+ Added Gwen Harwood's Poetry and Cat's Eye.Doneskies.
PsychoT, check out the Henry thread. DJA and I have done some extensive interpretational discussion back and forth, and there are some notes on the first few pages if you need :)
Brenden, I'd welcome some Cloudstreet or Country of Men prompts since I've got nothing on them, and I'm sure there'll be some people needing those ones too :)
I'll probably be the only one to request it so don't worry too much about it, but a prompt for Brooklyn would be good! Thanks for this, it's a great idea :)I can also do this.
- All about Eve by Joseph MankiewiczThat's all I needed. Cheers for this Lauren!
I'll probably be the only one to request it so don't worry too much about it, but a prompt for Brooklyn would be good! Thanks for this, it's a great idea :)Added as well :)
Added as well :)
I'll probably end up doing another one or two of these at this rate since I have handful of prompts that might be useful. This might even be a weekly thing if I can write the L.A. pieces fast enough.
Also, I've recently been informed that VCAA doesn't publish the images (or sometimes even entire texts) from Section C on the past exam site, so I've got some scanned copies for anyone who wants them. Just PM me your email and I'll link you into a google drive thingo :)
Nicely formatted Word doc?
Nicely formatted?Heh. The version I post on the forums will probably be a little wonkier, so I'd recommend everyone download the file anyway since it's looking a lot neater at this stage, plus there's the added advantage of being able to view 2 pages at once rather than constantly scrolling. Having a hard copy will be more like a real exam anyway :)
Format is all finalised now, for the 5 texts that aren't on the list, I'll take requests for the next batch of prompts, but my word doc. is too pretty at the moment to cram anything else in.
Remember, I have, at all possible opportunities, endeavoured to make this difficult, but realistic. This would be an objectively tough exam, but it's meant to be challenging in order for you to find your weaknesses, and strengthen them before October 29.
Pro tip: Dictionaries. That is all.
I'll also be giving detailed feedback to the people I see helping (like a karma system).^ditto, I like this system.
Brilliant exam.
I also think typing up your exams after writing them then posting them up here would be good -- mark other people's exams (everyone always asks for the "secret" of getting 45+. Well. There's mine. I started giving feedback to people 6 weeks before the exam and watched my writing skyrocket) and get them to mark yours. Past years have given peer-to-peer feedback very effectively, but it really depends on the cohort whether or not people will put in the effort. I'd strongly advise you to put in that effort for your own sake (all my students will be).
I'll also be giving detailed feedback to the people I see helping (like a karma system).
On this thread, could we also post various essays we have written about different topics in hope of receiving feedback? :)We'll leave this one for essays based on these prompts.
Scrooge's transformation is purely motivated by self-interest. Do you agree?
disclaimer: i haven't studied a christmas carol so i can't really comment on your ideas, but hopefully i can still help with expression/structure! i'm focusing mainly on things to improve rather than the stuff you already do well, so don't be disheartened if it feels a bit harsh cos that's what i'm trying to do haha
INTRODUCTION
Christmas is generally regarded as a time of joy, giving and togetherness; a time to be reminded about our social responsibilities towards others. When an individual has experienced adversities in life, they often become cold-hearted and selfish; unless the influence of others convinces them to undergo change and become a better person. i feel like you don't really need two contextualising sentences here. the first one is a bit too general - get rid of it i reckon Charles Dickens’ iconic novella, “A Christmas Carol”, depicts the inspiring transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge who through a spiritual journey to his past, present and future is given an opportunity to amend his past mistakes and escape his bleak demise by becoming a beacon of festivity, joy and giving. The prospect of being condemned in a heavy chain ahead of a doomed fate maybe change this to 'The prospect of being condemned/doomed to a fate of ________ compels the old miser to rectify his faults and establish relations might need to clarify here. While Scrooge’s intentions are based primarily upon self-preservation, Scrooge does intend to restore the innate goodness that he has repressedforin his miserable pursuit of wealth, by practising generosity and awakening his Christmas spirit. solid intro
BODY PARAGRAPH 1
When one has become obsessed with their value and respect in society, it becomes evident that the transformation they undergo is due to the selfish desires they possess.your topic sentences feel a bit context-y. you don't need to make any sweeping statements about society or individuals - remembering that you're mainly just responding to a text here. you don't want it to be narrow to the point that it restricts your writing, but it should definitely be specific to the text In the opening staves, Dickens represents Scrooge as a “melancholy” and “miserly” man who has become obsessed with wealth and as a result, is living a very miserable and “dark” life. However there is a clear representation of change within Scrooge during the last staves where he is described as a “beacon of light” and as “light as a feather” after the visit by the three ghosts. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge is taken on a journey through London where he is able to witness the harsh perceptions that others have towards him as he isn’t “charitable” and doesn’t use his “wealth for good.”Portraying thatduring the Victorian Era, helping the poor was expected of everyone and by Scrooge “refusing” to donate his money to the charity workers, he was not respected in society. Furthermore, Scrooge is taken to Fred’s place during their Christmas dinner which Scrooge has rejected year after year, and here, he foresees Fred’s guests comparing him to “savage animals” and “bears” due to his insolent nature. Scrooge is impacted by this experience and immediately wants to leave as he understands the reason of the perceptions that others have of him. He realises that the only way to be liked by others is to change his personality and become more “giving” towards others. Thus, when an individual has sufficient reasons to undergo change, they voluntarily commit to it if their selfish motives are being accomplished. i feel like most of the 'meat' of this paragraph comes at the end. you only really discuss the role of self-interest in the last couple of lines - watch that you don't lapse into summary. apart from that, your writing is quite nice here
