HOW TO KICK

*SS
IN TASK A
OF SECTION II

A THESIS ON IDEAL EXPOSITION

MICHAEL JOHN SUNDERLAND

MS
 FIND MORE CONTENT

www.90plusgamsat.com

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4
19297965763290

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz1XQ7hrI_3Z
mVJQQ3CgBvg
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hey guys, my name's Michael. I'm a 29 years old father and unimelb science
student. I grew up in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, and I love music, art,
learning and summer days.

My GAMSAT preparation journey began in March 2020. I quit a successful

corporate life to return to school and devote myself to contributing to others. My
first task was the GAMSAT, and I poured 14-18 hour days into it for 6 months. It
was the obsessive focus of my life.

During my preparation I found that almost all the existing resources were aimed
at getting students to a 75, and almost nothing existed to get students to a 90+.
There were almost no example essays at an 85+ level online and reverse
engineering an ideal response wasn't possible. So I had to figure it out myself.

I ended up getting the highest score to date off the back of what I learned but I
didn't want to leave students behind to go through what I did, so I have devoted
myself to making resources and leaving behind step by step descriptions of what
I learned about how to suceed in Section II. Mostly: the GAMSAT is not a test of
your writing, it's a psychometric test: an inspection of where what you are writing
is coming from.

I am confident I can teach other students to do even better than I did. If

somebody had have handed me these essays at the beginning of my preparation
I could have saved so much time and money and invariably would have done
better, both in SII, and with the time saved, overall. You are now in that position.
I look forward to expanding on this knowledge with you;, and I continue to write
essays and receive tutoring - the job is not done.

First they told me 90 wasn't possibe. Now they'll say 100 isn't either. I don't have
ears for that. .Take this, improve on it.

I look forward to being a part of your Section II Success.

HOW TO KICK *SS
IN TASK A
OF SECTION II

A THESIS ON IDEAL
EXPOSITION

by Michael John Sunderland

 1

Contents
An initial note............................................................................................................................................. 3
There is no one way ............................................................................................................................... 3
How to Kick *ss in Task A vs. The Philosophy of Section II Success – what’s the difference? .................. 4
Background ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Some myths I discovered along the way ............................................................................................... 5
Task A psychometrics: ............................................................................................................................... 7
Fallibilism ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Objectivity/Measuredness..................................................................................................................... 8
Neutrality ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Clarity, concision, execution - be aware of your connotative/denotative space! ................................ 8
Sophistication in language and sentence structure ............................................................................10
Depth and Insight.................................................................................................................................11
The Best Way to Approach GAMSAT Section 2 Quote Interpretation ....................................................12
ACER’s words .......................................................................................................................................12
How not to approach quote interpretation ........................................................................................13
The reductive approach ...............................................................................................................................14
The high-scoring approach ..........................................................................................................................14
Ok, so what is the best way to approach quote interpretation? ........................................................14
Do I respond to one or all of the quotes; or do I interpret a theme and respond to that? ................15
What I do .............................................................................................................................................16
A case study .........................................................................................................................................16
The Task A structure ....................................................................................................................................19
The ‘why’ of the structure - rigorous logic ..............................................................................................19
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................21
The roadmap ............................................................................................................................................21
Delivery ....................................................................................................................................................22
1. Short hook ........................................................................................................................................22
2. Acknowledgement of the theme .....................................................................................................24
3. First aspect of theme (Focus 1)........................................................................................................25
4. Second aspect of the theme (focus 2) .............................................................................................27
5. Thesis ...............................................................................................................................................28
 2

Body Paragraphs ..........................................................................................................................................30

Nothing fancy here: TEEL .............................................................................................................................30
1. Topic Sentence................................................................................................................................30
Formulating a Topic Sentence .............................................................................................................30
Topic Sentences as Argumentative Premises ......................................................................................31
Hook: ............................................................................................................................................................32
2. Example/Evidence................................................................................................................................33
Where to get evidence / what evidence do I use? ..............................................................................34
Events...................................................................................................................................................34
Ideas .....................................................................................................................................................34
History ..................................................................................................................................................36
Synthesis of ideas.................................................................................................................................36
3. Evaluating.............................................................................................................................................39
4. Link .......................................................................................................................................................40
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................42
1. Tie argument together (beautifully, if you can) ..................................................................................42
2. Display psychometric awareness of the limits to your point and the validity of others .....................44
3. Find common ground and make a thoughtful call to action ...............................................................45
4. Gut punch ............................................................................................................................................46
A final note… ................................................................................................................................................48
Appendix 1: Sample 90+ Response ......................................................................................................49
Appendix 2: Sample 90+ Response ......................................................................................................52
 3

An initial note

Before we get started, I want to address a somewhat toxic meme I see in the Section II scene
and free you from it.

There is no one way

I see everywhere online (and during my preparation) guides telling you exactly what to do. But
they all give different advice. How are you supposed to know what works? I tried so many
variations and worked with so many different styles and figured this one out along the way.
What still shocks me in retrospect was the conviction with which tutors related to their styles as
though, if I didn’t do it just the way they were saying, I wouldn’t be successful. I believe what
these approaches miss is that their approach functionally fulfils a requirement of the task, but it
is not that approach that is scoring the points, it is the function that they fulfil.

You do not need to copy what I see or follow it line for line to do well (or even to get above 90).
This is exactly how I did it. And I can explain and justify the reasoning behind every deliberate
step. If you do follow this advice correctly, it will work as well or better than it did for me,
because I’ve expanded on it and refined it since I used it. But you will also have valuable
contributions to make to the process. I do recommend learning it in purity and then deviate
once you can do it in purity - it’s good to know the rules first so when you break them it’s
deliberate and artistically in flow with the requirements of the moment.

What’s more important is that you understand why I did it the way I did it. All my work is
centred on giving you my understanding of what the task requires, and what functions need to
be fulfilled to score 90+. If you understand the ontology of my choices, you can do it a different
way while achieving the same outcomes.

I have taken care here to explain to you why I did what I did, alongside a presentation of what I
think is the best way to achieve the requirements of the task. But it is certainly not the only
way. And if you have a deep understanding of what you need to do, you will be equipped to
handle the task yourself, without me or my specific methodology. As the adage goes, give a
person food and they’ll eat for a day; teach them how to fish, they’ll eat for life.
This is how to fish. Let’s get to work

M.
 4

How to Kick *ss in Task A vs. The Philosophy of Section II Success – what’s the difference?

I’m aware that not every person reading this will have read ‘The Philosophy of Section II
Success’ (I highly recommend you do!). What you will see in this guide is a breakdown of exactly
how I wrote my Task A responses and achieved a 91, which is (I’ve had confirmed) the highest
Section II score ever (apparently 3 people have gotten 90 before - kudos to them!). This is
intended to be a very direct practical guide. As in the “actually what did you physically write
and why?” It will not repeat the philosophies mentioned in the Philosophy of Section II Success
in detail, as these provide the broader context of why the essays look the way they do.

It’s hard to articulate exactly what I mean here but if you imagine going to the supermarket and
buying your food for the week. I could tell you “here’s a list of things I want you to buy, here are
the isles and this is exactly what you’re going to get and where to get it” you will be armed with
a very direct what-to-do. This is what How to Kick *ss in Task A provides for an essay. You will
understand exactly how to write a high-scoring essay after reading it. However, the reason the
items on the list are on the list maybe because you are on a diet. So the diet and the reasoning
for what I say to do here is the context that is essential to perform at the top level. The items
on the list are what must be done specifically. Both are important. I will also refer to some
terms here that are fleshed out in the previous book.

I won’t deliberately be obfuscating with the use of these terms (I’m not like that) and will take
care to explain myself as I go, so you will be able to understand what I mean without having
read my other stuff. That said, it’s impractical and cumbersome to have it all repeated here
unless I combined them into one book (which I could do - but it would necessarily cost more,
and I’m also conscious of not excluding people from access to resources to help them succeed.
It also may be the case that some people want to purchase things in steps as they progress on
their journey, or to confirm that the products are equivalent (I hope much more!!) than the
price. I can certainly say if I could have had these resources from the beginning of my
preparation, the time I could have saved and spent with my son (and the money!) would have
made these guides worth upwards of three or four thousand dollars to me.
 5

Background

(Skip this paragraph if you’ve read the Philosophy of Section II Success)

I began my GAMSAT preparation in March 2020, 6 months out from the September sitting.
Before deciding to be a doctor I had already made and sold a business and was making
$250,000 working only 3 days a week in a high-level sales role. But I was bored. And I had
realized that the notions of success that are subliminally telegraphed to us in rap music and
popular culture were disfigured and maligned. I’m a caring person, but we are what we
regularly do, and the truth was I regularly used my ability to make myself money. And that’s not
what greatness is. After my son was born it became important to me to dedicate my remaining
years to live in the radical service of others, anyway, I could. The first step was the GAMSAT.
And so I threw myself into it like nothing before.

I made a friend at the University who was sitting the GAMSAT in September, too, and he sent
me the Griffiths guidebook to get started (which I highly recommend as a starting guide!). Over
the next 6 months I purchased every resource I could find (costing thousands of dollars);
studied every commercial course; read 12 full books on essay writing; read every GAMSAT
essay I could find on the internet (probably 300-400) and conducted an analysis of the ones that
I thought were the best searching for common threads; hired, exhausted and moved through 7
different tutors (thousands of more dollars) and got turned away by several others who said
they couldn’t help; tutored 15 or so students for free and provided daily feedback; developed,
tried, modified and discarded 5 different essay frameworks/structures until I found what
worked; and I generally studied 14-18 hours a day.

I lived and breathed GAMSAT. If you’ve ever seen the movie A Beautiful Mind with Russell
Crow, think of his office with all the strings and threads connecting newspaper articles and
you’ll have an idea. I have always had a curious mind, an unnatural work ethic, and an ability to
integrate wide ranges of disparate sources of information into cohesive and cogent
frameworks. So I was in my element. Truth is I think I scared my friends a bit, and I made them
insecure that they weren’t doing enough (which I regret, although they all nevertheless scored
in the top 2% in their GAMSATs.)

Some myths I discovered along the way

There’s a deeply entrenched culture in the Section II space that says you have to write an
expository for Task A and a discursive for Task B. It started back from the old Des O’Neal guides
as, back then, it was written in the instructions that this is what you should do. ACER has since
changed this and you can write however you like. I have seen creative writing and even poetry
score well, however, I highly recommend unless you are a developed and experienced creative
writer that you do not approach it this way; and I recommend against doing poetry or anything
“short.” Creative writing seems to have polar results - either quite well if it’s utterly masterful;
or very poorly otherwise. I must admit, however, it’s rare so I don’t know much more about it
 6

than what I’ve said. Frasers recommend finding your favourite writing style (they have a guide
about it - worth looking up!) from a list of 5. Off the top of my head they are discursive,
argumentative, expository, reflective, creative/other… (Or something like this).

Additionally, you may find if you research online that GAMSAT students tend to conflate
argumentative and expository (although they are stylistically slightly different), and
discursive/reflective (again, a different style). Somewhat confusingly, the indications for style
online for each of these genres of writing overlap, and are often contradictory. This presents a
bit of a challenge. When I distinguished what it was that ACER was truly after and that there
were no fixed styles (meaning I could write two reflective, or two argumentative if I wanted -
and a lot of people do, and do well), I decided to eschew prescribed styles of writing. I
ultimately created my distinct styles of writing that were structured around how to best
structurally convey the qualities that ACER was looking for. This is what I’ll discuss with you
here.

I will note that my Task A and Task B styles are completely different. They bear no semblance of
structural similarity. Also, my task B style requires much greater levels of maturity, sensitivity,
vulnerability, emotional intelligence, worldliness, reflectiveness, self-awareness, than does my
Task A’s. If you are someone that has these qualities, I think Task B’s are stronger (personally).
My Task A’s however are, at their best, relentless tour-de-force (I use this word not to brag, but
because I saw a marker in the Des O’Neal S2 guide use this phrase and it became the intention
of my Task A writing.. by the time we get to my 1200 word timed Globalisation piece, which
was written a few days before the exam, I think you’ll see what I mean). They are systematic,
precise, surgical, analytical, critical, concise, clear, and focussed. Yours should be too.

If you lack the skills I mentioned for task B, consider doing two in Task A style. If you lack the
skills mentioned for task A, consider doing two in task B style. I did one of each because I
wanted to develop both skill sets, and I wanted to be able to be agile in response to the
prompts on the day. ACER’s Task A prompts generally deal with interpersonal or social issues.
Task B prompts generally deal with interpersonal issues. I feel that Task A (broadly:
argumentative/expository) responses best fit Task A prompts; and that Task B
(reflective/discursive) responses fit interpersonal issues. Again though, you can do well with
either.
 7

Task A psychometrics:

This section is a review and expansion of the psychometric qualities described in the Philosophy
of Section II Success as being the essential qualities that Section II is provoking from an elite-
scoring student. It is not intended to replace the content described there, but expands on it in
the light of Task A.

