Insights from the 2014 A Level General Paper Essay Questions
Editor’s note: This is a post from one of our old sites, Englishmender. Presented with little to no editing as the observations still hold.
The Search Engine Analytics Deities have spoken and these Annual Exam Question review posts have by far drawn the most traffic here. That’s understandable, given how many schools use these as exercises or mini tests. And surely we could all use some, um, brainstorming inspiration? 🙂
Here are the 2014 questions and my thoughts and suggestions on them.
‘Traditional marriage is an outdated concept.’ To what extent is this true of your society?
How far should firms be allowed to limit their workers’ rights when profits are at stake?
‘Gambling on sport undermines its spirit and should be banned.’ How realistic is this position?
Discuss the view that, with an increasing global need for energy, every possible source should be exploited to the full.
‘For the majority of people, the Arts are irrelevant to their daily lives.’ How true is this of your society?
How far is it important for people to be aware of current events in countries other than their own?
In times of economic hardship, should a country still be expected to provide financial or material aid to others?
Do films offer anything more than an escape from reality?
To what extent can the regulation of scientific or technological developments be justified?
‘Getting what one wants in life is what matters.’ Discuss.
Examine the extent to which expenditure on arms and the armed forces is justifiable in the modern world.
Consider the view that some careers are better suited to one gender than the other.
For this post, we’ll be using the following brainstorming process, which I’ll elaborate on in another post. I won’t necessarily call each element out for each question, but this approach will help us avoid missing out on “obvious” discussion points that the examiners might expect or that the “real world” has encountered recently.
General thoughts and first impressions
Obvious YES/AGREE (or equivalent)
Obvious NO/DISAGREE (or equivalent)
Examples and key ideas to consider
Possible stands you can take
1. ‘Traditional marriage is an outdated concept.’ To what extent is this true of your society?
General thoughts and first impressions
In today’s “woke” society (and how I wish I’d tackled this much earlier…), even agreeing on what “traditional marriage” is or used to be might be challenging. But in all seriousness, we should still get some kind of working definition out, as it pertains to heterosexual, permanent unions.
What does outdated mean? It used to describe how things work / what fits our needs but it hasn’t kept up with the times? What’s changed? How do we know it’s changed?
Obvious YES/AGREE
If we look at declining “traditional marriage” rates and growing divorce rates, we could argue that traditional marriage is outdated because people just aren’t staying together anymore or even forming such unions, and so it no longer works.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
Since the question focuses on our society (Singapore), we could say we’re opening up to possibilities of different types of unions but we still aren’t officially recognizing same-sex marriage. So in that respect, traditional marriage is not yet outdated.
Examples and key ideas to consider
Various political entities around the world (e.g. Taiwan, some states in the US) are increasingly recognizing same-sex marriage
Possible Stands you can take
To declare traditional marriage outdated in most societies is a bit of a strong claim. Better to go for something like it is under some challenge or strain and may need redefining, but it’s not outdated.
2. How far should firms be allowed to limit their workers’ rights when profits are at stake?
General thoughts and first impressions
So there’s something here about ethics and tradeoffs. Not for the first time, some use of concrete examples is going to really help your case here rather than just making arguments purely based on principle of, say, humane treatment of workers (which is of course important). For H2 Econs students, please, please DO NOT chant the mantra about firms having the goal of profit maximization. Don’t use the jargon of another subject here.
It’s also critical in a question like this to be very clear about what “rights” we’re talking about. Are they rights as defined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
That’s a nice list but way too long, so we might want to condense the discussion to focus on things like right to expression, right to organise in labour unions, right to a living wage, right to work under humane conditions, right to dignified treatment etc.
This question also requires us to draw a line to tell the reader where the limit should be. Maybe only under very specific circumstances, with no violation of fundamental rights (as we define)? We need to get as specific as we can and not go with the disappointingly generic “to a certain extent” (again, not an Economics essay ;))
Obvious “YES”: They should be able to limit to a large extent
The list of rights can’t extend indefinitely. In order to meet production targets and sustain the business, a firm should be allowed to make workers conform to company policies like not talking to the media about trade secrets, and make well-compensated white collar workers work overtime when necessary. Workers might also have the right to quit if they disagree with what the firm is doing (e.g. not using sustainable inputs, selling “sin” goods that are legal such as cigarettes).
