HCI C2

Block Test Knowledge and Inquiry 29 June 2009

Candidate’s Name CT Group KI Tutor

5 HWA CHONG INSTITUTION

JC 2 BLOCK TEST 2
2009

10KNOWLEDGE AND INQUIRY 9759/2

PAPER 2 DURATION: 2 HOURS
QUESTION PAPER DATE: 29 June 2009
TIME: 0815-1015

15

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. Write your name, civics group and the name of your KI tutor on all the
20 work you hand in.
2. You may use a soft pencil for any diagrams, graphs or rough working.
3. Do not use paper clips, highlighters, glue, or correction fluid.
4. Write legibly, in dark blue or black pen.
5. Indicate the question you are answering clearly.
25
INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES

1. Answer Question 1 in Section A and any two questions in Section B.

2. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each
30 question.
3. THIS QUESTION PAPER CONSISTS OF 5 PRINTED PAGES.

1
 Section A

35 You must answer Question 1.

In every century, philosophers and artists have supplied definitions of 1

beauty, and thanks to their works, it is possible to reconstruct a history of
aesthetic ideas over time. But this did not happen with ugliness. Most of the
time, ugliness has been defined as the opposite of beauty. But almost no
one ever devoted a treatise of any length to it. 5

A history of ugliness certainly shares some common characteristics with a

history of beauty. First, we can only assume that the tastes of ordinary
people corresponded in some way with the tastes of the artists of their day. If
a visitor from space went into a gallery of contemporary art, and if he saw
women's faces painted by Picasso and heard onlookers describing them as 10
"beautiful," he might get the mistaken idea that in everyday life the men of
our time find female creatures with faces like those painted by Picasso
beautiful and desirable. But our visitor from space might modify his opinion
on watching a fashion show or the Miss Universe contest, in which he would
witness the celebration of other models of beauty. 15

Unfortunately, when revisiting times long past, this is what we cannot do –

either in relation to beauty or ugliness – because all that is left to us of those
periods are works of art. We have no theoretical texts to tell us if these
artworks were intended to cause aesthetic delight, holy fear or hilarity. To a
Westerner, an African ritual mask might seem hair-raising -- but for a native 20
it might represent a benevolent divinity. Conversely, believers in a non-
European religion might be disgusted by the image of Christ scourged,
bleeding and humiliated, yet this apparent corporeal ugliness might arouse
sympathy and emotion in a Christian.

In the Middle Ages, James of Vitry, in praising the beauty of all the divine 25
works, admitted that "probably the Cyclopes, who have only one eye, are
amazed by those who have two of them, just as we marvel both at them and
at creatures with three eyes." Centuries later, this was echoed by Voltaire (in
his "Philosophical Dictionary"): "Ask a toad what beauty is, true beauty. ... He
will tell you that it consists of his mate, with her two fine round eyes 30
protruding from her small head, her broad flat throat, her yellow belly and
brown back. ... Ask the devil: He will tell you that beauty is a pair of horns,
four claws and a tail."

Attributions of beauty or ugliness are often due not to aesthetic but to

sociopolitical criteria. There is a passage in which Karl Marx points out how 35
money may compensate for ugliness: "As money has the property of being
able to buy anything, to take possession of all objects, it is therefore the
preeminent object worth having. ... The extent of my power is as great as the
power of the money I possess. ... What I am and what I can do is therefore
not determined by my individuality in the slightest. I am ugly, but I can buy 40
myself the most beautiful of women. Hence I am not ugly, since the effect of
ugliness, its discouraging power, is annulled by money."

2
 Can ugliness continue to be defined simply as the opposite of beauty? Can a
history of ugliness be seen as the symmetrical foil of a history of beauty? We
ought to use caution in considering the history of ugliness. We also should 45
consider how right the witches were -- if indeed they were right -- when, in
the first act of "Macbeth," they cry, "Fair is foul and foul is fair." 47

(Adapted from What's ugly? by Umberto Eco)

5Explain the author’s claims and conclusions about the nature of aesthetics
and beauty. Evaluate his reasoning, and challenge or support it with
arguments of your own.
[30]

3
10 Section B

Answer two questions.

2. The incomes of top-earners have reached levels which are excessive.

15 From 1945 to 1975, incomes grew at the same rate of 3% annually, but
since 1975, the rich have become even richer. The top 1% of earners now
earn 3 times as much as the top 1% did in 1975. Today, executives of the
largest American corporations earn more than 500 times as much as the
average American worker, as opposed to 42 times as much in 1985. In
20 the UK, executives have seen their salaries increase by 92% in the past 9
years, while average workers’ wages have only kept up with inflation. The
salaries earned by these top executives are iniquitous and unfair,
especially considering that it is the average worker who does most of the
work. Executives don’t even break a sweat in their daily work, while
25 workers often have dangerous, tiring, and demeaning tasks to do. For all
these reasons, it is time to reduce the income-gap between executives
and ordinary workers.

