For IDB I'm trying to think of an example for yes ones identity and belong is shaped constantly.
and an example for yes ones identity does change but for the worst
I cant think of an external / real world example, event / quotes .
Any ideas ?
For the first instance, think about whether you'd consider yourself the same person now compared to who you were three years ago. Now would you say there was a dramatic shift in your identity at some point, or did you just gradually change in little increments every time? And for the second, you could consider any 'good person gone bad' stories or examples whereby someone who was once very moral, considerate, and level-headed then becomes callous, foolish, or naive.
Before looking for very specific examples, try to narrow down what you're talking about exactly so that you end up guiding yourself to an answer. So, instead of saying, 'what examples are there of continuous change,' ask yourself
how do I know? Start with your premise or contention (in this case, one's identity is shaped constantly,) and then ask 'how do I know?' You may need to ask this question several times to get to the core of your point, but this'll help open up the discussion for you so that you can begin building upon what you know.
For context is it bad to have the first sentence being a quote (expository essay)? It's a general broad quote not about my text, but the context and the prompt more generally
That would be fine so long as you used it well. Most essays that open with quotes tend to just stick something profound that they googled before the SAC right at the start, and then write a piece that doesn't deal with the kinds of ideas that the quote raised.
Different teachers will have different preferences though; I know some who say 'no, don't, it's clunky and awful' and other's who've said 'it's a wonderful, engaging way to begin and everyone should do it,' so consult your education professional to see if opening-quotes are right for you
Could someone please explain what is meant by the persuasive technique of 'rationalisation' in language analysis?
Thanks
It depends on the context. The word itself means 'to make rational' (obviously from 'rational' + '-ise' + 'ation') so on the surface it would be used to refer to when the author makes something seem rational. This could be in the form of justification (eg. 'The author rationalises the concept of fearing change and explains that it is a natural human instinct.') Alternatively, the author might be reasoning or showing the logic behind something (eg. the equivalent of 'showing your workings' in maths: 'The government isn't allowing these people access to basic needs, and if those basic needs aren't met, they will die. So how can we support a government that knowingly allows people to die?') This'll usually be present in the form of 'leading logic' where the author creates this chain of A --> B --> C --> D etc. and implies that the final result is a natural, unavoidable consequence of A (eg. if I don't buy a 24 pack of pens for my exam, I might run out of pens, then I won't be able to finish, then I'll fail Year 12, then my parents will disown me, then I'll be forced to live on the streets, then I'll have to eat pigeons to survive. So if I don't buy these pens, I'll have to eat a pigeon. QED.) It's obviously a fallacy, but it's very common in Language Analysis pieces
Otherwise, if your teacher was giving you a specific example or told you to use this technique for a certain case, let me know and I might be able to explain it in more detail. Analysis rarely just stops at the technique level, so what you say
after you identify the device is much more important.