GP Tutoring Testimonials: One of our A-Level GP pupil said this of our GP tutorials and General Paper tutors:
General Paper Tutoring Singapore
Did you know that the A-Level General Paper Comprehension Paper has answering techniques to it?
Did you know that the A-Level General Paper Essay Exam Paper has specific strategies to excel in it?
Did you know what it means to do very well in A-Level General Paper Exams?
How is the GP Programme @ AceSpecialistHub set up?
Our A-Level private General Paper tuition programme is a unique programme that runs on an ‘Issue’ platform. Each month, a new and relevant issue is covered. Within the framework, current events, relevant essay questions and comprehension passages will be dealt with. [Note: This is a typical lesson plan that goes to all home tutors that conduct General Paper (GP). More teaching materials are given out. As mentioned, we aspire to to Singapore’s top GP Tutor’s Hub, with 100% trained tuition teachers. Having a structured scheme of work with a consistent work schedule for ALL of our JC H1 GP private tutors will ensure every student progresses steadily]
Why an Issues Based Approach? This approach was chosen over the traditional ‘topics’ and ‘content’ approach in order to stay relevant to the GCE A Level General Paper exam, our students’ eventual aim. The A Level GP paper has slowly evolved from topic based questions to broad issue based questions that require students to pull in information and content from various topics for a single question. Inspired by the critical demands of the world today, our students will be encouraged to develop a maturity of thought with a deeper and critical understanding of the world around them.
Will Skills be incorporated? Skills will be incorporated into the lesson. Generally, within every module, there will be a lesson that focuses on either an essay or a comprehension skill. Essay outlines will be provided for the essay questions that are discussed in class to facilitate better understanding The GP teachers are trained teachers who believe in critical thinking, in tune with what is going on in the world out there and most importantly, up-to-date with the current demands of the A level General Paper syllabus.
What will a typical lesson consist of? Each week, the lesson will be broken up into 3 parts. a. Mini-lecture b. Essay/ Comprehension Skills Component c. Current Affairs: This Week in Review The same lesson will be delivered within the same level during any given week. Lessons might be altered slightly in accordance to the needs of the student.
Sample Essay Question From Our GP Tutoring Lessons
There have been many wars fought since the beginning of time. We have had wars fought amongst feudal states and in modern times and, despite our evolution to a civilized society, wars are still being fought. “Be the conqueror or be the conquered”, declare a war to be heard, to assert yourself. Those seem to be the main reasoning behind a war. Regarding the issue of war settling nothing, we first have to ask why wars are fought. If the objectives behind the reasons for fighting a war were achieved, then I would say that to that extent, wars have indeed settled something. However, if these aims are not achieved, then the war would have been a meaningless bloodshed. But, even if the war had settled several issues, it would have come at a high cost. So, is war justifiable then? Does it really settle anything? To answer that, we have to look at the reasons as to why wars are being fought.
Wars are fought amongst countries perhaps because they disagree on something, or a stronger country decides to invade a weaker one, to exploit it. They could be fought because a country may feel that it is more of a defensive tactic than an offensive one. Survival, greed, rivalry, security, fear, independence are all words which are linked synonymously to why wars are being fought. There are some “good” wars and “bad” wars: “good” in the sense that the motives for fighting are justified. They are linked with achieving a greater good, aimed at bringing improvements. There have been many civil wars fought in countries whereby civilians fight for equality. It could be because of an oppressive dictatorship, whereby unequal rights exist and citizen welfare is ignored. The lower classes are being mistreated by the upper class and have finally decided to take action. Thus, in this sense, civil wars are similar to revolutions. They are declared so as to establish a more equal system and topple the prevailing monarchy or dictator. In this case, the war has settled something. The totalitarian regime has been overthrown, ensuring equal rights and equal treatment.
Wars can also be fought when countries want to achieve independence. Perhaps they have had enough of being an exploited colony, robbed of its rich resources by a stringer country. To them, declaring a war would be a way to assert themselves and make their determination to break away known. All these are “good” wars: the reasons behind them are justified. Despite the high social costs, their objectives were aimed at the long run, to ensure a better place for the world to live in. Thus, in this sense, these wars have settled something.
