VCE English Question Thread

[S200]

For Argument Analysis, am i allowed to analyse the placement of the main contention and the placement of argument?
For instance, if i was to analyse an article that included the main contention at the end of the article can i say that it shows that the writer has considered both sides of the issues before coming to a conclusion, eliciting a reasoned tone. Thus, inclining readers to support his argument as it is based on a thoughtful and balanced approach

Yes!
This is actually an entirely recommended technique, as it exemplifies your understanding of the piece and it's arguments.

[clarke54321]

Hi Everyone, 

This is my first post, so hopefully this is the correct place to post my English Question.

For Argument Analysis, am i allowed to analyse the placement of the main contention and the placement of argument?

For instance, if i was to analyse an article that included the main contention at the end of the article can i say that it shows that the writer has considered both sides of the issues before coming to a conclusion, eliciting a reasoned tone. Thus, inclining readers to support his argument as it is based on a thoughtful and balanced approah.

Hopefully this makes sense!

Also, Thanks in advance 

Hello and welcome to AN 

This is most definitely the right place to be posting English questions. Thank-you for considering this.

Absolutely. If a contention comes through at the end of an article, there is most likely to be a good reason for this. And like you've mentioned, a writer may be using their article to lead readers through alternative perspectives and rely on logic to prove their stance as the ultimate one. It's the same way that you could analyse a contention that comes through in the title. These pieces are often more exigent in nature and are seeking to express caution early on. As concerns argument, these are often chronological and should form the basis of your body paragraphs as such.

Hopefully this helps.

[smamsmo22]

Hi, just a couple of language analysis-related questions;

1. Is the analysis on the exam usually comparative/involving texts from 2 different authors?? I know that was the case last year and I was wondering if that's the norm now, I was always under the impression it was a single text by one author, but clearly it isn't always. If anyone can clarify that would be great !!
2. Is there a preference between setting up your analysis as chronologically (i.e.; going through the text from start to end and breaking up paragraphs where thought appropriate) or organising it into main author arguments (i.e. finding 2/3/4 main recurring points used by the author to argue their contention and analysing the language surrounding these specific ideas for each paragraph, regardless of where they appear chronologically in the text)? I have had different teachers teach me different things, and I've become comfortable with the chronological style but it seems the latter is more popular with teachers at my school at least?? Does it add to the sophistication and coherence of your piece?? (I know ultimately its my piece and my decision but if I can maximise the quality of my piece I'm willing to rethink my structure !!

Thanks

[S200]

-snip-

As always, English being subjective, this isn't necessarily correct. But this is what my teacher told me (paraphrased)...

1.) No-one really knows, except VCAA. But it's a great idea to practice both types (single piece and multi). My teachers thought? - most likely another 2 piece, that is, an Article, with an image as part of it, and a comment (possible letter to editor) in reply. Key advice was that images are always included for a reason.

2.) Best analysis structure that we were taught depended on the article/s being analysed.
Single is pretty obvious.
Double article of equal length? The recommendation was to pick similar arguments in both texts (when possible). You can then analyse the differences in persuasive techniques to the best advantage.
Have two texts but it's the article/comment scenario? Similar to the double, but you focus analysis on the article, drawing in the comment where you can to compare and contrast. Remember! Chronology is not imperative, and analysing the article as a whole is a much more preferred technique compared to just combing through and spouting out language devices when you hit them...


I hope this helps, but I would be remiss to leave without mentioning these articles/posts...

EDIT - Pertinent quote regarding #2.

If you’re having trouble organising this logically, some students find it easier to think of it chronologically. But just remember: this is a slightly easier approach, and something that a lot of students do. So it might be useful to structure it in a slightly more complicated way, to really wow the examiners.

[smamsmo22]

As always, English being subjective, this isn't necessarily correct. But this is what my teacher told me (paraphrased)...

1.) No-one really knows, except VCAA. But it's a great idea to practice both types (single piece and multi). My teachers thought? - most likely another 2 piece, that is, an Article, with an image as part of it, and a comment (possible letter to editor) in reply. Key advice was that images are always included for a reason.

