UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMAICA

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

Language and Linguistics Division
Academic Writing II Semester 1 2018-2019

The Case Study Test, 1A – Answer Key

QUESTIONS – 22 marks

1. In ONE clear sentence identify the main issue under discussion in this scenario. [1Mark]
The main issue under discussion is whether or not Minister Bradley should resign
given the allegations against him

2. By making reference to TWO features of the critical thinker displayed in the passage,
identify a speaker who displays critical thinking skills. [2 Marks]

Teacher Brown
1. He does not jump to conclusions but comes across as being fair - believes in due
process, innocent until proven guilty; also willing to wait for information before
making a decision
2. Speaks in a problem-solving manner
3. Understands that the issue is not as simple as Limey is making it out to be
4. Shows the ability to apply the process of critical thinking to the issue
5. Asked probing questions and does not merely accept what is said.
6. Provides reasons in support of his position

Elder Myrie
1. He does not jump to conclusions but comes across as being fair - believes that
not all politicians are corrupt.
2. Provides reasons in support of his position

Limey
1. He also asks questions in a problem-solving context
2. He does not merely accept but questions Teacher Brown’s measured reasoning
on the Minister’s resignation.

Award:

• Full marks if student correctly identifies speaker and two characteristics

displayed in the passage.

1
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 • 1.5 marks for naming speaker and 1 characteristic displayed in the passage.

• 0.5 marks for naming speaker only

• ‘0’ should be awarded if a student lists characteristics of the critical thinker

without linking those characteristics to a speaker from the passage.

3. With specific reference to the evidence given in sections 2, 3 and 6 of the passage,
identify and construct the main argument Teacher Brown uses in his attempt to prove that
Minister Bradley should not be relieved of his position. [3 Marks]

Argument: Inductive
Premise- Nothing has really been proven against Minister Bradley/all that exist are
mere allegations.
Premise-There is an ongoing investigation into the allegations against the Minister.
Premise- Minister Bradley is innocent until proven guilty
Premise-Minister Bradley’s name and reputation are at stake
Conclusion :Minister Bradley should not resign/be relieved of his position.

Award:
 0.5 mark for naming the type of argument

 1 mark each for TWO correct premises

 0.5 mark for correctly stating the conclusion

4. Which of the characters in this scenario made good use of logos appeal? Provide TWO
pieces of evidence in support of your response. [2 Marks]

Teacher Brown- He gives a logical inductive argument and some facts (see Ques. 3
above)

Elder Myrie: He uses logical inductive reasoning.

1. All we are hearing about are mere allegations; don’t think that is enough for
him to resign...
2. They are not all the same...you have some who work hard in their constituency
and genuinely care for people

Maas John: He also gives logical inductive reasoning.

1. Several allegations have been made against Minister Bradley.
2. There is public pressure against him still being in parliament.
3. The opposition is against the minister because of the allegations.

Award:

2
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 • 0.5 mark if student correctly identifies speaker who uses logos,

• 0.5 mark if student explains the use of logos; for example that the speaker makes use
of facts/examples etc.

• ‘0’ should be awarded if a student gives information from the passage without
linking evidence to a speaker from the passage.

5. Construct the argument by analogy that Limey used in section 3 of the passage.[3
Marks]

Argument: Analogy

Premise: There was a certain allegation made against Limey that he was cheating on
his wife
Premise: There are allegations against Minister Bradley
Premise: Limey’s wife did not wait to hear anything else and just threw him out
Conclusion: In the same manner that he lost his ‘job’ as husband without his wife
doing further investigations, Minister Bradley should lose his without further
investigations

Award:
 0.5 mark for correctly identifying the argument
 0.5 mark for correctly stating the conclusion
 2 marks for constructing at least two premises which clearly convey a
comparison between Limey’s situation with his wife and Minister Bradley’s
situation that would lead to the conclusion that the outcome of the past
situation is assumed to be similar to the outcome of the present situation.
 Part marks may be awarded for an incomplete argument.

6. State TWO opinions given by any speaker in the scenario. [1 Mark]

Any of the characters can be given here with appropriate statements of opinion
identified; for example:

Mass John:
Minister Bradley should not be in parliament/should resign
Opposition are another set of thief

Limey:
Mass John should be used to scandal by now.
Minister Bradley should not be given special treatment.
Politicians just tell Anancy story to...

