English Essays
ESSAY (COMPULSORY)
Total Marks: 100
Time Allowed: 3 hours
Content of English Essays CSS Syllabus
Table of Contents
Candidates will be required to write one or more essays.
A wide selection of points will be given. Applicants are relied upon to reflect exhaustive and investigate put together information with respect to a chose subject. Competitor’s verbalization, articulation and specialized treatment of the style of English Essay composing will be analyzed.
Up-and-comers square measure expected to imitate extensive and examine put together information with respect to a particular point. Applicant’s verbalization, articulation and specialized treatment of the style will inspected through English Essay composing.
Important Essays
Past Papers
ENGLISH ESSAY: FEEDBACK FROM SUBJECT EXPERTS/ EXAMINERS
ENGLISH ESSAY: FEEDBACK FROM SUBJECT EXPERTS/EXAMINERS
Composing an exposition is a pivotal segment of the C.S.S. Serious Examination.
Prospectuses for C.S.S. Serious Examination 2016 and Onwards in its Scheme of CSS
Serious Examination gives the accompanying guidelines identifying with the Essay Paper:
“Up-and-comers will be required to think of at least one Essay in English. A wide
selection of themes will be given.
Competitors are relied upon to reflect complete and investigate based
information on a chose subject. Up-and-comer’s verbalization, articulation and
specialized treatment of style of Essay composing is analyzed.”
2. Most recent couple of years execution of competitors in English Essay paper under CSS
Serious Examination has not been as acceptable as in different papers. A portion of the
extricates from the inspectors’ reports, featuring the shortcomings and normal mix-ups
in paper composing, are replicated underneath for the general data and direction of the
applicants;
CSS CE-2014: Question paper was set to assess the presentation of the
applicants as far as their reasonable, etymological and composing
skills, however normal patterns watched were absence of calculated clearness,
shallow information on subject, linguistic slip-ups, and improper
decision of jargon and generalization answers. Dominant part of the applicants
didn’t follow the standards of angry talk and composed detached
sentences as opposed to in strong passages. The capacity required in CSS is
broad perusing, all encompassing and obvious exhibition approach in the
subject however greater part did not have these attributes.”
CSS CE-2016: The exhibition in English Essay was unacceptable. A
critical greater part flopped in the subject. Thoughts introduced were arbitrary. The
contention was with no consistent thinking or research based realities. There
was neither rationality nor inventiveness. The applicants were neither ready to
assemble a contention from numerous edges nor proved it with realities. The
blueprint of Essay was not appropriately organized. In many answer contents,
angles referenced in the blueprint were not talked about in the Essay.
CSS CE-2017: The standard Essay was inspected on balance of
argumentation, substance, language and scholarly signifier. The quality and
level of basic argumentation all in all was poor. The greater part of the
applicants couldn’t recognize the lethargic conflict in themes. In
most papers content were lacking and immaterial. Most stressing perspective
of Essays was an inappropriate utilization of English language. The sentence structure
was incredibly imperfect. Besides linguistic and spellings botches were
overflowing. The scholarly degree of articles was fair and competitors were
incapable to try and handle the subject of the article.
2
CSS CE-2018: Candidates were at their best in themes including basic and
abstract methodology for example in points like Democracy in Pakistan: Hopes and
Obstacles, Rule of Law, Safeguarding Human Rights and Civil Liberties
during Fight against Terrorism and Corruption and so forth. Then again, in
themes that were of target nature (Global Warming/CPEC), dependence on
packed information, dull dreariness and reiteration of cliché
data was watched. A critical number of the up-and-comers didn’t
have an away from of the fundamentals of a far reaching exposition or the highlights
which separate an exposition from different types of composing. Applicants must
think about the characteristics of a standard Essay and the standard expected by
the Commission in the Competitive Exam.
3. For assistance and direction of the CSS hopefuls, some exceptionally presumed
educationists/analysts were approached to impart insights with respect to what is
expected of a decent exposition and what mix-ups are to be stayed away from. A portion of the
rules gave by these specialists are replicated in the following paras. It ought to
be noticed that these perceptions/statements are perspectives on the person
educationists and not the official remedy of FPSC. It is the sole prudence
of the contender to follow these rules. The equivalent can’t be cited as a set
of standard at any discussion.
Subject Expert/Examiner – I
a) Proper start with a minimal and explained point sentence that must
mirror the up-and-comers away from of the point.
b) Correct and perfect language.
c) Use of suitable jargon
d) Literacy and informal articulation
e) Use of important phrasing if necessary
f) Selection of important musings
g) Logical association of thoughts.
h) Coherence in course of action of material/passages
I) Cohesion being developed of contention arriving at the resolution
j) Clarity in language, thoughts, discussion and finish.
k) Comprehensiveness
l) Logical introduction of the contention
m) Standard measuring according to necessity
n) Avoidance of an excessive amount of grant
o) Through colleague with the idea of inquiry i.e theme
p) Quotation, when utilized, must be very much set and significant
q) Impressive completion
Subject Expert/Examiner – II
an) A decent exposition should reflect packed data or adademic
information about the theme. It ought to rather enlighten us regarding the essayist’s close to home
emotions or contemplations about it, and his capacity to change over these sentiments and
considerations into contentions for persuading the perusers.
b) It ought to act naturally contained and clear as crystal: not relying upon any outside
hotspot for its fundamental cognizance.
c) Its essential position ought to be imaginative, basic and systematic as opposed to account
or on the other hand distinct.
3
d) It ought to contain a brought together and reasonable conversation on a specific point
(carefully as per the wording of the title), with no diversion or
dominating.
e) It should work through setting up the essayist’s very own remain about the
subject, and proving that remain with persuading contentions.
f) It ought to be smaller and compact, with no free developments or pointless
connections.
g) It ought to have a fair body, with a start, center and end-every one
filling its own particular need.
h) It should function as a unit of impression as in the effect of the
starting is still crisp when the peruser arrives at the end.
I) It ought to be a familiar book with regular linkage among parts and passages, with
no disconnected or isolated parts.
Subject Expert/Examiner III
a) Relevance
b) Structure
c) How to deal with a contention or to be contentious
d) Counter-survey the contention
e) Avoid pointlessness
f) English – non-literal and figurative
g) How to pitch your predisposition
h) How to dodge misleading thoughts
I) How to show contrast among explicit and general thoughts
j) Paragraph progress (generally significant)
Subject Expert/Examiner IV
an) Answer the specific request set, rather than showing information that is
exhaustively critical to the subject.
b) Have a sensible dispute or perspective, so the inspector knows from the
start what the competitor intends to state, and can follow the headway of
his/her conflict all through the simple.
c) Be basic and diagnostic explaining why something is basic, rather than
essentially portraying what researchers have said.
d) Provide reasons, taking into account sound confirmation, to support the essential conflict.
e) Have great paragraphing: the essential worry of every section is introduced
indisputably, and segments seek after reasonably from each other.
f) Evaluate exchange perspective: it weighs up the relative worth or significance
of different viewpoints or hypotheses, evaluating the key conflicts and verification
for these, and explaining why one part of conflicts, reasons or verification is more
convincing than others.
g) Refer to theories and perspectives essential to the request, indicating a
cognizance of the criticalness of these to the subject.
h) Include references: where material, cautious references (names and dates).
I) Be specific: it joins just the information and detail that is generally appropriate to
reacting to the request, and disregards less significant material.
j) Be made unquestionably and to the point, without waffle, emphasis,
spectacular hypotheses, lofty language, pointless language, or
singular stories.
