Fallos garrafales en estructuras relativamente sencillas son penalizadas, lo que se traducirá en una nota más baja en nuestro trabajo.
Además, si la pregunta no tiene relación con nuestros futuros argumentos, o nos contradecimos, pecaremos de incoherentes. Así que, usad solo lo que estéis seguros de que os llevará a ganar puntos y no todo lo contrario, en resumen, ¡no os metáis en jardines!!
It rarely offered the prospect of absolute excoriation or vindication that it does for us.
Though with hindsight we may feel confident in identifying its shifts and its impact at particular moments in the century, for those living at the time it was an ill-defined thing, hovering at the edge of political relevance.
The public, according to the author, occupies itself with matters of general concern – ‘Politics, War, Legislation, Arts & Sciences’ – though in doing so it is prone to celebrate mediocre and accessible talents over exceptional and remote ones.
This is a fairly convenient distinction but not necessarily a false one.
It is startling how closely the language at this point in the essay anticipates current debates about the value of expertise in public life and the ease with which highly specialised knowledge can best be communicated to the public as a whole.
We might assume, based on the opening of the essay, that its author is building towards a dismissal of the public’s good judgement and a condemnation of its influence on political life.
It is in relation to these questions and the general ambiguity of the concept that the (RA GEO/ADD/32/1064–70) is particularly informative.
If George III was the author of this piece (which is subject to debate), then it provides a valuable perspective on his attitude to his subjects and his apparent faith in a reasonable alignment between public opinion and the good of the nation.