To write a good Introduction, you need to remember to talk about these 3 things inside your Introduction to show that

you know what you are going to talk about in your essay; 1. Issues 2. People 3. Reactions You have to understand this about the 12 questions that you are going to face in Paper 1 all 12 questions essentially is asking you about 12 events that are happening in the world today. Events (e.g. abortion, terrorism, war, crime, cloning etc..) are, by itself, neutral. Wait, hang on. How can abortion or cloning be neutral? Are they not very open to argument? Precisely. Events by themselves are just events. It is when People having a Reaction to the event that causes an Issue, which is what you will be writing on in the essay. You can ask yourself this question everytime you do a Paper 1 question who are the people for/against the XXXX (put an event)? The People can be broadly categorised under the 6 World Players (NGOs/INGOs, Corporations, International Government Organisations, Governments, Criminal Organisations and Individuals). These are just categories that will help you to classify what you read. These 6 World Players are unique in the sense that they have their own individual reactions to various events around the world. It is your job in your essay to evaluate their reactions (ie. their reasons for or against an event), and tell me at the end of your essay are they reasonable or not. One last thing about your Introduction, especially for questions which require you to take a definite stand, is how to determine your stand. The best way is actually to take your stand according to what is the general consensus of the world on the issue and not what you believe in. Reason for this is so that you can generate enough points for your essay. If you take your stand according to your own belief systems and if you happened to be the minority, you are going to run into trouble pretty soon because all the points that you are going to generate are based on the exception and not the norm. So, after all this, how do I start my introduction? How can I do my Grabber? Well, if you know of some relevant quotations, do it. If you know some fancy statistics, say it. But if you dont know anything then, tell me what is the world really like out there, with regards to the question. Lets take How important are dreams? (2008) as an example. If we look at the world around us today, people often aspire themselves to achieve better things for themselves or their love ones around them.

Nothing fancy. Just a simple statement of fact that introduces to the whole issue at hand. I know most of you would like to start with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr about I have a dream If you know, then use it. If you panick, then you can use the sentence above (with modifications) for just about any question out there. This is what I call a Break glass in case of emergency way of starting your essay, if you really run out of ideas. What about the rest of the paragraph? This is how I write. Not the best way though just an example. Ive put in red brackets how GIST fits into it. If we look at the world around us today, people often aspire themselves to achieve better things for themselves or their love ones around them. (Grabber) Dreams are not just what one thinks of in their sleep. It can also be seen as aspirations or ambitions. (Interpretation defining the terms) These are necessary for most people today as it provides them a target in life, as a means of escape from the harsh realities of life, or providing an idea so that one to build into physical reality. (Treatment Reasons supporting dreams) Yet, some critics would like to argue that dreams are not necessary because they only serve to delude oneself, or are seen as a frivolous waste of time. (Treatment Reasons against dreams) While we do not disagree with them that there might be a possibility of these happening, these people do not see the power of dreams in everyday life. Hence, dreams are important in todays life. (Stand) So this is how I see writing an Introduction should be. There could be better ways of writing. I will leave you to discover. Please remember to adapt them according to your self. But, you must remember to talke about Issue, People and Reactions in your Introduction.

Writing application question In the final sentence, the author writes that by giving up all claims to individual freedom, we will discover the best way to achieve it. How far do you agree with his view? How free do you want to be? In giving your views, explain where and why you agree or disagree with the author.

Point: Cobley mentioned in line 20 that to obey laws made by us, not for us, is an increase rather than a dimunition of our freedom. (You must remember to make direct reference to a point made by the author in the passage. Please do not just say the author mentions that and dont tell me where it comes from.) Explanation: According to Cobley, people living in civilised societies have come to recognise that their own personal freedom is only possible if there is a strong state to provide for it. Cobley explained this by saying that, because people recognise this, the society is willing to give up some, or all, of their own freedom to the state who has the authority. He contrasted the situation between states whose rulers either siezed power via violent means or inherited kingdoms, and democratic states whose rulers are elected by the people. Only in democratic states, where rulers are answerable to the electorate, that the laws created by the state on behalf of the people to protect the people are seen to be just. Hence, to the author, this is an increase in peoples freedom. (Notice that I am essentially paraphrasing the author here. You dont need to re-invent the explanation because the explanation is provided by the author. What you need to do is to understand where the author is coming from because this is when you have to start evaluating.) Evaluation: Certainly the author has a point that, if the state is not democratically elected, there is no reason for the rulers to feel beholden to the people. Rulers might just oppress the citizens by enforcing laws in an arbitrary manner without rhyme or reason. This might go on to create fear in the citizens because of great uncertainties, which might cause them to lose their freedom the freedom from fear. (Merely agree/disagree with the author is NOT evaluation just yet. While it is important to tell me, the examiner, what you agree/disagree on as per the 1st question requirement, to stop here is not enough to answer the question because the question is a degree question you need to tell me how far.) However, Cobley might have been overly optimistic to believe that rulers in a democracy will create rules that will protect people from dangers within and without the country all the time. While rulers in a democracy are expected to fulfill the wishes of the people who elected them, this is no guarantee that rulers will enact laws that guarantee citizens freedoms all the time. There are cases where rulers in a democracy have enacted laws that restrict freedoms or removes freedoms, under the guise of security or welfare for all. Initially, the citizens might agree to the enactment of such laws because they might not realise the implications of such laws. Rulers might give good reasons for enacting such laws to the citizens, and citizens believe them because of the social contract between the people and the state. This is when abuse might take place because people are ignorant of the implications to their freedoms, if the trust in their rulers is blind. This is something that Cobley failed to consider. (This is when evaluation REALLY takes place. You have to critique the POV of the author by explaining why it might be wrong/where is might not happen/how it might not happen/what is really happening/who might disagree/when is might not happen. The 5Ws and 1H questions are good starting points in helping you to craft a