BODY PARAGRAPH 2
Once an individual is confronted with the prospect of death, they voluntarily transform into a better person to prevent this fate. i already mentioned this before so i won't bring it up again from here hahaScrooge,the rapacious man symbolisesembodies/personifies/epitomises greed by living a life where the “pursuit of wealth” was his only goal. Through the misanthropic miser nice, Scrooge, Dickens informs the readers of the importance of social responsibility that we all have by being charitable for the “poor and destitute.” here you're acknowledging the text as a construct of the author by talking about what dickens does. this is really good - try to do that a few times per essay if you can The spirit of Christmas Yet to Come,forces Scrooge to witness the harsh and solitude futureScroogehe and people alike,would endure if they continue to be miserly and selfish. Scrooge watches his business ‘friends’ take his money and watches the furniture from his house get stolen by thieves, thus symbolising that consequences will follow for people who are uncaring and selfish. Scrooge understands the consequences of his actions and realises that his dead body will be “unwatched and uncared for” if this transformation doesn’t take place. Dickens challenges the audience to consider the ways they can be influential to those who are less fortunate and remember Christmas as a time of giving. This demonstrates that despite Scrooge’s transformation benefitting many others, the main reason behind this change was his selfish intention to prevent his death. hmm your first and last lines talk about preventing death, but most of the paragraph talks about the consequences he'll likely face after dying. make sure your paragraphs stay on topic or you might risk annoying a particularly strict assessor haha. that said, both your analysis and your expression seem pretty sound for the most part.
BODY PARAGRAPH 3
When feelings of guilt and regret become overpowering factors in an individuals’ life, they often undergo change and do what is necessary to minimise the impacts that these factors bring. this is your ' directly challenging the prompt' paragraph. you want to make it abundantly clear that you're doing this, so it might be a good idea to start with a really clear "However," and then talk about how guilt and regret also play a role in his transformation, rather than just self interest. Experiencing a childhood full of “isolation” and “neglect”, Scrooge became emotionally attached to those who cared for him such as Old Fezziwig, and they played an influential role in his life. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Past, Scrooge visits his previous employer, Fezziwig and comes to the realisation that Fezziwig has “the power to render us happy or sad” which symbolises the authority, positive influence and responsibility all employers have over their employees. Dickens allows the readers to understand the importance of social responsibility and also reflect on the ways they should behave with their employees.again this is good analysis but you need to make sure you're staying relevant to the topic sentence. you don't want to talk about things that are only tangentially related The warm and loving behaviour shown to Scrooge by Fezziwig juxtaposes the nasty behaviour that Scrooge portrays towards Bob Crachit. This short encounter with his past causes the accumulation of guilt within Scrooge as he realises that the “jovial voice” used towards him by Fezziwig in his youth must replace the “melancholy tone” he currently uses with his clerk. Leading Scrooge to the conclusion that he must willingly take on social responsibility and provide for his clerk to uphold their relationship. Scrooge happily becomes a benefactor towards the Crachit Family especially towards Tiny Tim who has a disability. Scrooge becomes a “second father” for Tim as he realises that Tim’s life will not be “spared” if he doesn’t receive the crucial treatments he requires. This presents readers to the idea that Scrooge genuinely cares about others and that his repentance is not purely self-interested. good stuff
Conclusion
Charles Dickens uses his powerful novella to remind us all of the importance of togetherness and giving during Christmas time, as well as the importance of social responsibility. Change can be ignited within an individual in various ways regardless if these reasons are genuine or selfish. It enforces the idea that Scrooge's transformation was based on selfish motives rather than the genuine intention to become a better person. Dickens challenges the readers to reconsider their actions towards others and become a beacon of festivity and joy, just like Scrooge. you want to sum up your main contention here. you've argued in the body paragraphs that his transformation is not entirely guided by self-interest, and that he's shown to genuinely care about others. you should express that in your conclusion, even if it's just a line. remember that the point of this section is not just to act as an ending for your essay, but a place for you to reach a 'conclusion' about the topic. if the conclusion you've reached is that he's primarily guided by self-interest, but there's a genuine element of altruism in scrooge's transformation, then you should definitely state that here.
