Begin Unit Three On this page you will learn that exactly the same arguments can be used in essays that have opposite conclusions. But the arguments must be marked differently. Arguments that support the writer's main conclusion are presented as facts or as non-debatable statements. Arguments that oppose the writer's main conclusion will be marked with problematising phrases so that they appear debatable and possibly untrue. The paragraphs are not complete texts. They are paragraphs from larger essays on the issue of whether Australia should become a republic. Therefore the main conclusion of each is not explicitly stated. It would be explicitly stated in the introduction to the essays from which the paragraphs were extracted. The topic of the paragraphs is how the issue of the republic is related to the questions of immigration and national identity. They both describe the same arguments but have opposite conclusions. Task Read each passage carefully. Choose the correct main conclusion for each passage. (Remember to look carefully for statements with problematising phrases and for the connective "However" which marks the shift from the opposing arguments to the arguments which support the writer's main conclusion. It would be a good idea to print the page out and circle these phrases and connectives). Paragraph 1 Jacobsen (1992) argues that Australia does not need a republic to build a sense of national identity because we already have one. It is claimed that three quarters of our population is still Anglo-Celtic. According to this argument, if people want to migrate here they have to accept Australia's traditions and its way of life. Other countries, so this argument goes, do not feel that they have to change their constitution just because they accept immigrants from different cultures. However, as Smith (1993) explains, Australia must develop a new cultural identity to reflect its diverse and multicultural population. Australia is no longer a nation of British and Irish people. Its citizens come from a huge variety of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is claimed that if Australia was a republic it would give our migrants a stronger sense of belonging. Moreover, we would not be turning our back on our Anglo-centered past if we became a republic because we could still stay on as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. What is the author's main conclusion? (NOTE: The boxes below are not clickable. They're just boxes.) . Australia should become a republic Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy Paragraph 2 Smith (1993) asserts that Australia must develop a new cultural identity to reflect its diverse and multicultural population. According to this argument, Australia is no longer a nation of British and Irish people. Its citizens come from a huge variety of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is claimed that if Australia was a republic it would give our migrants a stronger sense of belonging. This position goes on to argue that we would not be turning our back on our Anglo-centered past if we became a republic because we could still stay on as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. However, as Jacobsen (1992) states, Australia does not need a republic to build a sense of national identity because we already have one. Moreover, three quarters of our population is still Anglo-Celtic. Furthermore, if people want to migrate here they have to accept Australia's traditions and its way of life. In addition, other countries do not feel that they have to change their constitution just because they accept immigrants from different cultures. What is the author's main conclusion? . Australia should become a republic Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy