I have to say something about the "God didn't create evil" argument that seems to be gaining popularity again. The argument goes something like this, usually with two examples (darkness as the absence of light and cold as the absence of heat): God didn't create evil, he created
. Evil is the opposite of goodness; evil arose when men rejected God (or something to that effect, I think).
, it is utterly ridiculous to use something like that to advocate teaching religious ideas in school. Gee, I have a faintly logical-sounding idea about God, may I teach my students that Creationism is the gospel truth?
Religion should stay out of school. It's not as if there aren't enough problems there already.
[1] ETA: To clarify-- 'nothing against it' does not mean I agree. It means this argument is so completely invalid that one doesn't have to bother disproving it. While it sounds almost logical at first sight, it only truly convinces those who were already convinced. Therefore it's harmless, and I have 'nothing against it'.
A Detailed Study (and Criticism) Of the English Prelims (Paper 2)Passages1.
Misplaced comma (line 8-9): "However, more recently
, and with ever-growing force, women have decided [...]" Reading this sentence and excluding the (supposedly parenthetical) comma-enclosed phrases soon makes the flaw apparent. "However, more recently," reads fine, but when you try to split "more recently" and "and with ever-growing force", as the comma between them is supposed to do, the sentence goes haywire: "However, and with ever-growing force, women have decided[...]"
2.
Missing comma (line 31-32) "although some companies outwardly agree [...] most have very few(,) if any, women in senior positions": "if any" is parenthetical--therefore, it should be enclosed in commas.
3.
Unnecessary semicolon (line 55-56) "In the rural areas, African women find their major source of employment as farm labourers
; and in the cities they are mainly employed as domestic workers." Since there is already an "and", the semicolon can and should be replaced by a comma. Alternatively, remove the "and".
4.
Phony listing (line 59-60) "Very long working hours, unfair dismissal, very little or no annual leave are some of their major grievances." If you didn't blink really hard and look again after reading that sentence, you're probably half asleep. A better sentence with a hell of a lot more coherence would read, "Their major grievances include the long working hours, the possibility of unfair dismissal, and the lack of annual leave." While my sentence does not incorporate several aspects of the first ("long" rather than "very long"-- why waste a superlative?) it's a lot easier to read and comprehend. Revise as you see fit.
5.
Stylistic quibble (line 65 of second passage): "Movements were slower, voices softer, minds dull." To make this sentence work better, I think, the last should be a comparative form as well: "duller" instead of "dull". Corrected: "Movements were slower, voices softer, minds duller." The cadence of the sentence is improved, but then it was a pretty decent sentence in the first place.
6.
Wrong word: 'born' for 'borne': "An example of success
born of pressure from women's movements is the change in divorce laws [...]" (line 15) and "[l]ess attention is paid to her needs
born of all the other demands made of her on her family and home life, and especially the male chauvinism of society." (lines 48-50) Unless 'born' refers to literal birth, 'borne' is the correct form.
Note: I have to admit to some bias here: I was, and still am, completely enamored with the style of the prose in the second passage. I may have been a tad more forgiving when combing for errors. The author's use of hyphens is sometimes questionable, but I admire the overall effect, so I'm letting it go.
QuestionsQ5a What does 'male chauvinism' suggest about the role of the man in the family?: This question is flawed-- it puts those who actually know the meaning of 'chauvinism' at a terrible disadvantage. The answer given goes something like this: "the man does not take responsibility for matters of the home and family and expects the woman to do so", apparently inferred from a statement in the passage which reads, "Less attention is paid to her needs born(e) of all the other demands made of her on her family and home life, and especially the male chauvinism of society," the one sentence in that paragraph in which the phrase "male chauvinism" is mentioned.
However, “male chauvinism" is ' a term describing the attitudes of men who believe that women are inferior and should not be given equal status with men' . Shouldn't the answer instead address the
dominance of men over women in the family? Chauvinism is not about responsibility; it's about rights. Furthermore, the separation of the "demands made of her on her family and home life" and "chauvinism" by an "and especially" highlights how the two are different points. The "male chauvinism" in society is not an extension of the "demands [of] home life", it is a
different and separate point entirely.
---
As of now, these are the only things I have taken issue with, since I haven't seen all the answers to most of the questions. I suspect I will have more very soon. And no, this is not about me being bitter for getting fourteen out of twenty-five. The mistakes are very real, and my marks do not change that. Still, I will be arguing a lot in the next English class, and probably for good reason.
|
Wednesday, September 09, 2009 / 1:50 PM
They trekked along the crescent sweep of beach, keeping to the firmer sand below the tidewrack. They stood, their clothes flapping softly. Glass floats covered with a gray crust. The bones of seabirds. At the tide line a woven mat of weeds and the ribs of fishes in their millions stretching along the shore as far as the eye could see like an isocline of death. One vast salt sepulchre. Senseless. Senseless.
[...]
He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it.
(
The Road, Cormac McCarthy)
|
Saturday, August 08, 2009 / 2:43 PM
For several hours, millions of users were catapulted back to the dark, informationless days of 2003, before such pertinent information as what Ashton Kutcher had for a snack became readily available, before it was possible for people to take a simple quiz to learn which "Twilight" characters or dog breed they were most like. ("Hackers take down Twitter, Facebook", NYT)
And the difference between a brilliant newspaper and one that's utter junk is this: wit. If only it was possible to subscribe to a print version of the NYT without having it cost an arm and a leg. The Straits Times is such garbage (and don't get me started on
Urban): ads that run for three pages, inane articles about the National Day Parade, snark-worthy headlines (on one Sunday they actually had Lee Wei Ling's awful truism-stuffed column on the front page).
Facebook and Twitter can join the ST on that podium. I will never understand why people take so much pleasure in reading what other people had or breakfast, or why everyone absolutely needs to know you love Edward Cullen and would dip your head in a bucket of glitter just to look like him. The worst thing is that every second article has some sort of reference to the power of Facebook and/or Twitter. I wish the media would just get over themselves already.
|
Friday, July 31, 2009 / 11:16 PM
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea
[...]
If one [...]
Should say: “That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all.”