FTwelve Angry Men:
“Okay, your honor, start the show.” It is in Juror Seven’s sarcasm and apathy that Rose presents his most scathing critique of the harsh truth of common attitudes in 1950’s America. Discuss
Echoing the enveloping paranoia of 1950s U.S.AI'd personally go for America, U.S.A sounds really... larrikinistic?, Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’Underline it in the exam, italicise it when typed, never inverted commas. acts primarily as a social commentary of the suspicious and fallacious accusations that marred this eraGreat. Interesting word choice in "primarily". Even if you remove 'primarily', the meaning is the same, as, even if it "acts as a social commentary" that doesn't mean that it "only acts as a social commentary". My personal mantra is "no unnecessary words". Primary isn't necessary for your meaning, but you might consider it necessary for your flow. Just an interesting thought for you to consider, everything - content and expression - is great so far. I approve. . Dichotomised with the portrayal of the New York City skyline, reflecting all that is powerful in the U.S.AYep, I absolutely hate it. I'd advice "America" or some other description. , the play does to an extent utilise the impatient Juror 7 to denounce the blatant disregard for judicial procedures in this timeClear contention. Good. I'm unsure about your phrase "judicial procedures" - it seems to be petulantly playing with fire as far as relevancy to the topic goes. The topic says common attitudes, you've said judicial procedures. There's a fine line, I'll be checking to see how you walk it. "Dichotomised" - what's dichotomised, and what's the dichotomy? I feel like the part about New York and the part about Juror 7 is kinda distracting. What's your point? New York, or Juror Seven? I feel like you want to say something smart about New York and power (and yeah, nice symbolism there), but I think you fit it in with the wrong sentence. . However, the ferocity of such criticisms are just as evident in depictions of the prejudiced stubborn jurorsOkay, that seems better. Obviously talking about common attitudes now. Interesting you've decided to focus on judicial procedure for Juror 7. I look forward to it. . Furthermore, the premise of the play itself, one man convincing an entire jury of one boy’s potential innocence, subtly laments the potential for such influencedtypo? You want to make sure you don't slip up like this so soon in your essay. Introductions should be the most perfect paragraph. to be exercised opportunistically I would have preferred "the opportunistic exercising of such influence".... If you can rephrase things so as to remove words ending with "ed", you can often make it sound better. Not that "ed" is intrinsically bad. It's just a shitty cue to make you rephrase writing that might be iffy. in 1950s U.S.A you can vary it up. I think maybe you thin America sound boring or something? But you can say "pre-civil rights America" or "McCarthyist America" or "post-World War Two America" . Hence, the play doesn't does not. Really don't want to slip up on this stuff in the Intro (or the whole essay) characterise one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America; several are harnessed. "are harnessed". This is where the "ed" rule pays off. That last clause just kills your flow a tiny bit imo. Okay, so how do we remove the "ed"? Well, we'd have to say, "The play does not characters one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America: it harnesses several". But that sounds funny again. Why? Because you use characterise and harness to mean the same thing, so there's an inconsistency in your sentence that is subconsciously displeasing. I still think my sentence is preferable to yours, but I'd probably reconstruct it entirely. "Hence, despite presenting Juror Seven's character as inherently disappointing, the play's [synonym for criticism that has a more negative connotation] of post-war America shines through many of its characters" or something to that effect. This revision is a little bit more specific and better expressed.
