TEACHERS NOTES

ISSUE #04/05 THE ESSAY ISSUE

2
THE
ESSAY
ISSUE
POLARITY
Every argument needs to begin with a basic polarity of at least two sides. Words such as is, does,
has, can, will, should and must are what we call polarity words, since they help generate two
opposing responses to the question (i.e. is/is not; does/does not; and so on). The polarities can
be dened as either empirical or normative, and the questions need to be answered accordingly
based on their polarity type.
Certain questions do not seem to contain polarity words. Take the example here:
Consider the view that mathematics possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty. (2012, Q7)
It may be helpful for students, in such an instance, to insert a suitable polarity word and rephrase
the question in a more direct manner:
Does mathematics possess not only truth, but supreme beauty?
Other questions such as Q2, Q5 and Q11 can also benet from such rephrasing as they require
students to assess, discuss or consider a given quote or claim.
VARIABLE(S)
Variables are words that determine the scope of the argument. There are usually multiple
variables in a question: one main variable and the other secondary variables. The main variable
is either the key issue that needs to be resolved or the key value that needs to be established by
the end of the argument. The trick to identifying the main variable is this: It is the word or phrase
that is directly associated with the polarity word. For example,
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? (2003, Q8)
In this question, can is the polarity and the main variable is be relied upon. Specically, the
reliability of the media (whether it can or cannot be relied upon) is the key issue we need to
examine in this question.
Be relied upon is a variable because there are dierent degrees of reliance that are possible, or
dierent parties behind the production of the media whose reliability will in turn contribute to
the overall reliability of the media.
Media and truth are both secondary variables. The former breaks down the various types,
functions or producers of the media. The latter asks you to consider what truth is and who
determines it.
CONSTANT(S)
Constants are terms that change the meaning of the question by introducing specic assumptions
or additional requirements that need to be addressed in the process of the argument. There are
too many to be listed here, but what constants are and how to identify them should become
clearer as we go through the question analysis below.
Not all questions contain constants, though, and some questions contain multiple constants.
Questions without constants are called basic polarity questions. As a general rule of thumb, the
more constants there are in a question, the more assumptions there are to be addressed, and thus
the more complex the argument is required to be.
In the sample question above (2003 Q8), the constant ever creates the assumption that the
media cannot be relied upon to convey the truth. Accordingly, the student is required to address
this assumption in his essay in relation to the points raised, either at the beginning of the essay
or in every paragraph. Eliminating the constant from the question simplies it and broadens up
the possible responses a student can give. Thus, the modied question, Can the media be relied
upon to convey the truth? allows students to simply explain the instances when media can be
relied upon and instances when it cannot be, without the complication of addressing the negative
reputation of the media that is added by the constant.
FOR THE TEACHERS NOTES OF THIS ESSAY ISSUE, WE PROVIDE YOU WITH THE
QUESTION ANALYSES OF THE 2012 A LEVELS GP ESSAY QUESTIONS USING THE
PVC (POLARITYVARIABLECONSTANT) FRAMEWORK. THE PURPOSE OF THIS
FRAMEWORK IS TO TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BREAK THE QUESTIONS DOWN INTO
KEY TERMS OR CLAUSES, UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS REQUIREMENTS, AND
FORMULATE POSSIBLE POINTS FOR THEIR ESSAYS. USING PVC AS AN ANALYSIS
TOOL HELPS THEM DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF THEIR ARGUMENT IN ORDER
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE QUESTION.
LET US FIRST REVIEW THE PVC FRAMEWORK.
3
GIVEN
CONTEXT(S)
This last category of key terms does not fall within the PVC framework but is nevertheless
important to note. Questions that contain given context(s) require students to answer the
question within the parameters of that context(s). They can be the contexts of time (nowadays,
todays world), space (Singapore, your society) or a combination of both. Answers that stray
out of context or refer to the wrong context run the risk of failing. It may be useful to list down the
dening characteristics of the given context(s) during the planning stages. Doing so helps to keep
the essay relevant and may even help you generate insightful points or perspectives.
4
01
IS THERE ANY VALUE IN PRESERVING MINORITY LANGUAGES IN THE WORLD?