Obvious “NO”: They should not be allowed to limit, especially where fundamental “rights” are concerned
There’s no shortage of cases of exploitation if lines aren’t drawn and laws protecting labour rights aren’t in place or enforced. There have been accusations levelled at consumer goods manufacturers of poor labour working conditions and indeed this stretches far back (you see it in Dickens novels). We need to also examine how profit is made. What if something unethical like fraud has occurred? Should employees not be allowed to be whistleblowers in the name of profits?
Possible Stands you can take
If you cast a broad enough net, you’ll likely see that this is a question where it’s difficult to say “to a large extent”. So it would make sense to lean the other way, point out the risks of letting firms have complete control over their workers, and also thoughtfully consider the times when that does make sense.
3. ‘Gambling on sport undermines its spirit and should be banned.’ How realistic is this position?
General thoughts and first impressions
So there are really two questions being asked here and you want to address both in your response. Does gambling on sport undermine its spirit (what is its spirit for that matter) and whether it does or not, should it be banned? While on the surface this is far less tricky than the two questions above, you’d again want some real world examples to help show the consequences (or lack thereof) associated with gambling on sports.
Obvious YES/AGREE
Sport plays many roles (exercise, bonding, community cohesion, professional career etc.) and most of them could possibly be undermined by gambling (though I have yet to come across gambling on a friendly game of soccer after recess). We’re talking mostly professional sports that are followed intensely by their fanbases. We’re talking potential match fixing as those with vested interests try to bribe athletes.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
It’s possible to gamble on sports while still enjoying the pure competitive and sportsmanlike spirit of it. We need to consider the degree of betting (friendly wagers vs problem gambling) and realize that major sporting events like the Olympics, World Cup, Superbowl etc. already take place alongside the betting that occurs on them, and their spirit hasn’t been degraded. We could also say that gambling is potentially not as bad as cheating (e.g. steroid use) since the gamblers are generally not part of the games themselves.
Examples and key ideas to consider
We can reference the spirit of the Olympic Games and amateurism (according to the history/mythology of its origins in Ancient Greece). If you’re going to do this question, do you know about cases like the Tim Donaghy scandal in the NBA, the Pete Rose case in Major League Baseball, and the fact that Singapore has been home to some prolific match fixers? And what do you make of those events and the spirit of sports?
Possible Stands you can take
I would lean a slight “no ban” on this question just because it’s not easy to enforce (there’s lots of illegal and informal betting) and also because certain parties who are key to the integrity of the process can be and have been blocked from betting already (e.g. the athletes themselves).
4. Discuss the view that, with an increasing global need for energy, every possible source should be exploited to the full.
General thoughts and first impressions
Ok ok! Environment people. Calm down. Make sure you scope this questions before you throw up a big Hadouken of Environment examples with no argumentation to tie them all together.
We can probably all agree on the increasing global need for energy, so you can paint a general picture there and move on (e.g. growing world population, energy intensive processes in industry and combating global warming).
Be sure you have sufficient energy sources to talk about in this essay. You’d probably need to study up for it if you’re an environment essay fan (all 78% of you). Traditional fossil fuels like crude oil and coal, alternatives like solar, wind, geothermal. Biofuels? Fuel cells? Cutting edge science that delivers us newfound sources?
Note that “exploit” is a powerful word here. It probably still is more in line with “utilise” but you can discuss the more extreme parts of it like “use to the point of exhaustion and depletion”.
Obvious YES/AGREE
On the yes side, it’s kind of brainless to say of course we should fully exploit renewable resources, including investing money in research and development. If not now, when? The time has come and the money is available.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
On the equally obvious no side, should we still continue exploiting our diminishing fossil fuel reserves? Can we trust that technology and price can help us extract more oil from non-traditional sources like Shale and Tar Sands? There’s a whole world of detail and controversy in these if you care to find out more. Should we consider the ethics of depleting finite resources now and the impact it will have on future generations (yes, probably. At least consider it).
Examples and key ideas to consider
Might want to talk about the Green New Deal here.
