Sec 3 IHC SBQ Revision Paper 3 – Bonding Singapore Suggested Answers 1(a) L1 No source reference / details taken from the source. 1m L2 Inference(s), unsupported Award 2m for 1 inference unsupported and 3m for 2 inferences unsupported 2-3m L3 Message: content of source, supported Award 3m for 1 weak inference supported; Award 4m for 1 strong inference supported. OR for 2 inferences supported 3-4m L4 Motive & Outcome: To convince/ persuade? To mock/criticise? Any sarcasm involved? Award 4m for a weak answer. Award 5m for a more developed answer with outcome. 4-5m *if answers do not provide any evidence = drop to L2/L3 Eg. The Senior Minister wanted to remind bright young Singaporeans about their duty to return after studying abroad to serve the community who are not as fortunate as them by sharing with them the situation during his student days when those who were educated “felt a keen sense of obligation to those who weren’t”. (Weak motive) OR *Stronger answer The Senior Minister wanted to warn this group of bright overseas educated Singaporeans of the dire consequences for Singapore if they chose to remain abroad because of their “English fluency” and “high demand worldwide” saying that if they did so “ Singapore [would be] finished”. He said this to try and stem the outflow of young Singaporeans out of the country by convincing them that it was their duty to return just like those who did in his student days to serve those less fortunate than themselves. (b) L1 Answers based on provenance/ source type/ lifts from source / failed comparison 1-2m L2 Identifies similarities/differences based on source content/ superficial comparison Award 2m for at least 1 unsupported similarity/difference 2-3m L3 Supports similarities /differences based on source content Award 4m for one weak (sound) similarity/difference Award 5m for at least one strong (sound) similarity/difference/ 2 weak comparisons Award 6m for two strong comparisons 4-6m *L4 L3 and purpose explained 5-6m 1|P a g e Eg. They are different in the reasons why Singaporeans remain in Singapore. The woman in Source B is staying due to material possessions, whereas in Source C, the shop-owner indicates it is due to other commitments like family. From Source B, it states that “If I owned a condo and a car someplace else, how would I be able to show them off to my friends?” indicating that she is concerned about her reputation and material possessions. However in Source C, the shop-owner stated that he “never wants to live where [his] children cannot visit their grandmother every week” showing that he was more concerned about family ties and thus would not leave Singapore because of that. The sources are similar in showing that given a choice, Singaporeans would not emigrate. The woman in Source B says that she will not be able to enjoy showing off her condo and car if she lived someplace else. Therefore if she emigrated, she would not be able to show off these possessions as most people in other countries would be able to afford the same. The shop owner in Source C says that his children would not be able to enjoy the privilege of “visit[ing] their grandmother every week” if they emigrated. Therefore both sources show that living in Singapore means being able to do things that you would not be able to do elsewhere. *Since this question is only worth 6 marks and purpose is not easily discernible, one similarity and one difference supported should earn you the full marks. Purpose = similar *Both indicate their desire to live in Singapore Source B Source C By Singaporeans, for Singaporeans M – convince Singaporeans to remain in Singapore (not to emigrate) due to the benefits obtainable by staying in Singapore (either tangible or intangible benefits) O – get them to remain in Singapore 2|P a g e