3
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 Award half mark each for any two subjective statements uttered by any speaker.
Both opinions do not have to be taken from the same speaker. Award the marks
even if the student does not name the speaker as long as the statements are opinions
given by speakers. DO NOT award the mark for statements not uttered by
speakers.

7. State ONE possible assumption that may be inferred from Limey’s statement towards the
end of section 3: “Go on defend them dirty politicians. You on them payroll or what?” [2
Marks]
That the only reason why Teacher Brown is defending Minister Bradley is because
he has something to gain OR Teacher is biased towards the politicians OR Teacher
Brown has a vested interest in the actions of the politicians.

Award 2 marks for correctly stating any of the assumptions above.

8. Identify and construct the argument that Mass John used in section 4 of the passage,
where he suggested that Minister Bradley should resign on principle. [3 Marks]

Argument: Deductive
Major Premise: Any man with allegations against him should resign even on
principle.
Minor Premise: Minister Bradley has allegations against him.
Conclusion: Minister Bradley should resign even on principle.
Award
 0.5 mark for naming the type of argument

2.5 marks for constructing a complete deductive argument in which all

statements are logically linked. There can be no part mark for this question.

9. Identify by name, a speaker who used pathos appeal. Give TWO examples from the
passage of its use. [2 Mark]

4
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 Mass John- He uses emotive words to describe politicians…thieves, corrupt,
deceitful, dishonest. He tried to get his audience to feel disgust and disdain for the
politicians and so agree with him.

Limey – He uses anecdote/analogy and emotive words in his reference to the

situation with his wife; he uses of expressions such as ‘dirty politicians’
Award:

• 0.5 mark if student correctly identifies speaker who uses pathos,

• 0.5 mark if student explains the use of pathos; for example that the speaker uses
emotive words in presenting his position.

• ‘0’ should be awarded if a student gives information from the passage without
linking evidence to a speaker from the passage.

10. Does Maas John possess some degree of ethical appeal? Give TWO reasons in support of
your response.[3 Marks]
No.
1. He does not come across as being fair/open-minded as he considers all
politicians to be corrupt and deceitful.
2. He is not willing to let due process take its course, but instead jumps to
conclusions based on his beliefs.
Award:

• 0.5 mark if student takes the correct position on the issue, stating that Maas
John does not possess ethical appeal.

• 1.25 for each explanation for the position taken.

SECTION B – 8 marks
Examine the image below and answer the following questions:
(a) Clearly state the claim being presented in the image
(b) Comment on the effectiveness of the image in making the argument you constructed in (a)
(c) Identify the target audience
(d) State TWO (2) assumptions that the creator of the image makes about the target audience?

5
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 Any statement that captures the following idea is acceptable:

a. The use of fake drugs/medication is dangerous/harmful as these drugs are deadly.

b. The image is effective in making the claim through use of the following objects

(Students MUST state whether or not the image is effective):

- the bottle that looks like a pill bottle, with objects that resemble pills inside at the

top

- The skull and cross bones on the front (label) of the bottle representing death,

suggesting the use of these drugs is deadly

- The skull and cross bones are a universal symbol of danger and death, which is a

powerful warning of the dangers of using fake drugs.

6
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018
 - The prominence of the colour red which is associated with danger

- The words on the image ‘Fake drugs’ making it clearly that the pills in the bottle

have not been obtained from a licensed pharmacist for example;

- and, the caption ‘don’t be a victim’ – involves the use of an emotive word

associating the use of these drugs with harm

Award full marks if the student clearly states whether the image is or is not effective

supported by 2 pieces of evidence.

c. The general public, specifically those who take medication

d. Possible assumptions:

- that the audience is likely to purchase and use drugs

- that the audience is likely to be victims of fake drugs

- that the audience will recognize the bottle as a medication bottle and the little

objects at the top as pills and hence comprehend the message

- that the audience will associate: the skull on the front of the bottle with

death/danger; the colour red with danger and be warned

Award 1.5 marks for each correctly stated assumption.

7
Prepared by Simone Berry & Daidrah Smith September 2018