2.) Best analysis structure that we were taught depended on the article/s being analysed.
Single is pretty obvious.
Double article of equal length? The recommendation was to pick similar arguments in both texts (when possible). You can then analyse the differences in persuasive techniques to the best advantage.
Have two texts but it's the article/comment scenario? Similar to the double, but you focus analysis on the article, drawing in the comment where you can to compare and contrast. Remember! Chronology is not imperative, and analysing the article as a whole is a much more preferred technique compared to just combing through and spouting out language devices when you hit them...


I hope this helps, but I would be remiss to leave without mentioning these articles/posts...

EDIT - Pertinent quote regarding #2.

Thanks so much for this!!!
Again regarding #2, are you recommending analysing both articles at once? i.e.; mentioning both articles in the introduction then having paragraphs organised by common ideas during which you're constantly referencing (+ comparing) both articles? Or analyse one, then analyse the other while making comparisons? Thanks again and sorry if this question is unclear!

[S200]

Thanks so much for this!!!
Again regarding #2, are you recommending analysing both articles at once? i.e.; mentioning both articles in the introduction then having paragraphs organised by common ideas during which you're constantly referencing (+ comparing) both articles? Or analyse one, then analyse the other while making comparisons? Thanks again and sorry if this question is unclear!

Yes. Common ideas, and analysing how each author presents them differently (techniques).

[MissSmiley]

Hi all,

I'm feeling really stressed about my Argument Analysis SAC, and especially when I handed a practice piece and my teacher said I need to work on 'argument development / construction'...
How can I develop a 'comprehensive and complex understanding of the arguments presented in the text and how they've been constructed to position audiences' ?

It's really annoying, because I'm analysing three arguments in the main piece, then always comparing and contrasting, and she's happy with my analysing of techniques,
but what else does she want?

Could someone please please help?!

I'm really very scared and would love to hear some ideas on how I can write 'comprehensively'

Thanks so much guys!!

[clarke54321]

Hi all,

I'm feeling really stressed about my Argument Analysis SAC, and especially when I handed a practice piece and my teacher said I need to work on 'argument development / construction'...
How can I develop a 'comprehensive and complex understanding of the arguments presented in the text and how they've been constructed to position audiences' ?

It's really annoying, because I'm analysing three arguments in the main piece, then always comparing and contrasting, and she's happy with my analysing of techniques,
but what else does she want?

Could someone please please help?!

I'm really very scared and would love to hear some ideas on how I can write 'comprehensively'

Thanks so much guys!!

The best way to demonstrate evidence of 'argument development,' is through clever use of linking language. Take this paragraph as an example:

Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I, by casting the card as a deceptive invention. In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern. Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thus inclined to receive Brown’s carefree future with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities of some.

Here, the red text seeks to demonstrate the way the writer has gone about developing their argument. Each point of evidence is linked together in some way. This makes it easier for analysis to come together in a cohesive fashion and clarify just how the author is conveying their main point. Hopefully this helps

[MissSmiley]

The best way to demonstrate evidence of 'argument development,' is through clever use of linking language. Take this paragraph as an example:

Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I, by casting the card as a deceptive invention. In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern. Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thus inclined to receive Brown’s carefree future with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities of some.

Here, the red text seeks to demonstrate the way the writer has gone about developing their argument. Each point of evidence is linked together in some way. This makes it easier for analysis to come together in a cohesive fashion and clarify just how the author is conveying their main point. Hopefully this helps

Thanks heaps, Clarke!!
This is such a well-written para!! --> You're an absolute GENIUS !! 
This does help, because now I can see the difference between effect of reader and the writer's own choices about why they've positioned certain things to be the way they are
I'll keep practising
Thanks so much!

