VCE English Question Thread

[vceme]

Hi,

I just wanted to get some insight from you all on how you believe/your teacher believes paragraphs should be done in text response and comparative essays.
For example one is where you do paragraphs based on ‘ideas’ which support the prompt while another is where you have a logical flow making one big argument answering the prompt.

Any insights are helpful.

I haven't really heard of your examples to be honest, besides the 'integrated, 'block' approach stuff like that but here's my two cents. I think I would personally do my paragraphs based on my 'ideas' rather than having one big argument. Having different Ideas I guess makes your ideas seem more complex, and that you have a thorough and brilliant understanding of the text. Again, just a year 12 student tryna do their best so lol 

[sdfg]

Hi,

I just wanted to get some insight from you all on how you believe/your teacher believes paragraphs should be done in text response and comparative essays.
For example one is where you do paragraphs based on ‘ideas’ which support the prompt while another is where you have a logical flow making one big argument answering the prompt.

Any insights are helpful.

Imo, it should be a combination of both of the approaches that you've mentioned as that way you're consistently responding to the prompt and arguing your interpretation. Have one big point that addresses the prompt and then smaller supporting points that support that big point. And if you do it correctly, you'll have in essence of one big argument answering the prompt (because all you're doing with the supporting points is arguing your big point) and paragraphs that are although on different ideas, will link together and respond to the prompt since all of them support that same main, big point.

Dunno if that made sense. 

[Lear]

Imo, it should be a combination of both of the approaches that you've mentioned as that way you're consistently responding to the prompt and arguing your interpretation. Have one big point that addresses the prompt and then smaller supporting points that support that big point. And if you do it correctly, you'll have in essence of one big argument answering the prompt (because all you're doing with the supporting points is arguing your big point) and paragraphs that are although on different ideas, will link together and respond to the prompt because all of them support that same main, big point.

Dunno if that made sense. 

That indeed makes a lot of sense. Clarke's essay on her Tips post exemplifies exactly what you've said and I think this is the best approach. Unfortunately it has been drilled into students in my schools to strictly base paragraphs on 'ideas' such as 'Euripides criticises excess love'. This basically creates a disjointed essay with 3 different 'arguments' for the prompt rather than a combined answer.

[sdfg]

That indeed makes a lot of sense. Clarke's essay on her Tips post exemplifies exactly what you've said and I think this is the best approach. Unfortunately it has been drilled into students in my schools to strictly base paragraphs on 'ideas' such as 'Euripides criticises excess love'. This basically creates a disjointed essay with 3 different 'arguments' for the prompt rather than a combined answer.

You still can base you body paragraphs on ideas (and ideally should) and have them all link together to form one cohesive essay. From your example, I think you're coming into trouble here because the ideas for your topic sentences are too broad. 'Euripides criticises excess love' is indeed a valid argument but it's Euripides' overarching argument and you should instead be basing your body paragraphs on the finer details.

[Lear]

Also, what's an ideal number of words for each essay during the exam?
I was thinking ~900

[sdfg]

Also, what's an ideal number of words for each essay during the exam?
I was thinking ~900

Obviously quality > quantity above all else, but ideally upwards of 1000 if you want to secure your chances at those 8 - 10 (i.e. 40+ SS). 900 would be fine if you're succinct and able to demonstrate detailed understanding of your texts/the analysis material in those 900 words, but 1000+ just to be on the safe side.

[Google123]

Hi,

I just wanted to get some insight from you all on how you believe/your teacher believes paragraphs should be done in text response and comparative essays.
For example one is where you do paragraphs based on ‘ideas’ which support the prompt while another is where you have a logical flow making one big argument answering the prompt.

Any insights are helpful.

Hi Lear,
This is a really unique question and so could you help me out a little bit please?
But could you give an example of the second point of your question: "where you have a logical flow making one big argument answering the prompt."
An example will help clarify things so much for dummies like me!! 
So for e.g last year's prompt: Is Medea an innocent victim?

Could you just tell me how you'd answer that with one big argument?
How would this be different to the 'ideas' para?

I'm sorry for asking too many questions, but I really need help!!! 

[DBA-144]

Obviously quality > quantity above all else, but ideally 1000+ if you want to secure your chances at those 8 - 10 (i.e. 40+ SS). 900 would be fine if you're succinct and able to demonstrate detailed understanding of your texts/the analysis material in those 900 words, but 1000+ just to be on the safe side.

Hey everyone,
tbh, 1000 words is probably too much to be writing for each  essay, given that you have 3 hours to write all of this. I'd suggest thay you try to keep it between 900-1000. This way, you should be able to write both a quantity that is competitive enough for a high study score, and that you don't veer too far away from the prompt. Remember that the prompt is your main priority. However, each to their own; some people can write really fast and really well in a limited amount of time. Just remember to keep it legible 

Re: Google123's question
The approach of 'one big argument' is not exactly encouraged, from my experience, seeing as it may fail to properly adress the key nuances the prompt, or the text, has. However, one should seek to form an overall contention, and then support their contention throughout the essay.

This is also why the separate argument structure is not the best; it struggles to make connections between the various aspects of the prompt.

Therefore, it looks like the better approach is the one Lear and sdfg are suggesting- to support an overarching contention with supporting sub arguments.

I would like to emphasise that this is my understanding only, and that it may be incorrect. Please feel free to correct me!

[Sine]

Also, what's an ideal number of words for each essay during the exam?
I was thinking ~900

no real ideal number imo but anywhere between 900+ is fine. Some people go beyond this I know it's nearly impossible but some have gone to around 1500 words words in an hour but that can happen when someone already has memorised certain paragraphs/essays.

A 1200 word essay of X quality will generally score better than a 900 word essay of X (same) quality.

[smamsmo22]

Hi,
I was just confirming that for the end of year exam, we aren't expected to compare separate texts in the language analysis section? And incorporating comparisons or choosing not to will not have any impact on marks?

Thanks

[clarke54321]

Hi,
I was just confirming that for the end of year exam, we aren't expected to compare separate texts in the language analysis section? And incorporating comparisons or choosing not to will not have any impact on marks?

Thanks

I can confirm that comparison is not required in the argument analysis. There is no explicit reference to this skill on VCAA’s marking scheme for section C. This isn’t to say, however, that you can’t use comparative ‘language’ in your introduction or body paragraphs. There might be times where it feels natural to bring the two authors/speakers together. It’s just important to know that this is by no means a necessity

[smamsmo22]

Hi, another question about language analysis.
I often find myself trying to analyse too many parts of a text, leading to my essay becoming somewhat convoluted and overall of a worse quality as I end up having to rush to finish. Does anyone have any tips on selecting parts to analyse (i.e., what to look for/prioritise in terms of particular techniques to enhance sophistication perhaps) and also any guidelines on (roughly) how many points/quotes/techniques should you be analysing per paragraph? I know some people prefer to write a large number of shorter paragraphs but I tend to write around 3 of a reasonable length, if anyone knows a good number of quotes/techniques to be implementing per paragraph just as a guide, that would be really helpful. I'm struggling with maintaining clarity in my pieces.
Thanks!

[Seno72]

Hi, another question about language analysis.
I often find myself trying to analyse too many parts of a text, leading to my essay becoming somewhat convoluted and overall of a worse quality as I end up having to rush to finish. Does anyone have any tips on selecting parts to analyse (i.e., what to look for/prioritise in terms of particular techniques to enhance sophistication perhaps) and also any guidelines on (roughly) how many points/quotes/techniques should you be analysing per paragraph? I know some people prefer to write a large number of shorter paragraphs but I tend to write around 3 of a reasonable length, if anyone knows a good number of quotes/techniques to be implementing per paragraph just as a guide, that would be really helpful. I'm struggling with maintaining clarity in my pieces.
Thanks!

Someone please answer this as well. Also considering that last year, the Lang Analysis exam only consisted of a large article, a small comment and a cartoon and we may get something similar this year, how are we meant to actually do the integrated method for 3-4 body paragraphs when you have hardly anything to actually analyse about the comment and the article? How our school just forced us to do integrated for lang analysis without telling us how to use in situations like this.

Cheers!

