13. So let's start! (The following steps sounds easy, but they are certainly important)
14.
15.
16. 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
44. 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)
45. 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?”
46. 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:
47. 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
57. 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.
58. You must also cross-refer to other sources to back your point up; that Source B is wrong
59.
60. 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”
61. This means that Iraqis' suffered even more as a result of the invasion.
62. How can the invasion be justified then? Analysing the source
63.
64. 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”.
65. Means that Saddam Hussein is a heartless dictator, so the invasion to topple him is justified. #1 The Differences Analysing the source
66.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69.
70. 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”.
71. Means that the invasion is wrong, peaceful means should be pursued.
72. So Source A saying that invasion is not justified is supported
75. 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)
76. A blogger's response to PM Lee's National Day Rally in 2006 http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7953/3077/1600/52.jpg
91. Since the source is about FT, the rats would symbolise FTs (ouch! It's so derogatory)
92. “ I will sort them out later'', together with rats following, suggests that the government kept attracting and allowing foreign talent in without any selection
93. Therefore, the government might not have taken in FT that were beneficial to Singapore Analysing the source
97. 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.
98.
99.
100. But I don't have another source for you to cross refer in this example, so I would just stop here.
101. Please do remember to cross refer! And cross refer one that is objective and reliable.
122. Then I cross refer with other sources and contextual knowledge (you can since you should know quite a bit about FT) to show that what the source say is inaccurate. Steps 2 - 4: Read and answer the Question
![DISCLAIMER: ,[object Object]]()