Intro device: Used global overview but should have used a quote

Question Interpretation - I was able to understand most of the question, answering to both forms of disabled people, physically and mentally(Accuracy) 

Balance: My balance was ok but i lacked details(precision) 

Scope: Could have provided more scope, but lacked content (Breadth)

Body 1 (Ding Dong)

P Relevant to the question but too local specific. [Relevance, Breath]

E Not developed enough, lacking of [depth]

E My example was too local specific [Precision, Relevance]

R Did linked back to question but this paragraph lacked structure. [Logic, Precision]

Body 2 (Ding Dong)

P Relevant to the question but too local specific. [Relevance, Breath]

E My elaboration were confusing, leading to examiner unable to understand my point. [Clarity, Logic]

E Too local specific again [Precision, Relevance]

R I made a logical and proper reinteration back to the question. [Precision, Clarity]

Body 3 (Ding Dong)

P Lack interpretation to the question [Precision]

E Had enough [Depth] and [Breath] in my elaboration.

E Example was good enough to suport my point. [Relevance, Clarity]

R Good stand as it is strong enough [Precision, Clarity, Relevance]

Conclusion

I brought up another idea while concluding -- Bad [Logic]

My closing was boring and unmemorable, lacking of accuracy and interpretation to the question once again.

Intro device: definition of key word (clarity), used question to start intro

Qn interpretation: Was able to understand the qn. Addressed the keywords "success depends on your physical appearance" (accurate)

Balance: Good. Showed balance and illustrated it a little (Clarify, Precise)

Scope: could have improved more (breadth)

Body 1 (OV)

P relevant to question but sounds a little example-driven (relevant)

E elaboration was alright (depth)

E should have given names of successful models to support my point (specific, accurate)

R linked back to the qn and my point (Logic, precise)

Body 2 (OVR)

p relevant but too specific, should have mention on the whole instead of focusing on a particular country (Relevant, Breadth)

E developed paragraph but was a little cliche towards the end. should have addressed some words I mentioned "talent and ability" (accurate, depth, clarity).

E example used was relevant and was able to support my point (precise,relevant)

R linked back to my point and answered the question (logic, precise)

Body 3 (OVR)

P point not clear and it is example driven (clarity)

E based elaboration on example (depth.)

E should have stated the number awards he achieved instead of the number of movies he acted in ( accurate)

R linked back to the question (logic, relevant)

Body 4 (SS)

P not a strong point, should have talked about other factors like: charisma, talent, determination (precision)

E elaboration is relevant but should have more (breadth, relevant)

E example should not only focus on "talent" should have shown other examples to portray other factors (breadth. depth)

R able to link back to stand (logical, relevant)

Conclusion

reiterated stand (logic, relevant)

However, it was too generic and vague and may have brought in new terms which has to be addressed (clarity, precise)

Intro device: Used definition for 'Success' , (clarity)

Question Interpretation - However, I did not present my interpretation correctly and it does not link back to the keywords in the question. (accuracy)

Balance: Stand was not clear though i managed to show some balance (Precise)

Scope: Could have provided more scope and also a more detailed content (but couldn't do it due to lack of time management) (Breadth and depth)

Body 1 (Ding Dong)

P Relevant to the question and addressed the keywords. (Relevance)

E There is some elaboration but not enough (depth)

E My example was ok but not specific enough (Precise)

R Did linked back to question but this paragraph lacked structure. (Logic, Precision

I did not manage my time properly and thus, lack of time to finish the paper. I managed to only complete 1 OVR and 1 R supporting my stand. My R supporting the stand is not elaborated well and there is no specific focus on it. (Accuracy, Relevance, Depth)

Intro device: definition (clarity),

Question interpretation: good, explained key words like success & physical appearance (accuracy, breadth)

Balance: showed balance but my stand was a difficult one to argue. If the opposite stand was taken, I would have performed better (lack of logic)

Scope: good, some parts had no relevance to question (relevance)

Body 1: (R-OV-R)

P: point is valid for R & OV (precise) but not for 2nd R (lack of fairness)

E: good explanation (clarity)

E: 1) local example given (lack of relevance & precision) => supposed to discuss about society as a whole.

