Chapter Eight-How To Master Word Association Tet
In this chapter you will discover why the word ‘Against’ appears in the Word Association Test. Avoid common mistakes, analyze real responses, and learn the ideal model sentence with expert insights.
2. Against
26
The problem with the first method of response is that what we don’t do will not reveal our good qualities as much as by what we do. Our good qualities get revealed more by what we do and less by what we don’t do. There is a beautiful line in the movie Chocolat towards the end where the priest says while delivering sermon, “let our goodness be judged by what we do and not by what we don’t do”. This one line is enough for anyone to understand that by talking about what you do, you will be able to convey to the board members more of your positive traits and qualities rather than by talking about what you don’t do. Another thing we have all heard: actions speak louder than words. From this principle as well, if you show what you do, it will give the board a more clear and positive picture about you rather than what you don’t do. The problem with the second style of writing is very much the same as it with the first style: it does not show your action in accordance with the purpose for which the word is displayed. It does not show any behavior trait or daily/regular activity connected to the word which will help the board come to conclude that the candidate is worthy of recommendation. There is a very high possibility that the sentence you wrote before reading the details of this section might also have been of one of the above two styles I have mentioned!
So if not these two styles, then how is a candidate supposed to write on a word like against? I will answer this in detail when discussing model answers. Before that let us analyse few other responses as that will also help us understand and learn a lot.
20. Navpreet-Team efforts can win game against tough opponents.
Analysis: The first thing worth talking about is that this kind of sentence does not reveal what the candidate is against in life. Hence, the sentence does not help the assessor understand or make a decision about what he is looking for. It neither confirms, nor denies, what the assessor is trying to check. Hence, by writing this kind of a sentence on a word like ‘against’ the candidate has missed out on an opportunity to impress the assessor. The next slightly weak point about this sentence is the use of the word ‘can’. By using a word like ‘can’, the candidate has shown lack of belief and clarity. Can is a word which shows possibility but not certainty. It is strongly advisable that candidates should refrain from using words like can or may or might. These kind of words show lack of confidence in the candidate’s mind whereas the board would prefer a candidate who has absolute clarity in thinking and is very decisive. Another area where the candidate fell short is that she has failed to show whether she has been into any team game where this ‘team effort’ which she is talking about has helped win against a tough opponent.
27
I have never encouraged anyone to lie. Therefore, my advice to the candidate will be that if you have been in any team game where this has actually happened then you should write the sentence in such a way that it helps the assessor understand clearly that you have been into team games and team efforts helped you beat a strong opponent. Let me help you understand how she could have done that.
21. Modified sentence: Our basketball team’s coordinated efforts helped win against tough team.
Analysis: For those who feel this sentence is a little longer and 15 seconds may not prove adequate to write this then they can write in another condensed form: Our basketball team won against tough team. This reduces the essence a bit does still reveals the same quality of the candidate.
In this sentence, the use of the word ‘helped’ (ending with ‘ed’) denotes that it is an event of the past. I have already explained the principle related to the difference between the word ‘helped’ and ‘helps’ in an earlier section. This sentence shows one more good quality about the candidate: she is into a team game like basketball. The board simply loves candidates who have a good record of being into team games.
Having said that, Navpreet’s sentence is not revealing any negative quality and reveals involvement in some team game, though vaguely. This will mostly make the sentence acceptable to the board. However, this low quality of sentence will not help the candidate secure a place in the final merit list. Let us not forget, some entries have extremely few vacancies, specially when it comes to lady candidates. As such, it becomes all the more important that we don’t perform merely to an acceptable level, but rather, maintain such a high quality of performance that we are able to secure a place in the final merit list.
22. Pawan-India won many wars against Pakistan.
Analysis: There are many problems with this sentence. The first being, it gives signs that the candidate perhaps harbours deep hatred for Pakistan. Just like Abhishek’s sentence on atom, this sentence written by Pawan will also leave the same impression. Hence it is not at all advisable to write these kind of sentences which will reveal some burning hatred for Pakistan or China and thereby make it look like the candidate dreams of an opportunity to fight against them.
28
Another problem with this sentence is the use of the word India. I already discussed earlier why using ‘our country’ in place of ‘India’ is more advisable.
Analysis: The most visible negative point of this sentence is that it shows absolutely no connection with the word displayed. This is a classic example of what is called a preconceived response. A preconceived response is where, no matter what word is shown to the candidate, he writes sentences which he had in mind even before the tests started and have no relevance to the word. This is the kind of sentence which clearly conveys that the candidate has either been tutored or coached heavily or has himself practiced extensively to such an extent that he has got habituated to a set format of responding in a particular manner in a preplanned way. Any experienced assessor will instantly be able to understand that this is not a natural or honest response. All this will go heavily against the candidate.
