# data[].attributes.headline
Having read Source E, are you surprised by Source F? Explain your answer. {7}

# data[].attributes.subject
Having read Source E, are you surprised by Source F? Explain your answer. {7}

# data[].attributes.body
For softcopy of the papers, you may refer to this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YAd7z0sGQnt3k-aIUvTzTF7FOyXX9d0P?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.body
1st: E vs F [4]

2nd: F vs 3rd [6]

3rd: Timeline or (un)Expectedness [7]

# data[].attributes.body
Having read Source E, I am not surprised by source F as they are both talking about preparing for the impacts of climate change.

Source E states that,"Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat...50 to 100-year problem..implement a 50 to 100-year solution...can make long-term solutions." This suggests that Singapore is actively trying to prepare and create solutions for the effects of climate change. Source F states that," climate change has also added stress...by capitalising the vast potential of food innovation...actively leveraging or strengths in bio-technology process." This suggests that Singapore is ensuring that they are not going to be vulnerable when climate change causes the global food supply to decline. Therefore, I am not surprised by Source F as both sources are talking about preparing for the impacts of climate change.

I am not surprised by source F after having read Source B. Source F states that

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised by source F, as source E disagrees with source F on what is the most urgent issue between climate change and food supply. Source E states that Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat: rising sea levels. However, source F focuses on food development and even dedicated $61 million to it, while source E states that we should be spending $100 billion over 100 years on rising sea levels. Therefore, source F has dedicated its budget to a different area than stated in source E.

Source B states that "tackling climate change is an urgent global priority, however source F focuses more on food innovation. This surprises me, as it indicates that source F is not prioritising the more pressing issue of climate change, but rather focusing on Singapore's food supply.

Source F is unexpected as it focuses more on food supply issues in Singapore rather than the more urgent priority of tackling climate change. Therefore, I am surprised by source F.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not surprised by Source F, as both Source E and Source F say that Singapore is 'vulnerable' to climate change. Source E states that 'rising sea levels' will impact Singapore sooner or later. Money has to be spent to combat rising sea levels. Source F states that climate change will decrease crop yield in other countries, leading to less food being imported to Singapore. Both Sources state Singapore is vulnerable to climate change. Hence, this is expected, and I am not surprised by Source F.

I am surprised, given the enhanced reliability. Source F presents balanced views, with both positive and negative aspects. It congratulates the GOOD Meat team for its opening of a production facility at Bedok Food City, but also highlights that Singapore is vulnerable and food security is very important to Singapore. As there are two sides, there is no bias and no motive, hence it is reliable and and I am surprise by Source F.

# data[].attributes.body
1st:No, i am not suprised by source F after reading Source E since Source E is similar to source F as they both state of the Vulnerabilities Singapore face to global problem. E states that Singapore faces rising sea level, which is caused by climate change,, drastically affecting Singapore as being a small country with not enough resources and funds to mitigate or research it. Source F states that Singapore is vulnerable to global supply fluctuations, being affected by wars as 90% of food supply in Singapore is imported from other countries, causing Singapore to be vulnerable to lack of food. Hence, since E is similar to F as both states the vulnerabilities Singapore faces, i am not surprised of F after reading E.

3rd: No I am not surprised by source F after having read source E as they are at different time periods where different issues were highlighted. Source F was written in 2022, after the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and start of the war in Ukraine. The Covid-19 pandemic revealed the vulnerability of Singapore's food supply as imports-- Singapore's main source of food products had seen a major decrease during the pandemic period due to the safety restrictions. Furthermore, after the war in Ukraine had started, the cessation of Ukranian food imports into Singapore further affected Singapore''s food security. Hence these two circumstances heightened the need for alternative and locally sourced food products in 2022, making it not surprising for Singapore's Minister of Sustainability and Environment to push for the capitalisation of "the vast potential of food innovaiton" and leverage Singapore's strength "in bio-technology process." to promote a self sustaining food economy in Singapore. Meanwhile source E was written in September-- before the Covid-19 pandemic and Ukranian war had started. Therefore, food security has not been identified as a more major issue but rather, the rising sea levels and the mitigation of the effects of climate change, stating that "Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat, and that is rising sea levels." Hence due to the timeline, I am not surprised by source F after having read source E.