   2) example had a counter example to it; argument not valid (lack of breadth)

R: good link to question (accuracy)

Body 2: (Supporting)

P: was not specific in discussing the issue=>was just a brief generalisation (lack of precision)

E: explanation could substantiate the argument (depth)

E: did not give specific examples; lack of evidence (lack of fairness)

R: posed a rhetorical question but had no relevance to issue at hand (lack of relevance)

Body 3: (OVR)

P: valid but context should be defined so that argument will be more valid (lack of precision)

E: explanation was not clear as a result (lack of clarity) <rebuttal paragraph was too brief and had no examples (lack of depth)> 

E: example had no context so it does not really relate to issue (lack of relevance)

P: no link written (lack of clarity)

Conclusion

Reiteration of stand (clarity)

Explanation was simplistic (lack of depth)

Body1:

P: okay

E: Lack of details (depth)

E: Relevant but need more concrete details (precision)

Body2

P: Sentence structure error (accuracy)

E: wrong application (precision) 

E: Lack of specification (depth)

L: Sentence structure (accuracy) 

Body3:

P: Expression error (Clarity) 

E: Lack depth

E: too simplistic (logic)

L: not relevant

Body 4 :

P: lack coherence

E: argument can be more organised and succinct

E: lack breath

L: No real focus (relevance logic precision)

Conclusion: okay but lack a bit

Intro device: Gave global overview (lack breadth)

Question Interpretation : Gave somewhat of a quote/common saying. Did not address how moderation is the KEY to life, merely gave examples of moderation. Didn't explain key word, "KEY". (lack clarity,accuracy)

Balance: Balance was shown but stand was a difficult one to argue. (logic)

Scope: Limited scope as I argued a difficult position. Limited examples and thus content could be used and was not exactly logical. (lack logic, breadth, depth)

Body 1 (OVR)

P Point not stated well in OV. Was awkward and did the address the key word first, that is, Moderation. "R" was ok. (lack of Precision,clarity)

E Explanations in "R" was clear (Clarity) but invalid.(lack of accuracy,relevance) Explanations in "OV" was clear (clarity) and (relevant)

E Evidence in OV was (relevant,depth,accuracy). Evidence in 'R' is slightly weird&awkward, and slightly illogical. (lack of logic,clarity) Comments said "it counters my point" dont understand why.

R Both "OV" and "R" used "therefore" to show reiteration. Could have used a wider variety of words. (Breadth?) There was sufficient (breadth) and (relevance) and (breadth) in "OVR". How does one show "depth" in reiteration???

Intro device: Tried to define success but wasn't [precise] enough.

Question Interpretation - Misinterpreted physical appearance as perfect limbs and senses :(

Balance:  Tried to show balance but wasn't really clear? [clarity]

Scope: There are some relevant points but not good enough.

Body 1 (Dong)

P Sweeping statement, wasn't specific and precise [precision] .

E Elaboration can be improved [depth] .

E Example given is relevant and fits the question [relevance] .

R Linked back to the question. But need to discuss whether looks is enough to succeed [depth] .

Body 2 (Dong)

P Relevant to the question and valid. (Relevance)

E Misinterpreted physical appearance, hence explanation is a bit off. (Precision)

E Need to provide more context. Need to add [For athletes, talent comes first. Looks will be useful for sponsors] (Precision)

R Linked back to success

Body 3 (Dong)

P Relevant to the question(Relevance)

E Elaboration can be improved as I elaborated more on the examples, which was not really necessary. (Depth)

E Misinterpreted again... (Relevance)

R Linked back to the question

Body 4 (Ding)

Whole body 4 was misinterpreted. Need to redo body 4

Conclusion

Provided a summary of the essay. Not memorable hmm..

Intro device: The general statement was relevant but was not clear. [Clarity]

Question Interpretation:

Weak.

I paid attention on 'had', which means comparison should be shown between past and present, but it did not elaborate much on it.

