Humanities SBCS SKILLS

Analysis of Political Cartoons E.g. Q.N: Why was this cartoon published? Common techniques: ❖ Analogy: Comparison between two unlike things that share some characteristics. This is usually done with complex issues that might be difficult for some people to understand. ❖ Irony: Authors use irony to show the difference between the ways things are and the way things should be. Cartoonists often use irony to express their opinion on issues. ❖ Symbolism: The use of simple objects/symbols to express larger ideas. ❖ Labelling: refers to a brief phrase, caption or sign used to describe an object, person or place. ❖ Exaggeration: Sometimes cartoonists overdo, or exaggerate, the physical characteristics of people or things in order to make a point ☆ Common for artists to use more than one of these!! Structure: 1. 3A + M (action word, audience, anticipated outcome and message) 2. Evi. On msg. + Expl. 3. Context(what was happening at the time, what was audience thinking, feeling, doing) 4. Change in mindset 5. Link to audience carrying out anticipated outcome Approve/Support E.g. Q.N: Does cartoonist approve of the govt? / Is the cartoonist a supporter of the government? Structure: 1. Ans. QN + reason (use portayal & inference) 2. Evi. & Expl. 3. Portrayal + thus link back to reason 1

QR’s SS Notes Inference with purpose CANNOT LIFT FROM SOURCE FOR INF. (W/ OR W/O MSG, MESSAGE) E.g of questions: why _____publish/make this statement? What you need: ● 3A + M (action word, audience, anticipated outcome and message) ● Inference with evidence ● Context (what was happening at the time, what was audience thinking, feeling, doing) ● Cite anticipated outcome based on context 3A+M Do’s and Don’ts Action word: use critcise/convince Don’t use show, say, tell Audience: be specific!!!!: international community, sgreans, govt Don’t use public, everyone, people Anticipated outcome: must be a change in behaviour after reading the source Don’t use: support, help, trust, feel, doubt Message: what is the source trying to say? 2

QR’s SS Notes Structure: Point 1. Action word 2. Audience 3. Anticipated Outcome 4. Message Thing was published cause author wants criticize/convince audience that message so audience would anticipated outcome Evi. This is evident in “quote” Exp. (What does Evi. Show?) How does evidence support the message? Context What happening at that time(whem source publicated)? What audience think/do/feel? Link ● Mindset change ● Audience ● Anticipated outcome Hence, after reading source , audience would realise smth and change mindset , Thus, audience will anticipated outcome. 3

QR’s SS Notes Comparison Example QNs: No common criteria: How similar/diff. Are the sources?[1s1d] In what way are sources similar/different? [2s2d] Do sources agree with one another? ( 2 side, no need tone/purpose) How far S.A> agree with S.B?( 2 side, no need tone/purpose) Yes given common criteria: study source a n b. How similar are they about issue? Area of Comparison Positive Adj. Negative Adj. Ways in which parties involved are portrayed as *[will revisit in portrayal] Kind, Humane, Caring Defensive Capable Heroic Cruel Aggressive Incapable Cowardly Policies Beneficial Effective Fair Popular Successful Practical/feasible Non-beneficial Ineffective Bias/unfair Unpopular Unsuccessful Impractical Groups/govt Capable Reasonable Powerful Incapable Unreasonable Weak Manner in which a problem is settled Justifiable Effective Unjustifiable Ineffective 4

QR’s SS Notes Structure of comparison: 1. Stand + comparison criterion (different in terms of what) 2. Specific points (what does each source suggest)*points must be opposite 3. Evi. + Expl. For each source. Can also compare in terms of purpose (follow inference w purpose format) or tone (use of critical/supportive words to portray thing in bad/good light *link to portrayal*) Evaluation The “study all sources” question Steps Descriptor Suggested Techniques 1. Analyse assertion Focus word? Further impacts/rationale? E.g. necessary/unnecessary beneficial/detrimentaleffective/ineffective Highlight focus word. Ask: what must source say to support/refute assertion? 2. Identify & annotate sources Differentiate supporting/refuting sources Use ticks n crosses, annotate inference and underline evidence. 3. Analyse sources’ content At least 3(but do 4 instead) sources, represent both sides of assertion. ● Stand + reason ● Evi. + Expl. ● Expl. Further rationale/impacts ● Link back to stand Use basic inference strategy (P,E,E,Further rationale/impact) E.g. source supports/opposes assertion as source says/according to the source,…. 4. Critical Analyse reliability Does the source have 5

QR’s SS Notes analysis of source (bonus +2) of source Can use CK (CR to BI, “from what I know…” to make a final stand) Or Balanced Conclusion (both sides are valid and reasonable any hidden purpose that makes you think it is not credible? Is there anything in the source content that makes you doubt it? such as exaggeration, sweeping statements.etc. Does the source present a balanced viewpoint that enhances its reliability? Structure: I agree/disagree with assertion as [source msg], evi. Expl. then x4. Proving a Claim E.g. Qn: Does source A prove that [claim]? Tips: ➢ NEVER change the claim ➢ No need infer if reasons can be clearly derived from source ➢ Can cross-refer to BI ➢ Reasons in main source & CR source must be the same ➢ There is a correct way to conclude CR Structure[if given [claim] in qn: source proves/disproves [claim] because[reason]→ evi. + Expl. →link back to reason & claim→ CR to another source/BI that supports source → evi. + Expl. →link back to reason & claim Two Sources Proving E.g. Qn: Does source A prove source B wrong/right? Many many possibilities… Prove→ if reliable yes prove, if unreliable no prove Wrong→both sources diff msg. Right→ both sources same msg. Comparison strat[pass the qn] structure: Ans. qn + state both sources’ messages [if same can combine (both sources say…)], A 6

QR’s SS Notes evi. + expl. → B evi. + expl. → since A contradicts/support B, [repeat your stance] Reliability start [more complete] structure: Ans. qn + state both sources msgs→ provenance analysis→ evi + expl. 1st source msg→ any reliability analysis [C/M, 1sided, portrayal, exaggeration etc.] → CR S.D proves S.E correct (show connection between 2/3 sources in question) → agree (rationale) → point CR to S.F,S.F supports S.D. reliable in proving F correct. If Unreliable. Cannot prove correct. Reliability (Multi-part) General structure: 1. Stand + msg 2. Provenance 3. Evi, support + expl. Msg 4. C/M and/or 1sided 5. ✮ C.R Complete ans: have both C/M and 1side