MABO timed piece

[HasibA]

hey guys, english is coming up and ive got a super duper timed piece i just did (mostly to improve my wrist strength) and was wondering the mark range i could get [sorta like a worst case scenario, pretty rushed, just in case i run out of time on the real thing]
thank you - took 31 mins to write and then typed quickly. thanks guys ! <3

"Eddie Mabo is a strong, but flawed character"

Rachel Perkins documents the life of Eddie “Koiki” Mabo from his time on Murray through his Union years and his long legal battle for land rights.  Eddie was a man with many odds against him; history, society, the government, and even other Indigneous people. Yet, he overcame all of these odds to fight for his rights and the rights of all Indigenous people. Perkins presents Eddie as an ordinary human who had his flaws as well as his strengths.  Too preocuppied at times, Eddie did not always give the time that he should have spent with his family. With the support of his legal team and with the love and support of his wife, Bonita, Eddie was able to change history with the landmark Native Title Act.

Eddie’s heavy involvement in the union, recruiting workers and later setting up the school for Indigenous children shows him as a man who believed in respect for the traditional ways of life as we see in the scene on Murray as Benny talks of the importance of tradition.  Indigenous people at this time did not have many rights. The law of Terra Nullius meant that the Indigenous were not seen as the original settlers of Australia and suffered the hands of the British. Laws that discriminated against the Aborigines were observed in every day life. For instance, at the pub, Eddie was not served like the other non-Indigenous patrons, the bartender blamed “the law.” Queensland premier Bjelke Petersen then enacted a law that wiped out Indigenous claim after while settlement. Eddie was man who knew that these kind of injustices could no longer be tolerated. At a time when Indigenous people were still being treated like second-class citizens, Eddie stands up for his people and the rights they deserve as the early settlers of Australia. Perkins portrays him as a man who was had the courage to claim his rights and rights for all Indigenous people.

Eddie can be seen as a remarkable man in the sense that his claim for land rights branched beyond his own. His fight in the Supreme Court is far from smooth sailing. Perkins effectively portrays his perseverance and headstrong personality. Eddie does not give up, “We can’t lose.” Even when his case runs out of money and results in him applying twice for legal aid, giving up is not an option. Eddie loses his fight in the Supreme Court but his loss does not stop him. Perkins demonstrates his courage in the scene that depicts Eddie standing tall and conveying ‘I will not give up.  He continues to fight in the High Court even though he has lost his land claim case in the Supreme Court. This means his fight is no longer just for himself, but for all Indigneous people squashing the argument that he was power-hungry and desired self-gratification. Perkins demonstrates that Eddie was instrumental in making race relations better for his people.

It is evident that through any battle and hardships, stress and anxiety are inevitable. Perkins conveys this through Eddie’s difficult moments in the docudrama. Although his fight is for a good cause, he has an opposite effect in regards to his family life. He may be seen as “the one” who will make history outside of his home but to his wife Netta, he is man who at times neglects his family’s welfare, too focused on the bigger picture. In an intense and passinate argument, Eddie lashes out at Netta and their disagreement almost results in dometic violence. Eddie blames Netta for “not listening to [him],” yet Netta has been by his side through it all.  Perhaps in conflict with Netta, he was not always aware that he missed so much of his family life and only realises this at the end when his health begins to truly deteriorate. Perkins aims to convey that this kind of realisation is universal, that often times we do not realise something until it is gone. However his realisation and apology to Netta shows that he did have compassion and understanding and that he was human; “I’m sorry I didn’t help you more.” Perkins presents Eddie as an ordinary man who made sacrifices in terms of his family and his own health to bring justice to all Indigenous people.

Overall, Perkins’ potrayal of Eddie is a display of how one ordinary man can change the odds and “make history.” Eddie is determined in fighting for his rights and the rights of his people. His courage is strong and unbroken and through the hardships of a legal battle.

