Name: _________________________ ( ) Class: _____ Date: _____________

The Evaluative Aspect of the Application Question (AQ)

What is the AQ?

The AQ is the final question in the comprehension paper (rationale: students would have consolidated their understanding of passage ideas through the short questions and summary and would be better prepared for the AQ.

In an AQ question, you are required to read a passage, identify the core issue in it, and critically evaluate the writer’s stand and strength of arguments. You need to take a stand, and are expected to engage with text ideas (i.e. select specific text ideas to respond to, refer to them clearly in their response and apply them to their society or other societies). You are also expected to offer a balanced perspective.

4 types of AQs:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the writer’s views?

2. How convincing are the writers arguments/views?

3. Generic Questions: No link to specific societies/Singapore.

4. Apply the writer’s views/arguments to the Singapore context

Examples of AQs

1) 2003 passage on animal rights (‘Which writer’s views are you most in sympathy? How relevant are the views raised by both authors to Singapore society?’)

2) 2004 passage on choices in life (‘Do you regard the increased degree of choice available to you and your generation as broadly beneficial or harmful?’)

3) 2005 paper on aggression (‘The author suggests some reasons why aggression may play a much reduced role in the future. How convincing are these reasons, and do you consider the gains would outweigh the losses if aggression ceased to be a central feature of human behaviour?’)

4) 2006 passage on freedom (‘How far do you agree with the writer’s view? How free do you want to be’?)`

1

5) 2007 passage on gender revolution(‘ To what extent do you agree or disagree with his views?’Support your answer with examples drawn from your society.)

6) 2010 and 2011 passages (How applicable do you find the writer’s observations to yourself and your own society?)

How are AQs assessed?

• 3 bands (1-3 marks, 4-7marks, 8-10 marks)

• 4 main components (R, EX,EV and C)

R (requirements)- addressed all parts of the question and balanced?

EX(Explanation)- has the student developed the point with sufficient and apt illustrations?

EV(Evaluation)- has the student evaluated the writer’s views, his/her own views and the situation in society?

C(Coherence) – is the response logically organized and fluent?

In this handout, we are concerned with the evaluative aspect of AQ.

The Evaluative Aspect of AQ

The evaluative aspect of the AQ answer has five essential parts to it, namely:

(1) Introduction(2) Stating of Argument(3) Evaluation of Argument(4) Explanation of Evaluation(5) Conclusion

2

(2) – (4) constitute the complete analysis of an argument

Part 1: Introduction

The introduction must have the following 2 points:

(1) Main thesis of the writer (which you will have to paraphrase) – be specific and focus on the core issue

(2) Your main stand – how far you agree with the writer’s thesis.

Sample Introductions:

The writer argues that caning is not an effective way to raise disciplined children. I do not fully agree with the writer’s view and her supporting arguments.

Other variants:

The writer’s central assertion is that caning is an ineffectual way to raise disciplined children. Given the weakness of her supporting points, I find her thesis to be quite doubtful.

The writer’s main argument is that caning is not an effective way to raise disciplined children. This thesis and its supporting arguments have some merits, but a careful analysis will also reveal crucial flaws.

Part 2: Stating of Argument

Clarify to yourself and the marker what the argument in focus is. Do not simply restate the writer’s argument – paraphrase it.

For example:

Original argument by writer: My children seemed as likely to commit the same infringement as before.

Possible paraphrasing: The writer feels [necessary indication that it is the writer’s argument and not yours] that caning has not changed the behaviour of her children for the better

Another variant:

Despite caning them, the writer thinks that her children are still going to do the same things as before.

3

Part 3: Evaluation of Argument

How well does the argument support the main thesis?

It is usually necessary in AQ to not merely cheerfully agree with the argument, but to qualify the argument by showing up its flaws. But do not attempt to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If you genuinely feel that the argument is sound, then by all means fully agree with it. Section 1 of Part 3 will teach you how to point out the flaw of an argument, while Section 2 will teach you how to agree with it.

Section 1: Pointing out flaws

There are 3 ways to refute arguments:

(1) Show that even if the argument is acceptable, it does not support the thesis or is irrelevant to it (i.e. point out how the argument is non sequitur in nature)

(2) Show that the argument is flawed or fallacious

(3) Show that the argument is mainly a rhetorical appeal to pathos and not a reasonable argument based on logos. Note that this is usually insufficient to destroy an argument but can strengthen strategies (1) and (2).

These 3 strategies can be used together for maximum effect, but either of the first two can suffice.