However, the line between a justified war and an unjustified one may sometimes be blurred. Wars are fought because parties feel the need to fight for what they believe in. Who is to judge if this is right or wrong? Every one of us is entitled to make our own judgments, have our own opinions and beliefs. If a country feels that what they are fighting for is right, and thus justified, winning the war would have not been a mere case of meaningless bloodbath. The onlookers, or other countries, however, would feel very differently. They would not agree with the victor’s reasoning and feel that the war was useless and meaningless. It not only settled nothing, but came at a high price, too. In the case of the American civil war, the North and the South fought because of their differing views. They were fighting over the issue of ensuring equal rights for the African Americans and abolishing slavery. I believe that in this case, it is obvious which side’s views were correct and the war managed to settle the issue. Slavery was abolished.
When fighting for security reasons, the line becomes a little blurred. In the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, the world backed the USA when it launched a counter attack on Iraq, Iraq was clearly the aggressor, preying on its smaller but richer neighbour. The counter attack was seen as liberating Kuwait and thus settling the issue of protecting national sovereignty. However, when it comes to situations whereby a country believes in war as a defensive strategy, the issue of war settling anything is a little more ambiguous. Such was the case of Germany mobilising her troops in World War 1 and launching an attack on France via Belgium. Her reasoning was to attack first, and thus be better able to defend herself before both Russia and France acted, which would only be a matter of time. To her, protecting her security came first, and so the war settled the issue of protecting her sovereignty. However, to the rest of Europe, the war settled nothing. In fact, it actually resulted in a mass war – World War One.
Wars can also be fought based on ideological or religious beliefs. An ideological conflict was very much a characteristic of the cold war. Many civil wars and local wars were manipulated by the superpowers – the USA and the Soviet Union, who turned them into an ideological one. Proxy wars were fought, and this was to maintain the super powers’ sphere of influence. The Korean War would be an example of how local politics turned into a cold war, involving the vested interests of the super powers. To them, it was an issue of settling once and for all the greater power, in terms of ideology and economic and military status. The most dangerous aspect of the Cold War proved to be the military competition. It led to a nuclear arms race, while the rest of the world stood at the brink of a nuclear war. The Cold War has since ended and, in retrospect, has settled nothing. To the west, it might seem that democracy triumphed and the Cold War settled the issue of western supremacy, it also shaped the geo-politics of the 20th century. However, to others, it would seem that nothing was settled, as it was of no use to fight over whose system was superior if domestic affairs were going to be ignored. They only saw millions of dollars wasted in the arms build up. Domestic problems should have been the main issues the governments should try to tackle, instead of competing in a meaningless arms race.
Therefore, there are also instances whereby war is seen as settling nothing. In fact, it can be seen as bringing about even more problems, and cause the worsening of a situation. The obvious costs include social ones, whereby countless lives are lost in a war. Mothers weep for their fallen sons and wives mourn for their lost husbands. Children are made orphans and are left to fend for themselves. The loss of human lives is much too great and uncompensatable. Chaos, destruction and misery prevail during a war and even after it. The economy is usually in shambles and the living conditions are appalling. Refugees, unemployment, housing shortages, food shortages and poor sanitation are all some of the many problems war brings in its destructive wake. War, as it is often said, is nothing but a heartbreaker. It settles nothing and instead leads to more chaos. Such is the case of world war one. The harsh treaty of Versailles only succeeded in weighing down Germany, thus creating the opportunity for the rise of leaders like Hitler. It was he who brought Germany to war and the rest of Europe down on her knees. It can be said that World War One was a chief cause of World War Two.
Thus, in conclusion, I feel that war does, to a certain extent, solve and settle several issues. If the country’s motive has been achieved then war has settled the problem at hand for it. However, we have to bear in mind this comes at a very high cost and the reasons for fighting must be justified or else the war would have been a meaningless shedding of blood.
Learn how to design such a sound essay response with our GP revision package designed by our General Paper Tutoring experts.
Sample GP Tutorial: Essay Question Outline – Exam Skills Approach
Question: Is violence the only way to end terrorism?
his is a straightforward “Yes-No-Type Question. The more appropriate response is to argue that violence is deed NOT the only available method or even best approach to solve the problem of terrorism. This is partly because while the use of violence can serve certain purposes and bring about certain positive outcomes, it may in fact, directly or indirectly aggravate a difficult situation. Furthermore, there are other and more effective ways to resolve the problem of terrorism, depending on the nature of the situation.
