Source-Based Skills

INFERENCE WITH NO PURPOSE

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - What is the message of this source?

- What does the source tell me?
- What does the source show..?
- Why do you think..?
- What is the attitude of the cartoonist towards..?
- Do you think the cartoonist is supportive of…?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. CONTEXT & ISSUE:​ answer the main question (supportive/ unsupportive/
critical/ condemning/ angry/ disapproving)
2. AUTHOR’S PERSPECTIVE:​ negative/ positive impact (inconvenient etc)
3. EVIDENCE:​ Consider the context of the Source (emotions etc)
4. FEELINGS OF AUTHOR:​ What is the intended outcome, his explanation of his
stand

INFERENCE WITH PURPOSE

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - Why did the author make this comment?

- Why did the cartoonist publish this?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. 4As + VERB:​ Author + Action (message of the source) + verb (convince,
persuade, encourage, praise, glorify, garner support, influence, warn) +
Audience + Achievement (intended outcome)
2. MESSAGE:​ the circumstance in which the source was published (widely
debated etc)
3. EVIDENCE

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - How similar/ different are sources A and B?

- In what way are Sources A and B similar/ different?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. CONTENT​: basis of comparison + inference + evidence

2. PURPOSE OF AUTHOR/ PERSPECTIVE​: support/ against; 4As + verb
3. TONE/ LANGUAGE:​ biased (first-hand experience/ would rather promote)
because of his identity (married to Englishman)
 INFERENCE WITH JUDGEMENT

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - How far does the speaker support..?

- What does this tell you?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. ANSWER THE QUESTION​: (supports to a certain extent)

2. MESSAGE​ inference + evidence + explanation

*LEVEL 2: based on context

(as the source was published during national day where everyone would be
celebrating the success of Singapore, the author is largely supportive)

*HIGHEST LEVEL: reason for difference in POVs/ publishing

- Personal POV
- Author’s feelings/ tone
- Evidence
(However he is not largely supportive because he merely reiterated the
Government’s perspective besides recognising the benefits. From his personal POV,
he is against/ unsupportive)

RELIABILITY

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - How far does this source prove that..?

- Is Source A reliable in telling us that..?
- Can we believe what Source A says?
- How far can we trust this source?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. CONTEXT:​ message of the source (takes away opportunities etc)

2. CHECK RELIABILITY:

CROSS-REFERENCE:​ to other sources/ background (agrees/ disagrees/

contradicted/ supported)
→ AGENDA: POV, verb, intended outcome

LANGUAGE/ TONE:
(emotional/ biased/ agenda/ exaggeration/ first-hand experience) VS objective and
central language of tone
→ pessimistic, objective, optimistic

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROVENANCE: ​purpose behind his statement etc

→ 4As + verb (eg makes an assumption to portray them in good light such as to
convince people to continue to support..)

TIME/ RELEVANCE:​ article time vs present time (may not be impactful)

 UTILITY

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - How useful is this source as evidence about…

- Is this source useful..

HOW TO ANSWER useful/ not useful based on:

1. CONTENT:​ message + inference + link + support with CR to another source

with the same message
- because reliable, hence useful

2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROVENANCE​: 4As + message

→ significant person: to garner support, influence
→ newspaper: motive because viewed in good light/ did not acknowledge…
- Not useful because agenda/ purpose etc

3. TONE/ LANGUAGE​: biased POV

- Not useful because agenda etc

4. PERSPECTIVE:​ one-sided view

(Though less useful, it is still a useful piece of information as it (published by

someone) which allows us to understand his thoughts on (the issue) )

(Still useful in telling us that (president Obama) is (on the side of law enforcement
agencies) and that (national security is seen as more important than individual
privacy) )

SURPRISE

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - Are you surprised by this source?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. ANSWER QUESTION: ​ state surprised or not

2. CHECK RELIABILITY:

CONTENT AND CONTEXT: ​does the content match with the context of the
situation/the position/nationality of the author (message)
→(not surprised because this source is the same as the others) (surprised because
he contradicted himself)

CROSS-REFERENCE:​ to generally non biased sources (check for reliability:

supports/contradicts)

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PROVENANCE: ​purpose behind his statement etc (4As +

BOC + verb)
→ (because of his position, we would have expected him to.. But he is highly critical..)
 HYBRID

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - How far do you think the author of Source A agrees with the author of Source
B?
- Does Source A make you surprised about the views expressed in Source F?
- How far does Source A show that Source B is wrong?
- Which of these sources are more useful as evidence about…?

HOW TO ANSWER 1. IDENTIFY BASE SOURCE​: read question and decide which source to do
reliability checks on
2. CHECK FOR CONTRADICTION/SUPPORT
- Based on CONTENT: contradicts-surprised, supports-not surprised)
- Based on CROSS REFERENCE: always surprised, 2 against 1)
- Based on CAP: use common sense to decide whether it’s surprising
(status of person etc)

EVALUATE ALL SOURCES

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS - Study all sources

HOW TO ANSWER - Use the MAIN QUESTION to determine if it’s applicable to the source (min 4
sources)

1. STAND​: answer the question

2. MESSAGE:​ inference + evidence
3. LINK

* (+2):

[BALANCED CONCLUSION]
- (issue) will definitely bring about benefits and problems to Singapore.
However, (the problems) are unavoidable hence..
- Difficult to argue because (both) are equally important.. Perhaps more
important to (determine the boundary or the extent of..)

[ANALYSIS SOURCE IN RELATION TO ITS RELIABILITY/ UTILITY/ SUFFICIENCY]

- (PURPOSE: eg CEO of apple has a duty of defending the security of its
products else they will stand to lose business hence they need to advocate
privacy over national security)

[CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE]