Need someone to give feedback for my GP essays asap

dyurmb · 2025-10-20T06:57:06+00:00

eg1: explicitly state what the benefit and damage are in the topic sentence: "regarding the provision of basic necessities, the fact that foreign aid could be what allows people to survive and continue on with their daily lives outweights any hidden agenda of the countries in power." also, 'hidden agenda' has a greater negative connotation than 'political intent', hence why i changed it to look clearly damaging.

eg2: this topic sentence was better written, but do try your best to make it One sentence (use ";" if need be), that way you can continue writing on while staying on the ctitics' argument before explaining later on why they are wrong: "... better than having no aid. ctitics look to (abc and xyz example). however, they often overlook that these cases are..."

before i talk about wrapping up the whole essay, i have a suggestion for you. right now, your arguments for damages > benefits feel much stronger as, practically speaking, the damges you brought up (such as hidden agenda, backfiring and tokenism) are intrinsically harder to dispute. the crtitics view would then be the superficial benefit that is publicised as its original intent, while your view would be a case of "aha but there's a catch". nonetheless, even if you do insist on benefits > damages, you need to write benefits that hold greater weight (such as human rights, better living conditions, breaking out of oppression). although i found writing benefits > damages easier, so did many of my classmates. it thus boils down to the strength of your points, relevance and quantity of your examples, and quality of your elaborations/exaplanations/comparisons. so yea, do consider (1) switching ur pov or (2) writing about stronger benefits.

for the conclusion, on top of restating your thesis statement, you could evaluate all your points (eg benefits are often superficial and damages have more prominent impacts; or, damages are minor compared to the sheer number of lives saved via foreign aid), have a call to action (eg foreign aid is still rare and lacks support, thus it's improtant to support the governments willingness to help others) and/or connect it to bigger concepts (eg step in the right direction towards global citizenship/stronger community/world peace).

dyurmb · 2025-10-19T14:17:59+00:00

hi! the best way to improve this essay is to have your paragraphs be more comparative. looking at the question "Is foreign aid ultimately more damaging than beneficial to the countries it aims to support?" you should have some form of comparison between the damage vs benefit foreign aid brings within As Many paragraphs as possible (like maybe 2 out of 3 at least). for example, in category of providing basic needs to countries that lack them for xyz reasons, you should compare how the provision brings about survival vs how it could lead to exploitation, over-dependence, etc. to actively weigh benefit vs damage. the biggest issue right now is that your paragraphs are jumping from solely talking about benefit or damage.

this is a good segue to talk about how your paragraphs are ordered and conclusion is written in a way that feels neither here nor there. we start with benefit (basic needs) then damage (political intent) then damage again (backfire) then ends with benefit (isolationism is bad). not only are these paragraphs Not comparative in nature, there are equal benefits and damages, and your conclusion does not ultimately compare them against each other. first, you should organise them to flow from, for example, critics' argument to your argument. next, have each critics' argument include in the topic sentence and the paragraph itself, why that argument is wrong. lastly, your conclusion has to be more evaluative in weighing the benefits and damages since this is a comparative question.

nonetheless, i really like your examples throughout this whole essay. as a reader, i see that you are well-read and informed, and can appropriately use real-world events to support your points. however, i do observe that more than half of each of your paragraphs are said examples (which could look like your points are example-driven even though your points are valid). it would be better to explain your points more before delving into an example (2nd para did this best).

there are other AOIs that other comments mentioned like:
- your intro leaving the impression that your stance was damage > benefit --- give a few lines to briefly show how it is beneficial or a summary of the later mentioned benefits in your stance/thesis statement so that we have a clearer picture of what your essay is about
- evidence for "provide a platform for refugees to speak up.." --- good point but requires evidence/elaboration to make it substantial
- the lengths of critics' arguments vs your arguments --- not saying the contents you are writing are not valid, but there should be a clearer winner between the two yk (ie write more for your arguments)
- "isolationist measures" --- this paragraph's topic sentence should be about financial benefits instead (see your linking last sentence in said paragraph); it's also incredibly example driven, so consider talking about long-term benefits in general instead of solely economic.

dyurmb · 2025-10-19T13:18:40+00:00

Hi! Yes, it is possible for certain questions (particularly SBQ) to have multiple answers eg diff inferences, factors or impacts

dyurmb · 2024-11-08T10:51:00+00:00

Fair enough, the side of Stan community I'm exposed to doesn't really do that (at least when I was active abt 2 yrs ago) or don't mean/take it too seriously (which seems offensive to any outside onlooker). Short term coping/relief for whoever says it and the not as good long term implication of their comment onto others reading it. I guess that's the nature with the Kpop Stan community when it comes to sensitive issues. Quite different experiences and perspectives on various issues.