I’m just going to place here the wording from ACER’s GAMSAT information booklet regarding
S2:

“Written Communication is assessed on two criteria: the quality of the thinking about a topic
and the control of language demonstrated in its development. The assessment focuses on how
ideas are integrated into a thoughtful response to the task. Control of language (grammatical
structure and expression) is an integral component of a good piece of writing. However, it is only
assessed insofar as it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the response to the task and not
in isolation. “

There is an emphasis here on the quality of thinking, and integration of them thoughtfully (that
is, to place them in their broader cultural, psycho-social, politico-economic, or philosophical
contexts). Structure, language, and other things that traditionally are thought of as the
foundations of a good essay are almost explicitly said here not to be assessed in isolation, and
that they contribute only insofar as they contribute to the aforementioned criteria (quality of
thinking). This is why traditional methods of approaching writing are only sufficient to get you
to a 75. There seems to be a huge paucity of information and discussion about how to improve
your quality of thinking, or how to telegraph an improved quality of thinking in a GAMSAT
section 2 context.

I’ve already mentioned that the structure I created arose not out of an arbitrary set of stylistic
indications and deference to patrician authority on how an “essay ought to be written” (sips
earl grey with a little finger extended), but a pragmatic necessity to show as many high scoring
qualities in the time and circumstances allowed to me. I will list the main qualities that I worked
to structurally encode into my writing below. Please note that these comments do not replace
the teaching behind them offered in the other book, you’ll do yourself no favours going “oh yes,
compassion, sure,” this is intended for those who are already familiar with this learning. This
said referring back and copy-pasting will ruin my flow so I’m just going to write new stuff under
the headings here. This should enable a more rounded perspective.

Fallibilism

“I think I'm right, but I could be wrong; I think they’re wrong, but they could be right.”
 8

Objectivity/Measuredness

Awareness’s of the complexities and nuances of the prompts, and not trying either to position
yourself or your viewpoint as the final authority on the matter; nor “rebutting” one of the
prompts in such a way as to discredit it (as this implies that you believe that in 30 minutes on
any unprompted topic, you know better than somebody who has spent decades developing
that viewpoint - not a good quality in a future doctor) not being reductive? Expansiveness? IDK
someone suggest a heading.

I can’t remember if I explicitly said this in the guidebook but while I’m writing: being cautious
not to be reductive in your confrontation and inspection of the topics. Acknowledge that these
topics are incredibly complex, with many divergent (and valid) perspectives all indexed against
the proponent’s experiences, biases, beliefs, worldview. Be also sure to situate the prompts in
their broader psycho-social and geo/politico-economic contexts. This begins with how you
identify the theme (hint: 9 times out of 10 it isn’t quite the word that is in each of the prompts)
- more on this in a moment.

Neutrality

Think of a pendulum. The events in your life swing from creation to destruction do they not?
The beginning of a relationship (“oh, things are well, now I'm happy”), then the end (“oh, now
things are bad, I’m unhappy”), getting fired / a new business opportunity, an argument / its
resolution and making up. This is life. Most of us situate ourselves at the end of it, swinging
from good to bad things dramatically. What about situating yourself at the centre. Present and
calming, knowing creation and destruction to be natural parts of one another (the dropping of
dead leaves in autumn / the barrenness of winter / the inevitable regrowth in spring). From
here you can calmly watch the ball swing. Rather than problems, you now have a sense of
humour. This altitude and removed perspective is highly prized by ACER markers as an indicator
of perspective and maturity. I’m not saying don’t pick a side and give an opinion. But if you do,
do it from the centre in awareness of the bigger picture. This precludes any far left or right
political views (refer back to my comments in the guide about not getting the marker offside).

Clarity, concision, execution - be aware of your connotative/denotative space!

Be generous to the marker. They have 10 minutes to mark your essay, they’ve probably done
50 before they got to yours, and they want to watch the next episode of Schitt’s creek or reply
to what I can only imagine is a Bumble or Jswipe (they’re a smart bunch, don’t judge me) inbox
simply bursting with romantic and gallant vies for attention. A sentence under 25 words is no
problem, 25-35 is getting wordy, over 35 I would avoid unless you contrast it with a 2-4 word
sentence afterward for rhetorical effect.

Google Hemingway app and copy-paste your essay into there to get an idea of where you’re at.
Beyond this, be aware of where you connote/denote. Jswipe, for instance, has a connotative
 9

space around it. I’m not Jewish, I just happened to know it’s like tinder for the Jewish
community. Now sharing a connotative space may have got me cut through with a Jewish
reader and a sense of community or shared ontology (or maybe not, who knows); BUT it
equally led to a loss of clarity. In isolation, this may be permissible. But you will be surprised
how much of what you say, and the reason you say it in the context of the overall point you’re
making makes sense to you but not to others.

Denotation, on the other hand, is designating EXPLICITLY what you are saying and why and
what it means that you said it and how it relates to your point. You want to do this to the point
that you think you’re being excessive. Trust me, it’s not as clear to others as it is to you. Have
you ever had to do an oral presentation in an academic setting like a speech in front of the
class? Have you ever noticed how you speak way quicker than you think you do, and if you
speak at a rate that sounds absurdly slow to you that’s about normal? Maybe just me. But it’s
similar to that, your reference point is off a bit when you’re making a point, and you need to
account for that you probably think it’s clearer than it is. Additionally, denoting means being
explicit about WHERE and WHEN what you are saying is true. I see this in nearly every essay I
mark and it’s such a quick fix and leads to so much more clarity.

Example: I keep seeing in students’ essays something along the lines of

(1) “In our world, it’s common to see.” or
(2) “We often seem to think about death as if” or
(3) “People can often be liable to” or
(4) “Mental health issues are commonly frowned upon in modern society.”
OMG. It viscerally agitates me writing those lines. We’ll go one by one.

1. Whose world? Who is ours? Do you think you live in the same world as everybody else
(I'll just assume you mean human)? What is the world? Let’s say it’s broadly the
experiential space and rough boundaries of conscious awareness or familiarity (IDK I
made that up on the spot). So is an African lesbian’s world the same as an American
heterosexual musician’s? There are so many mistakes here. Firstly “our” implies shared
experiences and understandings, which are impossible given the enormous differences
between people ‘in the world’: socio-economic, psychological, sexual, experiential, age,
biological… etc. Given we can never share an epistemological or ontological or
experiential reality or ‘world’, “our” then serves a nearly contemptuous function. It
becomes anthropocentric, or... I can’t say “white-centric” or “male-centric” or “female-
centric” because I don’t know who the author of the phrase is, but whoever it is it
implies a reduction of the world or the components of it that are worthwhile
acknowledgment and consideration to a subset of people familiar or similar to the
author. Also “it’s common to see” is a bit vague. Consider

“Upper middle class, white, Australian adults have displayed, it seems to me,
over the last decade a certain ignorance or contempt of mental health issues;
which belies the unfortunate fact that it must, as a matter of economic, historic,
or biological necessity, impacted their generation at least as much as ours. Is the
 10

spectre of mental health reserved for an unfortunate minority between the ages
of 20-30 at this point in this very small corner of my world? I don’t think so. And
our shared suffering is an impetus for a more cohesive inspection and inter-
generational collaboration if we are to mitigate some of the most dangerous
repercussions of mental health left unaddressed or unacknowledged.”

2. Who are we? The author is taking a lot of liberties with their evaluation of who the
marker might be. As soon as you make a marker thing “I don't think that” you’ve lost
them. Pack your bags, you’re not getting an 85+. I’m not saying they have to agree with
what you say. You can successfully argue a viewpoint that is the opposite of what they
believe if you are sensitive to their view. What I’m saying is that if you say that the
marker feels the way they don't, THEN you’ve lost them. Because you’re being ignorant
of them, and more often than not people are infatuated with their own opinions and
beliefs. What’s worse, you’re not only conflating yourself with them, you’re telling them
how they feel about death. Naughty, naughty.

3. Which people. Grrr this is annoying me. And how often? And when? Ok. I’m going to
revise it with deliberate mistakes and progressively improve it to a perfect sentence so
you can see what I mean. - “Gen X Australians are often liable to ...” (are they... very
strong statement. Get Y designates age and time, Australians designates place… still
missing gender and socio-economic circumstances, but depending on what you’re
talking about you may not need it)- “Gen X Australians, it seems to me, are often liable
to..” (okay, better, you’ve now softened the statement.. but tbh your marker could well
be Gen X and nobody wants somebody else telling them how they are)- “I am limited,
being only 29 myself, to understand the complexity and nuance of the ontology and
epistemological underpinnings of the actions of Gen X Australians concerning mental
health, and stigma’s surrounding mental health. I can’t help but wonder, however, if,
what looks externally as stigma, has deeper origins in trauma and a lack of
acknowledgement of suffering that may have characterised the anguish of this
generation. I may never know. Awareness of this as one of many potential outcomes
should be impetus enough, I believe, to justify a comprehensive review and
reinterpretation of policies relating to mental health by those with the authority to do
so.” BOOM.

4. I hate this now. Can we move on? I can’t even with this sentence. And I made it up …
*sigh* *throws schoolbag in the corner with angst* “I’M COMING MUM!” Are they
common? Says who? Which society? When? Okay, I’ve beaten this horse. It’s very much
dead. Let us now waltz into the mysterious unknown, shall we?

Sophistication in language and sentence structure

Do not be verbose for the sake of it. If another simpler word will do, use it. Only use the bigger
word if it achieves something that the smaller one won’t. Let's use this as an example and see
how I did.
 11

Example:
“Yet as the dromosphere of globalisation, and the huge digital and communicative flows
that typify it has generated colossal amounts of digital exhaust - with all their rich
predictive behavioural signals - technology companies such as Facebook have learned to
commodify these data streams for profit.”

Okay, I’ll fess up I used the word “dromosphere.” It would have been better if I had have said
“French cultural theorist Paul Virilio coined the term “the dromosphere” from the Greek
“dromos” (racetrack) to designate the peculiar acceleration of world events, science,
technology, and political conflict that so typifies the contemporary Western political
atmospheres. Globalisation, a prominent driver of these dromospheric conditions and then the
rest. But don’t over-focus not that, look at the language in the rest of the sentence. The best
way to be sophisticated is not to use those catchphrase words that make me want to vom
(paradoxically, juxtaposed, ‘that will be argued’, ‘in conclusion’.. can’t think of any more at this
moment, but those that people use to try to sound smart in high school), and to use simple
words in inventive ways. Typify isn’t a particularly complex word. Colossal: I could have used
large, but I'd already used huge, and it paints a picture. Digital exhaust: simple but it has the
same impact as a complex word because it’s inventive). See the word list in the guidebook for
more ideas, but you should be keeping your lists from your reading or interesting turns of
phrase that you hear people use. This quote, from Edmond Routnitska, the nose who created
Chanel No.5 (generally accepted in perfume circles as the best fragrance ever created) and the
mentor of the world’s current best nose, bears repeating:

“The true mark of sophistication, which gives true composers that touch of class, does not
come from a display of ostentation amid poverty, but a show of modesty amid wealth.”

Depth and Insight

This has origins in your background research and reading, your interpretation of the quote and
your planning. As far as background research, at a minimum, read the Wikipedia pages (and
research linked pages within) for liberalism, neo-liberalism, utilitarianism, existentialism
(particularly Martin Heidegger and his “moods” and “dasein” concepts), democracy, US political
structure (judiciary, executive, senate), globalisation. Watch “The social dilemma” on Netflix.
 12

The Best Way to Approach GAMSAT Section 2 Quote Interpretation

GAMSAT Section 2 writing is not normal essay writing. I’ve said this before, I’ll no doubt say it
again. The origin of a 90+ Section 2 response is what is made from the task, or in other words
how you approach quote interpretation. It’s very hard to write a poor response with quality,
sophisticated ideas; and very hard to write a good response to simple, pedestrian, or reductive
ideas.

I like to think of quote interpretation as the ceiling value of your writing. It sets the upper limit
of what you can achieve. How you then deliver the thoughts you’ve had is the degree to which
you capitalise on the potential you have created through your quote interpretation. In my
experience, 95% of students turn that ceiling into a glass ceiling and shoot themselves in the
foot before they begin by approaching perhaps the most crucial element of the task in the most
rushed, and pedestrian manner. This does not bode well for a high scoring response.

ACER’s words

Let’s return to ACER’s words from the GAMSAT information booklet so we can be sure that I’m
not pontificating about something I just made up. The underlining is my own, the rest is a direct
quote.

