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.
Typically, 2 requirements in an AQs:
1. Whether you agree / disagree with the writer’s views / arguments
2. Application of the writer’s views / arguments to the Singapore context
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 explained the writer’s views 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?
1
The AQ Response
The AQ response has five essential parts to it, namely:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Introduction
Stating of Argument
Evaluation of Argument
Explanation of Evaluation
Conclusion
(2) – (4) constitute the complete analysis of an
argument, making up 1 body paragraph. Aim to
have at least 3 body paragraphs.
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 (because…)
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 (because…)
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. (Followed by preview).
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.
2
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.
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, in my opinion, 3 main 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 debunk 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.
3
Strategy (2): Pointing out 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.
4
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.
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.
Apart from these 3 strategies, you may also want to consider Paul’s Standards of Reasoning as a
convenient checklist you can use to question the validity of arguments:
Applying Paul’s Standards of Reasoning in AQ
ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if
that is true? Are the sources credible?
PRECISION: Could more details be provided? Could the details be more
specific? Could examples be provided?
RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the
issue? Could there be a non-sequitur fallacy involved?
DEPTH: How does the response address the complexities in the question? How are
you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the
most significant factors?
BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to
look at this question? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .?
LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How
does that follow? Is there general consistency in the arguments, or are there
contradictions?
FAIRNESS: Do you have a vested interest in this issue? Are you sympathetically
representing the viewpoints of others for a particular reason?
5
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)
It is not enough to simply state that the argument is fair and relevant. You have to show that it
is fair and relevant. Often, you will have to include your own examples to support the writer’s
argument.
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 –
however destroying a writer’s argument is not the only way to tackle AQ – that must be
emphasized.
Short sample demonstrating stating of argument, evaluation of argument, and explanation of
evaluation (in brackets):
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
6
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 punishment. 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 rather unbelievable that her children never improve in any
manner after all their canings.]
Another sample:
1. State argument – don’t simply quote wholesale from the writer. Paraphrase in your own words.
In trying to argue that caning is ineffective in disciplining children, the writer asserts that caning is simply
“the quickest solution to a long-term challenge”, and also goes on to state that caning is “the easy way
out”. In other words, she implies and suggests that caning is administered without thought, does not
ultimately solve the problem it purports to address, and at the very most, suppresses it for the time
being.
2. Evaluate argument – say what is right or wrong about the argument paraphrased (what the
writer did).
This argument is not convincing because the writer has simply over-generalised that most parents use
caning as the quickest avenue to discipline their children, and have not tried out other forms of
punishment. Without citing any academic studies, statistics, or done any form of research on her part, it
seems that this overgeneralization is an unfair and biased opinion on her part. She appears to be too
quick to pass judgment on others, simply because caning to her seems to be an action based on impulse
and not reason.
3. Further elaboration – in other words, provide an opinion in opposition (say what the writer
could have done) or in support (provide additional reasoning, examples) of the writer
In fact, she could be wrong with her assumption, as it is reasonable to assume that most parents care for
the well-being of their children just as much as the writer does. When other forms of punishment such
7
as removal of privileges, reprimanding and counseling fails, what is left is the last resort – caning. When
this is the case, we cannot fault parents for resorting to a more physical form of punishment – this is
definitely not the easy way out for them, but a painful measure (both to the child and to the parent)
that they may have had to adopt to make their child learn their lesson effectively. Her argument would
have been a lot more convincing had she made an attempt to refute the effectiveness of corporal
punishment administered by parents who use it as a last resort as well, and not simply ignore this
possibility.
8