Saturday, July 27, 2013
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Post your timed-trial redrafts here
I hope that you girls will:
- Re-look and think about your timed-trial response. Evaluate your response and think about what went wrong and what went right, and what you should do in subsequent trials.
- Look at the error analyses sheets and my comments. Think about what would make a good response.
- Try to craft the best response possible (it doesn't need to be the full response - at least one paragraph of good evaluation will do).
- Go the the previous post and post questions if you still have outstanding queries.
Post your outstanding questions and queries on SRQ here
This is your space to post your questions.
Something along the lines, "Hi Miss C., I don't really know / understand how to ... (describe SPECIFICALLY, what your learning problem is) ..."
I cant help you if your question is ambigous. E.g. "I don't understand how to hedge an argument ..." <== How do you expect me to answer such a broad question like this?
On the other hand, if you ask me a SPECIFIC question, e.g. "Why can't I argue that the writer is generalizing that ALL foreign workers are dangerous?, I wont be hard put to give you a response. I would tell you, because you have to give the writer's argument a charitable reading and it is highly unlikely that any writer would be so foolish as to postulate that ALL foreign workers are dangerous. HOWEVER, you CAN safely assume that the writer makes the ASSUMPTION that BY AND LARGE, foreign workers pose a threat to his safety and security because he seems to harbour certain prejudices against them, for example, he perhaps thinks that because they are supposedly of a lower socioeconomic standing, and they are poor, they would be more prone to criminal behavior. This is where you can then go on to evaluate if he has good grounds to assume / believe what he does.
Post your questions here. I will respond to some (not all - such would be impossible).
Love,
Miss C.
Something along the lines, "Hi Miss C., I don't really know / understand how to ... (describe SPECIFICALLY, what your learning problem is) ..."
I cant help you if your question is ambigous. E.g. "I don't understand how to hedge an argument ..." <== How do you expect me to answer such a broad question like this?
On the other hand, if you ask me a SPECIFIC question, e.g. "Why can't I argue that the writer is generalizing that ALL foreign workers are dangerous?, I wont be hard put to give you a response. I would tell you, because you have to give the writer's argument a charitable reading and it is highly unlikely that any writer would be so foolish as to postulate that ALL foreign workers are dangerous. HOWEVER, you CAN safely assume that the writer makes the ASSUMPTION that BY AND LARGE, foreign workers pose a threat to his safety and security because he seems to harbour certain prejudices against them, for example, he perhaps thinks that because they are supposedly of a lower socioeconomic standing, and they are poor, they would be more prone to criminal behavior. This is where you can then go on to evaluate if he has good grounds to assume / believe what he does.
Post your questions here. I will respond to some (not all - such would be impossible).
Love,
Miss C.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Tricks of the Trade
One of the hardest things to do in analyzing an argument is determining which parts of the argument are pivotal and important, and which parts are details and support. If you think of an argument as a pulley-system, the key and most important quotes from the argument are the pulleys upon which the argument turns. You need to try and figure out, while reading, what the hinges of the the argument are. If you recall my pyramid analogy, the writer's conclusion is the pinnacle of the pyramid, and it is supported by layers of reasoning--the big picture reasons, which are supported by smaller reasons.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Block Test 2010 - Don't clear trays if you really want to help
Read the article and answer the question below.
Do you agree with the writer’s views?
Refer closely to the arguments in the article as well as your own opinions. You should write at least 350 words.
Don’t clear trays if you really want to help
Gladys Tan, The Singapore Morning Post, 10 Jan 2010
[1] A friend who recently returned to Singapore from the States after two years away remarked that graciousness is not in the Singaporean gene. “Why do we need signs reminding us of basic courtesy?” she asked, referring to the National Environment Agency’s (NEA’s) recent moves to encourage the public to clear and return their trays. She pointed out that we have domestic helpers to pick up after us at home, cleaners to clean up our mess on the streets and even after we eat. She ended her diatribe with the pronouncement that “Singapore is cleaned, rather than clean.” I meekly returned my tray to the rack but that was the exception rather than the rule. I did not want to end our dinner on a sour note, but I reject her view that we are ungracious just because we do not clear our trays.
[2] As a habit, when I eat out at food courts and fast food outlets, as a mark of courtesy to the cleaner who has to clear my tray, I make it a point to leave behind a clean table, but I do not go to the extent of clearing it myself or returning it to the racks. I am hardly alone; most Singaporeans do not. (From my observation, only one in ten patrons clears his tray─ most who do so are Japanese). There should not be any need for us, the majority, to justify our actions, simply because it is an accepted social norm in Singapore. Why don’t we clear our trays? Because there is no need for us to. There are cleaners to do the job.
[3] A more compelling reason for us not to clear and return trays is that it is the right thing to do. We should not return our trays because it would save the cleaners their jobs. If everyone started returning their trays, the cleaners’ jobs would become redundant. As it is, jobs like these are the last resort for the elderly who live in abject poverty. As cleaners, they work 10 hours a day and earn only $1000 a month. Depriving them of the means to earn even this meager salary would in fact push them into a corner where, unable to support themselves, they could do the unimaginable. We are all well aware of news reports highlighting the worrying trend of rising suicide rates among the elderly.
[4] I am not reassured by the NEA’s argument that returning the crockery and cutlery that one uses to designated areas will not affect the jobs of the elderly cleaners, since they have other things to do. Clearing the tables is their main job and once that is taken away from them, one can expect that the management, in order to cut costs, will soon begin firing some of these cleaners. Currently, with cleaners having other things to do on top of cleaning, these other jobs like sweeping and mopping the premises are done during the off-peak periods. The management of a fast food restaurant here was quoted saying that with staff being freed up from the task of cleaning up after patrons, they could “fetch sauce for patrons.” How many cleaners does it take to fetch sauce? Without having a core duty to justify their keep, many would be dispensable in the eyes of their penny-pinching employers. But as it stands now, these cleaners are essential for business. Dirty tables are not only an eyesore, they repulse customers. How many of us would sit down at a table littered with leftover food, with tissue paper strewn over it?
[5] The cleaners themselves are not convinced that their jobs are safe. When I asked one of them who came very promptly to clear my tray after I had finished my meal, she echoed my sentiments, and affirmed that I would not be doing her a favour. She even revealed that if her supervisor saw patrons clearing trays, the blame would fall on the cleaners because it would be taken as an obvious sign that they were lazy, slow and skiving on the job.
[6] I would also question the assumptions made by some that it is the culture of having domestic helpers in the home that contributes to people not returning their trays. We grew up returning our trays in primary and secondary school and my sons who do national service have to do it too. Clearly we do it when it is required and when there is a need to. There are no cleaners in these places; but food courts and fast food restaurants are different. There is a modicum of service that the patron at such places expects.
[7] Finally, I do not buy the idea that we should return our trays because it is the gracious thing to do. To be gracious, all the patron needs to do is to not leave a messy table, and thank the elderly ‘auntie’ with a smile when she comes by. Not clearing up after ourselves and calling it a gracious act may seem counter-intuitive. But we should not have to feel guilty about it. Rather, we should feel comforted by the knowledge that we have helped to protect the job of someone who really needs it.
[8] In order to be truly gracious, we should not blindly follow so-called “gracious” acts practised by Westerners. Instead of doing things to appear “gracious” in the eyes of others and pandering to self-serving vanities, we should truly have a sense of other-centeredness. When we practise graciousness, we show consideration for the weakest members of our society and that is the distinguishing feature of how we define it in an Asian society.
-- END OF PAPER --
Do you agree with the writer’s views?
Refer closely to the arguments in the article as well as your own opinions. You should write at least 350 words.
Don’t clear trays if you really want to help
Gladys Tan, The Singapore Morning Post, 10 Jan 2010
[1] A friend who recently returned to Singapore from the States after two years away remarked that graciousness is not in the Singaporean gene. “Why do we need signs reminding us of basic courtesy?” she asked, referring to the National Environment Agency’s (NEA’s) recent moves to encourage the public to clear and return their trays. She pointed out that we have domestic helpers to pick up after us at home, cleaners to clean up our mess on the streets and even after we eat. She ended her diatribe with the pronouncement that “Singapore is cleaned, rather than clean.” I meekly returned my tray to the rack but that was the exception rather than the rule. I did not want to end our dinner on a sour note, but I reject her view that we are ungracious just because we do not clear our trays.
[2] As a habit, when I eat out at food courts and fast food outlets, as a mark of courtesy to the cleaner who has to clear my tray, I make it a point to leave behind a clean table, but I do not go to the extent of clearing it myself or returning it to the racks. I am hardly alone; most Singaporeans do not. (From my observation, only one in ten patrons clears his tray─ most who do so are Japanese). There should not be any need for us, the majority, to justify our actions, simply because it is an accepted social norm in Singapore. Why don’t we clear our trays? Because there is no need for us to. There are cleaners to do the job.
[3] A more compelling reason for us not to clear and return trays is that it is the right thing to do. We should not return our trays because it would save the cleaners their jobs. If everyone started returning their trays, the cleaners’ jobs would become redundant. As it is, jobs like these are the last resort for the elderly who live in abject poverty. As cleaners, they work 10 hours a day and earn only $1000 a month. Depriving them of the means to earn even this meager salary would in fact push them into a corner where, unable to support themselves, they could do the unimaginable. We are all well aware of news reports highlighting the worrying trend of rising suicide rates among the elderly.
[4] I am not reassured by the NEA’s argument that returning the crockery and cutlery that one uses to designated areas will not affect the jobs of the elderly cleaners, since they have other things to do. Clearing the tables is their main job and once that is taken away from them, one can expect that the management, in order to cut costs, will soon begin firing some of these cleaners. Currently, with cleaners having other things to do on top of cleaning, these other jobs like sweeping and mopping the premises are done during the off-peak periods. The management of a fast food restaurant here was quoted saying that with staff being freed up from the task of cleaning up after patrons, they could “fetch sauce for patrons.” How many cleaners does it take to fetch sauce? Without having a core duty to justify their keep, many would be dispensable in the eyes of their penny-pinching employers. But as it stands now, these cleaners are essential for business. Dirty tables are not only an eyesore, they repulse customers. How many of us would sit down at a table littered with leftover food, with tissue paper strewn over it?
[5] The cleaners themselves are not convinced that their jobs are safe. When I asked one of them who came very promptly to clear my tray after I had finished my meal, she echoed my sentiments, and affirmed that I would not be doing her a favour. She even revealed that if her supervisor saw patrons clearing trays, the blame would fall on the cleaners because it would be taken as an obvious sign that they were lazy, slow and skiving on the job.
[6] I would also question the assumptions made by some that it is the culture of having domestic helpers in the home that contributes to people not returning their trays. We grew up returning our trays in primary and secondary school and my sons who do national service have to do it too. Clearly we do it when it is required and when there is a need to. There are no cleaners in these places; but food courts and fast food restaurants are different. There is a modicum of service that the patron at such places expects.
[7] Finally, I do not buy the idea that we should return our trays because it is the gracious thing to do. To be gracious, all the patron needs to do is to not leave a messy table, and thank the elderly ‘auntie’ with a smile when she comes by. Not clearing up after ourselves and calling it a gracious act may seem counter-intuitive. But we should not have to feel guilty about it. Rather, we should feel comforted by the knowledge that we have helped to protect the job of someone who really needs it.
[8] In order to be truly gracious, we should not blindly follow so-called “gracious” acts practised by Westerners. Instead of doing things to appear “gracious” in the eyes of others and pandering to self-serving vanities, we should truly have a sense of other-centeredness. When we practise graciousness, we show consideration for the weakest members of our society and that is the distinguishing feature of how we define it in an Asian society.
-- END OF PAPER --
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Welcome Back 404 & 410!
Welcome back 404 and 410! It's the start of a new school term and the beginning of another phase in your learning journey! This term we will be doing the following to prepare you for the Block Tests:
- attempt an SRQ based on the Serangoon Gardens foreign workers' domitory incident (2 lessons)
- redraft your SRQ timed-trial "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" (1 lesson)
- error analyze SRQ timed-trial (1 lesson)
- reflect on SRQ skills - with 2010 Block Test Paper (1 lesson)
For today, we'll engage in a Learning Lab session. You will be divided into 3 large groups and you will attempt to THINK about the materials and questions below. I have 3 groundrules for you to abide by for this activity, and for the rest of this term:
- SPEAK good english (try to minimize Singlish)
- THINK critically in multiple perspectives (don't be lazy and comfortable with your beliefs and assumptions; ask yourself, "do I have good grounds to believe what I believe?")
- EXPLAIN why you believe what you believe as clearly and coherently as possible (minimize one-sentence claims and pronouncements)
Group 1
Read and think about the incident where a UCLA student posted a racist rant on YouTube.
Scroll down to view the video first, then read the newspaper article from Associated Press.
Think about the following questions:
- Does the UCLA student, Alexandra Wallace, have good grounds to believe what she believes? Are her stereotypical views on Asians fair and grounded in legitimate and good evidence?
- If they are, what are the implications? If they aren't, why and how do you think Westerners (and people in general) acquire prejudices and assumptions about Asians and persons of different races?
- What does the incident tell you about online social responsibility? What does it tell you freedom of expression online?
- Do you think that in some way, the aftermath of the video posting (save for the death threats) was more constructive than destructive? (Think in terms of the democratic processes of public, rational discussion of issues and ideas and the notion of freedom of expression leading to more enlightened opinions)
Group 2
Due to video copyright, the video to be viewed can only be accessed from my Facebook wall. Watch and think about what Workers' Party member and NCMP Sylvia Lim has to say about ministerial wages in Singapore. Do you agree with her point of view? Think in terms of issues of equity and fairness, and the concept of being a public servant - serving the nation and people. Or do you think there is merit in the argument that ministers' pays should be comparable to private sector wages?
Larger Thinking Point: What is public service, fairness and equity?
Group 3
A mum forced her son to stand on the streets to impress upon him the importance of education. Undeniably, her method was unconventional, but her message is one that we can understand. Education -- in all its aspects and forms -- is undeniably important. Have a look at the " New York Times' recent article - "Let Kids Rule the School", and tell me whether you endorse and like what the school in Massachusetts allowed its students to do. Do you think that the same can obtain in Singapore?
If you have time, have a look at Apple co-founder, Steve Job's commencement speech delivered at Stanford University. Re-think your beliefs and concept of education.
Larger Thinking Point: What is education and what does it mean to educated?
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
What's Wrong Here???
Attention Philosophers of 414!
Remember! Making SENSE of an argument and SEEING what's wrong or right with it takes TIME! STARE at your arguments, identify the CONCLUSION, THINK about how the various premises fit and link together to FLOW to the conclusion. I asked you to examine the following argument and think about what's problematic with it. Use this space to write down what you identify as the flaws in this argument!
"When prisoners under sentence of death are given the choice between life in prison and execution, 99% of them choose life imprisonment.
This shows that they fear death more than they fear life imprisonment.
Since one is most deterred by what one most fears,
it is evident that the threat of the death penalty is more likely to deter most potential murderers than is the threat of life imprisonment."
What say you? What's wrong here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)