No interpretation of the word 'young people' e.g. The youth of today have been mostly, highly educated by diverse school education which is simply focused not on moral education but on paper qualifications.

AND lack of [Precision] of the characteristics of 'your society'. e.g. i could have written about economic pragmatism, concept of excellence, materialism and meritocracy in Singapore

Balance: No balance. My stand was too extreme...

Scope : Only 3 issues are written. And one of them is not really relevant to the society in Singapore. [Breadth and Relevance]

Body 1 (Supporting para)

P: Good. Logical topic sentence

E: Absence of comparison between past and present [Relevance]

E: Absence of specific example to highlight the negative aspects. [Precision]

I should provide examples for 'education system: Principle of Meritocracy' and ' vocational  technical education, which is negatively viewed by society'

R: Attempted to make a link but fail to address the key word 'had'.

Body 2 (OVR)

P: Not really relevant to the context of Singapore [Relevance] but the argument was logical

E: Absence of comparison… Elaboration was unclear [Clarity]

E: Example is not precise enough [Precision]

R: Weak link to the requirements of the Qn’s keywords [Accuracy]

Body 3 (Supporting para)

P: Logical and relevant

E: Again… comparison...

E: Need concrete example to support my stand

R: Weak linkage to the Qn

Conclusion:

Concluding device: Good ‘To sum up...’

-Gave a general overview in one sentence from my personal POV. (Not supposed to be personal is it? I think.)

-Did not show interpretation of how physical appearance is the defining factor that leads to success.

-Established that physical appearance plays a significant role in attaining success but did not mention what are the other factors.

Body 1 (OV):

-Almost example driven if I did not go on to elaborate about it in general.

-Did not provide a global context, kept going on and on giving examples about Singapore only.

Body 2 (R)OV:

-R only in the first sentence and then OV all the way.

-No real focus and became very personal.

-Provided only real life examples, could be better if statistics are given.

Body 3 (OV):

-Elaborated but did not link back to question.

Conclusion:

-Contradicted my stand by saying how other than physical appearance can one draw pride from our own identity (which is like character I think?).

Intro device: Used global overview but should have used a quote

Question Interpretation - Did not interpret question correctly (interpreted wealth of knowledge instead of being rich or making money) 

Did not bring out the comparisons from the past to present

Balance: Did not address the question

Scope: Could have provided more scope, but lacked content (Breadth)

Body 1 (Ding Dong)

P Misinterpret the question[Relevance]

E Not developed enough, lacking of [depth]

E  No discussion on pursuit of wealth[Relevance]

R this paragraph lacked relevance. [Logic]

Body 2 (Ding Dong)

P Irrelevant to the question and not specific. [Relevance, Breath]

E My elaboration were confusing,and does not link to question [Clarity, Logic]

E Little relevance [Precision, Relevance]

R I made a logical and proper reinteration back to the question. [Precision, Clarity]

Body 3 (Ding Dong)

P Some relevance to the question [Precision]

E Had enough [Depth] and [Breath] in my elaboration.

E Example was too simplistic to support my point. [Relevance, Clarity]

R Could be stronger with stronger points and eg for my R [Precision, Clarity, Relevance]

Conclusion

Misinterpretated the question

-gave an overview of the topic

-misinterpreted the question: I thought that it was just using your mouth to voice out opinions but the individuals does no action in solving these problem. according to the definition lip service is hypocrisy: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction. ( accuracy)

Body 1 (OVR)

P- misinterpreted the question (relevance)

E- was not thorough (depth)

E- was too vague ( precision)

L- was there but also misinterpreted (relevance)

Body 2 (R)

- ok except some minor errors like punctuation and expressions (precision)

Body 3 (OVR)

P-ok

E-was missing and the issues raised was too narrow not global enough (Breadth)

E- misinterpreted with logic missing (logic and relevance)

L-misinterpreted (relevance)

Body 4 (R)

P- misinterpreted lack explanations ( relevance depth)

E- lack details ( depth)

E- lacking in details ( depth)

L- was ok did not answer the question due to misinterpretation ( relevance)

Conclusion

-my point was not well illustrated

-vague

-missing some data

-lack coherence in ending.