Possible Stands you can take
I think we need to draw our lines clearly for this one. A predictable but not incorrect argument might go something like “we should exploit renewable resources and conserve finite fossil fuels, bearing in mind that realistically this will involve a transition period and that it has been proven hard for present generations to put off energy consumption for future ones that they will likely never meet”.
5. ‘For the majority of people, the Arts are irrelevant to their daily lives.’ How true is this of your society?
General thoughts and first impressions
Personally, by sentiment, I’d obviously say no (otherwise would I teach this subject and write these blog posts…). But I’d also say that the way the Arts are presented and sold can be a little… out of touch with reality and _seemingly_ irrelevant sometimes. So the discussion here is going to be more about defining what the Arts are, and how we might tell if something is “relevant to daily life” or not. Oh and also where this “majority” is. Is there even a uniform experience across countries? Over time?
We’ve got all kinds of arts… painting, sculpture, dance, music, performance art, opera… (newsflash, I know).
How relevant is something to life? To be honest, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still a pretty useful framework for assessing this. Unfortunately, the examiner report has complained about students overdoing it. But hey, this is a start. And we can always reference the ideas without mentioning the name “Maslow” (Sorry, Professor Abraham) to avoid triggering our readers…
Obvious YES/AGREE
Well, clearly if folks are starving and unable to meet their basic needs, they might not think too much about the Arts under those circumstances (though some writers would have something to say about that, e.g. the role of stories, literature and philosophy in examining suffering and coping mechanisms). And we could point to a world of growing inequality for this. Furthermore, appreciation of artistic stuff is highly subjective. So even those who are safe and well-fed and seek inspiration in the Arts might come away disappointed.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
The arts aren’t just entertainment for the upper classes or the humanities-inclined. They include oral histories that help to pass down culture, e.g. famous literary works and paintings of different civilizations. Some of the most inspiring creations in life are unions of both arts and science (e.g. popular electronics consumer products and even architecture, itself a multidisciplinary endeavour).
Examples and key ideas to consider
This series called “How Art Made The World” is an awesome documentary (of course, I would say that) and I think it’s on YouTube…
Famous Music Quote #2 – Music has charms to soothe a savage breast…
Possible Stands you can take
Your stand may well depend on how liberal you are in allowing things to be classified as Art. I would say you could go either way on this one. Personally I’d argue something like “The Arts are insufficient on their own to help us get through life but they are often underrated and play unseen roles in our lives, helping us codify cultural knowledge, explore philosophical issues, and answer questions of why rather than just how. Hence it is hard to argue they are irrelevant for the majority of people.”
6. How far is it important for people to be aware of current events in countries other than their own?
General thoughts and first impressions
As referenced in the 2013 post, this is another question about international vs local events. But there isn’t a tradeoff being explored here. It’s more of “clearly we need to know about what’s going on in our own country. Does what goes on elsewhere matter? At all?”
Obvious YES/AGREE
Almost afraid to use that “g” word… globalisation. Oh hey and as of this writing, the world is intently watching developments related to the Coronavirus. So obviously even if it’s not in your country, you care because it’s scary, afflicting a large number of people, and can very easily come your way.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
There are many ways we can go at this No side. Local politics and issues still matter and we don’t live in a homogenized global melting pot. Fake news and partisan views make it difficult for non-locals to parse media coverage of foreign events. There comes a time when there might be too much information, whether local or international, and we need to filter accordingly. And do we really need to know about current events in… entertainment and gossip in another country (I know, for many, the answer is YES…)
Examples and key ideas to consider
I’d say this is one question where we need to segment our issues well in order to give the essay good coverage. Maybe split it into Political, Social and Economic events?
Possible Stands you can take
I would see this question as a win for the “interconnectedness” of the world argument. A convincing argument would explore some scenarios where knowing about seemingly irrelevant foreign events led to a better outcome for a certain group. A “forewarned is forearmed” kind of mentality.
7. In times of economic hardship, should a country still be expected to provide financial or material aid to others?
General thoughts and first impressions
There are so many of these types of questions we might as well rename the subject as “General Scenario Planning” Paper. Hmm. Perhaps that was one inspiration.