29
Another trend is, lot of candidates develop a style of writing sentences, in which, they write or use the opposite (antonym) of the word. There is a major reason why I strongly advise candidates against it. Imagine if a candidate is shown a bitter gourd and is asked to write what are the first few words that come to his mind. Will he write tasty? yummy? sweet? delicious? Or will he write a word like bitter? He will write bitter. Isn’t it? Similarly if a laddu is shown to a candidate, will he write bitter? tasteless? Or will he write sweet? tasty? yummy? Obviously, he will write sweet or yummy or tasty. Isn’t it? So why is it that when a word like against is shown, the candidate is writing about togetherness? To a seasoned assessor this might even come across as an oversmart person who feels he can easily fool an experienced and intelligent assessor whose number of years of work experience in the field of assessing candidates might be more than the candidate’s age. This might even offend the assessor and leave a very negative impression in the assessor’s mind about the candidate. Once this kind of a negative impression is made, will the assessor ever give a positive nod to the candidate’s selection? For all these reasons it is most advisable that candidates refrain from writing sentences in this style. Many of you may say that you have seen a friend getting recommended with this style of writing. True. Possible. If you check with any of the board members, you will realize that the board is lenient to a great extent in selection. My question is, why to take chances? Specially when the possibility of getting recommended will be far more higher if we give honest and appropriate responses without coming across as oversmart and manipulative! When we discuss model/ modified sentences, I will be helping you understand how you can write very natural sentences on the so called ‘negative’ words without coming across as manipulative or oversmart.
30
25. Modified sentence: All of us are against terrorism.
Analysis: By using the word ‘us’ the candidate would have gotten himself included thereby revealing what he himself is against. This way the sentence would have revealed something about the candidate in a more direct and clear manner. The candidate being against terrorism will be viewed positively by the board and hence he sentence would have helped the candidate in a very clear manner in terms of evaluation by the board.
26. Nitin -Army stands against terrorism.
Analysis: The analysis for this will be more or less the same as Abhishek’s sentence. The only point that I would like to mention is that rather than writing only ‘Army’, it will look and sound better if the candidate writes ‘our army’. Use of the word our will signify his own personal liking for army and a sense of belonging, respect and admiration for our army.
27. Peeyush-Decisions made against one’s will can lead to failures.
Analysis: The use of the word ‘can’ signifies lack of confidence and clarity of thinking. Another problem with this sentence is that it does not reveal what the candidate is against in life. Third, it’s a very vague sentence as it does not make anything clear about what is the first thought that has come to the candidate’s mind upon seeing the word. The sentence sounds more like a philosophical sentence born out of a life experience of 50 years; the kind of thing a grandfather will say to his grandson! The sentence will not prove useful in any way.
28. Dhiraj-officer always against of indiscipline act.
Analysis: In the right direction, but it is about an officer’s conduct whereas Dhiraj is still a candidate and not an officer. Since, atleast partly, the sentence is showing that the thought that got generated in the candidate’s mind upon seeing the word is about being against something, a slight modification would have made the sentence perfect. Since Dhiraj is already a serving soldier in our army, he could have framed a sentence using this fact of life.
31
29. Modified Sentence: Each of our unit member is against indiscipline.
Analysis: This would have easily conveyed to the board that Dhiraj too is against indiscipline. This would have confirmed to the board what Dhiraj is against and would have viewed the sentence positively since being against indiscipline is a highly desirable quality in any OR/JCO/Officer.
30. Shivam-Honest people are always against immoral behavior.
Analysis: Here also the sentence is in the right direction but not personalized adequately. It still lacks the element which will confirm in a very clear and direct manner that the candidate himself is against immoral behavior.
31. Modified Sentence: Strongly feel against immoral behavior.
Analysis: Since it is not advisable to use words like I/me/my/mine as they denote ego and we are still required to show our own qualities, it is advisable to develop this style of writing where we don’t use I/me/my/mine but still end up showing our qualities in a very clear and direct manner.
32. Husan-Always stands against the unlawful event.
Analysis: Here also, the sentence is in the right direction but not adequately personalized. If this thought has come in the mind from any past experience where the candidate stood against unlawful activity then he could have framed sentence as below.
33. Modified Sentence: Stand was taken against unlawful action.
Analysis: The use of the word ‘was’ denotes that the candidate is writing from his past memory and experience. This, in turn, shows candidate’s action. Nothing shows a candidate’s psychology better than action/deed/karma.
34. Tarun-It is against our values to disrespect elders.
Analysis: The sentence is acceptable since it is showing what the candidate is against. Also, what he is against shows something positive about him.
32
33