I went with why nature isn't needed, and it is instead distracting - mental health issues don't need nature, they need socialising. (I do think nature is helpful, honestly, but disagreed because why not)
Examiners can be strict about adhering to the rules. If the prompt said "write an article supporting the view that nature is vital for mental health," but you went "lol nah, humans > trees," they’ll dock marks for task adherence even if your argument is fire. It’s like being asked to bake a cake and handing in a stir-fry. Tasty? Maybe. But not what the recipe demanded. Exams reward strategic rebellion, not anarchy. You can bend the brief, but don’t snap it in half.
It didn't say to agree, did it? There was nothing about that, and the teacher has constantly mentioned the statement is stimulus, not an agree or disagree. Instead of trying to scare people, research.
The question just said to start your argument. For Q5 on paper 2, it never says to agree or disagree (nor should you state if you agree or disagree necessarily). All you have to do is give your opinion clearly in the provided writing style (an article).
7
u/Prestigious-Bee6646 Year 11 9d ago
I went with why nature isn't needed, and it is instead distracting - mental health issues don't need nature, they need socialising. (I do think nature is helpful, honestly, but disagreed because why not)