Given perspective: Justifiable because it was more defensive.Alternative perspective: Not justifiable because it was more offensive.Define “justifiable” having a good cause/reason.

“Stalin’s policies of Industrialisation and Collectivisation in the 1930s were detrimental to the USSR.” How far do you

agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that Stalin’s policies were detrimental in the short run, but were more beneficial to the USSR in the long run.Although the policy of collectivization was very unpopular in the short run and led to food shortages in the early 1930s, by 1935, grain production had increased to 75.0 units, up from 73.3 in 1928, despite having fewer farmers. The longer term effect of collectivization was the increase in labour force to staff the factories, which helped to increase the USSR’s industrial capacity, and was therefore beneficial. Although in the short run the increased industrial production was done at the expense of the workers who had to work under harsh conditions so that quotas might be met; Stalin’s five-year plans helped equip the USSR better when it had to face Germany in war, and was thus beneficial to the country in the long run.

Given perspective: Stalin’s policies were detrimentalAlternative perspective: Stalin’s policies were not detrimentalDefine detrimental: harmful? In what sense? Huge cost?