“Written Communication is assessed on two criteria: the quality of the thinking about a topic
and the control of language demonstrated in its development. The assessment focuses on how
ideas are integrated into a thoughtful response to the task. Control of language (grammatical
structure and expression) is an integral component of a good piece of writing. However, it is only
assessed insofar as it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the response to the task and not
in isolation. “

There is an emphasis here on the quality of thinking, and integration of them thoughtfully (that
is, to place them in their broader cultural, psycho-social, politico-economic, or philosophical
contexts). Structure, language, and other things that traditionally are thought of as the
foundations of a good essay are almost explicitly said here not to be assessed in isolation, and
that they contribute only insofar as they contribute to the aforementioned criteria (quality of
thinking). This is why traditional methods of approaching writing are only sufficient to get you
to a 75. There seems to be a huge paucity of information and discussion about how to improve
your quality of thinking, or how to telegraph an improved quality of thinking in a GAMSAT
section 2 context.

ACER also explicitly says in their information book

“Pre-prepared responses and responses that do not relate to the topic will receive a low score.”

Which, if this is what is being assessed, begs two questions.

 13

1. How can I improve the quality of my thinking about the prompts?

2. How can I be sure to be relevant to the topic?

I come bearing gifts.

How not to approach quote interpretation

Let me first deal with what not to do. Almost everybody I come across conflates the prompts
into a one-word “theme.” They tell me, “Oh the theme is conformity” (or “punishment”, or
“government”, or “death”, or “space”, or “boredom” etc.). This leads to simple and low-level
thinking responses that lack direct relevance and therefore often score poorly. I will explain to
you why.

It’s reductive

In the first instance you have reduced five incredibly complex, nuanced, sophisticated world
views - which have arisen in many cases from 60+ years of expert experience and study, and if
not, still from within a valid ontology and set of human experiences, thoughts, and ideas - into a
simple world. You have reduced what could have a book, or hundreds of books in many cases,
written about it to a word. It’s like thinking that the words “harry potter” is the same thing as
everything that happens in those seven books (is it seven, IDK?), plus the movies, plus the
childhood experiences reading and interacting with those materials, plus the popular culture
around it, etc. There is a whole world behind it that is not conveyed in proper depth by its
placeholder title.

And then, you’ve grabbed four other equally complex and nuanced and sophisticated world
views and conflated them - suggesting that they all more or less say the same thing when, in
truth, this word does not adequately describe even one of the prompts, let alone all of them.
Based on the criteria that this word happened to have cropped up several times in the prompts.
This is already to have made ten-odd errors. Because it is to say that 1 is the same as 2, 3, 4, 5;
and 2 is the same as 3, 4, 5, and so on.

Perhaps you’re thinking “no that’s not me,” and that you’re being sophisticated because you
contrast the ‘positive’ side of the theme, with the ‘negative’ side - which is still to have reduced
a quote to one word: either ‘positive’ or ‘negative.’ Many of you will then flatly say that one of
the prompts is false, or even relate to that view in a belittling manner suggesting it “is
completely wrong” or “a ridiculous misinterpretation of the democratic foundations of modern
life” (very fancy), and think you’re doing the right thing by arguing forcefully in an
argumentative essay. I don’t blame or judge you, I’ve done the same thing. But what you’re
saying to the marker when you do that is that you, in a psychometric test on an unprepared
topic, in thirty minutes, know better than someone who has dedicated their whole life to have
that viewpoint. A major misstep.
 14

Lastly, you are then forced to generate a whole essay from a single word; rather than to focus
highly nuanced and sophisticated ideas into a powerful single point (contention). It's hard to
write a bad essay with sophisticated ideas. And very hard to make a good essay from reductive
or pedestrian ideas.

The reductive approach

Single word theme < essay

The high-scoring approach

Five highly complex ideas > focussed in the introduction to a sharpened point (contention) >
thrust forward and upward into the armour in Body Paragraph 1 > twisted in Body Paragraph 2
> graceful psychometric validation of the other sides and the contexts in which those truths
arrive as you stand over the defeated opponent

It also lacks relevance.

A reductive approach to quote interpretation often leads to writing that fails to “directly
respond to one or more of the prompts” which is one of the only things ACER tells you explicitly
that you are supposed to be doing.

This final error occurs not in the quote interpretation, but in the very next moment after it. Let
us suppose you have thought to yourself “the theme is conformity.” You then think “hmm,
what do I have to say about conformity.” You then come up with some idea and go off and
write about it. Your writing will then be in the domain of conformity, but this will often lack
relevance to conformity, to begin with (as you’re under time pressure and writing whatever
comes out); furthermore, as we have established, ‘conformity’ wasn’t, in many cases, directly
relevant to the prompts to begin with.

Ok, so what is the best way to approach quote interpretation?

What you make from the task, which essentially is what is being examined, arises from how you
confront the ideas in front of you and situate them in their broader contexts.

I always recommend to re-write the five quotes in your own words. This takes some time and
needs to be practised, it’s also mentally draining. But the rest of the essay stems from this
moment. In time you will be able to spot quotes that you think won’t lead to good outcomes, or
may include traps you want to avoid, so you can save time by only re-writing/interpreting the
quotes you eventually want to involve in your response. I wouldn’t recommend doing it in your
head, it’s too hard to remember the other ones by the time you finish. But almost always when
you see the five interpreted versions you can see links that weren’t evident before. I physically
write 1 to 5 under every set of prompts. Towards the back end of my preparation I found time-
saving approaches, but to begin with, it’s a good exercise.
 15

Also, by “write them in your own words” I don’t mean repeat the exact thing the prompt says in
different words. I mean to interpret what they are saying. Imagine a teacher said the prompt to
one of your friends and then your friend turned to you after and said “that made no sense,
what do they mean” and then you responded to explain it to your friend so they understood.
That interpretation is what you need to be writing down. When you receive the real
implications of what the quote is inviting you to consider you will relate to the prompts very
differently, and answer in a more nuanced way. I will have a case study later in the chapter so
hold that thought for just a moment. First:

Do I respond to one or all of the quotes; or do I interpret a theme and respond to that?

We’ve already discussed that reducing it to one word is not the thing to do. You are welcome to
respond to a sophisticated and nuanced and interpreted theme if you think you are up to it.
When I started I would interpret each quote, and then think to myself “if these five ideas were
in a news article, what would the heading of that article be?” and it would often be something
like “the relevance, function, and limitations of punishment in contemporary Western
societies” or something to that effect. Now this was (is) high order thinking, however, it comes
with some challenges.

This approach does lead to sophisticated responses, however, the marker 9 times out of 10
won’t follow what you’re saying or the implied connection to the theme very easily. Because
you are responding to something that took a great deal of thought, the marker can be left
wondering which prompt you’re responding to. They won’t have engaged with it in the level of
detail you have (or have interpreted the quotes in quite the same way), so it can lose points for
relevance (even though it’s highly relevant). This circles back to earlier times when I’ve
mentioned that it is crucial to be generous to the marker. So, I don't recommend writing to a
whole theme (either one word, or correctly interpreted) because it can fail to translate in a very
generous, direct, and clear way. Or if you do write to the correctly interpreted theme, be
prepared to be very explicit about what you’re saying, why you’re saying it, and how it relates
to the theme (and how the theme you have interpreted relates to the prompts, and which one).

Regarding responding to all of the quotes. I'd encourage you guys to think of the five prompts
as being facets of the same diamond. There is something that coheres them. Reality and truth
are not absolute. All perspectives happen to tend toward or converge from many directions on,
an approximation of the truth. Knowing this is essential. The prompts are deliberately chosen
for this reason. They look at the issue from many directions. Early in my preparation, addressing
each of these perspectives was essentially the essay written for me. I just made each point a
paragraph (or lumped a couple together in one; and the others in another) etc. Again, fine,
although I frustratingly had markers ask me “which prompt was this in response to” which
eventually annoyed me enough that I came to the final iteration of my prompt-addressing
strategy.
 16

What I do

I pick one prompt (or two if they happen to exist within the same ontological or epistemological
frameworks) and I address it directly, and clearly. I don’t use the quotes from the prompts in
my writing directly (you should have plenty of other examples and evidence to bring up that
you wouldn’t want to waste space on one that was in the prompts), but I do use keywords or
partial phrases from the prompt in my essay, especially in the introduction to make it clear
what I am talking about. This greatly helped the concision and clarity of my writing.

A final note: it is essential to display a comprehension and respect for the complexity of the
theme and how other, diverging, viewpoints contribute to it equally and validly (even if you
disagree with them). You need to show that you have situated the prompts in their broader
psycho-social or politico-economic or philosophic contexts to show an appreciation for these
contexts.

A case study

I’ve included below a case study of an analysis I did of a response to a set of Task A prompts. In
this particular case, the essay had written above it “against capitalism.”

1. “Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast,
results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I
don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral
than forced redistribution. ” – Ben Shapiro
2. “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the
difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and
servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville
3. “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of
socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill
4. “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.” – Vladimir Lenin
5. “We’re going to fight racism, not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say
we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we're going to fight it with
socialism.” – Fred Hampton

You’ve left here “against capitalism.”

This suggests to me that there’s work to be done on how you confront the prompts before you
begin writing. Most people look for the common word in these quotes (in this case socialism, or
capitalism) and they say “ah, the theme is capitalism” and then they pick a side and off they go.
The problem is that you will then only be writing in the domain of the prompts, not in specific
 17

response to the prompts. You will lose marks for relevance and precision. The theme is not
capitalism here.

The first quote says “capitalism is pragmatic, and more moral than socialism.”
The second “democracy (an adjunct of capitalism) and socialism share only a desire for equality,
but differ in approach.”

Note:
We see already a link to the first quote, a mini-theme is developing here which is ‘the
similarities between socialism and capitalist democracies in their attempt to provide
equality or equitability.’ If you wrote an essay contrasting democracy and socialism in
how they achieve equality, and to what extent they are successful/moral in this you
would be not only scoring far more highly for relevance, but also for “what was made
from the task.” Furthermore, this frames your essay to be of much higher sophistication
and quality. If you have made a reductive or simple interpretation of the quotes you are
forced to expand and write an essay from a small point. This can feel wavering, or
unfocused, or repetitive, and will always be elementary.

If you, on the other hand, spend some time looking at what each quote is saying (I re-write each
quote in my own words and then examine them. I stopped doing this toward the end to save
time, but the discipline of doing so for my first 30 essays was invaluable) you will have a
complex and nuanced understanding of what is being said and the issue at large. The essay,
then, becomes not an expansion from a small point (along with inevitable psychometric faults),
but a narrowing and focus of a very large and complex issuer (necessarily winning
psychometrics points for you) into themes and components of that issue that you wish to
discuss and give a focussed opinion on.
In this case, I think of the ontology of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Zedong - whose behaviour was
illustrative of a utilitarian calculus wherein violence was justified in the name of achieving a
socialist utopia.

Suffering, the transgression of individual liberty, famine, even mass murder were all justified
within the grand narrative of the promise of communist utopias in China, the Society Union,
and Cambodia. Mao killed more than 5 times as many people as Hitler did. Humans were
reduced to a number, or a flesh bag of chemicals and a physiological set of reactions as the
body struggled to fight against emaciation due to poverty in gulags in the Soviet Union - each
person’s unique individuality reduced to a cascading, brutal homogeneity. Where is the
morality in this? Is this why Ben Shapiro (quote 1) says capitalism is more moral?

The third quote: a critique of socialism, so we have further re-enforcement for our suspected
theme. These people do not think that socialism is the most moral way of achieving equality, no
matter its intentions. The fourth: I don’t get this. (Although Lenin was a Bolshevik and was
responsible for the Russian revolution and establishment of socialism in Russia pre-soviet
union, so perhaps you could simply use that for support of the similarities between the two
political ideologies). The fifth: I would skip this entirely. I doubt ACER would give you this
 18

prompt. It requires context, and it’s just a weird prompt. Using this would be a red herring in
my view.

So, in short, if you don't correctly interpret the quote, and situate it in its broader historical,
sociological, psychological, politico-economics contexts, you will struggle to make something
profound of the task, and lose points on relevance. Everything that follows is necessarily going
to flow from that initial reduction. Your essay is necessarily limited and framed by what you
made (or failed to make) of the quotes.
Most people go:5 quotes > one-word theme you want to go 5 quotes < essay.
Like the quotes are the thinnest part and you make them expansive by developing on them in
insightful ways, rather than reducing them to one word and picking them aside.

An 80+ essay requires partially agreeing or disagreeing with the obvious interpretation of the
comments, rather than flatly. Qualify its limits or contexts in which it arises. Situate the
comment in their wider cultural contexts. Body paragraphs are a logical analysis of these ideas.
Don't let this make you fence sit, though. Choose your viewpoint clearly and argue strongly for
it, but try situating it off centre of one of the implications of the quotes.
 19

The Task A structure

I can’t help but point out that if there’s not the correct thing driving the placement of the things
where I’m going to tell you to place them, it’s unlikely you’ll score well. It won’t hurt, but try to
look for how the placement and organisation of elements telegraph the qualities that I’ve
indicated are being looked for. Every line is deliberate. I was tempted to screenshot you my
pages and pages of notes and revisions of the structure of each section to give you an idea that
this isn’t something I read in a book, but something I formulated and revised and tinkered with
and scrawled notes on endlessly; but I don’t want to confuse you with any extraneous
information that I don’t want you to directly pay attention to and apply.

