Whilst I agree the question paper is vague and highly subject in the responses it requests, it does, nevertheless, make quite clear that the candidate is required to demonstrate that they have read and understood the article. Unfortunately, without the original article, and the candidate’s actual answer paper,it’s not possible to say to what extent this was achieved.
I maintain, simply offering up one’s own opinion on gender issues does not answer the question.
From the assignment I feel safe in assuming the student’s reaction. The key trigger being critical thinking. That would likely be seen by her as an attack meant to change the way she thinks. An attack on her beliefs.
Perhaps she is too afraid to engage in critical thinking. To many people like this, things are black and white. They fail to see balance. They also fail to realize that they have not been given the right to judge others. As a result, they go on the defense rather than engaging in reasonableness.
I just hope she does not plan on working in the field of psychology. However, there is a surge in the idea of conversion therapy. A truly disastrous form of conversion that is trying to make a return.
I guess I don’t know that much about Oklahoma… Maybe If I watch the musical I might be a bit more informed?
Perhaps. Tangled love affairs, dreams under the influence of opiates, and shotgun weddings are all acceptable as long as everyone is straight.
The first time I read the question paper, I thought it was vague and subjective. Then I read it again, and started to suspect somethimg. By my third reading, I was convinced. I think this question paper has been deliberately structured to prevent candidates from using AI to answer it. That’s why a summary is not acceptable. That’s why candidates are required to answer in terms that are not referred to in the origimal text.
Did you guys have these essay writing/discussion exercises in school, too? I don’t know the terminology in English.
You get a question about either a free-form topic or a given article. The main part is not “do I agree with the article/topic”, but “let’s see what exactly is the claim/argument here.”
The task can be a yes/no question or a “Wh…” question.
For example, if the wh- question is “During which hours of the day should teenagers be blocked from the internet?”, then “Clickbait should be blocked, not people!” would not be a valid main part of the essay – but it could still be the final line.
My point is, we practiced saying e.g. “Christians believe X”, “BMW drivers claim Y”, “PvP players want Z”, so we were able to talk about things that we disagree with. Being aware of the pros and cons doesn’t turn me into a Christian/BMW driver/PvPer/etc. And I still “get the last word” in the conclusion part.
So the student could have written “these authors claim X using arguments from the domains of Y and Z” (because that’s, as requested, not a summary, instead, it’s a classification), and in the reaction part in the end, she could still have written “My personal reaction to these points is…, they did not consider…” Then the teacher would have to give more than 0 points for at least completing the task.
It’s a long time since I was in school. You’re talking about the 1950s. I imagine things have changed a bit since then. We used to have a thing called “comprehension” where we would read a text, then answer questions based on our understanding of it - but the questions were very factual and directive.
Questions would be along the lines of “What does the author state to be the main agricultural crop of the Windward Islands?”* Rather than “Do you think the Windward Islands should be a democracy?”. There was an old-fashioned expectation that students should be acquainted with the facts, before they could hold valid opinions.
* It was bananas. From 1958, I still remember. Education works.
That could be helpful when asking, are the Windward Islands being affected by climate change? Has it damaged the banana crops to the point of damaging the local economy? Are the islands flooding at every high tide? Is disease on the rise due to the frequency of flooding?
To which any sane T supporter would reply, the idea that the climate is changing is a woke idea that drives away business investments and harms the local economy. The idea the bananas are diseased and crops are failing is a lie designed to drive fear. The diseases experienced by the locals are due to food coloring the woke supporters have pumped into the bananas to give them that yellow color.
We will remove the coloring, ban the phrase climate change and put AI in control of the local sea wall because it is in disrepair and should be rebuilt and painted gold.
It will be beautiful and the economy will thrive.
Speaking of the T method…
This just hits funnier after blocking europeans for fighting against misinformation. Meanwhile, theyre fighting against information.
Im also anxious about a generation that never learned how to torrent suddenly all rushing to get limewire and learning some hard lessons. My memory of limewire was it was heavily compromised by trojan files and sadists renaming snuff films with your favourite movie titles 
Here’s an idea. Who’s up to the challenge?
Reality hasn’t stopped him before but you gotta keep hoping it will.
It also only dawned on me earlier, this was his first year of the second term. It feels like we’ve experienced three from all the upheaval.
Hang in there, 'Murricans 
Yes. This reality hits new each time it comes around. Not yet a full year.
This is one of those things where I say, this is fake…right?
This is how it begins…
I wanted to think so but after reading the article, & viewing the clip it seems its a real thing. I guess it’s not that surprising given how long ago it was that Boston Dynamics first revealed their creations. I figured it wouldn’t take long for cheaper ‘copies’ to get mass produced.
I got some creepy movie vibes from the clip: Star Wars, I-Robot, Chappie,
Thankfully Will Smith is still with us so he should take care of any issues that arise. Right? Right?!?!
And Chappie no do crimes so we’re good there. Cant promise Die Antwort wont burn the ears off us though.
I played Detroit Become Human so I’m prepared…right?
Given the ‘three rules’ will be completely ignored in real life, I’d imagine the I-robot scene where Will shoots a couple of robots at the factory, to draw out Sonny, would end very badly for Mr Smith. I think Willy might find himself get an almighty swarm-of-droids bitch-slapping.
Asimov’s three rules also wouldn’t literally work IRL. (I don’t think he claimed they would, he just wanted to emphasise that rules will be needed.) Simply because they are too ambiguous and vague. If they could be enforced (which they probably can’t) then it would immediately turn into a game to abuse them…
As in, set up a situation where the robot gets a seemingly harmless command during which he hurries to help a seemingly incapacitated human which results in an “accident” that indirectly harms the intended victim.
I hope some smart Asian Gamers will find ways to make these border patrols accidentally damage each other. 