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised by Source F. In source E, it is stated a huge amount of money is needed to protect Singaporeans from climate change. It will take a huge amount of resources and time to tackle climate change. In Source F, it is stated that food innovation can help Singapore combat climate change.

I am surprised about F as F stated¨ we are actively leveraging our strengths in bio-technology process. cement our position in the alternative protein space and our reputation as a food innovation hub¨ This shows that Singapore will become self-sustainable in feeding its own people in the future. E is uncertain about Singapore future and that they might have a long-term solution.

I am not surprised by Source F. Source E is written in 2019 and Source F is written in 2022. After Source E is written and posted, Singapore Government will know and understand the danger of climate change.They will work hard to tackle climate change.In 2022 actions have been taken to combat climate change which is expected as the prime minister of Singapore wanted the government to take action. Since the scource are from different timeline, it is expected for them to have different viewpoints.Hence i am not suprised about Source F.

# data[].attributes.body
Having read Source E, I am not surprised by Source F. Both suggest that Singapore is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Source E states that "Singapore is especially vulnerable" to "rising sea levels". This has become more prominent with the recent effects of climate change. Singapore, a low-lying island, would thus be at risk of such problems, and thus is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, mainly rising sea levels. Source F mentions that Singapore has "over 90% of our food imported¨, where we are "vulnerable to global supply fluctuations". Singapore needs a stable food security, where we cannot rely on other countries to continuously import food into Singapore. Moreover, with the effects of climate change, many animals and plants are dying, which may cause other countries to stop importing food into Singapore due to a lack of supply of food, being a threat to Singapore's food security. Hence, both Sources E and F suggests that Singapore is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, making me have expected and hence not surprised at Source F with Source E.

I am not surprised by Source F, after reading Source B. Source B states that "The science tells us that tackling climate change is an urgent global priority". It also suggests that Singapore ahs been taking active measures, and did have some breakthroughs in finding solutions to tackle climate change. This tells us that Singapore is at risk of the effects of climate change, just like the entire world. Similarly, Source F also mentions about the food security of Singapore, where it could threaten our food security due to our heavy reliance on other countries. Both suggests that Singapore is vulnerable to effects of climate change, where we are taking steps to finding solutions and ways to tackle the problem, As such, I am not surprised by Source F, with the support of Source B, where Source F was expected.

Overall, having read Source E, I am surprised by Source F. Source E is mentioning about how Singapore can tackle the problem of rising sea levels, where Singapore plans to use a long terms solution of a 50 to 100-year solution to find a solution. However, this is different from Source F, where they have already made discoveries to tackle the problem, enhancing Singapore's food security, ensuring we are not vulnerable. Additionally, this is a project where they are tacking active measures to help Singapore battle the effects of climate change. As such, they are different in terms of what form of solution is being used. Source E uses the long terms solution, where we accumulate resources and economic power to tackle the problem in the long run. Conversely, Source F uses an immediate solution with the breakthroughs in scientific research. Both use different approaches to tackle the root causes. Hence, Source F comes as unexpected, making me surprised by Source F, after reading Source E.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not surprised by source F, as source F is supported by Source E as they both share how Singapore is vulnerable to climate change. Where source F shows how Singapore's food security could be affected by climate change. Source E shows Singapore's vulnerability to effects of climate change, thus i am not surprised by source F

I am not surprised by Source F, as it is supported by Source B, in their view of , fighting climate change's global importance, where source B states that "The science tells us that tackling climate change is an urgent global priority. We believe the private sector, in partnership with policy leaders, must take bold steps" in 2016 , and just like stated in 2022, to combat climate changes effect on Singapore's food supply, Singapore ha partnered up with a research group to develop alternative food sources for Singapore.

