Answering qns: Essay Type of essay: judgmental causal essay 1. Dont narrate, use PEEL P: no example, general statement.

Must answer the question. State main factor (merger/separation) E: explain/elaborate on the factor E: evidence. Select specific aspects of the events that happened to support the point. No narration! Can use more than 1 example L: Re-iteration of point Explanation and elaboration: factor (main idea) problem separation (therefore, need for separation) e.g. economic differences no benefits, instead a drain -> separation increased taxes -> drained sgs resources -> separation confrontation -> loss of trade -> separation no common market -> taxes/tarrifs, small market -> separation 2. Dont list, weigh/draw relationships, e.g. root factor, trigger factor, contributory factor, catalyst Format: Intro (clear stand, no certain extent, small/large extent), PEELs (for both agree/disagree), conclusion (weigh) Conclusion (weigh) PEEL: P: A > B because [criteria] E&E: A (according to criteria) B (according to criteria) L: reiterate the stand 3. Structure for essay: Introduction: clear stand Body: must have BOTH SIDES, at least 2 PEELs Conclusion: weigh OR draw co-relationship Points to use for merger: economic, political (communism), independence Points to use for separation: economic and political differences SBQ Inference: Based on source content, not contextual knowledge (but must be correct factually) o What does it tell you?

o Is the source saying or showing something important? o What can you infer from it? o Does it contain only facts, opinions or both? o What details from the source can be used to support your answer? Format: inference, evidence from source, link Look at qn first No paraphrasing/describing Drawing a reasonable conclusion about the subject given in the question, given the information in the source o Educated guess based on evidence o Need not necessarily use exact words from the source to draw an inference Should only be supported by source evidence and explanation from CK Support should not contain: assumptions, MORE inferences (leading to invalid inferences) 2 inferences (well-supported) Reliability: Evaluating reliability of source in showing something INFER FIRST (what the source is saying) Reliable because of contextual knowledge. Further reliable because of other sources, provenance, purpose, tone. Unreliable because of contextual knowledge. Further unreliable because of OS, PP and T. Use CK before OS/PP/T. No need to make conclusion. Must use CK for both. PEEL for every tool Use of CK: o Cannot make assertions/claims, e.g. I know from my contextual knowledge that there were many differences between Malaysia and sg. MUST ELAB, e.g. deep-set political differences etc. o Must support assertions that are based on CK with more CK, time specific o Source is inaccurate unreliable in showing ___ o Source is one-sided unreliable in showing ___ Use of other sources (OS): o Must pick out specific similar evidence from other sources that support/challenge your source o Check one claim at a time o Be clear what argument is being made from cross-referencing o Must link back to how it increases/decreases reliability o Must only use after evaluating the source against CK o If possible, prove reliability of OS Use of PP/T (purpose/provenance or tone) o Only use where applicable o Must link to how it increases/decreases reliability o Cannot show reliability on its own

o Must only use after CK o How to show purpose? Look at source content and provenance Does the provenance of the source/context tell you anything about the motives or purposes? (i.e. what does the speaker want to achieve at the time) Who is the target audience? Is the authors motive obvious to the target audience? Intended impact? E.g. arguing against ones own interest Why was it written/created? o How to know tone? Choice of words (only applicable to textual evidences) E.g. judgemental words, sarcastic, harsh etc Biased/exaggerated Why did the author adopt such a tone? HOW FAR? Mini-judgemental SEQ: how far does CK support hypothesis SBQ: how far do sources support hypothesis Source evidence support/challenge hypothesis Use CK Do not make up your own version of history, ensure valid linking Sources may contain evidence that both support and challenge the hypothesis: choose the evidence that is more convincing to write in the main paragraph Structure for a paragraph: 3 steps 1. Source A supports the hypothesis at face value because of source inference 2. Support source inference with source evidence 3. Use CK to support: showing the above linking between source and hypothesis is true Conclusion: establish how far Scenario 1: both sources support/challenge sources support/challenge the hypothesis Scenario 2: one support source, one challenge source conclusion: two ways Evaluate reliability of sources o Source A supports, source B challenges o Source B unreliable weak challenge o Overall, sources support the statement However, on further analysis, Source A may also challenge the hypothesis explain. Therefore, the sources challenge the hypothesis to a large extent Structure of entire answer: 1. Link Source A to hypothesis: support/challenge 2. Link Source B to hypothesis: Support/challenge 3. Conclude: a. Both support/challenge = easy conclusion

b. Support AND challenge = evaluate reliability/further analysis