[AngeRay]

"Eddie Mabo is a strong, but flawed character"

Rachel Perkins documents the life of Eddie “Koiki” Mabo from his time on Murray through his Union years and his long legal battle for land rights.  Eddie was a man with many odds against him; history, society, the government, and even other Indigneous people This sounds kinda mean. "Indigenous Peoples" "Indigenous Persons" "Indigenous Australians". Yet, he was able to overcome overcame all of these odds to fight for his rights and the rights of all Indigenous people. Perkins presents Eddie as an ordinary human What else would he be who hasd his flaws as well as his strengths. Too preoccupied at times, Eddie did not always give the time that he should have spent with his family. With the support of his legal team and with the love and support of his wife, Bonita, Eddie was able to change history with the landmark Native Title Act.

Eddie’s heavy involvement in the union, recruiting workers and later setting up the school for Indigenous children shows him as a man who believesd in respect for the traditional ways of life as we the audience see in the scene on Murray as Benny talks of the importance of tradition. Indigenous people There are times when its okay to use it, not in this sentence. at this time did not have many rights. The international law of Terra Nullius meant that the Indigenous were not seen as the original settlers of Australia and suffered the hands of the British. I just hate the whole sentence. "The international law of 'terra nullius' gave the British colonists leave to ignore the Indigenous peoples of Australia as the original custodians of their land and claim the country for Britain." Laws that discriminated against the Aborigines were observed in every day life. For instance, at the pub, Most Aussie thing I've ever read. Another word for pub. Eddie was is not served like the other non-Indigenous patrons, the bartender blamed “the law.” This sentence is missing a word, it doesn't link. There needs to be a 'when'. "For instance, at the tavern, when Eddie is not served like the other non-Indigenous patrons, the bartender blames 'the law'. Queensland premier Bjelke Petersen then enacted a law that which wiped out Indigenous claim after white settlement. Eddie was the? man who knows that these kind of injustices can no longer be tolerated. At a time when Indigenous people were still being treated like second-class citizens, Eddie stands up for his people and the rights they deserve as the early settlers of Australia. Perkins portrays him as a man who was had the courage to claim his rights and rights for all Indigenous people.

Eddie can be seen as a remarkable man in the sense that his claim for land rights branched beyond his own. His fight in the Supreme Court is far from smooth sailing. Perkins effectively portrays his perseverance and headstrong personality. Eddie does not give up, “We can’t lose.” Even when his case runs out of money and results in him applying twice for legal aid, giving up is not an option. Eddie loses his fight in the Supreme Court but his loss does not stop him. Perkins demonstrates his courage in the scene that depicts Eddie standing tall and conveying ‘I will not give up'.  He continues to fight in the High Court even though he has lost his land claim case in the Supreme Court. This means his fight is no longer just for himself, but for all Indigneous people squashing the argument that he was power-hungry and desired self-gratification. Perkins demonstrates that Eddie was instrumental in making race relations better for his people. There needs to be more analysis fo the examples and how it relates to the prompt here.

It is evident that through any battle and hardships, stress and anxiety are inevitable. Perkins conveys this through Eddie’s difficult moments in the docudrama. Although his fight is for a good cause, he has an opposite effect in regards to his family life. He may be seen as 'the one' who will make history outside of his home but to his wife Netta In the intro you called his wife Bonita??, he is man who at times neglects his family’s welfare, too focused on the bigger picture. In an intense and passinate argument, Eddie lashes out at Netta and their disagreement almost results in domestic violence. Eddie blames Netta for “not listening to [him],” yet Netta has been by his side through it all.  Perhaps in conflict with Netta, he was not always aware that he missed so much of his family life and only realises this at the end when his health begins to truly deteriorate. Perkins aims to convey that this kind of realisation is universal, that often times we do not realise something until it is gone. However his realisation and apology to Netta shows that he did have compassion and understanding and that he was human; “I’m sorry I didn’t help you more.” Perkins presents Eddie as an ordinary man who made sacrifices in terms of his family and his own health to bring justice to all Indigenous people. The point you tried to make at the has no relation to the evidence presented. I do not know what this paragraph was trying to tell me, legal battles are difficult? Eddie is a neglectful person who fails to notice the finer details in the bigger picture? He has an epiphany moment? The author is trying to tell readers that love is precious? Eddie has compassion and is able to make sacrifices for the greater good? Idk.

