Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Clouds

1,220

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,220
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Art of SBQ (The way I see it)
  • 2. DISCLAIMER:
    • I cannot guarantee that you will do well for SBQs, because there are cases whereby I do not do that well.
    • 3. But I think that you should find doing SBQs much easier because I certainly feel that way.
    • 4. Also, I think that you will enter the exam hall with more confidence (and that is half the battle won).
  • 5. Intro...
    • This is not meant for people who just started on SBQs.
    • 6. For those who just started on SBQs, you need some 'formats' to guide you through.
    • 7. After that, it's just 'following your feeling' and answer them.
    • 8. This ppt aims to help you 'find your feeling'.
  • 9. Recall...
    • Mrs Law's three moves
    • Basically, everything revolves around this three aspects.
    • 12. All points come from there
  • 13. So let's start! (The following steps sounds easy, but they are certainly important)
  • 14. Step 1:
    • A seemingly easy task; but it's very important
    • 15. Allows you to see if there's a purpose, and if there is, what is it.
    • 16. Example 1: 'N' Level 2009
      • Source A: “From a diary of an English teacher...”
      • 17. Think: It's a diary, so it's private. This means that there wouldn't a motive/purpose (how do you achieve anything if it's kept private and nobody knows about it?)
    Read the Provenance carefully
  • 18.
    • Example 2: 'N' Level 2010
      • Source A: “From an interview with the CEO of LTA...”
      • 19. Think: As the CEO, one will certainly speak up for his/her own organisation right?
        • So it is highly possible that there's a purpose.
          • (There is one for this source)
  • 20. Step 2:
    • It will affect how you answer the question
    • 21. Formats will not be applicable for all questions.
      • Especially for hybrid ones.
    Read the Question carefully
  • 22.
      • Example 1: 'O' Level 2010 1(a)
        • “ What can you tell from this source about the Mumbai terrorist attacks?”
        • 23. This differs from the usual question:
          • What is the message of the source..?
        • This source has no purpose (confirmed by the provenance which states an eyewitness account)
        • 24. Therefore, if you answer 4As, you get no mark!
  • 25.
    • Yes. Answer the question
    • 26. As in, answer what the question is asking, and not throw in your formats
    • 27. Formats are useful as a guide; you have some idea on how to answer the question
    • 28. This is especially so for hybrid questions
    Step 3: Answer the Question!
  • 29.
    • So you should be thinking:
      • What evidences should I use to support my point?
        • Content?
        • 30. Provenance?
        • 31. Purpose?
        • 32. Cross-reference?
        • 33. Contextual Knowledge? (if applicable)
  • 34.
    • Now, doesn't it look like Mrs Law's three moves?
    • 35. So you just pick and choose any to support your point.
    • 36. If you have the time, don't be choosy; use more moves to support your point.
    • 37. The more the merrier!
  • 38.
    • Issue: Does Singapore benefit from Foreign Talent?
    • 39. Background Information:
    • 40. With a workforce slightly above two million, as compared to the millions in other cities in the world, it is difficult for Singapore to outdo her competitors solely based on her efforts. To enable Singapore to compete successfully in the global market, the government has brought in Foreign Talent (FT). It believes that FTs helps the economy to grow and create jobs through investments and expertise. Despite this, the policy of bringing in FTs has been criticised. How far does Singapore really benefit from FT?
    Example: Done by Andy and Nicholas (4K)
  • 41. A blogger's response to PM Lee's National Day Rally in 2006
  • 42. Question:
    • How far is the source useful as evidence in telling me that the Singapore Government took in foreign talent that were beneficial to Singapore?
  • 43. Step 1: Read the Provenance
    • “ A blogger's response to PM Lee's National Day Rally in 2006”
    • 44. Think:
      • “ A blogger” – implies that he's possibly anti-government
      • 45. “ Response to NDR” – Made after the speech
      • 46. Therefore, quite probable to have a purpose/motive (4As)
  • 47. Step 2: Read the question
    • How far is the source useful as evidence in telling me that the Singapore Government took in foreign talent that were beneficial to Singapore?
    • 48. What are the keywords?
      • “ How far”
      • 49. “ useful as evidence”
      • 50. “ Singapore Government took in foreign talent that were beneficial to Singapore”
  • 51. Step 3: Answer the Question!
    • Question asks “How far”, so you should answer it both sided
      • Normal ''Useful as evidence'' questions would ask you ''How useful is this source as evidence...?”
    • Question asks ''Useful as evidence'', so you need to analyse credibility
    • 52. Question asks “ took in foreign talent that were beneficial”, so your answer must revolve around FTs being beneficial to Singapore a not.
  • 53. #1: Yes it is useful
    • The man blowing the pipe with words ''Govt'' on the head says “I will sort them out later''
    • 54. Following him are many rats
    • 55. Since the source is about FT, the rats would symbolise FTs (ouch! It's so derogatory)
    • 56. “ I will sort them out later'', together with rats following, suggests that the government kept attracting and allowing foreign talent in without any selection