P C mV V V Context
This is a relatively straightforward question. The polarity and main variable, is there value, requires the student to
assess the importance, relevance and/or necessity of preserving minority languages. The constant, any, creates the
assumption that there is no value in doing so.
Value is a variable that asks you to look at dierent degrees of value (no < some < considerable < innite) that can
be established, and dierent types of value (economic, social, political, historical, cultural, etc.) that can, and should,
be considered in the essay. Formulating the points and essay via the main variable usually produces the most direct
answer to the question.
Preserving and minority languages are both secondary variables that, when considered, can help add depth, nuance
and insight to the essay. Thinking about the preservation process reveals the dierent ways of preserving a language,
the level of ease or diculty involved, and the costs and therefore value (or the lack thereof) of it. The dierent minority
languages that exist can be used as examples to illustrate the points. Comparing dierent minority languages oers the
possibility that perhaps some are more valuable than others.
02
PEOPLE IN THE ARTS, LIVING OR DEAD, RECEIVE FAR MORE RECOGNITION THAN
THOSE IN THE SCIENCES, EVEN THOUGH IT IS LESS DESERVED. CONSIDER THIS
CLAIM.
This is a rather complicated question (it contains numerous clauses, multiple constants and two polarities) that needs
to be broken down into smaller, more digestible components for analysis.
First of all, it should be split into two separate questions:
Q1. Do people in the Arts receive far more recognition than those in the Sciences?
P V mV C V C V
Q2. Is the recognition less deserved?
P V C mV
Ways to asnwer the question considering both polarities:
Q1. Yes Yes No No
Q2. Yes No Yes No
As you can see from the table above, there are 4 possible combinations of answers. To keep things simple and clear
for students, and to create structure for the essay, it is advisable to treat one of the questions as an assumption. Hold
it constant and deal with the other question rst, before returning to question the assumption in the later half of the
essay. That is to say, we can begin the essay by assuming that people in the Arts do receive far more recognition than
those in the Sciences, proceed to question if this recognition is less deserved, and then return, towards the end of the
essay, to challenge the assumption that people in the Arts receive far more recognition than those in the Sciences. The
reverse order (assuming rst that the recognition is less deserved) is also acceptable.
In terms of analysing the key terms in this question, people in the Arts and those in the Sciences are secondary
variables that refer to anyone working in the elds of the Arts (artists, writers, actors, musicians, photographers, etc.)
or Sciences (scientists, engineers, technicians, programmers, etc.). The clause living or dead is simply a reminder from
the examiners that students are allowed to consider artists and scientists both past and present.
The two main variables are receive and deserved since they are the key values we are trying to determine (do they
receive and is it deserved?). More than and less are comparison constants that require students to compare a variable
(the amount of recognition) between two sets of people (people in the Arts and people in the Sciences), and, for this
question, along two dimensions (the amount received and the amount deserved).
While this type of long and complicated questions may appear daunting, we have found that certain students actually
prefer answering them as they are less open-ended than most questions and provide students with a predetermined
structure to work with.
5
03
SHOULD PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS?
P V mV V V
As the polarity, should indicates that this is a normative question students are required to argue what ought to be
allowed rather than merely assess and explain what is allowed. The basis of their arguments can be grounded in ethics
(is allowing people to have children by articial means morally permissible?); in law (what are the legal concerns, is
the legal framework equipped to handle the consequences, and is the system robust enough to monitor and enforce the
regulations?); in social, cultural or religious practices and norms; or even in economic terms (what are the costs and
benets of allowing people to have children by articial means?).
Again, the secondary variables help students add depth, nuance and insights to the discussion. Who are the people
relevant to the discussion (homosexuals, couples with fertility issues, widows or widowers, etc.)? Should we allow only
certain people to have children by articial means? If so, who and why? If not, why not?
What are some of the reasons for wanting to have children, and do the reasons matter in determining who is allowed
to do so by articial means?
What type of articial means are we talking about (in vitro fertilisation, surrogacy or cloning)? Are some means more
ethically permissable and others not? Which ones, and why?
04
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS PROTECTED IN YOUR SOCIETY?