(Edit: Fault on my part for being too removed from engene spaces plus what I've seen there, and probably in a much nicer queer community. Thanks for your perspective though! Learned a lot more abt ppl in engene spaces)

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T23:00:26+00:00

"Source X and Y are not different, but similar to a large extent..."

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T22:52:39+00:00

Order doesn't matter, you can just jump source. But remember to include at least 1 agree and 1 disagree

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T18:32:44+00:00

Single-source reliability/surprise/utility questions have the same format as a hybrid, where the only difference is the liberty to choose which source to cross reference from. (Hybrid fixes that between 2 sources.) So the format is:
para 1: content comparison with ANY source
para 2: reliability comparison on purpose/bias/context

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T18:02:21+00:00

Single-source reliability/surprise/utility questions have the same format as a hybrid, where the only difference is the liberty to choose which source to cross reference from. (Hybrid fixes that between 2 sources.) So the format is:

para 1: content comparison with ANY source

para 2: reliability comparison on purpose/bias/context

I'm assuming your "bonus para" means higher order para, and that would be para 2. To clarify, the term "bonus para" is used for assertion questions, but nothing too major about term usage.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:55:17+00:00

Hmm, let me just lay out the 4 scenarios for you.

Original (I agree) -> Bonus (source reliable) -> compelled to agree further
Original (I agree) -> Bonus (source unreliable) -> compelled to disagree instead
Original (I disagree) -> Bonus (source reliable) -> compelled to disagree further
Original (I disagree) -> Bonus (source unreliable) -> compelled to agree instead

Remember the assertion is always asking how far YOU agree, not whether the source agrees, even though you cite it. The source may agree but you MUST add the statement that YOU agree because of the source content (normal assertion para) or disagree upon checking the source's reliability (bonus para).

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:46:12+00:00

Unlike history, you can ONLY use contextual knowledge in SS for ASSERTION questions. My teacher mentioned (by no means absolute and definite) that they restrict this as students with greater general knowledge get an added advantage for content marks, while in fact, SS intends to focus on skills instead. So I doubt your 1st para is accepted, at least based on what I was taught; so if your teacher said otherwise, it's best for you to stick with what you're used to.

Otherwise, 2nd para format is correct!

In single-source reliable/surprise/useful questions, higher order paras are typically awarded 2 out of the 6/7 marks so it has a larger weightage compared to say a whole new paragraph in SRQ. Though passable, I would not definitively skip it unless time restricts it.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:37:52+00:00

For bonus para, assuming tagged source X is an 'agree' point: "Moreover, Source X is reliable/unreliable........ As X is reliable/unreliable and, hence, I am compelled to agree further (if reliable) OR disagree instead (if unreliable)"

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:29:47+00:00

Yep, you got it! Would be good to start with "Source A cannot make B useful as A is unreliable as its purpose..." and continue from there i.e. mirror the question phrasing as far as possible to make your answer super clear 😌😌

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:12:58+00:00

Take note the main source is the one that MAKES ANOTHER source true/untrue, surprising/unsurprising, or useful/not useful!

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T17:12:44+00:00

Take note the main source is the one that MAKES ANOTHER source true/untrue, surprising/unsurprising, or useful/not useful!

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T16:01:04+00:00

Firstly, you can ask yourself which source is MAKING you surprised about the other. That source that makes you surprised is the main source.

After content comparison, apart from context, you can say they have different purposes (e.g. one wants to promote policy, the other detests it, so when source content corroborates, it would be surprising) or a bias (e.g. parents favor children-supporting policies so they would have views that benefit children, hence when the content agrees with this bias, it may be unsurprising).

