https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy en-us 2020-05-20 01:29:17 UTC 2024-07-17 03:22:56 UTC hello@padlet.com 20025942 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583820749 1. Which of the students are being bias

2. Why is English suddenly so popular 

3. Why are Singaporeans proud of Singlish]]> 2020-05-20 01:32:22 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583820749 200389181 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583820847 1. most singaporeans have difficulty pronouncing words

2. government has been encouraging singaporeans to speak proper english 

3. this year, 2020, is the 20th anniversary of the Speak Good English Movement

4. Lee Kuan Yew said singlish is a handicap and we should stop singlish

]]> 2020-05-20 01:32:27 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583820847 20028373 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583821080 1. Why have Singaporeans always been having difficulty pronouncing words?

2. Why singapore government cannot be proud of their nation's own unique language at the same time learn proper english?

3. Has the movement worked and encouraged more singaporeans to speak good english over the years?  
 ]]> 2020-05-20 01:32:42 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583821080 200389181 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583877364 Q1: comment 2 has a stronger logic. 
The interviewer from RP scholarship board is a professional and specialises at his job, which is to select students who speak good english for scholarship hence there is a good high chance he should not be wrong in his professional decision. 
Whereas in comment 1, the senior was talking based on her opinion so it may not be true. 

I would make the inductive logic stronger by doing my research on the interviewer on how long he has been in this profession and how high his criteria is to indicate how good the students must be in english to get the scholarship. 

This will be used as my additional premise to further support my conclusion that he can't be wrong based on his job experience and criteria standards. ]]> 2020-05-20 02:29:26 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583877364 ngjordan13 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583880822 Q1: i would say comment 2 has a stronger logic. This is because the comment was made based on an interviewer who actually interviews the students and that he should know the criteria's of what is expected of the students to obtain the scholarship. Compared to comment 1 where his/her senior is just one of the candidates being interviewed and may not know as much as to how she had obtained her scholarship besides the fact that she managed to impress the board with her English skills which may or may not have been why he/she had been chosen to attain the scholarship. 

I would make the premises even stronger by maybe doing research into how experienced he is as a interviewer and to specify in what ways he is knowledgeable and if its related to the interview or not. ]]> 2020-05-20 02:33:01 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583880822 20001702 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583882101 Q1: Comment 2 has better and a stronger logic. It was made by a an interviewer who is in the RP scholarship board. This shows that he is experienced in which student he chooses as he should know what he is looking for when he chooses a student for the the scholarship. Comparing to question 1, it is a comment made by a student talking about how his senior won the scholarship due to the fact that she has good English. His senior is just one of the many student that went for the interview and there would be more than one winner of the scholarship. This was also just a comment made by the student. It does not guarantee that the scholarship is based just solely on having good English, there might be other judging criteria for winning the scholarship as as his senior does not know the the criteria of picking a winner for the scholarship. 
On the ways to improve the comment 2, i would add in a premise showing how previous students who had won the scholarship with good English to support the claim that the interviewer said about having the ability to speak good English. So by adding in the premise of the student from comment 1 talking about how his senior won the scholarship with having good English would further strengthen the inductive logic even further. ]]> 2020-05-20 02:34:29 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583882101 20028373 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583884799 Q1: Comment 2 has a stronger logic as the premises include the interviewer's point of view rather than the senior's. We can rely more on the interviewer as he is from the RP scholarship board, so he is qualified and more knowledgeable, and has had experience talking to students who speak in a range between good and bad english or also other good qualities the RP scholarship board looks for whereas the senior in comment 1 has a narrower point of view as she is only 1 of the many candidates who competed for the RP scholarship and only assumes that she won the scholarship because of her speech which is what she thinks is good english when there could be other more outstanding reasons as to why she won.

To make comment 2 even stronger, i would add evidence of the past RP scholars who have won to show that the winners do have good english based on the criteria the RP scholarship board uses in order to grade the students competing for the scholarship.]]> 2020-05-20 02:37:06 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583884799 20025942 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583885876 Q1: I believe comment 2 is stronger as the reason for needing to brush up on his English is more logical compared to comment 1. In comment 2, it was specifically stated that the interviewer would select those who speak good English, compared to comment 1 where the senior was selected because she impressed them with her good English hence she was selected. I believe comment 2 is stronger as the interviewer is more credible than the senior as the interviewer in the end is the end is the one whose choosing who gets the scholarship and not the interviewee himself.Thus, in comment 1 as the senior may have been selected due to her impressive English, it does not guarantee that good English itself can ensure that one is able to obtain the scholarship. Hence as the interviewer has already stated a clear criteria needed for being selected to receive the scholarship, it would make more sense to fulfill the criteria as it would increase the chances in obtaining the scholarship.

In order to improve the premises of comment 2 to make the inductive logic even stronger, I believe combining both comment 1 and 2 together would make the inductive logic extremely strong. Specifically, I would include the experience from the senior into comment 2. So the comment 2 would become something like "That interviewer from the RP scholarship board said he chooses students who speak good English and since my senior was selected for the scholarship because she impressed them with her good English. It shows good English is important in obtaining the scholarship and since I really want the scholarship therefore I guess it's time I should brush up on my English." The comment becomes stronger as now we can provide evidence that people with good English actually gets selected compared to before where although the interviewer may have said he would choose those who speak good English but there was no evidence to support that statement by him was actually true.]]> 2020-05-20 02:38:11 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583885876 jean_lau2_2 https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583894876 Perhaps you can toggle to allow comments. :) ]]> 2020-05-20 02:48:04 UTC https://padlet.com/200389181/hizgou96wo0smgyy/wish/583894876