I am not surprised by source F, climate change has been viewed as a important issue for countries since as early as 2016, thus it would be no suprise that Singapore would develop infrastructure to fight its affects on its food supplies.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not surprised by source F. Both sources are similar in telling me about impact of climate change on Singapore. Source E states that ¨Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat and that is rising sea level.¨ along with ¨We must prepare for the impact of climate change¨, these show the imminent impact climate change has on Singapore´s safety. Similarly, Source F states that ¨Singapore is vulnerable to global supply fluctuations¨ and that ¨climate change has also added stress to the global food supply¨, suggesting how climate change has an impact of Singapore´s food safety. As both sources are similar. I am not surprised by source F.

Furthermore, Source F is supported by source A in terms of how climate change has recognizable effects on the world on a global scale. Source A mentions that än individual views climate change as the cause of droughts, flooding, blazing heat, forest fires, rising sea levels and melting ice caps. This suggests how climate change is the root cause of natural disasters occurin around the world. This is similar to source F as they both mention the effects climate change has on the world on a global scale. Source F mentions that ¨droughts and floods have impacted crop yield from China, India and Africa" showing how climate change effects many parts of the world. As both sources A and F are similar in telling me how climate change affects the world on a global scale, I am not surprised by source F.

Moreover, I am not surprised by source F as it is an extract from Ms Grace Fu, who is the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment. As Ms Fu is a representative of the ministry responsible for sustainability and environment, it is no surprise that she would mention the effects climate change has on SIngapore. This is to educate the Singapore public on the effects of climate change, and in turn encourage them to not further contribute to climate change. Therefore, due to the ulterior motive of trying to encourage the Singaporean public, I am not surprised by source F.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not surprised by Source F as E and F say that Singapore is vulnerable to the threats of climate change. Source E states that "Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat, and that is rising sea levels." This shows that Singapore is susceptible to floods brought about by climate change. Similarly, Source F states that "Climate change has also added stress to the global food supply because droughts and floods have impacted crop yield from China, India and Arica." This suggests that Singapore's food security is at risk as it is heavily dependent on imports from other countries. Since E and F say the same thing, I am not surprised by F.

Source B supports source E as both sources highlight the importance of protecting countries from the impacts of climate change. Source B states that "tackling climate change is an urgent global priority" and "the private sector, in partnership with policy leaders, must take bold steps". Similarly, Source E states that "we must prepare for the impact of climate change" and "protect ourselves against rising sea levels" Both sources thus show that countries and businesses must implement measures to protect themselves against climate change. Since source E is supported by B, it is reliable. Since E and F say the same thing, I am not surprised by F.

Source F is expected because climate change is a global issue that can impact all countries around the world. This is also highlighted in E, where the threat of rising sea levels is shown. As such, it is expected for the government to take further action to protect Singapore from climate change. Thus, E does not make be surprised about F.

# data[].attributes.body
Having read source E, I am surprised by source F. Source E states that 'We must prepare for the impact of climate change on Singapore' by investing '$100 billion over 100 years'. This suggests that Singapore will be focusing on tackling the problem of rising sea levels due to climate change. However, source F states 'the GOOD Meat team' invested 'S$61 million research and development and production facility at Bedok Food City' because of the war in Ukraine causing countries' food supply to be interconnected and Climate change causing droughts and floods which affected crop yield. This suggests that Singapore is now focusing on food resources instead of the 100 year investment plan to tackle the problem of rising sea levels. Hence, I am surprised by source F after reading source E.

I am surprised by source F because it is contradicted by source C. Source C shows management teams from multinational corporations sleeping when someone presents that 'Climate Change threatens our existence' but panicked when that someone wrote 'Climate Change threatens our economy'. This suggests that management teams prioritise on tackling Climate Change because it will help prevent the economy from collapsing instead of tackling Climate Change to increase crop yield so that it can increase the chance of human's survival by providing people with sufficient food. Therefore, as source C contradicts source F, I am surprised by source F.