Critically assess the reasoning in this argument explaining why you do or

30 do not accept its conclusion.
[15 marks]

3. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer:

Violent crime rates fall. University of California professors Gordon Dahl
35 and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends
when there were more violent movies (such as “Hannibal”) and weekends
when there were more non-violent movies (such as “Wallace and Gromit:
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit”) and found that more violence on the
screen means less violence in the streets. This is probably because
40 violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the
movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see “Hannibal”
than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through “Wallace &
Gromit”. This is the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop
in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent
45 movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight — the prime movie-going
hours. Admittedly, even after theaters close, crime stays down, though not
by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two
hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer,
with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of
50 morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level, which adds more
support to this conclusion that violent movies reduce violent crime.

Critically assess the reasoning in this argument explaining why you do or

do not accept its conclusion.
55 [15 marks]

4
 4. In 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that human
growth hormone (HGH) may now be prescribed to boost the height of
short, but otherwise normal, children. Specifically, paediatric
60 endocrinologists are permitted to prescribe HGH for children whose
predicted adult height is below 4 feet 11 inches for women and 5 feet 3
inches for men, heights which are 2.25 standard deviations below the
mean American height and constitute about 1.2 percent of the adult
population. It is estimated that some 400,000 American children might fit
65 within these new medical guidelines. While HGH has been used for
decades to treat children who are growth hormone deficient, the FDA
ruling expanded the permissible use of HGH to children who don't have a
medically recognized cause for their short stature. It is widely believed
that very short people in the United States experience discrimination over
70 the course of their lives, from bullying on the school playgrounds to being
passed over for job promotions. Even if this were not true, we should let
people attempt to achieve the height they would prefer to be. As it is,
people already resort to all kinds of body modifications, ranging from hair
dying and hair transplants to teeth capping, tummy tucks, up to gender
75 reassignment, to attain their preferred appearance, so there is no reason
to prevent them from adjusting their height.

Critically assess the reasoning in this argument explaining why you do or

80 do not accept its conclusion.
[15 marks]

85
END OF PAPER

5 5
 Answer Scheme

90 Q2

Conclusion: “it is time to reduce the income-gap between executives

and ordinary workers”

95 Analysis of Argument

P1: “From 1945 to 1975, incomes grew at the same rate of 3% annually, but
since 1975, the rich have become even richer”
P2: “The top 1% of earners now earn 3 times as much as the top 1% did in
1001975”
P3: “Today, executives of the largest American corporations earn more than
500 times as much as the average American worker, as opposed to 42 times
as much in 1985.”
P4: “In the UK, executives have seen their salaries increase by 92% in the
105past 9 years, while average workers’ wages have only kept up with inflation.”

leading to:

Sub-Conclusion 1: “The incomes of top-earners have reached levels which

110are excessive.”

P5: “Executives don’t even break a sweat in their daily work, while workers
often have dangerous, tiring, and demeaning tasks to do.”

115leading to:

Sub-Conclusion 2: “The salaries earned by these top executives are

iniquitous and unfair, especially considering that it is the average worker who
does most of the work.”
120
Note: it doesn’t really matter how the premises are ordered: as long as the
students recognizes all of them lead to the sub-conclusions, and to the
conclusion, accept the analysis.

125Conclusion: For all these reasons, it is time to reduce the income-gap

between executives and ordinary workers.

130

135

6
 1 2 3 4 5

140 SC
SC 2
1

C
145

Evaluation

150 • Generally a reasonable argument, but with some assumptions

A. “Excessive” (SC 1) has to be determined relative to something – in this
case, one can only reasonably assess wages as excessive in
comparison with the contribution of the worker to the company, and this
has not been established by the author (except an attempt in P5: see
155 below). Weaker answers will take a simplistic approach and argue
that this means that wages of executives are not excessive: better
answers will make a more balanced appraisal and point out that
this just means that we can’t determine whether it is excessive,
without necessarily proving it one way or the other. Answers
160 could go on to speculate as to what is the likely case, but unless
this speculation is highly plausible (and explained as such), this
would not lead to additional credit.
B. In P5, the author assumes that the measure of a worker’s contribution
to the company should be based solely on how “dangerous, tiring and
165 demeaning” their tasks are: while acknowledging this should be part of
the consideration for remuneration, we should also consider other
things, such as the worker’s contribution to the profits of the company.
It is possible that executives, while performing tasks which are not
tiring, might contribute more in terms of profits. In other words whether
170 workers do “most of the work” is a measure of quantity, whereas we
should also take into account quality. It could be argued that there is
an implication (via the language) that executives are “lazy”. Better
answers will acknowledge that there is a point here, but critique
the lack of a complete appraisal of all the relevant factors: weaker
175 answers will take a simplistic approach and refute how
“dangerous, tiring and demeaning” the work is as being
irrelevant. Addendum: Scripts which insert an economic explanation
as a counter-argument for why executives should be paid more should
be rewarded only insofar as they use that economic explanation as
180 part of a critique of the argument: beyond that point, where the detailed
description of the demand and supply economics behind wage pricing
becomes explained for its own sake, no credit should be awarded.
Merely describing in detail “this is how the economy works in
determining the wages of executives” does not answer the question
185 why and whether they should be, which is the point of the claims made
by the author.