Suffice to say, this has gone through many redesigns and iterations and obsessive pondering. I
tried every style I found in des O'Neal, Frasers, and any essays sent to me or posted on paging
Dr Forums. I analysed some 300-400 essays and their structures and tried to find the strongest
essays amongst them to figure out what are the common links that make them strong.
Unfortunately, when I did this, the very strongest essays were scant, and tbh even the very best
of them had errors. It frustrated me at the time because I knew I was either dead on and going
to do better, or I was fundamentally missing something and was going to tank it. This genuinely
worried me up to the exam. Thankfully, it was the former. But I’ll stop pontificating now. Let’s
get to work.

I’ll begin with the ontology/‘why’ of the broader structure, and then we’ll go granularly and
meticulously section by section, starting with the internal structure of each section, followed by
detailed notes on style and ‘what to write on the page.’

The ‘why’ of the structure - rigorous logic

Why is it important to have a structure? Indeed why is the structure so typically the way it is? A
lot of people never stop to think about ‘why an essay?’ What are you writing blocks of
information on a page for? Is it the GAMSAT? To get into med school? These are the most
common reasons, and they’re the wrong reasons. The purpose of the essay is to expand on, and
indeed prove correct or at least reasonably valid, the contention outlined in the introduction.
Let’s suppose for a moment the theme given was the mortality of academics through history,
and I chose to focus on the mortality of philosophers, in particular Greek philosophers. And let’s
suppose I feel like trying to prove to you that “Socrates was ambitious.” He could be, who
knows. Let’s find out. Here’s my, very Aristotelian, argument:

Contention: Socrates is ambitious

All philosophers are ambitious (Premise/Topic Sentence 1)

Socrates is a philosopher (Premise/Topic Sentence 2)
Therefore, Socrates is ambitious (Conclusion)
 20

You have two premises, which if proven, necessarily imply the proof of the final statement.
Now, the work is not entirely done. I still need to prove to you that the two premises (topic
sentences) are indeed correct. If I can do so with a reasonable degree of logical consistency,
rigour and coherence (e.g. do I contradict myself?), and quality of exposition; then my
argument (contention) can be reasonably accepted and all there is to do to begin my conclusion
is to tie it together. (Note how sentence length just then impeded clarity). We will address this
in detail in the ‘Body Paragraph’ later.

For now let’s pretend that I have first suggested to you that Premise 1 is indeed the case, and
then unpacked my criteria for the definition of ambitiousness, and then shown how the
fundamental intention of philosophy to grasp into what is not known fits in certain prominent
respects to the definition of ambitiousness, I might then have proven that it is the case that all
philosophers are ambitious. And let’s say I’ve taken care to point out to you that Socrates is a
philosopher by giving examples of historians who have indicated so, perhaps defining what
philosophy does and shown that it correlates strongly with what Socrates did, and you are
satisfied with that point as well. I will have then laid out the trap (with my essay
plan/argument), and by being satisfied with these two points, you will have walked into it. I can
proceed, then, to the conclusion, whose function is to tie the argument together, display your
awareness of the “errors” or “confidence intervals” of the argument, and provide a considered
and nuanced recommendation which shows to the marker your maturity, objectivity,
measuredness, and ability to integrate and mediate disparate intentions and interests into
cohesive and cogent recommendations. I will explain how to do so in the relevant section.

So you see that writing is very deliberate. It is a well-designed coup. A logical framework
conceived to give the reader a certain degree in confidence in whatever opinion you have, in a
way that does not agitate or disrespect any other view, but situates yours in a broader social
and cultural framework which has many diverging opinions, and people who must nevertheless
find ways to collaborate and work together harmoniously. This is what is being looked for. Let
us move now to the internal structure of each section and how it is designed to enable you to
show more of these qualities, while rigorously proving an interesting and novel idea on
whichever topic GAMSAT feels like prompting us on.
 21

Introduction

1. Short hook
2. Acknowledgement of theme
3. First aspect of theme (Focus 1)
4. Second aspect of theme (Focus 2)
5. Thesis (powerful opinion on focus) - partial agreement/disagreement (modification) of
prompt chosen to acknowledge how context modifies or frames it

Before we go into the delivery of this system, it is commonplace, I’m aware, to begin the essay
with your viewpoint (or contention). You can, it’s not going to trash your essay if you do. I avoid
it because it seems banal to me. Pedestrian. It rings too closely to the “contention, first
paragraph point, second paragraph point, ultimately this argument will prove..” format that
makes me want to vom. Now, a disclaimer: this guide is not intended for students who are
lacking in the basics of writing. I write to an audience of students who can write to a 70+ level,
and want to bridge the gap between 70 and 90+. I do this because presently there is zero
information and guidance out there on how to do this, and because I successfully did it after
enormous amounts of research and trial and error. I wanted to pass this on to the next
generation of students so it wasn’t lost, and so my effort achieved more than me getting into
medical school. If you don’t consider yourself a strong writer, this will work, but also consider
being more rigid and elementary in approach if it helps you stay focussed, or if it’s a style of
writing which has persevered through high school and which departure from may present a
substantial challenge for you. Know yourself.

The roadmap

In spirit, the introduction is a roadmap of what’s to come. Functionally it deviates from

explicitly attending to this as there are more important tasks at hand (principally: being
extremely clear about what is being discussed and your thoughts on it). I do, however, find that
a lot of student’s essays feel rambling and hard to follow when I'm reading a body paragraph
and what is being discussed is something that has been mentioned for the first time. The worst
example of this is when new points are introduced in the conclusion. This is a faux pas. I think of
the mind (especially a marker's mind) as being like a computer with limited RAM. RAM is a
computer's working processing ability. While the marker is reading they are looking for ACER’s
qualities, assessing word use, grammar, structure, tone, comparing your work against the other
essays they’ve read and their own world views, trying to be active, and most demandingly,
trying to follow your argument. This is a great stress on their “RAM” if you overwhelm it (with
sentences that are too long, or points that aren’t clear) then information is lost. This feeling of
working hard to figure out an essay is not only viscerally unpleasant (which gets the marker
offside), it’s confusing. If you’ve confused the marker and made them feel unpleasant, they’re
unlikely to mark your essay favourably.
 22

Furthermore, the nature of the human mind is that, by the essay’s end, the marker is far more
likely to not remember what you said, but rather how you made them feel. There is only so
much information we can keep in our mind at one time, and 800 words far exceed that amount.
So you want their recollection of your essay to be a series of positive moments e.g. “the
moment I remember thinking ‘good point’', “the moment I smiled”, “the moment I related”,
“the moment I thought ‘yes, good’. In order to ensure the marker has experience of our work,
we need to ensure that what we are saying is utterly clear. To link this back to the introduction
being a ‘roadmap’, if the points that you will make are roughly signposted in the introduction,
when you arrive at them later in the essay, the marker has a feeling of being ‘located’ within
the overall argument. It’s like as you progress through a theme park or the zoo and you can see
“you are here” on your map, and you know exactly where you are in relation to the overall
experience.

When you arrive you have a pleasant experience of order and stability, but if for some reason
you get lost you feel a disorienting anxiety. Aside taking up “RAM,” in the markers’ minds,
disorienting the marker in the context of your overall argument makes them feel terrible about
the argument, or themselves and occludes their ability to grasp what you’re saying because
they’re too busy worrying about why you’re saying it or how it fits in.

Okay, this now said, let me show you how I do it. I believe this flows more naturally, gives
latitude for the telegraphing of stronger qualities, flowers more nicely and in a more
sophisticated fashion, indicated directly what to do so you never get lost and you’re always
doing something directly purposeful, and finally, I just think the markers would be sick of that
same structure repeated over and over. For this reason, I start with a figurative hook and end
with a delayed-style assertion of my viewpoint. ACER appears to approve.

Delivery

1. Short hook

Begin with a short sentence to lure the reader in.

“Punishment to rehabilitate? No. Punishment for catharsis? Maybe. “

I’m paraphrasing John Fox from https://thejohnfox.com here:

In a mess of complex text, short sentences arrive like a gift. Rarely ambiguous or mysterious.
They are not astonishing in quite the way of longer sentences, so what is their function?
Violence. They are a gut punch, delivering surprise with the utmost efficiency. It’s the short
sentences that we quote. Some examples:

After a string of 100+ word sentences ending with the longest sentence of the 3-page piece, a
232-word monster:
 23

“If you’ve never wept and want to, have a child.”

… I agree with John who comments that this is one of the most devastating sentences he has
ever read.

Next, one of my favourite lines of all time; perhaps the most chilling. It comes from Orwell’s
masterpiece, 1984 - a tale about a man resisting the totalitarian power of a government ‘Big
Brother’ who, through torture and omnipotent totalitarian exertion of power in the cruellest
ways, finally makes that man submit. The book ends on four words:
“He loved Big Brother.”

So you see the power of brevity. The shortest sentence in the bible “Jesus wept.” Do you see
how much is accomplished with those two words? I’m discussing more how writing finishes,
and indeed this advice pertains as much to the last line of your essay as it does the first, but
shall we turn now to some opening hooks?

“All this happened, more or less.” - Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut (and as a matter of
interest, from the same novel.. a man and his WWII comrade caught behind enemy lines in Nazi
Germany are separated by the spectre of gangrene in one of their legs, and eventually death.
The protagonist digs a grave, and fashions a tomb which he writes on it, in memory of the
tremendous pain and suffering they had endured and survived together, he writes “Everything
was beautiful and nothing hurt.”
GUT.PUNCH.

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins.” - Lolita, Vladimir Nabakov

I think you get the point. It is good to be figurative here if you incline to that. How exactly to
come up with a hook is hard to teach because there is a dimension to it that is creative and
instinctual. You need to be relaxed and enjoying yourself. Feeling something helps, which is
why it’s good in the planning to choose to argue a contention that you believe in or feel
passionately about. This guide is intended for people wanting to bridge a 75 to a 90+ so there is
an element of inferred writing flair within that aspiration. For that reason, I won’t go further
into it, because to put rules on it limits it and destroys creativity. If you are finding it challenging
to come up with a hook, consider asking a question, being very direct and “real” or
conversational in tone (versus more analytical for the rest of the essay); or just anything that
provides a contrast to the rest of the essay and that a marker is going to be enthused to see to
break the monotony of essays everyone else is going to write. Something fresh and alive and
vibrant is ideal.

Either way, you want to be cognizant of first impression biases. I remember a video we watched
in Year 9 psychology (like 12 years ago) where they did a study of job interviews. The
interviewer had under the table a pad where they could rate an initial impression from 1-10,
and then a controller that allowed the impression to be modulated up or down thereafter
depending on the performance of the candidate. They had candidates come in with shopping
bags or terrible clothes and then nail the interview; as well as people come in who make
 24

incredibly strong first impressions and then tank the interview. What they found is that
variance from the first impression was within a range, and not enough to overcome the
influence of the first impression. In other words, those who had strong first impressions did
better than those who had poor first impressions, despite much lower performance in the
interview itself. The lesson: make a good first impression.

2. Acknowledgement of the theme

This is the first time we directly address something ACER has explicitly indicated that they are
assessing: “quality of thinking” and “thoughtfulness.” The very first opportunity you have to
have a quality thought, and indeed to be thoughtful, is your inspection and integration of the
prompts in the essay planning stage (as previously discussed). The first opportunity you have to
telegraph that you have done this is in your acknowledgement of the theme. Functionally, it
serves an additional purpose: to frame the rest of the essay and establish an initial domain
scope for the rest of the writing. Thus, the two functions of this sentence are:
1. To win your first marks for displaying the quality of thinking and thoughtfulness regarding the
scope and breadth of the topic/theme.
2. More mechanically, to establish the bounds of the domain being considered in the rest of the
writing.

I encourage you not to use something to this effect: "Whether *question asked in prompt* is a
discourse/debate that is as complex/enduring/lingering/multifaceted in today’s socio-
cultural/politico-economic/geopolitical milieu as it is contentious.“
Resist the temptation to copy-paste that. It’s not good. This was my opener in the early stages
of my preparation. And it’s shit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, everybody does it. Okay, I did it
more nicely, but I get points only for doing the wrong thing better. Secondly, it’s canned
material. ACER explicitly says in their information book

“Pre-prepared responses and responses that do not relate to the topic will receive a low score.”

It shows a lack of thinking, engagement, originality, enthusiasm, and academic integrity. It’s
also banal, repetitive and to make a misstep so early in the piece is something I highly advise
you do not to. If you’re going to make a mistake, do not do it in the introduction.

Here are some examples of acknowledgements from my essays that serve both functions well. I
should note that the first 2 examples began not with a hook, but went straight into the
acknowledgment of the theme. I include them because I felt in these examples the way I began
was powerful enough. I had something poignant enough to say off the bat that I didn’t feel I
needed to use a hook, as the point I was making was sufficiently ‘hooking.’ In the latter two
examples:

“The legitimacy and benefit in the allocation of public resources to space exploration is
predicated not just on curiosity, but on the premise that there will be a future dividend. “
 25

“Contemporary 'Western' governments are not inherently 'good' or 'bad'. Indeed these are
moral and judgemental designations. There are simply people who are aligned to the ideological
intentions of representative democracy, even when it is contrary to their own interests, and
there are people who are not.“

“Everybody did it,” he said as the ache of too-late-recognition settled into the wrinkles that have
arranged themselves into fright on his face. Our culture, on the level of humanity, nation,
religion, corporate identity, provides an ontological framework, or context, from which our
thoughts, actions, and feelings arise.”
(the essay was about how culture can mediate behaviour in powerful ways, for example, the
culture of Nazi soldiers created atrocious acts which were normalised through that culture)

“The bird knows the sky. The worm knows the earth. It is not a question of equality: they each
have their wisdom to share. Yet the debate about equality vs equitability, which relates
prominently to diverging liberalist and utilitarianism political ideologies, dies hard nonetheless.
Chiefly, perhaps, because it divides societies along with politico and socio-economic lines. “

A note here, when I say “sentence 1 (hook), sentence 2 (acknowledgement of theme)” you
don’t need to restrict each function to only one sentence. The hook above, for example, is
three sentences:
“The bird knows the sky. The worm knows the earth. It is not a question of equality; they each
have their wisdom to share.”

The complexity of the theme now acknowledged, your first few points picked up for the quality
of thought and what you made from the quotes, and the scope and breadth of your inspection
of the theme now announced/implicitly defined, we begin to funnel down and get a little more
granular.

3. First aspect of theme (Focus 1)

We are now confronted with the challenge of being very specific for the first time about what
we will discuss. The reader needs to understand that we will not be dealing with all aspects of
the theme at hand (indeed we can’t in the time allowed, or perhaps even in a lifetime), but with
a very narrow aspect of it that is of particular interest to us. We answer the reader’s question
“what part of this theme you have announced, will your argument be about?” It is like a funnel,
we are going from very broad, progressively narrower, to a focussed point (thesis/contention).
 26

Now the focuses don’t need to functionally and explicitly summarise topical sentences 1 and 2
in the sense of approaching it like “this essay will focus on X and then Y. Eventually, it will be
shown that z.” Aside from being banal and repetitive, this structure for an intro has a removed
dryness about it. The formality disconnects you from the writing and lends it an unnecessary
pompousness. I write as if I’m speaking passionately to a highly educated and intelligent and
respected friend, who is an expert in the issue I am discussing. No more formally or informally
than that. The focuses serve the purpose of being extremely clear and precise about exactly
what it is we’re talking about - it is essential that we make clear that it is not all questions about
the subject that we will be dealing with, it is this question/aspect in particular.

By way of example, see here one of the examples used above for the hook, with focus 1 added
to it:
“Contemporary 'Western' governments are not inherently 'good' or 'bad'. Indeed these
are moral and judgemental designations. There are simply people who are aligned to the
ideological intentions of representative democracy, even when it is contrary to their
interests, and there are people who are not. These people run governments; and corrupt
the idealistic blueprints of political ideologies, as we have seen with modern applications
of communism. Central to the debate of the role of the government (minimal vs
 27

proactive), especially in contemporary Western democracies, are the proponents of

classical, modern, and neo-liberal theorists who have differing ideas about the
legitimacy and role of the government within their respective ideological frameworks.”

At this moment I’m going to take some time to ensure that I’m not being confusing. I could
have used an example that was more formulaic in approach, but it belies the reality that, when
I write, it is with cognizance of these principles but not rigidly. I achieve all of the things I have
discussed with this opening, however, some parts are overlapping. Let’s break it down further.

You could say that my redefinition, or initial response (first 2 sentences), to the prompts was a
hook. Hooking in the sense that it’s unexpected, left of field. You’re expecting me to have an
opinion about whether governments are good or bad - as per the prompts - not point out
something they missed. This hook goes all the way to the end of the second sentence “...
modern applications of communism.” You don’t need to hook in this way. Having then
acknowledged ‘their’ theme (are governments good or bad), by addressing where it falls short
of comprehensively confronting the issue; I give my first focus (the underlined text) which is
also an acknowledgment of how I’ve modified the theme to be a more precise examination of
the issue at hand. I leave this here to say, you do not need to necessarily go line by line and give
each point one line. You do need to do each of the things indicated in the structure above, but
if you do that creatively in a format that feels more natural to you - then do that. It can be
good, however, to learn the structure as it is meant to be, and then deviate from it creatively in
the flow of the moment. You need to know the rules to know how to break them.

4. Second aspect of the theme (focus 2)

Your second paragraph is going to be dealing with the second premise necessary in the proof of
your thesis. This may strongly correlate with the investigation of a second aspect of the theme
you are exploring, and often a subset of the first focus. We might as well continue with the
above example introduction. Its next line reads:
“The transition from a minimal (classic), to a proactive (modern), and back to a minimal
(neo-liberal) assertion has, in many respects, occurred in proportion to the
exemplifications of government representatives' willingness or unwillingness to sacrifice
their personal interests in the name of democracy.”

So, my first focus was how various liberal theorists are central to the debate in the prompts. My
second focus, a sub-set of the first, is that the willingness of Western voters to empower their
governments with permission to intervene in their affairs is proportionate to their perception of
 28

that governments’ essential ‘goodness’, which I have defined as their willingness to forge their
personal interests in the name of democracy. An argument is forming, but more importantly,
there is a very specific scope that has arisen that I will be dealing with. I do not aim to address
all of ‘governments’ or all of ‘morality’ or all of ‘liberal economic or political theory.” To do so
would either convey overconfidence in your understanding, an underestimation of the breadth
and depth of the things being discussed, or at least an overreach in your ability to write about
very broad topics succinctly.

5. Thesis

Having engaged the reader, acknowledged the broader scope (theme), and narrowed the
reader’s attention to one small aspect of this theme and a further -sub-theme (or two different
aspects of the theme which are in some way united or related), we have but one more task we
must accomplish before proceeding on the robust foundation we have built to the delivery of
our argument; the thesis.
The thesis is an argumentative expression of the writer's opinion about one or both of the
focuses that were narrowed from the broader theme. This is critical. You cannot develop an
argument just with the focuses you have identified. This opinion is called the thesis and is the
most important point of the introduction. It answers the question “of what point is the writer
trying to persuade me?”
The thesis is in many respects the tip of the spear of our argument. Ideally, it is scathing in tone
(but not emotive), precise, focussed, deliberate, opinionated (but not in such as way as to lack
objectivity - still, it is your right to have any opinion you like), clear as a bell and delivered as a
forceful thrust through the armour, just under the armpit. If our paragraphs broadly cut in
swaths, our thesis punctures directly forward and through, and it does so by virtue of the linear
and robust construction of the focuses of the theme which are analogous to the ‘shaft’ of the
spear. Resting on these, we bring out focus to a tip: and thrust.

Be unambiguous and unequivocal about what the contention is. Leave nothing to guess or
interpret. It is also beneficial to make the contention relevant to a contemporary audience e.g.

“(The rising influence of big data companies e.g. Facebook) implies an urgent need for the
reconsideration of the structural checks which were once imposed only on governments, to be
laterally applied to these companies in order to ensure they operate in socially responsible
ways."

It can also be useful (but is not essential) to pick a few words out of one of the prompts to use
in the contention to make it clear that you are responding directly to a prompt, and better still
 29

to consciously segue into Body Paragraph 1. Furthermore, it is (in my opinion) somewhat

pedestrian to just ‘pick as side’ and agree with it. What I mean by this is not repeating an
argument presented as a prompt and arguing for it. That argument also has its own limitations.
Pick these apart and modify their viewpoint. An A-grade essay requires partially agreeing or
disagreeing with the obvious interpretation of the comments, rather than flatly. Qualify its
limits or contexts in which it arises. Situate the comment in its wider cultural contexts, and then
argue for what you believe to be the case.

Finally, a note I left in my “Task A” file during my preparation which I think bears copying here
unedited:
“Contentions and ideas must be both true and interesting. Both of these qualities are relative
so that’s at your discretion. But in my world, I’ll say its true and if for no other reason it’ll be
interesting on account of that other students won’t be arguing it. “
 30

Body Paragraphs
Nothing fancy here: TEEL
1. Topic Sentence (as a premise for the proof of the contention)
2. Example/Evidence (from sociology, psychology, history, philosophy, current affairs, etc. - to
ground Topic Sentence / Premise to something the reader can understand and relate to, and to
situate your argument in its broader contemporary or historical contexts)
3. Evaluate in the context of the theme (to explore your ideas in a way that is relevant to the
prompts and addresses them directly, unpack their implications and limitations, and explain
their significance to the point and the contention)
4. Link (backward to the contention; forward to the next paragraph - for cohesion).
TEEL is a good skeleton, however familiarity with the skeleton and fleshing it out in the best
way for ACER’s purposes are two different things. Let’s explore a little deeper.

1. Topic Sentence

Formulating a Topic Sentence

We follow on from the ontology, ‘why’, of Task A structure that we discussed earlier - logic. We
are prompted first on a theme. We must acknowledge the scope and breadth of the theme
while taking care to position the theme in its broader sociological, political, economic,
philosophic contexts i.e. “where and when is what we are saying true?” Then, we must set
aside a particular aspect of the theme to deal with (a nod to our awareness of the complexity of
the issue), and assert a position which we believe and which requires proof. In order to most
rigorously prove a point, we must set up a series of premises which, if true, naturally imply the
validity (I am careful here not to say correctness as it implies that others are incorrect or that
truth is objective - not an ideal display of psychometric profiling) of our contention. I ask myself
as I plan the essay, “what is the most elegant way to prove this point?”

Remember that the structure of a rigorous proof for “Socrates is mortal” would ideally be
something as follows:

1. All philosophers are mortal

2. Socrates is a philosopher
-> Therefore Socrates is mortal
 31

Let us return to the contention above:

1.

2.
-> “(The rising influence of big data companies e.g. Facebook) implies an urgent need for the
reconsideration of the structural checks which were once imposed only on governments, to be
laterally applied to these companies in order to ensure they operate in socially responsible
ways.“
We must fill in premise 1 and 2 in such a way as to prove the contention. These premises will
become our Topic Sentences (and each paragraph exists to provide proof of the topic sentence,
and therefore of the contention). In a way not dissimilar to the formulation of our conclusion,
the Topic Sentence is best formulated as a premise of the larger argument and constructed by
saying in your head “the single powerful point which I will prove to you in this paragraph, and
which supports my contention, is.” , and then writing the topic sentence.

Topic Sentences as Argumentative Premises

The above contention is a more complex one, but for the sake of rigorousness, I will list all the
things (that I can think of) which would need to be addressed and proven in order to have a
solid argument for the contention being valid. We won’t use all of them as topic sentences,
many of them will be too obvious or ‘given’ as to require a paragraph’s extrapolation, so we will
focus on the two weakest links or those which are most contentious.

1. Big Data companies such as Facebook have a rising influence (over human behaviour, world
affairs, etc.) - e.g. Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 Brexit vote / Trump vote

2. The structural checks (legal liability/culpability and limitations of their power and the exertion
of it, obligations to the public, the possibility to be voted out of power at elections, etc.) which
exist on governments do not equally apply to big data companies.
3. Influence/power of this magnitude in combination with lack of structural checks of that
influence/power has the potential for misuse and to be used in socially irresponsible ways

-> This implies an urgent need for consideration/reconsideration of how to ensure these
companies act in ways that are responsible
 32

Were it true that big data did have rising influence (for the first time in human history, more so
than governments), and that there were not the same checks to their power as there are to
governments, and that this has the potential for misuse… it follows reasonably that there may
be an urgent need for consideration. These become your Topic Sentences. Now you’ll seldom
have enough room to have three paragraphs, so I would just combine points 2 and 3 into one
paragraph. You can now see a structure forming.

