GP Question Analysis- All Words Matter

7/27/2019 GP Question Analysis- All Words Matter

1/5

Should the government involve itself in family matters?

Brainstorming: perspective

[governments perspective] What is in it for the government to intervene? What aspect of the country

will be affected if the government does not intervene?

[peoples perspective] What is the responsibility of the government? What aspect should the

government intervene in?

Yes, the government should involve itself in family matters because:

(a) The family as the basic unit of society is integral to the progress/ development of the

society (think: economic, values), so the state has a vested interest to protect it.

(b) The government possesses the resources to offer support and assistance to families

which are in need.

(c) It is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the vulnerable

members in the family unit.

No, the government should not involve itself in family matters because:

[brainstorming: think about the effects if the government involves itself and whether it is desirable]

(a) The government ought to respect the individual rights of its citizens to make decisions

regarding their families for themselves.

(b) Intervention by the government can lead to a diminished sense of responsibility for

family members.

(c) Government intervention can undermine the status of alternative family structures

Can the government involve itself in family matters?

5W1H in brainstorming: Why can? What is it about governments that allow them to have this

ability?

Yes, the government can involve itself in family matters (not particularly debatable).

Why?

- It possesses legal power/ authority by virtue of its constitutional rights.

- It possesses the resources to offer support and assistance to families which are in need.

- It can craft policies and schemes which can affect the family, either directly or indirectly.

Brainstorming on what constitutes family matters:

This is essential, otherwise you will be stuck when looking for examples.

Divorce, marriage, education, upbringing of children, family planning, abuse and violence,

inheritance, care for the elderly

** key takeaway: can (ability) vs. should (responsibility, is it a good idea? Weighing pros and cons,

thinking of about EFFECTS if you do a particular thing and deciding if it should be done)


2/5

Does technology improve the quality of life?

Yes, technology improves the quality of life because:

(a) Technology has enhanced the efficiency of human endeavours, allowing us to do produce or do more

with lesser effort, so that we have more time for play and leisure.

(b) Technology has strengthened human relationships by providing more platforms and enhanced the

ease of communication in ways that transcend geography and time.

(c) Technology has greatly enhanced the quality of healthcare such that the ill and the injured are able to

recover more speedily, and more comfortably than before.

No, technology does not improve the quality of life because:

(a) Technology has weakened human relationships as technological gadgets and applications are

preventing us from engaging in real social interaction with others.

(b) Technology has made it more difficult for working adults to maintain work life balance as internet

technology has enabled us to be contactable regardless of time and space to attend to work matters.(c) Technology is not foolproof and its loopholes and tendency to fail often lead to a lot of stress and

frustration, even inefficiency (e.g. spam).

Essential brainstorming: [5W1H/ SPECTRAM]

What aspect of life can technology affect? What aspect is being improved?

When is the quality of life improved? E.g. healthcare/ quality of your relationships with others/

greater convenience/ more time for leisure

Key takeaway: Some examples are better than others.

E.g. compare: telephones vs. 4G mobile technology, steam engine/ railway vs. high speed bullet

train, radio vs. cable TV, stethoscope vs. keyhole surgery

Dylans question: how modern is modern? General guideline: 3 years- because technology changes so

fast, the definition of modern also needs to be pretty recent.

1. Point needs to show IMPROVEMENT.

How? Though vocab ENHANCED, STRENGTHENED. Key to idea of improvement is that fact that

from past to present, something has changed. Words like enhanced and strengthened suggest that

something has changed, it is for the better. Same if you argue for AGAINST. Words like weakened,

adding more in front of difficult shows that things have become worse.

***Groups point says convenience -> but convenience does not explain how quality of life has

improved. It does not tell me which aspect of life has become better- is it that I have more time for

leisure? Is it that it is easier to do something now, so it is physically more tiring? Problem is that

there is a missing link. You have identified the benefits of technology, but have yet to make the

connection between that and the corresponding aspect of life that is being enhanced.