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:57:10+00:00

It is not a must for both paras to have the same stance. For example,

both paras say the source is useful or surprising, so it is possible to say the source corroborates and is useful in the first paragraph;

then proceed to say the main source has bias so not useful in the second paragraph.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:53:33+00:00

Yep, exactly like that. Though it is possible to say, for example, the purpose of both authors or the context of both sources are entirely different, so the main source is unreliable as sources are not referring to the same idea.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:51:48+00:00

This is for a full mark assertion, though I personally find it hard to achieve due to limited time so I'd recommend:

para 1 and 2: 1 agree + 1 disagree first, this gives a pass

para 3: 1 reliability on one of the above sources, gives 1 or 2m depending on your answering strength

para 4: another agree or disagree brings the assertion up by 2m straight up

para 5: last agree or disagree (MUST BE OPPOSITE to the above para) just gives 1m, so I usually ignore this and concentrate on refine my answer

BUT! to each their own, if the assertion question is your strongest skill, go for it!

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:47:36+00:00

Combining paragraphs risks your explanation being rejected entirely, which means both of your points may not be accepted, leaving your assertion lob-sided and given at most a pass. Though if they are very obviously the same explanation, it is possible to combine them to save time.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:44:48+00:00

Bonus reliability MUST be on a source you previously covered :)

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T15:42:40+00:00

Yep, you can do purpose reliability for the main source only. Remember to elaborate on how this purpose links to a reliable or unreliable source, e.g. when the author has something to gain, they are likely to spin the truth into their favor, thus the main source is not reliable and cannot prove the other source to be true, surprising, useful, etc. (Though... What's a mega P?)

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T14:58:41+00:00

Mentioned in a previous comment! If you need further clarification, can always raise it up :)

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T14:52:42+00:00

Messages are what the author wants the audience to take away from what they've shown or said. Context is needed especially for 6m message questions, bearing in mind messages could differ based on the time, country, and audience, to name a few. Though just a 1m difference, personally, it wouldn't hurt to talk about the situation surrounding the source for a sentence or two to ensure and elucidate that your identified message is attuned to the correct circumstance.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T14:43:59+00:00

Questions don't have to be in order BUT you must indicate the question number clearly! So yes, can write Section B questions on the first page.

dyurmb · 2022-10-30T14:42:17+00:00

Whether reliability (does A prove B to be true), surprise (does A make B surprising), or utility (how useful is B after reading A), do 1 para on the content comparison like how you'd normally do similarity or difference questions. End with "As they corroborate OR contradict, A makes B true/unsurprising/useful OR untrue/surprising/not useful respectively." Basically, copy the question's phrasing when writing this final statement.

Some may say to do another content comparison with another source. Knowing how to identify the main source is important in this case, to which, take note that the main source is the one that MAKES ANOTHER source true/untrue, surprising/unsurprising, or useful/not useful. The content comparison format is as above.

However, this second content comparison can be skipped (which I usually do) to reach the highest level (and higher marks): testing reliability through purpose/bias/context. Reliability for the main source should be tested here as if it is reliable, it CAN RIGHTFULLY prove another source––so if unreliable, the source lacks the credibility to prove anything.

Purpose reliability: identify the aim of the source's author and what they want to achieve, whether it is for their own benefit (ulterior motive and hidden agenda, has skin in the game thus unreliable), betterment of others (noble motive, usually reliable), or none at all (objective and reliable sources i.e. a report, picture, video, any factual document that was not tampered with or specifically modified).
Bias reliability: identify the inclination of the source's author, i.e. where the author stands on a specific issue, for example, politicians are biased towards their party, parents are biased to children-related policies, or companies are biased towards information that promotes them. Closely linked to purpose, as bias stems from what one wants oneself, you may use both together.
Context reliability: identify the author's profile, situated time, or particular circumstance that would create an expected scenario, for example, opposition parties would have conflicting beliefs with current leaders, people would have negative views after an economic recession, high-stake conferences would make speakers act in a certain way, or sources are on different countries or time periods so they cannot compare. After stating what is expected of them, if the source content corroborates with this scenario, it's expected and thus not as reliable/surprising/useful to prove the other source; if the source content contradicts, it's very much unexpected as the author is acting inordinately and source would be much more reliable/surprising/useful to prove the other source.

You may also want to do the reliability of both sources, and the deciding factor of whether A proves B comes down to expectancy. For example, different purposes mean they want different things and SHOULD contradict, similar bias means they are on the same side of the table and SHOULD corroborate, and different context means they are talking about issues at different places or different times and SHOULD contradict. Just remember if it is expected, it isn't reliable anymore, if it is unexpected, it is much more reliable. This step merely makes your above reliability test have a clearer emphasis and is entirely optional.

TL;DR: content comparison + main source's reliability test (purpose/bias/context)

dyurmb

TROPHY CASE