Hook:
Acknowledgement of theme:
Focus 1:
Focus 2:

Thesis:

Topic Sentence 1:
Topic Sentence 2:

-> Thesis proven (Conclusion)

We’re not quite there yet, though. Before we flesh things out further, though, let’s tie this piece
on argumentation off. We could technically break each of these premises down to sub-
premises which require proof for the argument to be rigorous, however, this is of a level of
detail that is not required for these purposes. It doesn’t hurt to be cognisant of it, though. So
we’ll entertain and example for a moment further:
Does the potential for misuse of power really imply the need for urgent reconsideration? We
would have to prove that if we do not act there could be destructive outcomes, and that
destructive outcomes should be avoided, and that consideration of structural checks would
mitigate destructive outcomes. These proven we could reasonably say that there is an urgent
need for reconsideration of the structural checks on the growing power of these companies.
Now, this is obviously a lot of thought to be putting in, and let me emphasize that you don’t
need to go into that level of detail on the fly. You should, however, after developing the
argument and then contention, think about what you might need to have established to have
reasonably explored / proved / supported the thesis as a valid and considered viewpoint.
 33

2. Example/Evidence

Firstly let me point out, while argumentation and logic are front of mind, that giving an example
of something is not rigorous logical proof of a point. If my point is that Big Data companies have
a rising influence, and when I say that Cambridge Analytica used Facebook to target voters
most likely to turn and fed them fake news, ultimately influencing the Brexit and Trump votes
in 2016, I haven’t proven the rising influence of Facebook. It could be that companies like
Cambridge Analytica are the influential ones, or that these were exceptional circumstances, or
that the vote wasn’t ultimately turned and that that is speculation. I don’t say this because you
are necessarily required to rigorously prove each point with faultless logic - that is beyond the
scope of the GAMSAT - but I say this so you can be aware, or at least more critical, or evaluating
the strengths of your own argument. You will be required later in the conclusion to
acknowledge the limitations to an opposing view as well as your own, so it would be an error to
relate to what you have said as if it were the objective truth just because it was true in one
instance.
Providing evidence performs multiple functions. An essay without evidence is going to either
fail to say anything definitively at all (and score poorly) or say a lot of things that are baseless
and unsubstantiated (and score poorly). So, the first function of evidence is to give essay
credibility and designate where and when what you are saying is valid (or partially true). Again,
I am being particular about saying valid instead of true. An example or even evidence does not
make something true. Even scientists with what seems like hard evidence or something express
confidence intervals about their findings. The evidence simply gives you credibility, and
permission to give an opinion forcefully. I am reminded of a quote by Harlan Ellison: "You are
not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be
ignorant."
The second function of evidence/examples is to ground what you are saying in something
tangible that the reader can wrap their heads around or ‘grab onto.’ Recall the earlier part on
the connotative and denotative space around what you say. The Topic Sentence, being that it
functionally requires a paragraph of proof, can be conceptually difficult to grasp at the first pass
or really feel like you have a handle on. A good way to offset that and improve cohesion is to
link what you’ve said to an idea or example that is already known. The marker can sense of “oh
yes, I’m with you now.. go on.” Failing this, they can often feel a mental burden which limits
their comprehension of your writing. You give them something from your world (an
opinion/premise requiring proof), and then you give them something from ‘the’ world (an
example you are both familiar with).
Functions of evidence:
1. Credibility, the right to have an opinion

2. Grounding what you say in something the marker can easily understand and relate to.
 34

Where to get evidence / what evidence do I use?

Broadly you can use either events or ideas. Both are ideal; however, I would recommend highly
not to use only ideas without any events. Task A, ideally, should be made relevant to a
contemporary audience; or written concerning historical events and then made explicitly
relevant to people either now or in the future. So, I would first use events, and then ideas as
further support. Also, this question was addressed in depth in a video podcast I did with Frasers
GAMSAT, available on my YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz1XQ7hrI_3ZmVJQQ3CgBvg
I can’t link the video as it’s not yet uploaded but it was the second in the series of podcasts with
Frasers. I will title it “Task A / Task B Style and The Best way to use evidence in Section 2 of the
GAMSAT” or something to that effect.

Events
Current affairs are a particularly effective use of evidence in Task A, as well as historical events.
By events, I don’t mean like an actual thing happening necessarily. I am designating a period in
time where your example exists in physical, rather than abstract or conceptual, reality. The
mention, for example, of Facebook, or Elon Musk, or Mao Zedong, or the Bolsheviks in the
Russian Revolution… all count as events. Even if you’re not proving anything or using evidence,
shading what you are saying in the light of things that are happening or have happened to
situate your writing in the physicalness of reality. It helps the coherence of your writing
substantially, especially if you are someone that is inclined to cerebral and ideas-based writing.
I recommend reading the opinion sections of publications such as The New York Times, The
Guardian, and especially The Quadrant (if you can stomach the views expressed - it’s the best
return on investment for GAMSAT purposes). Further, I cannot speak more highly of The
Minefield podcast on ABC - listen to the app. Like literally if you do one thing - make it that.

Ideas
Ideas are great for cleaning up easy marks and can be thrown in e.g. “conflict may be, in part, a
reflection of residual fear in what Freud termed the ‘unconscious, of the unknown being
projected onto unfamiliar people.” I made that sentence up on the spot, but not the use of ‘in
part.’ My mention of Freud does not prove my point, so I do not position what I say as
objectively true - I’m just wondering. Note also that the sentence and point would stand
without the mention of Freud. I literally just threw it in. Conveniently, ideas in existentialism,
behavioural economics, and psychology can easily be used in these ways and sprinkled in. You
would be surprised how often ‘framing,’ ‘the unconscious,’ and ‘the dasein’ (Martin Heidegger’s
 35

description of the being or felt dimension of life) can come up in essays. I sprinkle them like
confetti - joyfully and liberally as I clean up marks for doing so. The Dasein can literally be put
almost anywhere (ESPECIALLY in Task B’s - highly recommend summarising the Wikipedia on it
and on existentialism in general).
You will also notice the more you write essays and develop and expand on your ideas that they
can be organised into grand narratives or broader themes. The world that YOU experience
arises naturally out of certain larger contexts that apply, by virtue of this, at least partly to
everything that happens in these spheres. I am referring, for Western people, to things like
Technology, Liberalism (or neo-liberalism), Democracy, Capitalism, Globalisation, Existentialism,
Utilitarianism… lots of isms. Most of us live in countries that attempt to be representative
democracies and who operate within capitalist, economically liberal, or neoliberal frameworks.
Technology and globalisation are realities of the early 21st century for many Western people.
Existentialism addresses nearly all humans. So by learning about these themes you can situate
what you say in light of these broader themes.

Psychology:

• Howard Gardener’s multiple intelligences

• Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
• Freud’s ‘unconscious’
• Jung’s ‘shadow’
• Behavioural Economics
• Framing
• Nudging

Political Ideology:

• Liberalism
• Utilitarianism and consequentialism (both positive and negative including Hedonistic
Calculus)
• Communism/Socialism
• Democracy

Philosophy:

• Existentialism (esp. Martin Heidegger’s work)

 36

History

Personally, I used the French and Russian revolutions. These were the origins of many of the
themes which impact the world around us today. The French revolution embodied the spirit of
liberalism and democracy which are characteristic of many Western countries; and was the
origin of liberalism, capitalism, democracy, and the free press. The Russian revolution
embodied the spirit of communism and socialism which, in combination with Mao Zedong in
China, was hugely influential in world affairs e.g. the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, the
installation of the Chinese Communist Party. Contrasting how each of these revolutions and the
values they embodied, achieved, or failed at their aims is also thinking worth doing. Both
attempt to increase the quality of life for their citizens. Which was more effective? Does
socialism in its practical applications achieve its aims, no matter how well intention it is?

- The Third Reich and gulags in the Soviet Union are great examples of the departure from
traditional Christian values of the worth of human life in early 20th century Europe to a view of
human life as expendable to achieve socialist or racial utopias… the list goes on.

Synthesis of ideas

I considered not including this. This is not a GAMSAT essay and was never intended to be read
by anybody else, so I did not limit or frame it for digestion by others in my usual way. I wrote it
in the days leading up to my GAMSAT as many of the themes and ideas I had explored began to
cohere into a unifying framework. My understanding of the world around us began to deepen. I
include it for whatever value you may extract from it. At a minimum, it is laden with examples
and ideas that you would benefit greatly from exploring further both in your personal research,
and essays.
The history of Europe over the 20th century provides a telling context in which to examine a
highly subtle, but crucially important, ontological dimension of contemporary human existence.
Let us begin at the start. The beginning of the 20th century witnessed a systematic upending, or
disfiguration, of traditional Christian values regarding the value of human life, culminating with
the Third Reich's commodification of human life to their economic or political usefulness (e.g.
uniting Germany against the evilness of Jews; economising them for cheap labour).

The word economy has its roots in the Greek “Oikos” (work) as distinct for life, or feeling
“pathos.” The Third Reich's concentration camps were emblematic of the extinguishing not of
human life but humanity. It represented a reduction of a person to their work (Oikos), and the
extinguishing of their being and feeling (pathos). The brutal nakedness of these Jews became an
icon or a crutch on which, the world woke back up to the essential importance of
“personhood.” German philosopher (and ironically Nazi sympathiser) was central in introducing
 37

the theme of the “dasein” or “being-here” dimension of life which precedes everything else. He
said that life reveals itself to us through moods such as anxiety. And this emphasizes that the
feeling, being, and pathos dimension to life is the essential quality of life undergirded this
transition. Where in the 40’s a person could be a physiological bundle of reactions as the body
struggled to fight emaciation, the next 50 years were characterised by significant progress in
human rights - whether the enfranchisement of women, the desegregation of black and white
schools in America, trans and gay rights in the early 21st century, and more recently the
tremors that the murder of George Floyd sent globally.
Yet there is a way that we listen. Our entire experience of our lives is prefaced by the where-
we-are and what-we-know and goes as deep as or deeper than language. We are born knowing
nothing. And we are told we are a girl, and so we become female. We are told we live in
Melbourne, and so we become Australia. As Vonnegut described, our lives are thusly limited as
we are domesticated to this world. These frames and rituals that are given to us so that we may
function harmoniously with others also serve to limit our perception of the world. It gives us
something to look at the world through but is not discussed or negotiated. George Orwell
touched closely on this idea in his narrating of the actions of Thought police in 1984, who
sought to introduce “Newspeak” and destroy the old language which contained words that
could potentially incite rebellion. If we are unable to speak or describe our feelings or
understandings with language, we suffocate and disenfranchise them.
Social media, by creating the rules and structures of how we interact with one another, in our
increasingly online world, also suffocate or bottleneck our ability to negotiate life with one
another. There is something that precedes everything else, like Heidegger's moods, but which is
not unique to the individual. That is the dasein of humanity today. Increasingly the feeling of
being human today is uneasy, or confrontational; it can be delusionally neurotic. In this post-
truth era, where there is diminished importance or political sway placed on facts, it matters less
and less that there is an agreed epistemological or ontological scaffold in which our ideas and
understandings are collectively placed. We divest ourselves of these agreements and polarise
our socio-political and cultural atmospheres with increasingly incommensurable ideas about
the world, and no priority on fact. The late Paul Virilio, a 20th-century French cultural theorist,
and aesthetic philosopher coined the term “the dromosphere” from the Greek “dromos” (race,
or racetrack). He described the accelerated sphere in which world events unfolded at an ever-
increasing speed. We hurtle towards our oblivion and, indeed, the University of Chicago Nobel
laureates who manage the “doomsday clock” recently changed our proximity to midnight (the
annihilation of humanity) in seconds, not minutes.
There is a feeling which presupposes everything else, something that we live life through. In the
same way that we are only able to perceive a spectrum of light, or sound, and so cannot make
an absolute judgement about the world given our relative sensory inputs, we are also
perceiving only a spectrum of the world around us. The world around us is a function of this
spectrum. Its sturdiness is predicated only relatively on these perceptions. We could just as
 38

easily change how we see the world, shift the paradigm - as certain moments in time have
done, for instance, the discovery of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps by American soldiers,
or the image of the napalmed child from the Vietnam war - and live in a new relativistic
ontological (and therefore epistemological) framework. In a sense, it’s arbitrary which lens we
look at life through. But the being-here as a human on earth today is a context that limits our
ability to empathise with each other, and this necessitates our sympathy with one another.
Most importantly, it signals an urgent need for a greater focus on this dasein of humanity. What
is it? What goes into it? What comes out of it? These flows are the essential constituents and
determinants in human life, progress, history, and unfoldment. Our future depends on it. Wake
up.
The following articles are a good place to start and were used by me in my own GAMSAT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rise-of-zombie-liberalism-half-dead-half-
alive/2011/06/29/AG0934tH_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-
world
https://aeon.co/essays/heidegger-v-carnap-how-logic-took-issue-with-metaphysics

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/01/totalitarianism-in-age-donald-trump-
lessons-from-hannah-arendt-protests
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/05/heidegger-philosophy

(First in a 10 part series)

https://scheerpost.com/2020/07/13/chris-hedges-dont-be-fooled-by-the-cancel-culture-wars/
 39

3. Evaluating

The simple provision of an example, if left at that, fails to meet the criteria for an ideal GAMSAT
essay in three ways. First, it alone does not prove your point and without further evaluation, it
is implied that you believe it does. Second, it is only connotatively or loosely situated in the
context of your point. Third, it does not apply at all to the overall theme. Let me show you what
I mean by making up a really great sounding point an example that is ultimately poor in
delivery.
Prompt: Social media is ultimately cancerous to real human connectivity.
Contention: While undoubtedly not without its benefits, social media must be placed in its
broader psycho-social contexts if the profits are to be examined against the costs. The quality of
life of humanity at large is not worth the further advancement of globalisation - we have
conscripted ourselves into the convenience of neurological slavery.