[sophomania]

Hi, another question about language analysis.
I often find myself trying to analyse too many parts of a text, leading to my essay becoming somewhat convoluted and overall of a worse quality as I end up having to rush to finish. Does anyone have any tips on selecting parts to analyse (i.e., what to look for/prioritise in terms of particular techniques to enhance sophistication perhaps) and also any guidelines on (roughly) how many points/quotes/techniques should you be analysing per paragraph? I know some people prefer to write a large number of shorter paragraphs but I tend to write around 3 of a reasonable length, if anyone knows a good number of quotes/techniques to be implementing per paragraph just as a guide, that would be really helpful. I'm struggling with maintaining clarity in my pieces.
Thanks!

Someone please answer this as well. Also considering that last year, the Lang Analysis exam only consisted of a large article, a small comment and a cartoon and we may get something similar this year, how are we meant to actually do the integrated method for 3-4 body paragraphs when you have hardly anything to actually analyse about the comment and the article? How our school just forced us to do integrated for lang analysis without telling us how to use in situations like this.

Cheers!

Hello! It seems like some people are struggling with  argument analysis essays. So I'm just going to say what worked for me - it might not work for everyone and some people may disagree but you could give it a shot.

In terms of sounding too convoluted, it would help to have a clear structure in mind. In my opinion, it would be best to do structure your paragraphs by argument, as this is the easiest way to show how argument is being developed. Once you have identified the argument in the article, and you want to go analyse it for techniques and stuff, it would be best to select main techniques that actually contribute to the argument. These are usually techniques that are focused on bigger idea stuff, and are not so focused on language. So for example, which would be better to analyse - that rhetorical question or that appeal to a sense of community? Probably the appeal right? Also note that techniques such as appeals are usually supported by a range of other smaller techniques (which are more focused on language) - for example an appeal to a sense of community is supported by inclusive language.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but here's an example of generally how I would structure my paragraph:
- Topic sentence: Argument
- I would recommend analyse about two main techniques that strengthen the argument (e.g appeal to fear)
- further analyse these main techniques through explanation and also show how this main idea (i.e appeal to fear) is sustained through smaller supporting techniques (e.g statistics and negative connotations)

In terms of doing an integrated approach, I would group the texts by argument. I'm not too sure how to explain it so I'll give an example:
Say Text A has three main arguments: the health benefits, economic benefits, social benefits
Text B is a comment that talks about the economic disadvantages
Text C is a satirical cartoon about the social benefits
In this case, I would structure my essay like this:
Paragraph 1: Text A - talking about health benefits
Paragraph 2: Text A and Text B - economic
Paragraph 3: Text A and Text C - social

Hope this helps!

[Seno72]

Hello! It seems like some people are struggling with  argument analysis essays. So I'm just going to say what worked for me - it might not work for everyone and some people may disagree but you could give it a shot.

In terms of sounding too convoluted, it would help to have a clear structure in mind. In my opinion, it would be best to do structure your paragraphs by argument, as this is the easiest way to show how argument is being developed. Once you have identified the argument in the article, and you want to go analyse it for techniques and stuff, it would be best to select main techniques that actually contribute to the argument. These are usually techniques that are focused on bigger idea stuff, and are not so focused on language. So for example, which would be better to analyse - that rhetorical question or that appeal to a sense of community? Probably the appeal right? Also note that techniques such as appeals are usually supported by a range of other smaller techniques (which are more focused on language) - for example an appeal to a sense of community is supported by inclusive language.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but here's an example of generally how I would structure my paragraph:
- Topic sentence: Argument
- I would recommend analyse about two main techniques that strengthen the argument (e.g appeal to fear)
- further analyse these main techniques through explanation and also show how this main idea (i.e appeal to fear) is sustained through smaller supporting techniques (e.g statistics and negative connotations)

In terms of doing an integrated approach, I would group the texts by argument. I'm not too sure how to explain it so I'll give an example:
Say Text A has three main arguments: the health benefits, economic benefits, social benefits
Text B is a comment that talks about the economic disadvantages
Text C is a satirical cartoon about the social benefits
In this case, I would structure my essay like this:
Paragraph 1: Text A - talking about health benefits
Paragraph 2: Text A and Text B - economic
Paragraph 3: Text A and Text C - social

Hope this helps!

Thanks! I know everyone has their own approach, but when you have a cartoon, a large article and a small comment, which one would you reccomend? I would do block but that would mean doing paragraphs in under 70 mins, which is crazy (thats what my tutor reccomends). What my school reccomends is us do integrated method without telling us what to have as body paragraphs and they expect us to write 4 body paragraphs. Crazy.