P V V mV Context
This is an empirical, basic polarity question that requires students to assess the level of protection aorded to animals
in our society.
Exploring the main variable involves thinking about the dierent types of protection (legislation and enforcement,
education and public awareness, social practices, etc.) and the dierent reasons for providing or not providing
protection (moral, social, economic, cultural, etc.). For the latter, listing down the unique characteristics that dene
the Singaporean context is useful for teasing out the rationale behind our animal rights protection laws, policies and
practices (or the lack thereof).
For the secondary variables, consider the dierent types and functions of rights and the dierent categories of
animals. Is it possible that certain rights or certain animals are aorded more protection than others?
05
THE MOST INFLUENTIAL INDIVIDUALS IN HISTORY ARE THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED
THE MOST HARM. HOW FAR WOULD YOU ACCEPT THIS VIEW?
Rephrased question:
Are the most inuential individuals in history those who have caused the most harm?
P C mV V V
The polarity, are, and the constant, most, require students to assess and rank the inuence of individuals in history.
The main variable, inuence, can be measured in terms of breadth (how many people are or were aected?), depth
(how deeply are or were they aected?) or length (how lasting are the eects?). It can also be varied according to
the type of inuence, for example: psychological, emotional, physiological, material or intellectual. The inuence can
either be positive or negative.
While there are other words in the question that can normally be classied as variables, it is not necessary or meaningful
to break the terms down further. It is sucient to simply identify those who caused the most harm as a single variable.
For the purposes of this question, it does not matter how and why these individuals cause the harm or the type of
harm they cause. As long as they cause the most harm however dened or measured they belong to the same subset
of people. All that is required is that students compare and rank this subset of people against all other individuals in
history politicians, soldiers, businessmen, scientists, etc. according to their inuence.
6
06
IS VIOLENCE EVER JUSTIFIED?
P V C mV
Even though the polarity, is normally creates an empirical question, the main variable, justied, causes this
question to be normative in nature. A question on whether something is justied is ultimately a question on justice and
morality. The two main philosophical schools of thought that deal with justice and morality are consequentialism and
deontological ethics. The former determines what is justied and right based on the consequences of an act (in this
case, violence), whereas the latter determines what is justied and right based on a predetermined set of principles.
The constant, ever, creates the assumption that violence is never justied and there are four main degrees or positions
student can adopt never < rarely < generally < always to address the constant. Students who answer in the
armative need to come up with and defend the exceptions of when and where violence is justied. And students
who adopt the position that violence is never justied need to refute the purported exceptions. For the latter position,
a useful, albeit subtle and potentially confusing, distinction that can be made is between that of justications and
excuses. To simplify: justications focus on the wrongfulness of an act whereas excuses focus on the culpability or
blameworthiness of the actor. The argument may therefore be that violence is never justied, although the perpetuator
of violence may sometimes be excused.
Students may wish to vary the nature of violence (physical, sexual, psychological, involving deprivation, etc.), the
dierent people committing or targeted by violence (self-directed, interpersonal or collective violence), or the dierent
intentions behind using violence to esh out the exceptions.
07
CONSIDER THE VIEW THAT MATHEMATICS POSSESSES NOT ONLY TRUTH, BUT
SUPREME BEAUTY.
Rephrased question:
Does mathematics possess not only truth, but supreme beauty?
P V mV C V C V
This is an empirical question asking students to assess the qualities of mathematics (what qualities it possesses or does
not possess). Of the two qualities specied in the question, it is assumed that mathematics does possess truth, given
the presence of the constants (not only and but). This assumption may be challenged if the student so wishes, but
only towards the end of the essay. The questionable variable is that of supreme beauty, and whether mathematics
possesses it or not should constitute the bulk of the essay.
Ways to consider the question considering both variables:
Truth Yes Yes No No
Supreme beauty Yes No Yes No
How supreme beauty is understood or dened is open to the students interpretation mathematics universality,
minimalism, abstractness, precision, order and symmetry may all be argued to be beautiful (or not). The very
subjectivity and diculty of appreciating beauty may be also used as a point that it only possesses beauty in the eyes
of some and not others.
