Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Toru,

I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion regarding my essay. You elaborated quite well what I myself tried to point out.

I did, in fact, over-analyze things. But while making the outline, I took proper care (as per my own estimates) not to 'sound' too complex. In my defence (which is pointless now, but still I am doing it for the benefit of you guys so that you don't fall into the same pit) I would say that the outline and the basic structure of my essay revolved EXACTLY around the questions you have posed while telling us what you think should have been my essay's content.

Where do I think I fell short? I didn't replicate the structural simplicity of the outline in the essay. Just as you have quite aptly put it: over-analysis caused my downfall.

Again, all these are just assumptions. Maybe the examiner just saw my handwriting and wrote 20/100 on the top of my sheet. Maybe he didn't like my outline, simple or otherwise. Maybe he was offended by the fact that I began my essay with a quotation from Mr Gandhi. Or maybe he didn't know the meanings of the words/phrases like "paradigm shift", "nihilism" and "zeitgeist". But, gentlemen, if you can keep all these assumptions in mind to produce an essay which has no such 'assumed' shortcomings, that would certainly achieve the purpose of this thread. And I would love to see you guys succeed

P.S.
Please prepare equally well for précis. Odd years (2013,2015) are for the essay, while even (2012, 2014, and probably 2016) are for the précis. Islamiat also lurks somewhere among all these, waiting to stun it's unsuspecting victims!!!


I actually did that. In my second paragraph (after the introduction), I stated my assumption and then went on to prove it. And after that, I moved on to the next points. But this is immaterial now. I still failed

Originally Posted by LNaqvi

discussion is really horrifying :P ... I am scared/confused please guys dont make it this difficult :/

Originally Posted by silent dua

i dont remember the exact but i start the intro with the words as terrorism is a biggest menace that is taking the whole world under it. then i mention about its drawbacks including human rights violation
i also mentioned about the world situation after WW1 aND ww2 and sufferings of these ppl till date, then iraq, afghan war and its impacts on humans lives, drone strikes etc
then i wrote about the conflict of interest of super powers whose basic aim is to set their hegemony rather than curbing terrorism thats why they dont care about human rights and gave examples in this regard in the end i wrote some measures to stop violation of rights and find other means of reducing terrorism

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Toru,

I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion regarding my essay. You elaborated quite well what I myself tried to point out.

I did, in fact, over-analyze things. But while making the outline, I took proper care (as per my own estimates) not to 'sound' too complex. In my defence (which is pointless now, but still I am doing it for the benefit of you guys so that you don't fall into the same pit) I would say that the outline and the basic structure of my essay revolved EXACTLY around the questions you have posed while telling us what you think should have been my essay's content.

Where do I think I fell short? I didn't replicate the structural simplicity of the outline in the essay. Just as you have quite aptly put it: over-analysis caused my downfall.

Again, all these are just assumptions. Maybe the examiner just saw my handwriting and wrote 20/100 on the top of my sheet. Maybe he didn't like my outline, simple or otherwise. Maybe he was offended by the fact that I began my essay with a quotation from Mr Gandhi. Or maybe he didn't know the meanings of the words/phrases like "paradigm shift", "nihilism" and "zeitgeist". But, gentlemen, if you can keep all these assumptions in mind to produce an essay which has no such 'assumed' shortcomings, that would certainly achieve the purpose of this thread. And I would love to see you guys succeed

P.S.
Please prepare equally well for précis. Odd years (2013,2015) are for the essay, while even (2012, 2014, and probably 2016) are for the précis. Islamiat also lurks somewhere among all these, waiting to stun it's unsuspecting victims!!!


I actually did that. In my second paragraph (after the introduction), I stated my assumption and then went on to prove it. And after that, I moved on to the next points. But this is immaterial now. I still failed