As usual, we can apply some sense of degree / sensitivity / extent here. What kind of economic hardship are we talking about and also, how substantial an amount of financial or material aid?
The fact that the question uses “still” indicates it believes that under regular circumstances, providing financial and material aid is expected or part of the natural course of affairs. Good to acknowledge this and some general benefits of such a system, e.g. building international relations and world peace, having neighbours to count on, providing aid in the name of humanitarian causes
Obvious YES: They should still provide aid
So…. many answers will focus on the obligations of countries or ethical considerations, and sure, countries might well be signatories to international agreements or UN resolutions that require them to do certain things. So we could consider those, but we should also think about the issue from other angles. Is the country a world leader? A prosperous city-state? An impoverished state? Surely the obligations would differ depending on what they’re already doing and how much they’re reasonably able to give. Are there mutual benefits involved? Maybe the issue could (gasp) be considered from an economics point of view, where one country cutting back on spending could trigger a domino effect and worsen a worldwide downturn (getting a slightly icky taste in my mouth from just writing that, even though it could well be true). Maybe economic hardship is all relative and other countries are doing worse off or facing humanitarian and natural disasters that could use the global community’s help.
Obvious NO: they shouldn’t still have to provide aid
Clearly it’s understandable if a country first looks out for its own citizens. We could also examine the effectiveness of material and financial aid historically. If it’s not that effective then even more so in a downturn we could consider cutting back.
Examples and key ideas to consider
Thank you, Visual Capitalist, for giving us a picture of what foreign aid flows are at present
Source: Visual Capitalist
Possible Stands you can take
Not a huge fan of this question (versus other similar ones about rich countries helping poorer ones) due to the restriction of economic hardship. Whichever way you go, you probably shouldn’t centre your argument on just one major line of reasoning (e.g. principles, ethics, legal precedent).
8. Do films offer anything more than an escape from reality?
General thoughts and first impressions
You’re probably going to think of films as mainstream movies at first glance. And that’s fine. Broaden your scope by thinking about things other than Hollywood / Bollywood etc. Blockbusters. Documentaries? Propaganda films? Short films? Contemporary vs historical?
“Escape from reality” is a pretty strong claim too. Not terribly advisable to say “yes!” alone to this question.
Obvious YES/AGREE
Movies can be frivolous and purely for entertainment. People do need distractions from the monotony of daily life. Some films paint fantasy scenarios (e.g. of a richer life or of an imagined world very different from our own) that are not going to manifest themselves anytime soon. One might even venture that propaganda films, while not aiming to entertain, are also trying to “shape” a reality of their own and helping some escape from the “true” reality around them…
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
There are so many different types of films with so many different functions. Refer to the list in the section above. Don’t films also inform / aim to influence public opinion / say something profound / form part of the historical record / have an artistic aspect to them / make money for some of those involved / serve as a medium of cultural exchange?
Possible Stands you can take
Given the diversity of film types and the arguments under the “No” category, it’d be best to acknowledge the “escape from reality” part but then say it’s only one of many things that films offer.
9. To what extent can the regulation of scientific or technological developments be justified?
General thoughts and first impressions
I’m… not sure why we wouldn’t want to regulate these developments. They already happen anyway. So we can ask ourselves why these regulations exist and what they hope to achieve. There are regulations on the development and testing of medical cures and drugs. There are attempts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There are requirements for manufacturers of various devices to adhere to safety standards. And yet, can there be such a thing as too much regulation (some certainly think so)? What would happen if we were… overly cautious or blocked research on some issues? Are there historical parallels we can point to?
Obvious YES/AGREE
Regulations can be justified when they are made in the name of patient and consumer safety, so that we don’t adopt new technologies too quickly without awareness of their side effects.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
We risk being too risk-averse if we regulate everything in the name of safety. Regulators may currently feel that the world is not ready for a new development, but history shows that some revolutionary ideas eventually led to human progress. And it also matters who or what organization is doing the regulating. Is it excessively influenced by politics and international relations?
Examples and key ideas to consider
Possible Stands you can take
Some degree of regulation is necessary for public safety and generally in the name of caution. The tricky part is where the line is drawn so as not to impede scientific progress that solves our problems.