“The panopticon of social media generates colossal amounts of digital exhaust which are
commoditised, with all their rich predictive behavioural signals, and unsold for-profit -
incentivising a divestment of these companies, and those who own them, from their
political or moral obligations in favour of their quarterly profit. What better example
than Facebook, which cannot see the forest from the trees and routinely advertise ‘fake
news’ to users who are most likely to engage with that content, for example during the
2016 Trump election. At its extreme, it has the power to turn referendums and materially
change the course of history, as in the Brexit vote. But who oversees this responsibility?”
Ok. Sounds great. Let’s dig deeper.
Does it prove my point? No.

Is it situated in the context of my point? In this case partially.

Facebook chose to generate a profit by showing fake news kind of proves the point, however, it
is implied that fake news is bad, or that I think fake news is bad. Better still would have been “…
routinely advertise ‘fake news’ to its users who, while being more likely to engage with that
content, have a fundamental right to the truth and to making their political decisions based on
accurate information.” Now that would have been a good point.

Does it relate back to the contention? No. Let’s improve on the rephrasing above:
“… routinely advertise ‘fake news’ to its users who, while being more likely to engage
with that content, have a fundamental right to the truth and to making their political
 40

decisions based on accurate information. This amounts to a contravention of American

voters’ civil liberties and of political justice. The convenience of having a product
suggested to me ten minutes after mentioning it to a friend in conversation does not
outweigh the subsequent loss of life by what was called by many as a negligent
mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic by Donald Trump. Human life must come
before human convenience”
Now we’re more on point.

The key here is to evaluate each point in the context of your point, and the overall contention;
and be aware that an example alone does not alone prove a point. You must be watchful for
where loose threads are in argumentation and try to be as objective and comprehensive as is
possible within the limitations.

4. Link

I remember my Year 12 English Language teacher talking about the “Three C’s.”

Cohesion. Coherence. …the other was either Clarity or Cogency. Can’t remember which one,
but tbh there could be four C’s because they’re both important points. Cohesion is achieved
easily by directly linking your paragraph/point back to the contention and the prompt at large.
Trust me the implied links aren’t as clear to others as they are to you. You cannot overdo
explaining what you mean. I’m reminded of the popular adage “Tell them what you’re going to
tell them; tell them; then tell them what you told them.” It’s so true.
To this end (achieving cohesion) we want to link both backwards and forwards. It is absolutely
necessary to link backwards to the contention and prompt. Linking forward (segueing) is
desirable but not functionally necessary. If you can do both, great. We return to this
contention: “This implies an urgent need for the reconsideration of the structural checks which
were once imposed only on governments, to be laterally applied to these companies in order to
ensure they operate in socially responsible ways. Below is the last line of paragraph one, and
the first line of paragraph two.
“… The danger to democracy, civil, and social life clearly necessitates novel and
comprehensive regulation in order to meet these challenges, if the politico-economic
ideas which are the foundations for contemporary Western societies are to be upheld.
The dangerousness implied in power necessitates regulation in order to champion
socially responsible behaviour and ensure the delivery and preponderance of liberal and
democratic political ideals, which characterise the politico-ontological frameworks of
today’s Western societies….”
 41

I have linked back to the contention with the word regulation, and forward to the next
paragraph with the word danger. And the in the first sentence of paragraph two has taken
further care to link to the preceding line with ‘social,’ ‘democratic,’ ‘political,’ ‘western
societies’, etc. I think of it a bit like stitching the essay together. You join the two bits side by
side and then sew them together.
 42

Conclusion

1. Tie argument together (beautifully, if you can)

2. Display psychometric awareness of the limits to your point and the validity of others
3. Find common ground and make a thoughtful call to action
4. Gut punch.
The function of the conclusion is to tie together your argument; soften and couch it in a display
of the psychometric awareness we have earlier discussed; unite competing perspectives into a
common framework in which a degree of progress is possible, and leave the reader on a
thought or feeling that lingers.
This is not the place for introducing new ideas or arguments. You want to be careful here to pay
attention to build momentum, and keeping a linear consistent pace toward the inevitable end
of your piece. Additional ideas and points ruin momentum and distract from the argument you
have already made. Fear is noisy; strength is silent. If you keep bringing up new points it comes
across frenetic and uncertain. If you have done the rest correctly, you need not say anything
else. The job is done, and so well that we can allocate this whole paragraph to winning
psychometric points.

1. Tie argument together (beautifully, if you can)

If you recall from the structure we had created, our essay was a good design, reverse-
engineered coup. So long as we set up our argument well to begin with, as we conclude we
should by now have proven two premises which will naturally make evident the validity of the
contention. The heart of it is “given point 1, and given point 2, it necessarily follows that
contention is correct.” These aren’t the specific words you will use, but they are its function. If
you have done the other bits well, it should be screamingly obvious at this point that your
contention has been proven with a reasonable degree of confidence, and the conclusion should
be very natural - it should be kind of obvious, like picking up a ringing telephone.
It is also stylistically appropriate to be a little more figurative here, as in the hook of the
introduction. You are almost hooking them again at the end of the essay, and foreshadowing
the end of the essay by turning up the poignancy of what you are saying. This use of figurative
language is not absolutely necessary at the start of the conclusion (although it is at the end). If
you aren’t yet comfortable with getting the structural elements in place then just focus on that.
To refine and polish you can be a bit more figurate. I will also point out that most of these
stylistic and figurative affectations were not premeditated. They just came out when I wrote.
Forcing them as a matter of ticking a checklist probably won’t work, but if you develop fluency
with your writing you will land into the conclusion in a relaxed way with plenty of ideas from
 43

the exploration of your topic. This relaxed, confident, engaged place often lends itself well to
figurative creativity. Some examples of my specific wording. (Take note that these aren’t the
conclusions in full, just the tying of argument together portions):

“If an attempt to make all things equal, that is to try and encourage equitability, is
ineffective; and if eschewing it for the benefits conferred by competition is more so; then
perhaps we might shirk the apparent obsession we have with equality in contemporary
western political rhetoric. The fish knows the water. The buffalo knows the fields…”

“Increasingly citizens of democracies are surveyed upon, spied upon, inspected, checked,
measured, beaten, murdered, criminalised. This is ideologically justified by a 'tacit'
agreement of the legitimacy of the state apparently at birth. While the power to elect
our leaders remains in our hands, however, these leaders are accountable to us. While
the rise of populism that has partly arisen out of distrust of politicians in America has
confronted its own challenges, it is importantly emblematic of this distrust. “

“George Orwell, in the first half of the 20th century, famously predicted the rise of ‘Big
Brother’: an omnipotent locus of power who was always watching. Many aspects of his
predictions were chillingly correct, yet what was not envisioned was the rise of
globalisation and our willing abdication of the freedom-from- the influence of our
decision making to the social media panopticon. We have become, in contemporary
Western life, physiologically enslaved to our devices, and these devices mediate our
behaviour in ways we are often unaware of. What Freud would term our “unconscious”
is being manipulated. Big Brother fears only one thing: big data (or, at the risk of being
facetious, “Big data”). Never before has an institution held the power of this kind, yet
been so divested of the culpability that having that power necessitates within liberal-
democratic frameworks. “
This last example is, of course, the exception to the rule about not bringing in further points.
Although in my defence it’s not really a new point, it’s an embellishment of the existing point by
linking it to big brother.
 44

2. Display psychometric awareness of the limits to your point and the validity of others

If the first bit is done well, it will be almost too mic droopy to leave it at that. So you then take a
softer approach - like the ancient martial arts master gracefully extending a gentle hand out to
an overconfident youthful upstart who didn’t realise who he was messing with and got quickly
and brutally overwhelmed.
Task A essays, structurally, have less scope for showing many of the psychometric elements we
have discussed. It is their fatal flaw. On one hand, they are focussed and linear and have a much
greater scope for displaying more cerebral qualities and telegraphing awareness of the world
around them; on the other hand, they can easily be devoid of opportunities to display
humanity, compassion, empathy, sensitivity, maturity. All of these qualities are massively high
scoring qualities to the telegraph.

Furthermore, many students, since they relate to the writing style as “argumentative,” believe
it is appropriate to be forceful or demeaning of others’ views. This can lead to scarcity of
fallibilism, objectivity/measuredness, and neutrality which are further qualities that bode well
for a high-scoring Task A.

This can be addressed at this juncture by acknowledging the following things:

i. Your view is framed and limited by your experiences and subjective perception of the
world. When it is expressed it can be sensible to acknowledge the extents to which your
view is valid (like errors or confidence intervals in a scientific report) - displaying
fallibilism and objectivity/measuredness

ii. Others’ views, while framed and limited in the same way as yours, are just as valid in
their subjectivity. That is your view isn’t any better or worse, it’s just a different angle of
looking at a situation - displaying neutrality, sensitivity, empathy, and maturity

iii. Regardless of your individual view/opinion on the matter, it isn’t practical or reasonable
to expect those with diverging views to drop their beliefs and vested interests and
blindly follow your recommendation - displaying high levels of maturity and compassion
iv. Awareness that we don’t all need to agree to make progress

v. To be clear, our confrontation of diverging perspectives is not to “rebut,” which

connotes contentious and imperious argument. We simply acknowledge that the world
is full of different opinions and any solution must be sensitive to these people’s
concerns if it is to be a workable or realistic solution.

Some examples:
 45

“These views are framed and limited by one set of thoughts and experiences. Naturally, others'
will diverge, and to expect that anyone's set of views is both correct and that they should be
widely accepted so we can all link hands and sing kumbaya would be naive. We need not,
however, agree on all things to make progress.”

“This is but one view, limited by my personal biases, experiences, and contexts. Certainly, other
views exist, and these can be valid in other respects, too. To expect us all to agree on the need
for regulating technology companies would be to overlook the obvious financial interests that
many people have in these companies, and so if one thing is certain it is that we will not all
agree. However, the stability of the economic systems in which those people in the
contemporary West who profit from these companies exist, is predicated in part on liberal
economic philosophy which exists itself within democratic ideological contexts.”

3. Find common ground and make a thoughtful call to action

I feel that there’s no point discussing a topic for 800 words if nothing productive is going to
come of it so a recommendation or call to action is a perfect way to finish an essay (there are
many, this isn’t the only way). Providing a solution achieves a certain closure which perfectly
sets up the final figurative gut punch, and allows you to telegraph maturity and an ability to
both perceive where collaboration between conflicting views towards progress is possible, AND
an ability to cohere disparate views and desires into united and harmonious solutions which
progress issues of importance (great quality in a doctor).

Don’t just call to action as a style of finishing an essay. It needs to be a considered call to action
that maximises benefit and minimises prejudice and suffering. It needs to be a legitimate and
considered solution for the problem, showing the integration of empathy, politics, common
sense, and both viewpoints of the argument. A recommendation is the resolution of the tension
built through the essay. The essay works towards the recommendation which brings it
together. It’s best to make it a low-risk recommendation, though, as you don't want to finish on
a conclusion that the reader could disagree with.

Where I commonly see this done poorly is in topics dealing with capitalism. Invariably, there are
the students who not only take the opportunity to be emphatically left-wing (I don’t care what
political orientation you are - I’m just saying that you don’t know who the marker is so, as
discussed, it’s best not to get anyone offside) and then conclude a rant about how capitalism
has ruined the world with “we should redistribute all the wealth” or “increase taxation of the
rich.” There are a few problems with these recommendations.

The first is if you think that in a society where the rich have the lion’s share of political power,
that you are going to successfully get a recommendation through which takes their money
away, you’re being naive. And if it’s not going to get approved, why recommend it? It’s the
 46

equivalent of “we should all just love each other and share our food, and not go to work
anymore, ok guise?”

Secondly, whether it gets approved or not, disenfranchising the interests and values of a giant
section of people doesn’t show grace or consideration. One of the only words ACER gives us
about what is being examined is “thoughtful.” When I say thoughtfully I mean that the solution
needs to be realistic, and in acknowledgement and sensitivity to how it would be received by
various groups. In short, if you don’t think your recommendation would be a successful
campaign to run as Prime Minister or even local government with, it could probably do with
improvement.
Examples:

“If we simply agree that, however infrequently it transpires, governments should ideologically
aim to be truly representative of their constituents' interests, then we can see there is work to
be done and regulating these institutions is worthwhile. “

“If we can simply agree that there is a fundamental worth in improving what existential
philosopher Martin Heidegger would call "the dasein" - the "being-here” experience of being
human - then we have reason to begin here on Earth before needing to explore space.“

“It is important for us all, then, to ensure that these politico-economic ideas are applied equally
to the by-products of globalisation, as they are to the governments whose power was more
absolute before them. Lest we put the shackles on ourselves, “

4. Gut punch

Let us now neatly circle back to the beginning: the opening hook. Resist the notes there. Much
of the same applies here, however, there is a subtle difference in the way I look at the
beginning and the way I look at the end.

