In this article, I tackle an issue commonly faced by students in essay writing, especially when dealing with Part B questions that require in-depth analysis of policy solutions either in microeconomics or macroeconomics contexts. The R1/R2/E1/E2 requirement is part of the new SEAB marking scheme. Some students may face difficulties as they try to craft balanced and well-structured arguments that address the efficacy of various policy measures while navigating the above structure. To be the best JC Economics tutor specialising in H2 econs which involves essay writing, this is an important skill to impart to students.
When it comes to comparative policy questions, terms like “most,” “only,” and “best” in the question require us to evaluate one policy against a potential alternative. I begin my essay by presenting a specific policy as R1, thoroughly analyzing its merits and how effectively it deals with the given economic issue. Then I introduce a second policy as R2, considering it as a competing solution. In doing so, I construct a balanced argument by following each of these points with a respective rebuttal: E1 critiques the limitations of the first policy, and E2 does the same for the alternative policy. This method ensures that E1 (limitations of Policy 1) does not overlap with R2 (how Policy 2 works).
However, not all essay questions will allow for an easy side-by-side comparison. So, when faced with a question that doesn’t lend itself to this approach, I switch gears and employ the “split the dartboard” method. An example is when we are asked to discuss the effectiveness of fiscal policy in tackling unemployment. This involves dissecting the issue at hand—such as unemployment—into its various forms, such as cyclical and structural. R1 becomes an analysis of how a fiscal policy may alleviate cyclical unemployment, while R2 examines the same policy’s capacity to address structural unemployment. Following each point, E1 and E2 serve to inspect the fiscal policy’s limitations in mitigating each type of unemployment.
One noteworthy point in my teaching is the emphasis on distinguishing between E1 and R2 to prevent any potential overlap. This distinction is crucial and can be reinforced by diving into how the policy confronts different root causes of a problem. By splitting the problem, it ensures that each part of the argument remains distinct and arguments remain coherent and focused.
In future posts under the heading of JC Economics tutor, I will likely to broaden the discussion in future articles. By offering more examples, I intend to detail how these strategies can be applied to a range of economic scenarios, enhancing students’ abilities to argue uniformly across the board—from their understanding of policy pros and cons to how to avoid overlaps in their arguments.
Finally, it is a good habit to include an interim conclusion after the presentation of E1 or E2. This synthesises the opposing perspectives in R1 and E1 (likewise for R2 and E2), and helps students work towards the summative conclusion to score evaluation credit.