    • 57. Therefore, the government might not have taken in FT that were beneficial to Singapore
  • 58. #2 No it is not Useful
    • However, it will not be useful as evidence
    • 59. Why?
      • Because of the provenance.
      • 60. From a blogger. More likely to be anti-govt
      • 61. So could have had a motive; to convince Singaporeans to not support government's FT policy, because the government just opened the tap and let all FT come in.
      • 62. This is biased and nonobjective
        • Which means, it cannot be used as evidence!
  • 63. #3 No it is not Useful
    • Normally, you would then cross refer to another source.
    • 64. But I don't have another source for you to cross refer in this example, so I would just stop here.
    • 65. Please do remember to cross refer! And one that is objective and reliable.
  • 66.
    • Issue: Was Operation Iraqi Freedom justified?
    • 67. Background information:
    • 68. On 19 March 2003, a combined force from USA, UK and smaller contingents from other countries invaded Iraq, in an operation named “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Iraq was invaded as the coalition forces wanted to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqis. However, WMD has not been found and many innocent lives have been lost. So was Operation Iraqi Freedom justified?
    Example: Done by Chng Kiat and Germonn (4F)
  • 69. No. ... There were never any weapons of mass destruction to find in the 1990s and Bush actually decided to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened to show his father that he could finish off what he had failed to do. After 9/11 Bush felt humiliated by the failure to get Osama bin Laden so the Iraqis were made to suffer instead; 4,000,000 killed and displaced. They never suffered that under Saddam. Source A: An answer at Yahoo! Answer UK to the question “Was the invasion of Iraq justified?”
  • 70. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people. … We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization, and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. A speech made by US President George W. Bush on 19 March 2003. Source B:
  • 71. This afternoon President Bush has announced that military action against Iraq is commencing. The government reiterates its profound regret that the diplomatic process being conducted in the Security Council and through the inspection and disarmament process was unable to run its course. … We continue to hold to the view that the inspection process was making good headway, and it is unfortunate that the UN Security Council was unable to agree on its continuation. Source C: Statement to the House on Military Action in Iraq by then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, 20 March 2003
  • 72. Question:
    • Source A and Source B have differing viewpoints on how justified was the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Does Source A show that Source B is wrong? Explain your answer.
  • 73. Step 1: Read the Provenance
    • Source A:
      • An answer at Yahoo! Answer UK
      • 74. Means that it's some unknown person
      • 75. Quite probable that there is no purpose
    • Source B:
      • Speech by US President
      • 76. Will certainly defend his actions
      • 77. Meaning that there will be a purpose
  • 78. Step 2: Read the Question
    • Source A and Source B have differing viewpoints on how justified was the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Does Source A show that Source B is wrong ? Explain your answer.
    • 79. Take note of the highlighted phrases!
  • 80. Step 3: Answer the Question
    • Question asks about “differing view points”, so you need to show it
    • 81. Question asks if “Source A can show that Source B is wrong”, so you need to analyse the provenance and decide if one has a motive.
    • 82. You must also cross-refer to other sources to back your point up; that Source B is wrong
  • 83. #1 The Differences
    • Both sources differ in their viewpoint of the justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    • 84. Source A states that the operation is not justified, as seen in “Bush felt humiliated by the failure to get Osama bin Laden so the Iraqis were made to suffer instead; 4,000,000 killed and displaced”
    • 85. This means that Iraqis' suffered even more as a result of the invasion.
    • 86. How can the invasion be justified then?
  • 87.
    • However, Source B states that the invasion is justified
    • 88. Seen in “ America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas”.
    • 89. Means that Saddam Hussein is a heartless dictator, so the invasion to topple him is justified.
    #1 The Differences
  • 90. #2 Proving Right or Wrong
    • Source A can prove that Source B is wrong, because:
    • 91. Source A has no apparent purpose (the author wouldn't gain from what he said), so it's likely to be reliable and can be trusted.
    • 92. Source B's reliability is in doubt, (the author is George Bush; he will try to support himself), so it's likely to be one-sided and not objective.
  • 93. #2 Proving Right or Wrong
    • Cross refer!
    • 94. Furthermore, Source A is supported by Source C, which states “ government reiterates its profound regret that the diplomatic process being conducted in the Security Council and through the inspection and disarmament process was unable to run its course”.
    • 95. Means that the invasion is wrong, peaceful means should be pursued.
    • 96. So Source A saying that invasion is not justified is supported
  • 97. Understood the art of SBQ now?
  • 98. Practise on your own now!

×