In the beginning, the hook is to capture attention (and so is necessarily sensational) and open
and an invitation to additional thinking and exposition.
In the conclusion, the closest word I can give as to what a perfect gut-punch should achieve is a
sense of lingering. You want the message to linger …
(Is anyone old enough to know The Cranberries? “Linger” is in my head now... but I digress).

I use the word gut punch in reference to the article I linked you to in the opening hook section
about how to write short sentences. You want it to leave you with a final “OUFF.” The clearest
example I can give of the sensation is the way Helena in the Facebook group recently opened a
Task B in death. She began with:
 47

“It’s midnight and my grandma is dying.”

Good lord. My skin crawls every time.

It can also be effective to finish on a quote (that isn't one of the prompts), or a cultural or
literary reference, as long as it is ubiquitous enough that the marker will get it. This can ground
your ideas and essay in something that is real and tangible and in front of mind for the marker,
which is another effective approach.

I feel that your closing line is quite intimate and personal to the writer. I feel hesitant for that
reason to denote “this is what you should do.” But it should make your marker remember you.
And keep in mind in the moments after, the marker will be making selections about your mark
and filling in your rubrics. It’s the last day. Whatever you do, make it good.

Some examples of mine:

“The cosmic represents the unknown. It contains an unlimited potential, the promise of a new
beginning. Yet we are microcosms of that unlimited potential: the spiralling double strand of our
DNA in the reflection of the spiralling Milky Way above. There is space to explore within. There
is both uncertainties, and hope, for humanity, yet. And this is only one small part of a backyard
of one group of places in an infinite collection of dust and stars, each suspended in their unique
unfoldment. “

“Orwell envisioned the state as 'big brother.' He came to love big brother. But at what cost?”

“Think freely while you still can: big data is watching; we love big data. “

“If a word will suffice, we need not reach for the sword.”

”In the words of Stephen Hawking, we are an amalgam of chemicals rotating around one star in
a small corner of the backyard of an infinite amount stars. Perspective quite effectively blunts
the edge of patriotism.”

“The burden of pre-empting and generating these discussion lays with those who infected us
with the limiting structures in which we now increasingly enfold our humanity: social media
platforms. Caring about having these discussions isn’t just crucial. It is humane. “

———

That’s it, folks. My gosh, that was a bigger task than I thought.
 48

A final note…

I will leave you with the same advice I concluded The Philosophy of Section II Success with as I
believe it is invaluable:
Don’t reach for a great result, just build small daily foundations of greatness, and the result will
inevitably follow.
 49

Appendix 1: Sample 90+ Response

Frasers Task A - Equality

The bird knows the sky. The worm knows the earth. It is not a question of equality: they each have their
wisdom to share. Yet the debate about equality vs equitability, which relates prominently to diverging
liberalist and utilitarianism political ideologies, dies hard nonetheless. Chiefly, perhaps, because it
divides societies along politico- and socio-economic lines. Natures knows no equality. The fast antelope
live; the rest are for the lions. This is an encouragement to enterprise, and economies based on
meritocratic and neo- liberalist ideals have historically generated a higher living standard, and better
access to education, and healthcare for their citizens. Those that have not, e.g Soviet Union or
Cambodian communism, typically have failed to elicit as positive outcomes for their citizens. However
well-intentioned political philosophy based on equality is, it is an impediment to economic prosperity
which is a precondition to providing a better quality of life for constituents of those economies.

Equality-based ideologies such as communism or utilitarianism have historically failed to realise their
intended outcomes as they are applied to real world scenarios. Classic liberalism, which predates
utilitarian and communist philosophy, espouses the idea that, as William Hobbs put it, “the drunkard in
the gutter is exactly where he ought to be.” Less crudely, that “the market” does not have a human bias
 50

and minimal state intervention in economics and individual liberties enables meritocratic (“fair”)
outcomes. Simply, that each member of society will be rewarded in proportion to their contribution.
Utilitarian philosophers became concerned that liberal economies cause structural violence that
precludes or obstructs certain socio-economic classes from accessing the competition in the market, via
subpar education and opportunity. Their calculus emphasises the net benefit or harm for all members,
which became a fundamental preposition of social welfare, or, equitability. At its extreme, the role of
the state is proffered not just as a proactive enabler of this equitability, as in modern liberalism
(“positive liberalism”), but the chief adjudicator of it. This brings us to communism. Marxist philosophy
was intended as a genuine attempt at social-utopia, however as it is applied to the real world it
consistently fails to achieve its intended outcomes. To get a sense of this you need only glance over a list
of communist and socialist regimes (The soviet union, or pre-soviet Russia in which people were eating
grass for sustenance, Cambodia) in contrast to neo-liberal economies such as the US, modern day China
(who likes to call themselves Communist but, in economic respects, aren’t), and Australia. Political
emphasis on equality is not only rarely beneficial, it is often an obstruction, to genuine social welfare.

Meritocracies provide an impetus for competition and enterprises and these key facets of modern
western economies is one of the reasons they have been so successful in performing better with respect
to important living indexes such as healthcare and education. Subliminal telegraphing of the importance
of financial success in popular culture, for instance rap music, a genre of growing popularity, can be
harmful. It is correlated, but not necessarily causing, increases in mental health epidemics as people are
indoctrinated into an ontological framework wherein their value is proportional to their ability to be
wealthy. These challenges notwithstanding, a less emphatic willingness of a government to provide for
those who do not directly contribute to the economy, and the culture which that creates, is an
encouragement of industry and progress. Certainly structural violence and the relative
disenfranchisement of lower socio-economic milieus is implied, yet even the most poor of countries
such as Australia live in relative prosperity compared to global standards. As the aphorism goes: “a rising
tide lifts all ships.” While utilitarianism may be a basis of social welfare, it is ultimately concerned with
the greatest net benefit for all citizens. If “trying to make unequal things equal” results in further
disenfranchisement and erosion of the interests of even the poor, perhaps liberalist and utilitarianist can
agree. The communists won’t come to the tea party, they’re out in the fields providing for Marx telling
called “the spectre of communism.”

If an attempt to make all things equal, that is to try and encourage equitability, is ineffective; and if
eschewing it for the benefits conferred by competition are more so; then perhaps we might shirk the
apparent obsession we have with equality in contemporary western political rhetoric. The fish knows
the water. The buffalo knows the fields. Those who are disadvantaged by systems that reward people in
proportion to their economic contribution are only disenfranchised and oppressed in relative terms. In
an absolute sense, liberal economics has provided distinct affluence in global terms, particularly in
Australia. How to provide is a genuinely equal way for everyone is too complex a topic for this 28-year-
old male to reasonably offer a workable solution in 30 minutes. And no matter the idea, views will
diverge every which way, informed by their thinker’s experiences, beliefs, and psycho-social contexts.
Indeed, my own ideas are framed and limited by my bias and histories. Yet we need not agree on all
things to progress this discussion. If we can only look at the outcomes of political ideologies as they are
applied to the real world, without imbuing them with political fervour and passionate identification with
their principles and ideals, we might start to witness together some patterns. And perhaps this can
 51

frame future discussions on the matter in such a way as to facilitate further progress towards whatever
approach will work the best for each nation at this moment in time. Happiness ought to be a right, and
anywhere our systems are an obstruction to it, there’s value in having a conversation.
 52

Appendix 2: Sample 90+ Response

ACER online task - space

(marked by ACER as “80-100 top 1.5%”)

The legitimacy and benefit in the allocation of public resources to space exploration is predicated not
just on curiosity, but on the premise that there will be a future dividend. Aristotle described two aspects
of the cosmos: the sublunar (earthly) which is constantly changing, and the cosmic which is immutable
and fixed. Pushed to its conclusion, the rise of dogmatic Western materialism over the last century
threatens to destroy the natural sublunar world and its inhabitants, and the rate of its death march is
exponentially increasing. Is penetrating the cosmic, then, the solution? Against the backdrop of that
which is relatively immutable and fixed, there is an increasing necessity of allocating our resources to
cleaning our own backyard before we destroy ourselves and any promise of meaningfully exploring the
world farther afield.

The rise of the West and its consequences on modern day politico-economics has resulted in a
dangerous and systematic ecocide of our home planet, which appears to justify the premise of exploring
other options in space. Allocating resources to programs that legitimise the destruction of Earth,
however, does not encourage humans to confront the metaphysical and ontological pathologies that
have taken root in the contemporary Western world, and which are so costly to the planet. The promise
and hope of Elon Musk's Space X program has recently garnered significant interest as it marked the
beginning of the reality of private, or corporately funded, space travel. The unchecked oligarchical
 53

underpinnings of American socio-politics, represented by Musk, has not only justified the destruction of
the environment, but promises now an escape: a bandaid. The essential unconscious cognitive approach
of the contemporary Western mindset has parasitic overtones inasmuch as it aims to proliferate, and
emphasises action before consideration. This is one of the ideological differences that make Eastern
(who emphasise contemplation before action) and Western approaches, in many respects,
incommensurable. Increasingly, the tension between Eastern and Western mindsets foreshadows
worrying potential conflicts and consequences. There is undeniably a crisis here on Earth. But is escaping
from the realities of this pathological lack of contemplation a legitimate solution? Or does it simply
enable the most destructive aspects of this Western-dominated epoch of human history?

The allocation of public resources to space programs is not justified in light of the desperate need of
Earth's inhabitants for nourishment and fulfilment. We require Maslow's lowest hierarchical needs
(food, water, safety) to be attended to prior to self-actualisation - that is, to penetrate deeply into our
being rather than into space, to address what has caused us to be so destructive here on Earth. Neo-
liberal politico-economic philosophy, which preponderates in many of the countries that typify the
Western mindset, such as the US, emphasises minimal state intervention in economics, the privatisation
of public assets (such as space programs), and minimal social welfare. It espouses a meritocracy, or in
the words of William Hobbs "the drunkard in the gutter is exactly where he ought to be." These
rhetorics form some of the presuppositions upon which the allocation of public resources to things like
space exploration, rather than social welfare, are justified. Simply: that the members of society who do
not contribute to the economy are not justified, within these ideological frameworks, in taking money
from it. Without the support of our fellow human however, there is little opportunity for lower socio-
economic classes to overcome the structural violence that these approaches imply, and to self- actualise
to the point of meaningfully making progress into the aspects of what Freud would call our
"unconscious" that are so very destructive. Facing the dangers threatening humanity requires unity and
collaboration, and societies founded on 'dog-eat-dog' economic philosophy preclude our ability to
address them. The exploration of space becomes, then, and alluring distraction to the more pressing
issues closer to home. If we fail to remediate our apathy of each other and the world around us space
will become our only option, and our home planet may become inhospitable to us before we are able to
successfully inhabit another planet, as so much of our contemporary theatre and artistic production
envisions.

The rate of change of the modern world and its destructive qualities are hard to deny. Oligarchical
capitalism, and unbridled neo-liberal economic philosophy has been corrosive to the wellbeing of the
planet and its occupants, and we increasingly rely on the system that destroys us to provide other
solutions in space exploration. A simpler, less destructive option exists, however: going

deep, not far. Addressing the root causes of the qualities of the ontological and psycho-economic
approaches from which the parasitic destruction of Earth has arisen. In a world as multi-varied as ours,
views on the allocation of spending to space exploration will naturally diverge. Some will say it is now
the domain of corporations, and that is further impetus to reject looking inward for the issue is being
taken care of. We need not agree on all things to forward this discussion, however. If we can simply
agree that there is a fundamental worth in improving what existential philosopher Martin Heidegger
would call "the dasein" - the "being-here” experience of being human - then we have reason to begin
here on Earth before needing to explore space. The cosmic represents the unknown. It contains
 54

unlimited potential, the promise of a new beginning. Yet we are microcosms of that unlimited potential:
the spiralling double strand of our DNA in reflection of the spiralling Milky Way above. There is space to
explore within. There is both uncertainty, and hope, for humanity, yet. And this is only one small part of
a backyard of one group of places in an infinite collection of dust and stars, each suspended in their own
unique unfoldment.
Wanting to know what separates a 75 from a 90+?...

THE METHODOLOGY UNCOVERED

THE INFAMOUS GUIDEBOOK

THE PHILOSOPHY
OF SECTION II
SUCCESS

Task A & B Demystified

CONNECT WITH ME
@m.j.sunderland 90plusgamsat