3/5

2. Standard of living vs. quality of life

Standard of living

From Wikipedia: Standard of living refers to the level ofwealth, comfort, material goods andnecessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area. The standard ofliving includes factors such as income, quality and availability of employment, class disparity, povertyrate, quality and affordability of housing, hours of work required to purchase necessities,gross

domestic product,inflation rate, number of vacation days per year, affordable (or free) access to qualityhealthcare, quality and availability of education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goodsand services, infrastructure, national economic growth, economic and political stability, political andreligious freedom, environmental quality, climate and safety. The standard of living is closely related toquality of life.

-think: affordability of basic necessities, availability of amenities for entertainment/ sports/etc.

-often linked to economic ability of government (to build more things/ have more programmes to

enrich lives of individuls) as well as economic ability of individuals (to buy things, engage in different

activities)

Quality of life

-may not always be linked to economics-more linked to: access and quality of healthcare, the kind of relationships you share with others

(emotional support system you have access to), leisure and happiness, conveniences

The reason why it is, nevertheless, closely related to the quality of life is because economics affect so

many aspects of our lives. Having money allows access to better healthcare, to go overseas for trips,

to participate in things that you desire and have options in terms of entertainment and leisure time

(attend plays, maybe)

From Wikipedia: The term qual i ty of l i fe(QOL) references the general well-being of individuals andsocieties. The term is used in a wide range of contexts, including the fields ofinternationaldevelopment, healthcare, and politics. Quality of life should not be confused with the conceptofstandard of living, which is based primarily on income. Instead, standard indicators of the quality oflife include not only wealth and employment, but also the built environment, physical and mental health,

education, recreation and leisure time, and social belonging.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_livinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_livinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_livinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life#cite_note-DHG-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life#cite_note-DHG-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life#cite_note-DHG-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life#cite_note-DHG-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_livinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_producthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth


4/5

Do you agree that young people need constant supervision?

Brainstorming 5W1H

What is it about young people that require constant supervision?

What are some traits and characteristics in this life stage needs to be managed through constant

supervision?

Yes, young people need constant supervision because:

(a) They have not acquired the skills needed to manage their time and are still in the process of

developing self-discipline so constant supervision is required to help them.

(b) It is the period of their lives when they are most prone of peer pressure and they can fall into bad

company is not supervised.

(c) Teenagers are high risk takers and they need to be guided to assess risks properly.

No, young people do not need constant supervision because:

(a) They are capable of behaving responsibly if given enough guidance and support.

(b) They should be given opportunities to fail or to make mistakes so that they can develop themselves.

(c) Constant supervision may induce an opposite and undesirable effect on young people- they could

rebel, given that they usually detest control in this stage of their lives.

Do you agree that young people today need constant supervision?

Brainstorming: 5W1H

What is the effect of constant supervision? Is it desirable?Without constant supervision, what will happen? Are the consequences desirable in any way?

Is there even a need for constant supervision in the first place?

Yes, there are more choices available for them (as compared to the past)- in terms of education

pathways, careers for example- and supervision is required to ensure that they make informed

choices at every step of the way

Yes, there are more distractions today, especially technology, that could impede their growth so

supervision is needed to help the young remain focused on developing their potentials and honing

their skills in preparation for adulthood (think: online gaming).

Any other relevant facts about modern context/ environment: easier to pick up vices like drugs and

smoking perhaps? (need to do research to see this is true)

No, there are plenty of resources and platforms available for the young to seek advice.etc


5/5

Note that the examples for this question are a bit trickier: evidence have to do with human

development stages, studies, expert opinion, etc. Research is definitely required!

Key takeaway: focus of the question will change: answers that are not sensitive to what are the

particular conditions in the present context that necessities constant supervision of young people will

not do well

My suggestion: think of some defining characteristics of modern society and research on them: Eg.

Technological advanced, globalization, etc. Worth looking at different aspects in SPECTRAM

Documents

GP Question Analysis- All Words Matter