[imanerd]

Hello Everyone  ,
i have a few questions regarding the structure of a argumentative analysis essay
 1. My teacher tells us to not write our contention in our introduction because apparently it will be too 'long'. Furthermore, she said it is good way to start our body paragraph with a contention. Tbh, i find the structure to be very arkward. So, in the exam should i write the contention in the introduction or the body? Or does it not matter?

2. Another thing my teacher told me, is that if we intend to analyse the articles title in the body paragraph, we are not allowed to state the title in the introduction because apparently our essay will sound repetitive. Again, for the exam should i include the title in the introduction if i analyse it in my body paragraphs?

3. One last question, i have been trying to understand the difference between invoke and evoke. So i would appreciate if someone is willing to explain the differences between them.

Thanks!

[imanerd]

1. To preface, contention = the main argument of the article/material, and whatever points the author use to support the contention are called the supporting points/arguments/sub-points/whatever else you want to call it. You should definitely state the contention in the introduction as that's where you'll frame the direction of your essay, and the point of your essay is to analyse how the author furthers their contetion. What you wouldn't do is outline the entire line of argument, from start to finish with all the details; the articles you'll be given are going to be too long for this, and even if you manage to squeeze it all in in a succinct a manner, you'll sacrifice too much detail that there'll be no point in doing it in the first place. Depending on how you structure your essay, the supporting points should be the topic sentences of your body paragraph (and not the contention). Are you sure that's what your teacher told you and you're not misunderstanding them, because honestly it's a bit odd for your teacher to tell you to do the exact opposite of what the common consensus is to do.

2. Always state the title in the introduction. The only time where you wouldn't restate the title again is when you're analysing it at the start at the first body paragraph (where in that case it'll be a bit repetitive if you do).

3. For invoke, think invoking the devil or "I invoke thee" or something like that. Evoke, on the hand, is bringing out something that's already there (e.g your feelings - you have them somewhere deep inside you and provided the correct stimulus, they come out to the front). For argument analysis, you'll probably only ever use evoke.

Hope that helps!

Thank you for answering my questions. 
i am sure my teacher told me not to state the contention in the introduction because she gave us list of what we can and cant write in the introduction and contention was in it. i wont include it in for the SAC, but i will definitely include it in the exam. i guess it sucks to go to a disadvantaged school where only one student gets 40+ for English each year lol

 Furthermore, i am still quite sceptical about the difference of invoke and evoke, even though my teacher explained it in class lol. From reading your answer, does invoke mean bring up something that is tangible ? Whereas, evoke means bringing up something that cannot be touched?

[DipsetForever]

Langauge Analysis - Help with reader/audience effect

Tips on writing a more concise (and less generic?) reader response.

[lifeisgood]

im doing an oral presentation for English next term. i just don't know what to do though i was either thinking of doing it on homelessness or refugees on manus island.
would this be a could contention:
1. homelessness is a growing problem in Australia and more should be done to tackle this issue.
yeh im not sure about that one. its a very good topic but i don't know what argue or what to include in the arguments.

does anyone have any suggestion?

[MAGGOT]

im doing an oral presentation for English next term. i just don't know what to do though i was either thinking of doing it on homelessness or refugees on manus island.
would this be a could contention:
1. homelessness is a growing problem in Australia and more should be done to tackle this issue.
yeh im not sure about that one. its a very good topic but i don't know what argue or what to include in the arguments.

does anyone have any suggestion?

First off, jot down your ideas associated to homelessness in Australia. Research is a person's best friend. Possible ideas you can talk about is that:
-the rate of the Australian population is increasing drastically and there isn't sufficient land
-a lot of people get kicked out due to being different and that their friends or families don't accept them
-the homeless have no where to go it's a lose lose situation for them
-have more job opportunities
-a lot homelessness is due to domestic violence, alcohol, gambling and lack of finances and maybe these areas need more advertisement on top of what the Australian government already has 
I can't think anymore on top of my head

[lifeisgood]

Those are some pretty good ideas. I've done some  research. And I was thinking about arguing that homelessness is complex and cannot be simply solved by funding more public housing. Would you that be good.
Soz