-weak intro, does not really hook the reader.

-should not give examples in the intro, should give concepts that are invovled instead of examples

Body 1 OVR

P- poor TS, i jumped straight into the exmaples, causing the para to be too example driven

E and E- was rather good. However it could have been better with more stats and details

R- made reference to the question

Body 2 OVR

R-poor TS,

E- good examples, could have been better with more accurate data\

E-needed to elaborate more on certain examples

R-made reference to the quesiton

Body 3 R

P-need a better TS

E- more data would be needed for the example to do better

E-could have elaborated ore but did not have enough time

R-made reference to the uestion

Conclusion

should not introduce new ideas in the conclusion

i did give a stand

could have been better if i phrased it well

-Gave general overview of the issue

-Intro is vague due to missing elements

-Conclusion is not logical 

-Stand and balance is awkward.

Body 1 (OV)

P:Narrowed the scope to entertainment industry (precise)

E:  explain why this is so in this industry (Clarity)

E:Took Robert Downey Jr as an example but not that detaied

L: Never write about the artists in general

Body 2 (Rebuttal)

P: Relevant

E: Should be more detailed in my explanation

E: Gave relevant example.

L: Concluded the paragraph with example which I’m not supposed to do so.

Intro device: Used global overview but it was awkward (relevance)

Question interpretation: I was able to understand most of the question by giving definitions of the key words. However, the definitions I gave was not detailed enough. (precision)

Balance: My balance was unclear (clarity, precision)

Scope: lacked in content (breadth)

Body 1: (DONG)

P Relevant to question. Gave an overview (Relevance, Breadth)

E  Not developed enough (depth)

E  Examples are quite generic. need to be more specific (Precision)

R I made a logical and proper reiteration back to the question (Precision, Clarity)

Body 2: (DING-DONG)

P relevant to question (relevance, Breadth)

E Some are not directly relevant (relevance)

E Specific examples are given but I did not evaluate the effectiveness. (depth)

R Some misinterpretation (Accuracy, logic)

Body 3: (DING-DONG)

P Awkward topic sentence. (Clarity, Relevance, Logic)

E Well-developed (relevance, Breadth, Depth)

E Examples are outdated. (Accuracy)

R Did not address 'lip service'  (clarity)

Body 4:(DING-DONG)

P relevant to question(relevance)

E quite well elaborated but there are some parts which need to be more specific (relevance, depth)

E Example for DING is specific, but the example for DONG need to be more specific-too general (precision)

R  I made a logical and proper reiteration back to the question (Precision, Clarity)

Conclusion:

My closing was not memorable enough but it was logical (Logic)

Generally okay, more is needed to expand the scope. (breadth)

Intro device is needed.

BODY 1 (Ding)

P – TS is relevant but used in the wrong context. Can only be used when using an OVR paragraph. (relevance)

E – Quite okay.

E – Awkward example.

R – Quite okay.

Overall, not a relevant point as the use of my example on bloggers has confused the reader.

BODY 1 (Dong)

P, E, R – Need to relate to the issue of looks. Did not address the requirements of the question. (relevance)

Example – Wrongly used, because it implied that XX had no academic qualifications.

BODY 2 (Ding & Dong)

P – TS is relevant but used in the wrong context. Can only be used when using an OVR paragraph. (relevance)

E – Pursuing a passion, not passion for learning. (precision)

E – Quite okay.

R – Quite okay.

BODY 3 (Ding & Dong)

 P, E, E, R – Issue chosen was completely off. Not accurate nor precise. Link between OVR is not clear. (accuracy & precision) Elaboration was difficult to follow. No link to physical appearance at all. (relevance)

BODY 4 (Supporting stand)

P – relevant but too brief. (relevance & depth)

Elaboration & Example – Too vague. No depth at all. (depth)

R – Quite okay.