critique. Again, your critique must anchor on the passage. Notice how I am actually taking his POV and considering where is the loophole. Again, this is NOT the only way to evaluate.) Example: A good example of the above is the enactment of the Patriots Act in the USA after September 11. The Act was passed in order to protect US from future terrorists attacks by giving sweeping powers to the law enforcement agencies to monitor people within the US. While this might have certainly prevented a number of potential terrorist attacks from happening, the sweeping powers given to the law enforcement agencies to monitor people have led to abuses when the agencies invaded the privacy of innocent Americans or foreigners. The Act has also been used to unfairly detained innocent American Muslims simply on the grounds of their religion. (see http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17564prs20050404.html) (This is where you have to demonstrate your knowledge of the world outside and how it can be used to answer the question.) Link Back: Hence, Cobleys assertion that to obey laws made by us, not for us, is an increase rather than a dimunition of our freedom is not absolute. It is a reduction in our freedom if the people blindly follow rulers without questioning the consequences of enforcing laws. By the way so far, I am only attempting to answer How far do you agree with his view? You must be wondering Gosh so MUCH just to answer ONE part of the question? And you still have to generated at least another 2 more paragraphs of critique. Whee. how fun. How would I answer the 2nd question requirement How free do you want to be? Answer: In so far as protecting my personal safety and general well-being, certainly I would concur with the author that I would need to give up some of my freedoms in exchange for security. In Singapore, Singaporeans do allow, by and large, the state to closely monitor our citizens and tolerate some form of invasion of privacy, in order to protect us. However, as much as I want to be free from fear, I do not think that the state should have absolute power. As the cliche goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. While our government has been prudent in the exercise of its powers, Singaporeans cannot be complacent in our trust in our government. I would want to be free. However, it cannot be at the expense of encouraging a police state. (Again, I tried to link my answer back to the passage. While this question allows a certain degree of personal response, this is not a blanket license to go totally off-tangent in your response. I think some people who are more prone to anti-government ranting will go off their rockers in blasting the government on the use of ISA Internal Security Act, and how the state oppresses the opposition which is not answering the question. So, be careful. This is not the only, or best way to answer the 2nd requirement. This is my understanding on how to answer the question.) Thats a lot of things to do but do, you must. Since you have to evaluate reasons of the author(s), what reasons should you evaluate then? Obviously not all paragraphs are useful for your AQ answer. You have to select the right paragraphs. Now, how do bad or extreme reasons look like?

(Note: there are no extreme reasons, ie. arguments by the author that are definitely a lie. Cambridge is not that stupid to give you free marks. Rather, the reasons are opinionated, ie. arguments that are not necessarily wrong. Just that the author is looking at the issue from another perspective in the immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars, Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view) Extreme arguments can appear in 3 forms: 1. The authors reasoning represents the view of the minority with regards to the issue, 2. The authors examples used to support his reasoning is the exception, and not the norm, 3. The authors definition of the issue is biased. How will Cambridge present these extreme arguments in a single-passage Paper 2? Usually, the pattern is the good/strong arguments will come first. Then, closer to the end of the passage, the writer will try to give you the extreme arguments. It is up to you to be able to spot them. Suppose if you can find them. What can you do to evaluate? Here are some possible ways: 1. Suppose if you have to agree with the authors point, you can show evaluation by telling me how is this applicable, or how is this applied, according to the question requirements. Remember, the examiner is always interested to see the WHY. 2. If you can spot any of the above-mentioned problems in the arugment(s) by the author(s), then you can straightaway attack the problematic arguments, 3. If you have problems finding the flaws in the author(s) arguments, you can simply evaluate using either: o Ideal vs Practical perspective o Individual vs Group perspective o Long Term vs Short Term perspective o Change vs no-Change perspective (usually applicable for values or beliefs type of arguments) o Implications of the author(s) suggestion ie. if we really follow what they author suggests, as according to his/her reasoning, do you think you will like the end result?