7
 C. Students should recognize that the figures, if true (see next point), do
imply a great inequity of wages: while recognizing that whether a
disparity of “500 times” is iniquitous is subjective, we can reasonably
190 say that it does seem very unfair. Award marks accordingly to any
script that argues convincingly either way.
D. Stock critiques of the statistics (e.g. questioning their methodology,
sample size, accuracy etc) are always possible, but don’t demonstrate
much in the way of critical thinking. Better critiques will be balanced
195 and recognize the strengths that do exist. Do not award credit
unless persuasively and convincingly argued.

8
 Q3

Conclusion: “violent movies reduce violent crime.”

200
Analysis of argument

P1: “the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people
watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight — the prime
205movie-going hours.”
P2: “after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level”

leading to

210SC1: “more violence on the screen means less violence in the streets”,
“because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the
movies, they're not out causing mischief.”

refutation of potential counter-example

215
P3: “Admittedly, even after theaters close, crime stays down, though not by
quite as much.”

leading to
220
SC2: Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the
movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering
effects that persist right on through till morning

225Conclusion: “violent movies reduce violent crime”

1 2 3

230
SC
1 SC
2

235
C

240 Evaluation
A. This argument depends on the proof of causality from a correlation.
The variation in crime rates could be causally linked to other factors,
and thus we need to know if the study accounted for these other
factors: for example, it is possible that whether a particular weekend
245 has more or less violent movies is determined (caused) by another
factor, such as movie studio’s decisions (e.g. Halloween Weekend

9
 seems a good candidate for horror movies, while Valentine’s Day
weekend seems logical for romantic comedies, and Children’s Day for
“Wallace and Gromit”) and that this third factor also determines
250 violence in some way (increased crime on Halloween might be
plausible, while even the most hardened criminals might be spending a
romantic evening with their loved ones on Valentine’s Day and thus be
unable to commit crime). Another plausible alternative is that popular
movies (regardless of whether violent or comedic) take more people,
255 victim or criminal, off the streets, making crime less certain anyway.
Either way, the key point to make is that the causality is uncertain, not
that there is necessarily no causality, or that the alternative
explanation is better than the one offered: just as we cannot be
certain the author’s causal explanation is correct, we probably
260 cannot be certain that our alternative ones are. Award credit for
recognizing this: award further credit for explanation, with greater
credit for better explanations. Better scripts will take a more
nuanced approach, and recognize that arguing that we cannot
prove causality is not the same as proving that there is no
265 causality. Addenda: Another general critique could be “observer bias /
selection bias” - that if the researchers were looking to find evidence to
support their thesis, they might have selected data that supported it.
B. On a similar note, there are alternative explanations for a drop in crime
rate between 6pm and midnight: e.g. this might reflect a preference for
270 criminals to commit crimes after midnight, and the low crime rates in
the morning simply reflect the suppressive effect of daylight. Award
credit for recognizing that alternative explanations exist (that the
explanation given by the writer is only one possible one, and
there is no reasoning given to show why is necessarily is the
275 most likely one): award additional credit for counter-examples to
show how alternative explanations, with amount of credit rated to
how plausible the counter-example is. Less credit should be
awarded for simply stating “this is not plausible”, with no, or
unconvincing, explanations and reasons given.
280 C. One can reasonably question whether a 2% drop in crime is significant:
this can only be assessed when one knows what the standard
deviation of crime from the mean is. Other possible critiques relate to
the sample size used, as well as standard critiques about the methods
used by the researchers. Award credit for recognizing this: better
285 answers will recognize that this critique doesn’t prove that the
drop is insignificant, just that the argument does not make the
significance clear. Weaker scripts will take a simplistic approach
and argue that this proves a lack of significance, or use a stock
critique of the statistics and methods.
290 D. Students could question the definition of a “violent” and “non-violent”
movie and crime: whilst the two examples given seem clear, there are
plenty of other examples of movies which would defy categorization –
how does one rate cartoon violence, for example? To a lesser extent,
one could also question whether consensus exists on what a violent
295 crime is (though to be fair, there is a reasonable consensus). Award
credit for recognizing this problem with the argument: award less