CONCLUSION

Not memorable enough. Need a closing phrase to have more depth. (depth)

Intro device: Could have used a qoute to value add

Question Interpretation -was able to interpret the qn correctly

Balance: did not show balance and could better phrase it.

Scope: Could have provided more scope, but lacked content (Breadth)

Body 1 (Ding Dong)

P Relevant to the question

E Not developed enough, lacking of [depth]

E Could have elaborated a bit more on my example: CPF[Precision, Relevance]

R Did link back to question

Body 2 (Ding Dong)

P Relevant to the question but need to expand. [Relevance, Breath]

E Too similar to previous para

E too similar to previous para

R I made a logical and proper reinteration back to the question. [Precision, Clarity]

OVERALL BODY 2 IS TOO SIMILAR TO BODY 1

Body 3 (Ding Dong)

P Needs to be expanded [Breadth]

E Not enough [Depth] and [Breath] in my elaboration. Can be expanded.

E Could have included some stats. [Relevance, Clarity]

R too similar to previos bodies

Conclusion

My closing was boring and unmemorable, Could gave some solutions to the problem, give more insights to value add.

Intro device: Instead of stating something obvious, could use a general statement or a quote.

Question Interpretation: Question was interpreted correctly, however, did not address one of the key word, "today"

Balance: Balance was not really well shown, could be better. Also, the paragraph was flowing smoothly, certain points were jumbled up in order. (E.g. My preview should be placed at the end of the paragraph)

Scope: Scope is still lacking, didn't address the word "today". Overall, the scope could have been better if there is more breadth and depth to it.

BODY 1

P: The point was awkwardly phrased, could have rephrased it better to state the point that I was putting across.  

E: My explanation wasn't clear. It lacked a lot in depth and precision. Some phrases I used, like "often used" was misleading. Eventually, my point wasn't properly brought across.

E: My example was over generalised. It lacked a lot in content and precision. I didn't mention the exact name of the example that I had discussed. Also, it did not support my point a lot as I only showed one example instead of many cases.

R: The reiteration of the stand was generally good. There was a link back to the main topic of the question.  

BODY 2

P: My point was example driven ; could have done better phrasing to explain my point.

E: My explanation is too brief; need to be clearer

E: Examples are too brief; need to be precise. Need to go in depth too

R: My reiteration needs to be more clear

BODY 3

P: I started off with a sweeping statement, need to be more accurate

E: Explanation should be explored further. More concrete and deeper explanation should be given.

E: Examples are not well elaborated. Should be more elaborated and clear on the topic discussed

R: Reiteration of stand was not well balanced. Needed to show the other aspect of the point.

BODY 4

P: Good introduction of the point

E: Point was well elaborated and put across well

E: Example was not the right one. Should have provided a better example.

R: My reiteration does not concur with my stand

CONCLUSION

The conclusion was too specific. Should elaborate more

Intro device: gave a global overview but was not enough(breath)

Question interpretation: description of the current society but did not compare the current society and the past.

Balance: able to show balance but in need of better words.

BODY 1: (DING)

p: generally okay bur need more explanation (depth)

E: not enough(depth)

E: instead of giving stats, gave individual incidents and evidence need to be clearer (clarity, precision)

R: able to link back to the point.

(dong)

generally okay with one spelling error and usage of wrong word.

BODY 2: (ding)

P: point was good

E: elaboration was enough

E: need more global example (breath), never explain who is the person stated in my example (precision)

R: no linkage to the question

(dong)

P: expression was not good enough (precision)

E: vague elaboration (precision), need more negative impact (breath)

E: example was not Singapore based (relevance)

R: able to link back to the question.

