social 30 study help anyone?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Maybe they've changed the format, but my teacher never said anything about dedicating a paragraph to the other side of the argument. Of course, if you can do this, and strike it down, it is a nice touch to the essay. If you present the argument, and can't soundly defeat it, omitting the paragraph completely would be the best choice.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You don't dedicate a paragraph to the other side of the argument, you simply put stuff it into each of your body paragraphs

[SpitFire40]

Know what's really odd? In High School I barely passed social and had little interest in the subject at all but now one of my passions is history and the old wars.

I think my teacher just really sucked, I think I got 55% but ended up with 80% on my Diploma exam.

Take that BEYOTCH!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

para 3: Why would you waste the readers time telling him or her about two examples of why you are right (the previous two paragraps) and then tell them about why someone else might be right. To me that reeks of someone who isn't sure about their position and hasn't the confidence to pick a good thesis in the first place.

Because this is the way you're actually required to do it and you won't get full marks unless you have this in there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MonsieurFish

for essays... should i go like this:

intro-state the question, possible opinion, and my opinion
body-paragraph 1-state one example to back up my opinion and explain it
paragraph 2-state another example to back up my opinion and explain it
paragraph 3- state an example opposing me saying the reasons others could think differently than me

conclusion-reinforce my opinion with the reasons and answer the question again

sound good?

This is the correct format.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I disagee. All papers are different, but generally I think showing the other side(s) when you can't sufficiently argue against them makes your paper look weak. You don't always have time to explore every aspect of the topic and give a good arguement against all competitive theories. It creates the feeling that you are undecided and not confident if you do that in a half-ass way. A paper SHOULD be one sided IMO because you need to show that you're making an arguement, not just exploring all angles.

Personally, what I like to do is list at least two sides of the argument at the start of the paper -- at least a brief summary -- and then go on to show why I believe my position to be the strongest. I don't think ignoring one side of the argument is a good strategy, but that's my opinion. I think acknowledging the opposition point of view and showing why your side is stronger is the way to go. I did this for my social 30 exam anyway... I don't remember what the topic was, it was so long ago, but I do remember I got a perfect score on the social diploma exam.

Edit: I think the reverse can be equally effective -- ie stating your opinion first and contrary opinions afterwards, but its hard to make a concrete rule to say which to do when. I just go with whatever I think will sound the best. I would say the key is just making a good case for why your opinion is the best solution under the given circumstances, not why its the only solution.

[return to the red]

10 years ago when I was in Social 30 I usually got marks in the 80%'s when it came to "position papers". I had an outstanding teacher who prepared us well.

The format I was always told was the most important was to pick certain points that you wanted to talk about and then debate them from both sides. It is how you word this "debate" that allows the reader to tell which side you support

DO NOT ignore the otherside of the argument, acknowledging it and providing argument against it makes your position stronger

say for example debating the oilers offence

ie. It is true that last year the Oilers had a potent offence with (insert useless stat here) however, statistics show that this year the Oilers offence is amongst the lowest in the NHL suggesting that their group of forwards was vastly overachieveing in the previous year. Furthermore....yada yada yada

BTW are the main topics in Social 30 these days anyhow?