I am not surprised by source F after reading source E because the source is written by different ministers from different ministries and the date that the source is published differs by a long time. Source E is from the Prime Minister from 2019 when there were no political conflicts between countries so rising sea levels due to climate change is the main problem for the country. However, source F is from the Singapore's Ministry for Sustainability and Environment from 2022. That is when the global market has expanded over the years from 2019 due to multinational corporations(MNC) so countries become interconnected and interdependent. Furthermore, source F also states the impacts of the Russian-Ukraine war which causes many interconnected and interdependent countries to decrease in crop yield. Therefore, there is a shift in focus of the main problems for survival because food is a paramount issue to tackle before rising sea levels as humans cannot survive without food for 7 days but rising sea levels only become prevalent about 100 years according to source E. Hence, because of different priorities, there is a need to shift the focus on the problems to tackle. As such, I am not surprised by source F after reading source E.

# data[].attributes.body
No I am not surprised by Source F due to the similarity how Singapore is vulnerable to climate change and how we have solutions to this problem. E states that Singapore is especially vulnerable to one grave threat which is rising sea levels due to the impact of climate change. This is supported by F as F states that Singapore is vulnerable to global supply fluctuations due to the effects of climate change such as droughts and floods which affect crop yields. therefore both sources are similar in showing that climate change is something that Singapore is vulnerable to. at the same time both sources are similar in showing that Singapore has plans to tackle this vulnerability. E states that the government plans to implement a long term solution of '50-100 years' to tackle the issue of rising sea levels. F supports this as F states that by' capitalising the vast potential...as a food innovation hub' Therefore this shows that E and F are similar due to their stance on climate change affects Singapore and how Singapore has plans to tackle climate change through innovation and development

Source F is surprising due to Source C. In source C, it shows that MNCs are only worried about climate change when it affects the economy but not the existence of humanity. F contradicts this as F shows MNCs developing the largest cultured meat facility in asia to tackle the issue of Singapore vulnerable food supply chain due to climate change. C makes F surprising as it shows a difference in motives of why MNCs help to lessen the effect of climate change. As C depicts how they only care about how much profit they can make while F shows that MNCs care about the effects of climate change and how they can lessen it.

Overall, E does not make F surprising due to the time the statement was made. E was produced in 18th August 2019, before the start of the Covid pandemic and the Ukraine Russia war. So as a result the biggest threat to Singapore was rising sea levels as the food supply chain has not been impacted yet. while F is produced on 10 June 2022, well after the start of the covid pandemic and the start of the Russia Ukraine war so as a result it makes sense for F to say that food supply chain issues was singapores biggest vulnerability as at that time, both the covid pandemic and Russia Ukraine pandemic affected import of food in Singapore. so therefore E does not make F surprising due to the difference in time when they were produced resulting in differing events that affect the production of the source.

# data[].attributes.body
having read source E, i am surprised by Source F. In source E it was stated that Singapore is vulnerable to one grave threat which is rising sea levels. this meant that the main issue in Singapore which leads to chain reactions of issues such as climate change, financial incapabilities such as mitigating efforts, which also affects the resources. however, in source F it was stated that ''With over 90% of or food imported, Singapore is vulnerable to global supply fluctuations''， this shows how Singapore being dependent on other countries for food imports is a main issue in Singapore especially involving how our food security becomes detrimental to our country, since source E emphasizes a different primary issue than source F, i am surprised by source F.

I am not surprised by Source F as source E is contradicted by Source A. In source A it was shown that a guy questioned apart from rising sea levels and melting ice caps, what evidence were there for climate change. this meant that there rising sea levels is not a major issue in Singapore and that climate change is actually being affected from other factors, this does not emphasise the importance of rising sea levels in Singapore. Since Source A contradicts Source E, source E is unrealiable and I am not surprised by Source F.

I am not surprised by Source F due to the timeline in situation, this source was written in 2022 when the Ukraine war was ongoing. The Ukraine war crippled through food chain supplies and impacted Singapore too as food imports which are being heavily relied on are experiencing shortages instead, at tis crucial time period, it is expected for food supplies to be stressed out on more from the war, hence, Source F is more reliable and im not surprised by it.