BODY 3:

(ding)

whole paragraph is out of point

CONCLUTION:

contradicting myself, expression is not good

Intro device: Gave a somewhat differing definitions of "Age" Question interpretation: Did not how the aged is a 'burden' in Singapore's society. (precision) Balance: Balanced was given, perhaps needed more specific reasons. (clarity, precision) Scope: Scope should have been broader by addressing more of the key words thoroughly. (breadth)

Body 1: (Ding + Dong) P: Relevant to Question with some explanation. Need more details. (Relevance, depth) E: Some difficulty with elaborating on point due to awkward expressions and SVA. (clarity) There was balanced too by stating the other side of the issue. (fairness) E: Need to give more detailed examples instead of general ones to relate to the qn better (accuracy) R: Linked back to the extent of the aged being a burden but was too simplistic and short. Could have provided more details. (precision)

Body 2: (Ding + Dong) P: Did talk about how elderly are a burden and gave reasons. (accuracy, relevance) E: Gave reasonable and logical explanation for extent of their burden to SG. (accuracy, logic) Balanced shown, could have used better words for rebuttal. (clarity, accuracy) E: Examples need to be more detailed and convincing. (precision) R: Linked to my stand that elderly are not a burden but was too short and simplistic. (precision, relevance)

Conclusion: Reiterated my stand. Did use some interesting statements to end off conclusion. Mentioned how the aged is perceived as a burden is a stereotyped but could have explored it in more detail earlier. (depth)

Essay was too short, only had two OVRs. Need 1 more OVR. Need to manage my time better.

Question interpretation interpretation of the question was ok,

Balance: Balance was generally ok, shows how some felt they were a burden as compared to my point of them not being so

Scope Specific to Singapore only as required from the question

Body1:Dingdong

P point did not address the question(relevance)

E not developed enough and too brief(breadth)

E Lacked examples (precision)

R Linked back to the point

Body2:Dingdong

P Point was ok ,answered to question

E Repetition of what was stated in body 1(breadth)

E Lacked evidence, no statistics (precision)

R Linked back to point

Body3:Dingdong

P Point answered the question (relevant)

E Lacked details and elaboration (clarity)

E Need specific details (precision)

R Linked back to point and stand

Conclusion Conclusion was generally ok, reiterated my stand, but did not made lasting impact on reader.

intro device: did not give enough dept and breadth. too simplistic

question interpertation

Balance: Balanced was given, but need more specific reasons. (clarity, precision)

 Scope: Scope should have been broader by addressing more factors on how state has involved in family matters(breadth)

body1:dingdong

P:the beginning point was relevant to the question. However, to point given to rebut was irrelevant( revenant)

E: isok

E;gave example using research

R: was not firm enough to relink back to the point

body2:ring

p:not logic (relevant)

e: did elaborate but still no sure its enough (depth )

e;: use singapore's government as en example

R: no direct link to the question

body 3:Ring

P: did not state where the situation takes place (precision)

E: gave sufficient elaboration (breadth0

E: gave example sing times magazine 

R:does not really prove that the state should be blamed 

body 3: ring 

P: gave a relevant point but did not state clearly where it took place (precision)

E: elaborate but not really enough (depth)

E: Singapore as an example

R. relinked back to the question

conclusion : should be ok cause there are no comments given. but still i want to improve it but not sure how to.

Introduction device: Used definition and explanation. Question Interpretation: I was able to understand most of the question, answering the part of burden of being an aged and limiting the content to Singapore. (Accuracy and Breath)

Balance: I had a balanced stand and given enough details.

Scope: I lack scope as I did not mention what am I going to talk about in my body paragraphs. (Breath and Clarity)

Body 1: (Ding Dong)

P: Relevant to question but sentence structure needs to be improved. (Relevance) Lacking of (Clarity)

E: Not expanded enough and lacking of (Depth)

E: Examples not explained enough to bring my point across (Precision, Clarity) R: Wrong expression used, lack of (Clarity)

Body 2: (Ding Dong)

P: Wrong transition cue used.

E: Ding not expanded enough, lack of (Depth and Precision)

E: Vague examples, lacking of (Depth).

R: Did linked back to the question (Relevance)

Body 3: Ding Dong

P: Relevant to question and enough (Depth). (Relevance)

E: Valid reasons that are good to support my stand (Clarity, Relevance)

R: Link to question but could have used synonyms. (Relevance and Clarity)

Body 4: Ding Dong

P: Vague point to make. Lacks (Clarity and Precision)

E: Needs to be expanded and get my point across to have (Relevance and Depth)

E: Examples are valid and succinct enough (Accuracy and Relevance)

R: Links back to question. (Clarity)

Conclusion:

- I need to be less vague in my explanation.