Strategy (1): Reducing arguments to irrelevance

The key question to ask is: Does this argument, assuming it is right, actually imply anything about the truth or falsehood of the main thesis?

For example: The author may be right that her children are indeed unchanged by caning. But does that imply anything about using caning to discipline children in general? Just one isolated set of observations (even if it is unbiased, consistent and accurate) cannot be overgeneralised to imply a rule for all children.

4

Strategy (2): Pointing our logical fallacies

(a) Check assumptions.

For example: The writer assumes that because her children’s behaviour did not change for the better, they have not been positively influenced by caning. Yet this assumption is erroneous, for it is possible that her strategic strokes of the cane may have prevented her children from becoming worse.

(b) Check reason and evidence.

(i) What are the data used to support the argument?

(ii) How accurate and reliable are the data?

(iii) Is it sufficient data to logically support the argument?

(iv) Can the data be interpreted in another way (can we infer another conclusion from the same set of data)?

For example: The writer draws merely on her own personal interpretation of her children’s behaviour without supporting testimony from anyone else. What about the children’s perspective or those of other caretakers? Perhaps the children have actually changed, but she is simply unaware or unobservant.

(c) Check viewpoint.

(i) What viewpoint is the author writing from?

(ii) Could this viewpoint have distorted the writer’s argument in some way?

(iii) Is it a balanced viewpoint or a biased viewpoint which ignores the contrary case?

For example: Also, the writer is a mother who may be feeling guilty about the pain she has inflicted on her children. Given her biased viewpoint, it is questionable whether her observation on her children’s behaviour being unchanged is really accurate, or she simply wishes it so and unconsciously distorts her observations.

5

Strategy 3: Weakening arguments through revealing its basis in Pathos

Many times, writers get carried away appealing to pathos rather than logos, and this is highly indicative in their choice of words.

Original: Parents already have power over their children, simply by being their sole providers. They don’t need a big stick to prove it.

Paraphasing of this argument may not be needed if you are critiquing rhetoric as you are referring to the exact words of the writer.

For example: The writer uses the phrase “a big stick” to illustrate a cane. This over-exaggerated metaphor appeals to pathos and helps distorts how painful and violent caning really is.

Section 2: Agreeing with the writer’s argument

To agree with the writer’s argument, you must approve her:

(1) Viewpoint (the viewpoint is trustworthy, balanced and fair)

(2) Assumptions (the point does not have erroneous assumptions)

(3) Reason and evidence (the evidence given is fair, substantial, accurate and relevant)

Since the AQ sample we’re using today has highly dubious arguments, we will reserve a more comprehensive lesson on “How to agree with a writer” to another day.

Part 4: Explanation of Evaluation

Explanation should usually immediately follow your evaluation. Explanations can include the following:

(1) Your own counter-arguments or supporting arguments, backed with substantial, relevant and accurate evidence

(2) Suggestions for improving the writer’s argument

Explanations can be used to support or counter the writer’s argument. The following passage merges 2 evaluations from Part 2 and adds on a brief explanation component in [square brackets]. The following is strongly negative as the argument of the writer is inherently weak –

6

however destroying a writer’s argument is not the only way to tackle AQ – that must be emphasized.

The writer’s central assertion is that caning is an ineffectual way to raise disciplined children. Given the weakness of her supporting points, I find her thesis to be quite doubtful.

We consider the writer’s first argument that caning has not changed the behaviour of her children for the better. We question the relevance of this argument to her main thesis. The author may be right that her children are indeed unchanged by caning, but does that imply anything about using caning to discipline children in general? Just one isolated set of observations (even if it unbiased, consistent and accurate) cannot imply a general rule for all children.

[The writer herself points out that many people of her generation in fact support caning. This is presumably because at least some of them or their children have experienced positive change after corporal punishments. Would the anecdotal evidence of these people not be contrary to the writer’s isolated case?]

Secondly, the writer is a mother who may be feeling guilty about the pain she has inflicted on her children. Given her biased viewpoint, it is questionable whether her observation on her children’s behaviour being unchanged is really accurate, or she simply wishes it so and unconsciously distorts her observations.

[If the writer had been able to provide more viewpoints from more varied sources, confirming that caning has not positively affected her children in any way, we can then be more certain that she is not being biased. The writer will also be much more convincing and fair if she actually tries to cite some evidence or cases where her children actually improved in behaviour. It is quite unbelievable that her children never improve in any manner after all their canings.]

7