Definition of key terms:
he phrase, “the only way”, implies that this is the best way to solve the problem of terrorism or that it is the anly thing that needs to be done in trying to solve the problem of terrorism. Note however that students should NOI launch into a discussion on various ways to tackle the problem of terrorism (a la listing measures) without evaluating in the first place the value of using violence to deal with the problem of terrorism. Better essays should be able compare this approach to other ways of tackling terrorism.
Note: Look out for hasty generalisation terms, absolute words, etc: ‘only.
Use of Violence Works:
1. Violence can work to a certain extent in that it can help diminish the terrorists’ capacity to stage another spectacular attack, and deprive them of their operational bases and their sanctuary. Eg. America’s invasion of Afghanistan deprived Osama Bin Laden of a proper operational base, captured 75 of the Al-Qaeda leadership.
2. Refusal to use violence can be seen as a sign of weakness, opening up the country to more attacks – eg French president Francois Mitterrand took on an appeasement policy towards terrorists in the 1980s and France became the most-targeted western country for a decade.
Use of Violence has its Limitations:
3. Violence may breed more violence. Innocent people disenchanted by the violence may become the new wave of terrorists. Also the use of force may lead to retaliatory attacks. E.g. the numerous “insurgents” that rose up in Iraq after the US led invasion.
4. In addition, another problem in the use of violence to try to curb terrorism is that the enemy is elusive. There could be sleeper agents who stay adamant for many years before striking and it is nearly Impossible to track these people and use violence to deal with them.
5. Another problem is that using violence to deal with terrorism does not deal with the root cause, which is a sense of injustice. This can come in many forms, among others, the west’s posture towards the Muslim world as seen in the Israel-Palestine issue, poverty, racism. Many e.g. of terrorists who claim they fight for the Muslim’s cause in Palestine, terrorist from poor countries in Africa and marginalized Muslim individuals in western countries who turned terrorists. Using violence would only further fuel this sense of injustice.
6. Furthermore, the fight against terrorism is also an ideological battle, a war for hearts- a war of attrition, and the use of violence as battle tactic is Irrelevant. You may weed out the current leaders with violence, but more will always rise up if you do not win the hearts of the people. Need to discredit and demystify extremist ideology and promote moderate Islamic voices, US rephrasing “GWOT” as “SAVE”.
7. From a moral point of view, using violence to deal with violence puts us at the same level as the terrorists -resorting to violence to solve problems. In fact, non-violence means may sometimes achieve better results than treating them an eye for an eye. E.g. of Saudi’s Amnesty yielding the surrender of many known terrorists as opposed to earlier policy of trying to capture them so that they could be punished (presumably with some form of violence).
Other Ways of Dealing with Terrorism: (since ‘only’ suggests alternatives)
1. Use of Education
Terrorism is usually fueled by the deep-seeded misunderstanding between various peoples within national boundaries and across international boundaries.
A secular national education system that is acceptable by all races within a national boundary can socialise the entire population into acceptance of diversity, eg, the education system in Singapore and Switzerland.
2. Democracy (State & International)
Fair and equal political representation of various voices reduces the possibility of resorting to the use of violence.
Access to national and international political institutions allow genuine grievances suffered by particular groups of people to be heard Minority needs can also be addressed timely if their voices can be heard at national and international level, e.g. Israel’s disenfranchisement of Palestinians from national elections and their exclusion from national government force them to use violence in order to get themselves heard.
3. Economic Approaches
Equitable distribution of wealth within the country and across the globe. – Poverty can be one of the driving forces behind terrorism. The jealousy of many deprived peoples in less developed countries over the rich First World countries leads to deep-seated hatred as they gradually see the ‘capitalists’ as exploiters and justify the use of violence against them. – A more equitable distribution of wealth by national governments to their populations and foreign humanitarian aid can be helpful in alleviating poverty and thereby gradually change such perceptions, e.g Terrorist organisations, such as the Hamas group and the Taliban recruited many people who live below the poverty line.
4. International Cooperation
Countries need to work together at both the regional & international levels to stop the sale of weapons to terrorist groups and prevent funds from local bank accounts from being used to fund their purchase – Greater use of diplomacy and dialogue between historical enemies can help reduce the amount of support that terrorist groups can receive from their especially if it involves attacking their political enemies, eg. Libya and Syria have been selling weapons to the terrorist groups stationed in the Middle East who would later use it against Israel.
More such essay outlines in our General Paper tutoring lessons.