08
IN YOUR SOCIETY, HOW FAR IS EQUALITY FOR ALL A REALITY?
Context P V mV
The polarity is indicates that this is an empirical question. Even though the normative question should equality
for all be a reality? is not entirely irrelevant to the discussion, the main focus of the essay should be the empirical
assessment of the situation as it is, and on the reasons for why equality is or is not a reality (the main variable).
Equality for all, as a variable, can be broken down into dierent types of equality or equality in dierent aspects of
life (income equality, gender equality, racial or religious equality, equality before the law, equality in opportunities or
equality in outcomes, etc.) to help tease out the reasons for why equality is or is not realised.

Your society is the given context. Foreign students have the choice of writing about their native societies or about
Singapore. Students can use the unique characteristics of their societies (age, size, geography, history, demography,
economy, politics, etc.) to create insights into why equality for all is either dicult or easy to achieve.
7
09
SHOULD EVERYONE BE EXPECTED TO DONATE SUITABLE ORGANS AFTER DEATH?
P V mV V V
This is a normative question (polarity: should) dealing with the topic of organ donation. The main variable, the
expectation to donate suitable organs, signies a stronger burden of responsibility than the mere permission or
encouragement to do so, but a weaker burden than the compulsion, by law or by force, to do so (be allowed to < be
encouraged to < be expected to < be forced to). Be expected to, ultimately still allows for the exercise of choice.
Suitable organs and death are the two secondary variables and should be considered to add insights to the essay. Are
all organs considered suitable? How are suitable organs dened and who denes it? Similarly, how is death dened? Is
it brain death, accidental death or natural death? Who decides if and when a person is medically dead?
Although everyone is a variable, it is worth pointing out that it highlights the requirement that there are no exceptions:
every single person is subjected to the same expectation.
10
CAN HUMOUR EVER BE SERIOUS?
P V C mV
The polarity can creates a question of possibility; in this case, the possibility of humour being serious. The constant
ever creates the assumption that it can never be and highlights the irony of the question: that humour is, by denition,
not supposed to be serious. The framework for addressing ever is the same as in Q6 never < rarely < generally <
always.
Be serious, as the main variable, can be interpreted in a number of ways: Can humour be taken seriously? Can it be
used on serious occasions? Can it contain serious content or deal with serious issues? Can it have serious consequences?
Can it be analysed seriously? Can it be a serious skill, profession or business? Any of these interpretations is acceptable
and multiple interpretations can be used as long as the student denes and dierentiates them clearly in the essay.
Thinking about and varying the dierent functions of the secondary variable, humour, can help reveal whether
and why humour can or cannot be serious. The dierent types of humour jokes, comedies, comics, memes, satire,
parodies, and so on can be used as examples to illustrate the students arguments.
11
THE KEY CRITERION FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT IS HOW WELL THE ECONOMY IS
MANAGED. IS THIS A FAIR ASSESSMENT?
Rephrased question:
Is the key criterion for good government how well the economy is managed?
P C mV V
The question structure and requirements for this question are similar to those in Q5. The polarity is and constant
key require students to compare and rank the criterion of economic management against all other criteria for good
government. The denition of good governance is thus central to determining which criterion is the key one.
Governments can be judged on how well they perform their functions, of which managing the economy is but one. The
other important functions include education, healthcare, social welfare services, law and order, national defence and
diplomacy. Governments can also be judged on other qualities such as how democratic, transparent, accountable or
corrupt they are. Comparing the importance of managing the economy well against the importance of each of these
functions and qualities produces the answer to the question.
12
HOW FAR IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR TECHNOLOGY TO BE USED ONLY FOR FINANCIAL BENEFIT?
P mV V V C V
Is it acceptable, constitutes the polarity and main variable in this question. The constant, only, creates the
assumption that it is acceptable for nancial benet to be one of the uses of technology. It is important for students to
address the importance of nancial benets to recover the high costs of developing technology, to encourage research
and reward innovation, and so on before evaluating if anything and what is missing from the equation.
The evaluation can be based on the other uses or functions of technology, such as using technology to cure diseases,
alleviate poverty, preserve the environment, and so on.