Rose’s portrayal of Juror 7 is a direct, scathing exploration of the potential for individuals to inhibit justice through sheer apathyGood. Nice, clear, I can see the idea and its relevance to the prompt. Due to “tickets to a ball game” that he possessesWhat about "Due to Juror 7's tickets..." or "Due to his "tickets...", Juror 7..." -- I feel like "that he possesses" is a roundabout way of saying "his". It's not usually in anyone's interest to be roundabout., he initiallyI like this qualification. It shows sophistication carries little regard for the life of the accused, focusing instead on his own materialistic desires over thoughtful analysis on a case that was supposedly “obvious from the beginning”. His initial stance of the case is portrayedHere's the "ed" rule again. "Rose portrays his initial stance...", much nicer. as that of a man who is not simply greedy, but careless to the extent that he “puts [his] hand up to send a boy off to die” without hesitation. Whilst such initial impatience and disdain towards discussion is somewhat magnified by the oppressive heat of the “hottest day of the year”, his convictions are ultimately selfish and not “thoughtful…careful” as the judge ordered.Your writing is really nice, especially relative to the level that's expected of you, and you're integrating your quotes really skillfully, but it makes me sad that you aren't integrating Rose's views and values directly into your essay. I mean, this reads like a really sophisticated summation of Seventh Juror and what he is, but it's lacking in sophisticated discussion about why, and that's what I'm interested in readingl. Such a portrayal reflects the ease of many in 1950sU.S.AI just hate the rhythm so much. You Es Ay. Yuck. at facilitating the anti-communist hysteria of McCarthyism due to a desire to protect their capitalist economic prosperity, in the same manner that Juror 7 wants to protect his baseball tickets.Shit. Spoke too soon. NICE. Still, would have liked V&V integrated sooner in the paragraph. Yet, his initial apathy to the case subsides as he changes his vote to “keep things moving”. After realising that his stubborn view is being inevitably resisted in the room, he joins the not guilty voters due to a desire to simply hasten proceedings.Wasted sentence. Could've been analysis. His thoughtlessness in such a change is depicted "Rose depicts his thoughtlessness as" to act as an embodiment and a denunciation of the capacity for regular US citizens to similarly change sides during the McCarthyism trials, accusing their very neighbours of communist activities often without hesitation. Hence, the portrayal of Juror 7 is a duplicitous one in reflecting such realities in post-war America; it accentuates bot the carelessness and selfishness that many possessed in this period.
Wrapped up to be a really nice paragraph. Showed good textual knowledge, written really nicely, had a really nice, strong point of analysis that had a lot of analytical integrity. I'd focus on writing in the presnt tense (ed), and whilst I see the analytical style/structure of this paragraph is essentially "set up -> sell the candy", I think you'd hit the criteria more effectively with "candy" the whole way through. This is evidently going to be a high-range response, but I think if you could refine your writing the slightest bit, add more analysis, and do it all in an hour, you'd be set for 9+/10.