Overall, Perkins’ potrayal of Eddie is a display of how one ordinary man can change the odds and “make history.” Eddie is determined in fighting for his rights and the rights of his people. His courage is strong and unbroken and through the hardships of a legal battle. Needs to be longer, at least three sentences.

1. " " are for quotes directly from the text. ' ' are for two word quotes like 'the law' and referencing ideas such as 'terra nullius' and 'Native Title Act'.
2. Remember to stay in third person, present tense.
3. The prompt is "strong but flawed", which means your points cannot prove that he is 'strong' or 'flawed', but how is he 'strong' yet 'flawed'. I didn't see the prompt anywhere at all, it was not asking you to talk about how Eddie is strong and how he is courageous and kind hearted. The prompt was asking how is he strong and flawed? It wants you discuss his strengths and how they all have a weakness.
4. You need strong topic sentences which clearly state what you are going to talk about, your closing ones are better but should link to the prompt/contention.

OKAY THIS IS NOT GONNA BE THE BEST FEEDBACK YOU'VE EVER HEARD, PLS DON'T HATE ME.

I understand that it did take you only half an hour, so it is a rushed, worst case scenario event. I would give this maybe a three or a four. The main reason for that is the prompt did not appear at all, basically everything which was written was irrelevant to it. The examiner cannot give you many marks for writing an essay for another prompt, this sounded like the essay for "How is Eddie a strong character despite his many hardships?". Above are four points which I noted whilst marking, but the main point is number three. Ignoring #3 and doing a 'topic dodge' on the exam will be your downfall and may not get you a 25.

Here's my advice, do not practice bad timing. From what I have gathered, you need to do two things;
1. You need to practice full length exams, don't let running out of time even be an option. You cannot afford to only have 30 minutes for any piece, you need to perfect writing each one for an hour. You cannot spend 90 mins on one and 30 on another. So instead, make each section an hour and write for three full hours.
2. Get a list of past prompts and practice breaking them apart; "what is it asking me to do?" Make sure you can understand and address every word in the prompt and make three arguments for each one. Check those arguments to ensure that they are proving a point of view on the prompt with its entirety addressed.

Good luck to all of us on Wednesday

[HasibA]

i see - thanks heaps!
yeah, tbh, i was practicing some pre memorised ideas, and im glad im not actually going to do that on the real  exam. If its not too much trouble, how would the essay score with the prompt you suggested? i might do a proper length essay later on tonight- thanks heaps for the feedback!! really good to know!
So the main issue here was a shifty 'topic dodge' -- assuming the prompt was 'How is Eddie a strong character despite his many hardships?' - would it score better? thanks!!

note to self- dont just spam memorised ideas hehe xD

[AngeRay]

I would score the essay about a 6 for the alternate topic. It still needs more depth rather than examples. Memorising quotes and ideas and stuff is great, but you can't make everything fit. The examiners also don't want to see a prepared response so they will score you lower. Being authentic and innovative with your given ideas and materials to explore a prompt is what the examiners want to see.

[HasibA]

I would score the essay about a 6 for the alternate topic. It still needs more depth rather than examples. Memorising quotes and ideas and stuff is great, but you can't make everything fit. The examiners also don't want to see a prepared response so they will score you lower. Being authentic and innovative with your given ideas and materials to explore a prompt is what the examiners want to see.

i see- again, great advice, you've been an immense help. As i said, i'll try my best to do a few more essays, but as the exam is coming closer, would essay plans be more efficient ?

[AngeRay]

Its really dependent on what you need as a person to achieve better. It doesn't seem like you need the practice writing one essay, you need to be able to do three within the time limit. But if you can't nail that plan, and you write something off topic and random, no matter how good it is, you cannot get higher than a four. Being able to break apart a prompt is way better than writing heaps. If you write three good paragraphs on the prompt and to topic, you will do better than three great off topic paragraphs.