Yeah I made one or two spelling errors, but when it comes with the sac, do I have to carter it similar with what the teacher expects (like what he has there) or can I write it the way I am comfortable with?
Cater to your teacher for SACs; cater to the examiners in the exam.
If your teacher is open to different approaches and is willing to be flexible, then you might be okay. Otherwise, it's best that you learn to modify your writing style and focus so you can get decent SAC marks.
E.g. if your teacher wants you to discuss whether or not techniques are persuasive in L.A. (which you're not meant to do,) just do it for your SAC anyway. Then, when you get to the exam, you can just fulfil the task criteria and ditch the evaluation.
question: with topic sentences, can i have topic sentences? as in multiple sentences to serve as a 'topic sentence'. i remember being told that i can by one of my teachers, but only if cramming everything into one sentence makes it confusing. can someone confirm this for me? thanks
You can have multiple sentences, especially if you're unpacking an idea that's especially complex. However, if you find yourself always needing 2-4 sentences at the start of your paragraphs, perhaps consider making your expression a bit more concise. It's possible your writing is just a little convoluted, but you're absolutely allowed to spend a little longer explaining your points before you start delving into your examples.
Either way: it is completely unreasonable for a student to produce a high quality piece on the day under timed conditions without having a pre-prepared response (to a large extent). That being said, though: don't take the prompt for granted - make sure that it is addressed. But keep in mind, the prompt is more of a 'moral of the story' rather than a text response prompt, so treat it accordingly.
One thing I'd challenge here: it's a much safer idea to have various responses (or even better, bits and pieces of responses) which is then adapted and reassembled based on the prompt vs. having a 'swiss cheese' piece that tries to cater to every possible prompt by switching a few words or examples around. I definitely agree with your point that students can't be expected to come into the exam with their brains as blank slates and just have all these spontaneous epiphanies about the nature of conflict, but I think those who have multiple options up their sleeve are in a better position than those who invest all their hopes in one "malleable" piece. There are students who
get lucky are able to make this work, but they're few and far between.
Yes, you could conceivably pick out ~10 prompts at random and have them touch on a similar thematic concern (e.g. 'the way people respond to conflict tells us something about our values' is a very common one) and maybe you'll end up with an exam prompt that relates to this same idea. But if you want to
feel prepared for Context, you're going to need to
actually prepare for a whole host of potential prompts.
No one expected that hideous 'conflicts of conscience' prompt in my year level, and if all you'd been preparing for were the ideas from past years' exams and practice prompts that were available at the time...
(i.e. 2008: extraordinary responses from ordinary people
2009: victims show us what's important
2010: remaining a bystander is difficult
2011: compromise is important
2012: conflict changes our priorities)...then you'd be left high and dry trying to cobble together a response to the core of the 2013 prompt.
I tend to be an advocate for what I call 'frameworks' that you can mould and reconfigure to suit material, as opposed to memorised responses. I know a lot of teachers/ tutors/ students who'd disagree with me here (and tbh, I'm eagerly awaiting 2017 when we don't have to worry about this awful AOS anymore
) but if you are wanting to commit to a memorised piece, just be aware of the risks.