10. ‘Getting what one wants in life is what matters.’ Discuss.
General thoughts and first impressions
This is one of those general philosophical questions that might be worth considering. And it’s also one where you can use the Obvious YES/NO arguments to help you scope the topic and get some lines of argument going. What is the purpose of life? What might our top priorities be? Do those count as getting what we want in life?
While the question did not say “all that matters”, it’s somewhat close. So we can also consider what we might have to sacrifice to get the things we want. Time? Family and friends? Other goals? Principles?
Obvious YES/AGREE
Achievement leads to fulfilment and if we truly get what we want, we stand a better chance at a happy or meaningful life (but rarely both). Even having goals that we want to achieve can give us a better sense of direction and purpose in life.
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
There’s probably a reason we have the saying, “be careful what you wish for”. There might be unintended consequences of getting what we want (e.g. not knowing what to do with money we win in a lottery or being no happier after). We might feel a sense of emptiness if we have no next goals. There’s a part of this question that ties to happiness and fulfilment, and a bunch of research that suggests that “synthetic” happiness (or us coming to terms with what life has given us, even if it wasn’t our top choice) is more lasting.
Examples and key ideas to consider
Various religious and philosophical takes on what the meaning of life is
Possible Stands you can take
This one is really open. You can lean toward goals giving us a sense of direction and fulfillment in life or the other side of randomness, sacrifice and unintended consequences.
11. Examine the extent to which expenditure on arms and the armed forces is justifiable in the modern world.
General thoughts and first impressions
Don’t countries need national defense? Saying no to this question would likely mean assuming the modern world was rather peaceful and could resolve all conflicts, including those on borders and resources, amicably. Is our international conflict resolution mechanism that effective or binding? For that matter, the armed forces can also be involved in peacetime humanitarian missions, e.g. disaster relief.
We could however consider the level of spending today and whether that is warranted, given the other needs that countries and societies have.
It’s also worth considering the parties doing the expenditure. We might think it’s just nation states but there’s also the role of private military contractors.
Obvious YES/AGREE
There is at the very least a deterrent effect to having an armed and ready military and both hard power (military) and soft power (cultural influence) are necessary for a country’s success (in a very broad sense).
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
There is the risk of the military industrial complex and of excessive spending on the arms and armed forces. We would want to consider whether spending on military activities worldwide is too large (e.g. as a share of GDP) versus other needs.
Examples and key ideas to consider
Are United Nations resolutions binding and do countries ignore them anyway
Possible Stands you can take
Some basic degree of spending for defense is clearly justified. The world still has conflict and still has many dangerous areas. History tends to repeat itself. The work lies in examining how much spending is appropriate, and teasing out the reasons why people might think military spending completely unnecessary.
12. Consider the view that some careers are better suited to one gender than the other.
General thoughts and first impressions
Why are there so many minefields in this year’s paper? And now that we have had the A-woke-ning (sic), shouldn’t this question be reworded?
The types of careers that people will think of and discuss are likely to be fairly common, so it’s worth spelling out skill sets and job criteria in this question and thinking of whether you can find studies and opinion pieces (by men and women) that have already tackled the issue somewhat.
Obvious YES/AGREE
Even without engaging in dangerous stereotypes and before getting into issues of discrimination, pure observation suggests… preferences by men and women for certain kinds of work. We can look at the average physical makeup of men and women (there will always be exceptions) and map that to some jobs requiring immense physical exertion that have traditionally been performed by men (especially in the areas of natural resource extraction, for example). We can think about work relating to childcare and how the bonds between mothers and children help women understand the nature of the work better. Are there specific niches where being a man or woman helps a person relate better to the problems and do a better job?
Obvious NO/DISAGREE
There are careers that have fairly balanced gender ratios and there are others which might be traditionally associated with one gender but might actually be performed equally well by both? Or have there also been careers that started out balanced but then got skewed one way or the other? Why did that happen? Has discrimination been a contributing factor? How about the burdens of family care shouldered by women versus men on average?
Examples and key ideas to consider
Possible Stands you can take
Well, the question did say just “some” careers, not all. How many is some? We might be able to address the “obvious yes” cases and say “indeed, some”, then show the murkiness or open-endedness of the rest?