- Brought about a good points about morals which is good.

Had a global overview of the issue of poverty in the world. (Relevance)

There was scope, like how I mentioned poverty in developed and developing countries. (Depth)

Reasons why people are in poverty (Depth) 

Stand: A balanced stand was evident (Breadth)

What the into was lacking of: Reasons/Preview of the essay

What can be improved: To throw in more brief examples of my essay

Body #1 (Education) (OV)

P: It was relevant to the question (Relevance)

E: The context of Singapore was being used to explain (Relevance and Precision)

E: There were examples used like the estimated amount of money parents spent on tuition fees (Relevance)

R: It was okay.

(R)

P: It was okay

E: It should be more elaborated (Precision)

E: Should be more precised (Precision)

R: Sentence structure can be improved (Logic) Should have accessed the effectiveness of the FAS

Body #2 (Natural environment) (OV)

P: It was okay

E: Should have added in more effects of the natural climate (Need more depth)

E: Should have added in WHICH developing countries experiences these natural climates (Precision)

R: It was okay

(R)

P: There was balance (Fairness)

E: Did not really explain instead went straight to example to explain (Clarity)

E: Celebrity Humanitarians like Angelina Jolie and UN helping to build houses and increase food supply (need to be more precised) (Accuracy) (Need more examples of celebrity humanitarians)

R: More details are required (Precision)

Body #3 (Family backgrounds) (OV)

P: It was okay

E: Explanation was okay but need to use better use of words (Accuracy)

E: Need to link to the question (Relevance)

R: Need to link!

(R)

P: Need to use BETTER words (Clarity)

E: Need to elaborate on it more (Depth)

E:Singapore based example, need to have more global issues (Fairness)

R: It was okay

Conclusion

No comments given but I feel that there is a need to reiterate my stand more accurately with a stronger argument.

THIS ESSAY NEEDS MORE GLOBAL ISSUES SO I SHOULD READ MORE LIKE BLOOMBERG AND BBC NEWS (Breadth)

INTRO:

Not enough depth, not accurate

Stand is vague.

Inappropriate voice

Wrong interpretation of question.

I mentioned poverty in Singapore too much. (depth)

How there are  organizations that help people in poverty. (accuracy)

BODY #1: DING + DONG

P: did not really address question

E: awkward expressions (clarity)

E: Good examples

R: no link to question

BODY#2:

P: did give examples of organizations that help people

E: awkward expressions

E: examples not detailed enough(accuracy)

R: no link to question

Conclusion: unmemorable but links back to my arguments.

Over simplistic depth

Quite a clear stand though

However did not define certain words

Body 1 : (Ding+ dong)

P : Relevant to question

E : did got give sufficient amount of elaboration and explanation

E: examples were quite vague

L: Did not link back to the topic of physical appearance

Body 2 : (Ding+ dong)

P: Point was generally ok, relevant.

E: ( content needs to be stated)

E: Example given on Billgates needed for elaboration and evidence.

L: Did not even make a link back to the question

Body 3 : (Ding+ dong)

P: Point was ok

E: sufficient amount of elaboration

E: Example given was relevant

L: attempted a link, can be improved though

Conclusion:

-repeated certain points

- but I did make a link and answered to the question in this paragraph.

No/Limited interpretation

Does not address the "value" of criticism

Wrong balance

Body 1

P: Average

E: Brief and vague (Depth)

E: A few examples were shown (Breadth)

R: Did not answer the question (Precision)

Body 2

P: Inaccurate point (Accuracy and relevance)

E: Unclear (Precision and accuracy)

E: General examples given (Breadth)

R: Weak response (Depth)

Body 3

P: Weak point (Relevance)

E: Weak (Depth)

E: No examples (Breadth)

R: Vague (Relevance)

Conclusion:

Bad question choice

Lack of points, arguments and examples