10 10
 for simplistic responses and/or extreme arguments that suggest
this implies the argument is completely wrecked by this one error:
award more credit for balanced responses that recognize that this
300 is in some ways a procedural problem (once you settle on a
reasonable definition of “violent movie”, the argument still
stands, and settling on a reasonable definition is not inherently
difficult).
E. While it seems a reasonable assumption that violent criminals prefer
305 violent movies, there’s nothing to show that they don’t prefer other
genres as well: why wouldn’t they need a laugh now and again, and if
so, shouldn’t the argument be that popular movies reduce violent
crimes in general, since they get everybody off the streets? Award
credit for recognizing this assumption: again, balanced responses
310 will get more credit.
F. False dilemma: one could argue that the writer assumes that criminals
have only two courses available on a weekend – crime, under the
influence of alcohol, or watching a movie. This is clearly not the case.
There is also a potential contradiction in the assumptions concerning
315 criminals – are they rational beings capable of a complex hierarchy of
choices whether to commit a crime (“Hannibal” > Robbery > “Wallace
and Gromit”) or do they commit crimes on drunken impulse?
(However, to be fair, it’s quite clear that these two can co-exist: the
same criminal can make rational choices up to the point s/he gets
320 drunk, after which they act on impulse).

11
 Q4

325Conclusion: We should allow the prescription of HGH to boost the

height of short (but not abnormal) children

P1: “very short people in the United States experience discrimination over the
course of their lives”
330P2: “we should let people attempt to achieve the height they would prefer to
be.”
P3: “As it is, people already resort to all kinds of body modifications, ranging
from hair dying and hair transplants to teeth capping, tummy tucks, up to
gender reassignment, to attain their preferred appearance …”
335
leading to

SC1: “… so there is no reason to prevent them from adjusting their height.”

340P4: “endocrinologists are permitted to prescribe HGH for children whose

predicted adult height is […] 2.25 standard deviations below the mean
American height and constitute about 1.2 percent of the adult population
(potentially 400,000 children)” [I believe this premise implies a sub-conclusion,
which is that “the method of prescribing HGH will be regulated according to
345objective standards in a manner which will ensure that it will not be abused by
people who don’t need it”: award credit for recognising this]

Conclusion: We should allow the prescription of HGH to boost the height of

short (but not abnormal) children
350

1 2 3 4

355
SC
SC 2
1
360
C
Evaluation
A. Short is relative: if “very short people” experience discrimination, then
365 after this group receives HGH treatment, another group will then
become “very short” in comparison. Allowing therapeutic HGH
treatment does not eliminate discrimination, but merely shifts it to
another group, therefore P1 is not addressed by the conclusion.
Award credit (in increasing amounts) for (a) recognizing that “very
370 short” is a relative, not absolute measurement (b) explaining the
therefore there will always be very short people and (c)

12
 concluding that a key aim of this policy, which is the conclusion
that this will help short people, therefore is not achieved.
B. Students might comment that the number of people helped by this is
375 small: this depends on whether we consider 400,000 people / 1.2% of
the population a significant enough number. At the very least, we can
point out that it is not evident that this number is meaningful. Award
more credit for answers which state this, and less for answers
which try to argue that it is not significant.
380 C. Some scripts might argue that since the shortness is “natural”, there is
no reason to correct it (“children who don't have a medically
recognized cause for their short stature”): this runs up against the
argument of harm (caused by discrimination)
D. In dealing with the argument from precedent (i.e. that we already allow
385 other forms of body modification), good responses will note that the
examples of body modification cited as precedents are all performed
on consenting adults: this particular case of HGH is (and has to be)
performed on children, and it is generally recognized by society that
children are less fit (intellectually and emotionally) to make a
390 consenting, informed decision. Further more, it should be noted that
some of the examples of body modification used are different from
HGH in that they are reversible (tattoos can be removed, hair can be
dyed) while HGH treatment is not, and therefore they do not apply as
comparisons (note however that two of the examples are irreversible:
395 tummy tucks and gender re-assignment surgery, so this critique is not
that strong). Award credit for recognizing this.
E. Lastly, students may comment on the implications: allowing HGH
treatment might set the precedent for other treatments, with potentially
disturbing implications for society. A possible approach is to argue that
400 using HGH to “treat” the problem of discrimination masks the real
problem, i.e. the attitudes of people, and detracts from other policies
(such as public education programmes) that deal with this root cause.
It should also be noted that the argument is based on the predicted
adult heights, and predicted benefits of HGH therapy, with all the
405 attendant problems of prediction. Finally, some might point out that the
author has failed to inform us of the potential side-effects of HGH:
however, since HGH has been used for a long period of time, it is
plausible that the side-effects are well-known, or accounted for. Credit
should awarded according to how reasonable, plausible, and
410 persuasive the potential implications are.

13