What approach? Straight or tactful?

[Shaho]

I don't know whether FAQs is the right place or not for asking this question, but it really bugs me when I start on brainstorming. So I am asking it here.

I want to know while writing an essay, current affairs or any subject where I am presenting my point of view should I try to be diplomatic, try to be good about everything, write only about rightists and not leftists.

For example If I am writing about Obama there are lot of good things to write about and there are so many journalists, every tv channel to quote in that matter. But then I have people like Webster Tarpley, Alex jones who speak against the (American) govt\system. Personally I am more down towards these guys...so what should my writings reveal?

There is a post another post on Precis writing on CSS Forum, where a member "Muslim Sanjrani" is helping other readers on precis writing [good post]. That post has a sentence:

LORD MACUALAY said that England's noble literature and the universality of her language made English the foreign language most useful for India.

Now its not that Lord Macaulay didn't say that but in terms of history/research I have a scanned image of a British newspaper of Macaulay's time [which i can provide later, not available a the moment] where he says something like (not exact words) "if we want to takeover India (of that time of course) we should takeover there education system and give them our education system." Whereas I have no doubts that our education system of that time was much better than English system.

So should my feelings\(or sort of reality) for what has been done to my people and what they plan for the future should be reflected in my writings?

This also includes writing against Pakistani govt, obviously with constructive criticism and the bad things they do.

I really want to clear this out...

Thanks in advance.

[vicky786]

@Shaho

I have to say that your query is quite tricky to answer as there is no precise answer, in my humble opinion, you have to improvise on the spot for CSS. Sharing my personal experience, I would say that you should always avoid blunt criticism in your answer, this does not mean that you should only write positive things, you should give a balanced view. I had to answer a question on NRO, obviously NRO is a controversial topic, believe it or not, I tried defending it in order to give both sides of the argument, in the conclusion I termed NRO as a blunder, the point I am trying to make is that you should adopt a balanced view, and your conclusion can either be leftist or rightist depending on the arguments you give. It doesn't matter that whether your a leftist or rightest, make sure you give the appropriate arguments which support your conclusion.

I hope I have shed some light on your query, all the best

[Almaas Ruby]

hmm got what u r saying....

avoid writing on controversial issues, be them of any "kind"...

be impersonal..............no need to mention any names(my experience,,u may disagree)

follow the pattern discussed here on the forum, esp by those who have made it.

dont be too critical, of course u have to highlight the goods of your Govt. too and u must...

and above all Pray Allah to Help you in anything you do for the CSS..

be the lady luck with you, my prayers for u and all of us..

regards!!

[DEADLYDOCTOR]

a very simple answer from my side

be precise about facts and reality

practical steps

different perspectives if required so one can present a balanced approach

no anti-state element

no irrational attitude

no ifs and buts

clear approach

you can never confuse an examiner. keep this thing in mind!

[armaghan_arif]

In my opinion the bset way of writing is ; you must remain analytical to the maximum in ur writing but u must not be political in ur writing the best way to avoid political taste in ur writing is to keep ur writing impersonal as much u can thanx

[Raz]

armaghan_arif and vicky786 have rightly guided you.

I would suggest you to adopt impersonal tone in a balanced approach by avoiding blunt criticism. Remain objective and present pros and cons before deciding the final fate. Provide equal chance to +ves and -ves, in the end you would be in a better position to safely land on any sound side in your conclusion.

You have to play three roles in the whole essay i.e. 1) Advocate in favor of the subject matter 2) Advocate against the subject matter 3) Judge.
Start with dual personality role (Two advocates presenting points against each other). End like a judge by announcing impartial decision based on the valid arguments of the advocates.


Regards