# data[].attributes.body
No, as Source E supports Source F that climate change would have a large effect on Singapore. Source E states that "Singapore must prepare for one grave threat...prepare for the impact of climate change." This suggests that climate change is one of Singapore's biggest problems, as it causes sea levels to rise, has also added stress to and we are a low-lying island. Similarly, Source F states that "climate change has also added stress to the global food supply" and "90% of our food imported." suggesting that climate change would strain singapore's source of food that is Singapore is highly dependent on putting the food security at risk. Since both source support each other on how negatively climate change will impact Singapore hence, I am not suprise by souce F.

I am also not surprised by Source F as it is supported by Source B. From Source B, ''tackling climate change is an urgent global priority''. This means that companies should take steps to ensure climate change is managed. Similarly, Source F states that ''of late, food security has become an issue of strategic importance for all countries'' and ''climate change has also added stress to the global food supply''. These suggest that climate change, through food security, is becoming an increasingly important problem and we should take action quickly to resolve, or at least manage, this issue. Hence Sources B and F are similar in saying that Climate change is a currently relevant issue and should be addressed seriously and in a timely manner. Since Source B supports Source F, Source F is expected and I am not surprised.

Ultimately, I am not surprised by F. F is written by the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment. Source F is written with the intention to convince the public that climate change is a serious issue; however, it can be solved through investment in food technologies. Source F state that research and development cause "GOOD Meat team.. to be the largest cultured meat facility in Asia" and that "Capitalizing the vast potential of food innovation, we are actively leveraging our strengths in bio-technology process" This suggest that further investment and effort put into researching food technology can boost Singapore to remain relevant and forefront of such technology which is important for combating our "vulnerability to global supply fluctuation". Hence, obtaining support from the public to promote investment in such technology. Since source F is written with a motive, it is not surprising

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised by source F, as source E has different sentiments toward the significance of the impact of Climate change on Singapore's welfare. E states that Singapore is "especially vulnerable to one grave threat and that is rising sea levels" and emphasises the importance of preparing for climate change, making "long-term solutions" to mitigate the impact of climate change in Singapore. Whereas in Source F, F priorities the importance on how the importing of food has made Singapore vulnerable to global food supply shortage, highlighting the impact of the Russia-Ukraine War and how globalisation has put food security at utmost priority and mentions climate change being a second less important factor, hence as E differs from F, it refutes F, thus I am surprised by what source F says

However, I am not surprised by what source F says, as both source E and F were spoken at a different time, hence priorities in Singapore during the 3 year gap. E's speech was made prior to the beginning of the global pandemic COVID -19 where resources were strained as people were unable to work and the Russia-Ukraine War which affected the import of fertilisers, wheat and corn which led to a rise in food prices, thus F places a greater importance on tackling more imminent issues such as food security than Climate Change(a long term issue), hence I am not surprised by what source F says .

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised by source F after reading source E as both sources have differing views about climate change. Source E states how Singapore can protect itself against climate change. Source E states that "If we only have 10 years to solve the problem, we will not have enough time or resources to do it", suggesting that in order for the government to resolve this issue of climate change, much effort and action is needed to prepare for the effects of climate change. However, Source F states how Singapore can utilise climate change. Source F states that "By capitalising the vast potential of food innovation, we are actively leveraging our strengths in bio-technology process". This highlights that the government is instead choosing to focus on using climate change to its advantage, rather than putting pen to paper to combat climate change.

Additionally, I am not surprised by Source F because it is supported by Source C which depicts a professor giving a lecture, writing that "Climate change threatens our existence" which the whole class has fallen asleep to, but when he writes that "climate change threatens our economy", the heads of the management teams from multinational corporations ((MNCs)raise and are alarmed. This shows that MNCs are more concerned about the financial stability of countries than about combating climate change. Therefore both sources drive at the point that climate change is second to the economic growth of countries

Lastly, I am ultimately not surprised by Source F, as Source F is written more recently than Source E. Source E was written in 2019, while Source F was written in 2022. Hence, the Source F takes into consideration what has happened in the three-year gap between 2019 and 2022, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, which has impacted the livelihoods and imports of necessities, and would be more relevant. Hence, I am ultimately not surprised by Source F, as Source F is written more recently than Source E.