Leave your doubts, arguments here.
Dear Professor Shaun,
The four questions bellow are the ones I would like for you to further explain the reasoning behind the Gabarito. I have included my viewpoint in each of them as well as supporting evidence form the text (except for the last one) and external sources, such as a dictionary.
1.3 - Question: “The protectionism practised by Parliament is often unjustified to generate revenue and imposes drawbacks on it population”
Section of the text - “Many circumstances, however, combined to render the use of this power by Parliament less obvious than it had been when exercised by the sovereign, but chiefly the fact that protection was usually granted by imposing high duties, often in their effect quite prohibitory, under the plea of providing revenue for the state”
This section suggests that it was justified as a way to generate revenue. In my venue, generating revenue to the state is a just cause, making it a decent justification for why protectionism is used. Although the author later gives a “great reason”, explaining why protectionism is wrong and prejudicial to the populace, it does not take anything out of the just reason of providing revenue to the state. My belief is that whether the reason of providing revenue to the state is the true reason or not does not make it unjustified.
1.4 - Question: “The article implies that the eventual abandonment of the monopolistic system against economic injustices will benefit all”
As define by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (Monopoly Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster) Monopoly means:
- Exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
- Exclusive possession or control
- A commodity controlled by one party
- One that has a monopoly
Section of the text - “to do for a number of men what the sovereign had before done for single men, would, to the remaining portion of the community, be just as prejudicial as the abuses against which they had struggled”
From reading this passage it is my understanding that the monopolistic system was already abandoned and replaced with an oligopolistic one. As a result, an “eventual abandonment"
cannot happen, as it has already been abandoned, making the question wrong.
In my view the article implies that the eventual abandonment of the OLIGOPOLISTIC system against economic injustices will benefit all.
5.4 - Question: “The word ‘savvy’ refers to the shrewd technical advancement of the studios”
As define by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (Savvy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster) Savvy means:
- Having or showing perception, comprehension, or shrewdness especially in practical matters
- Practical know-how
Therefore in the case of a gaming firm that deals with a foreign country and wants to by-pass regulation, my understanding of savvy mean shrewd technical advancement of the studios, as they have acquired more technical legal knowledge to by-pass the regulations of China, such as replacing Skeletons with Zombies, which may be seen as a loop-hole to allow their games to be release in China without much change. In other words, their practical know-how of legal matters make them more knowledgeable of the technicalities, which means that they are more advanced in technical knowledge, making the question Correct.
6.2 - Question: “Upon receiving his death sentence, the narrator swoons, losing consciousness”
Sir, this one is fairly hard to argue, as it is a poetic text that can be interpreted in numerous forms. However, my understanding is that he slowly lost his senses, but it was never clear that he lost his consciousness. I have read this text before, so my understanding of it is definitely affected by the knowledge of what comes after, which is the fact that he did not fully lose his consciousness. I do not know how to argue from the text that some conscience still remains, as I believe it is up for interpretation, but the beginning of the next paragraph, which is not in the extract, says that “I had swooned; but still will not say that all of consciousness was lost. What of it there remained I will not attempt to define, or even to describe;” In my opinion this makes the question above inherently false, as if in the complete text the narrator did not lose consciousness it would be wrong to assume that he did in the extract.
I apologise for going “off-text” but considering that the extract is form a Text I have read and external knowledge affected my answer it was the only way I could explain the reasoning behind my answer
Continuing with apologies, sorry for the long text above. I am excited to see what you think of the reasons stated and whether or not any of the “official answers” in the Gabarito will change. It was a lovely class today and I look forward to seeing you next week. Moreover, if any of my explanations above is unclear please tell me and I can further clarify my point of view.
Thanks Artur. I will try and answer these in class as it will help everyone.
Dear Professor Shaun,
Regarding the explanations given in lesson, I still have some further questions and would much appreciate for your explanations. I understand that I am wrong, but I would like to understand why, as I see it as the only way to learn it for the future.
Question 1.3, In lesson you tackled mostly the second part of the question ("imposes drawbacks on it population”). I understand your explanation and agree with everything said. However, I still have a question regarding the first part, which you claimed was not entirely relevant. Why is it not relevant? And how is it unjustified?
Question 1.4, We argued the same point, I apologise, as I said I did not find the slides to double check. They are still not on the website.
Question 5.4, How does it not refers to technical knowledge?
Question 6.2, How is he unconsciousness, in your explanation you mentioned that he lost his senses, in my view that does not show unconsciousness. For example, a person under local anesthesia loses his sense but is still conscious, the brain is still operating. I know I overthink the questions, but in my view it does not make sense for him to have lost his consciousness if the original text says he did not.
I want to take a moment to clarify a few things regarding our recent discussions. I understand that there might be some differences in our perspectives, and I genuinely appreciate your commitment to understanding the material fully.
As I mentioned in our last class, I have reviewed the answers thoroughly, including checking with colleagues and AI, and I stand by the conclusions. For example, with question 6.2, I realize that it may not seem clear to you, but based on all the resources and checks, the answer is correct. I approach these situations with humility and always verify when there’s a possibility I could be wrong.
I believe it’s essential to accept that, after thorough consideration, this is the correct interpretation. Constantly revisiting the same issues can be time-consuming and detracts from our ability to focus on new material. I’ve already addressed your concerns multiple times, both in class and in our individual discussions.
Hello Artur
Regarding your assumptions about me during class, I must admit that I was a bit surprised. In my over 30 years of teaching experience in Brazil, I haven’t encountered such accusations before. I would appreciate it if we could maintain a respectful and constructive dialogue moving forward.
Please take this feedback as part of your learning journey, and let’s move forward. Our time together is valuable, and I’m here to support you, but it’s important that we use our time wisely and help you pass what is one of the most difficult exams not just in English, but in the world.
Time to move on. 