ok, i'm fked

[bilgia]

i argued that we are indeed overprotected...well some of us..with parents sending kids to tutors in an attempt to "provide the best education"...i used some of the provided material as well...

[BA22]

If you did a letter and you followed the instruction that said you have write as though you've read to the two articles and that your letter was in respone to the teo opinion pieces then you could've gone anywhere with it, as long as you made sure you relevant, i wouldn't worry so much. Are we overprotected was the original question and the stimulus opinion peiced showed blantantly diverged and resorted to scare tactics, so i'm sure we could as well

[Defiler]

Well, I have no idea what to think now, but I think I've done it in such a way that it won't be too bad. I wouldn't stress and just focus on your next exam.

[Ahmad]

Methinks gonna get around 35-40, more likely lower than not. GG, I got pwned

[vce_2007]

i was writing a letter to the editor and then i flipped back the page and i actually read the question, i was like omg

so i added in some bits about australians being overprotective but thats natural....but it was so brief...i didn't answer if fully

[Khangfu]

gg i got pwned too. The Quiet American question was liek wtf.... o well will vent otu anger on maths and science, hopefully i get above 28 XD

[asa.hoshi]

so what were we supposed to write about?

[Collin Li]

Fuck i cant even remember what I wrote. I'm pretty sure I said somthing along the lines of "We need to protect our children". And i just talked shit too. The ref material was dog as well. How were we supose to relate a picture? WTF?  Fuck Fuck Fuck.

Apprenticeship here we come

You deserve an apprenticeship for arguing that we need to protect our children.

Haha, just kidding, just my youth-anarchist roots kicking in.

[mouseboi]

I thought I had made a similar mistake. But on closer inspection, here are my thoughts.
The topic isn't exactly "Are we overprotected?". For a full description of the issue, the black rectangular box at the bottom of the instruction page details the topic more clearly.
There's much about "parenting styles" and how "Laws intended to protect people could be seen to prevent them from taking personal responsibility for their own actions". Thus, I believe this is the topic: Whether overprotective parenting has created a "generation of sooks" and led to the creation of laws that dictate even the most trivial of actions (such as crossing the street with an iPod).

The topic I ended up writing on was more about how young people are overprotected by their parents and how if these parents had been more liberal in their parenting, that laws such as banning use of iPods whilst crossing the road wouldn't be necessary.
So, if you talked about parenting, its effects on adulthood and the over protective laws that are in place then that's what I see to be the real topic here rather than just "Are we overprotected/governed by over protective laws".

In short, if you wrote on the same issue/topic as the Part 1 analysis pieces then I believe you should be fine because both Part 1 and 2 are meant to be on the same issue ("Are we overprotected?").
Again, just my opinion and hope everyone went well

[igs07]

I thought I had made a similar mistake. But on closer inspection, here are my thoughts.
The topic isn't exactly "Are we overprotected?". For a full description of the issue, the black rectangular box at the bottom of the instruction page details the topic more clearly.
There's much about "parenting styles" and how "Laws intended to protect people could be seen to prevent them from taking personal responsibility for their own actions". Thus, I believe this is the topic: Whether overprotective parenting has created a "generation of sooks" and led to the creation of laws that dictate even the most trivial of actions (such as crossing the street with an iPod).

The topic I ended up writing on was more about how young people are overprotected by their parents and how if these parents had been more liberal in their parenting, that laws such as banning use of iPods whilst crossing the road wouldn't be necessary.
So, if you talked about parenting, its effects on adulthood and the over protective laws that are in place then that's what I see to be the real topic here rather than just "Are we overprotected/governed by over protective laws".

In short, if you wrote on the same issue/topic as the Part 1 analysis pieces then I believe you should be fine because both Part 1 and 2 are meant to be on the same issue ("Are we overprotected?").
Again, just my opinion and hope everyone went well

I put something about iPods in, then I thought now where the hell did I pull something like that from it doesn't even relate, but there you go there was a bit on music players. sweet.