However, such criticisms about McCarthyist America are also prevalent in depictions of bigoted, biased jurors. Such unwarranted perceptions are evident largely in the hateful Juror 10" Juror 10 best exemplifies/evidences such unwarranted perceptions." Or, even better, you could integrate some analysis, "Rose characterises Tenth Juror as an embodiment of the McCarthyist paranoia, utilising him to to evidence the distastefulness of such unwarranted perceptions" This would also fix my next point of feedback which is.... or something to that effect, who demonises all of “[the accused’s] kind” as “born liars...violent by nature” due to “living with them all [his] life”.I feel like this really whacks out your "quote to analsyis ratio", So many quotes, bang bang bang in the sentence, but no "in depth" analysis comes out of it. The niext think you say is smply a summation of what he does (assume bla bla bla) He assumes that the boy is guilty due to prejudiced views, regardless of the doubt eventually ascertained within facts of the case like the fallibility in eyewitnesses. Simplistic and almost stereotypical and archetypal in his portrayal, Juror 10’s pernicious influence on what are supposed to be unbiased deliberations criticises the accusations and convictions similarly induced without basis in 1950s U.S.A. Furthermore, his contrastingly ambiguous demeanour within the washroom where he advocates a hung jury so he can “get outta here” embodies the similar duplicity and opportunism of those involved in McCarthyist trialsWow! This is brilliant!! If that's not paraphrased from your teacher, then I'm impressed. . Similarly accentuating the entrenched bias and inaccuracy in this period is Juror 3, portrayed as assuming that the accused patricide due to abuse by his own sonI'd rearrange, so "his son" came first in the clause, because it could be that you're saying the accused has a son (I know grammatically that doesn't make sense, but an assessor could think you made a mistake if they didn't click straight away). Ultimately, you're fully correct in this sentence, but I would still change it because there is a small chance of ambiguity. You don't ever want to be ambiguous. . Believing that he knows “what they’re like”, he blatantly disregards the systematic analysis and evaluation by Jurors 8, 11 and even 4 whom he is supposedly aligned with. Tenaciously resisting all dissenting discussion, his discernible bias is immensely scathing of the capacity for citizens in a U.S.A defined by McCarthyism to be convicted of communist support, contrary to a lack of evidence supporting such claims. Like Juror 10, his characterisation ultimately highlights the callous disregard for the assumption of innocence, a valuable safeguard in a functioning legal systemReally nice, but again, I feel like your paragraph builds up to one or two points of analysis before finally linking it back to the prompt. You could continuously link to the prompt while you analsyis without compromising the effectiveness of your writing. I'm not telling you to cram cram cram until your writing is horrible, but just up the ante a little bit on how much you're analysing. Man, the point of analysis you do have are really good though, so it makes up for it :P Wish I thought of the opportunism thing..
Yet, the portrayal of the ostensibly flawless Juror 8 similarly epitomises certain harsh realities of this era. Particularly, his ability to influence an entire group of men “just like any” into believing his view epitomises the support that opportunistic politicians similarly garnered in this timeFuuuuck, niiiiiiice.. Whilst initially he apparently just “wants to talk”, his intentions in having the accused acquitted quickly become evident in his bringing on the knife into the jury roomExpression. Similarly, he is shown as not simply convincing the other jurors, but persuading them. He calls votes directly after evidence is supposedly discredited to not allow jurors to thoughtfully consider certain elements of the case, such as the ballot directly called after discussion about the boy’s ability to use the knife. The most comfortable position for jurors is one of not guilty as such a stance requires only doubt, not absolute certainty, and Juror 8 manipulates this basic human tendency to achieve his goal, under the guise that he is simply following this “safeguard of enormous value”. Hence, whilst he advocates that “prejudice obscures truth”, Juror 8 himself somewhat allows his own bias to permeate his approach to the case; the view that the boy must be innocentHere, you lose me. It's well-substantiated that he's manipulative and the idea that he's akin to opportunisitc politicians is fantastic. However, I do no believe you have adequately substantiated the notion that J8 believes the boy "must be innocent". I mean, he acknowledges that the boy "could be guilty, and points out that he "would have asked for another lawyer" because some things "[didn't add up]". The things that he mentioned were all deductively valid - and he obviously thoguht of them independently. Doesn't it sound quite probably that by virtue of the case flaws he didn't have a reasonable doubt without being precisely certain of the boy's innocence? I'm sure at the end of the play the stage direction is "He does not know, and never will" know whether the boy is innocent or guilty, and the moment of him staring back at the knife in the table is quite profound as far as "what if he was wrong?". That being said, even if he did just have a reasonable doubt, it still follows that he was manipulative and called for ballots at opportunistic times. I have to starkly disagree that he had certainty that the boy was innocent - I think the last stage direction directly refutes this. An examiner might not notice, but to me, this interpretation actively shows either that you've ignored textual evidence or are unaware of it. Personally, I'd slightly revise your interpretation (whilst maintain the brilliant analysis of his opportunism). Maybe subjectivity and bias is clouding my judgment ;) because my interpretation is different, but I also think you're objectively wrong. Taking a niche interpretation is one thing, but taking a quasi-implausible one is another. Niche is excellent, quasi-implausibility mars the legitimacy of what you're saying. . In essence, his depiction primarily targets how charismatic and authoritative individuals in McCarthyist U.S.A were able to manipulate the masses by appealing the vulnerabilities, such as a desire to remain patriotic or protect from a perceived threat.Fantastic last sentence/overall analysis. Really nice, insightful.
Reflecting the intricacies and realities of post war American society, Rose’s drama utilises several characters to lament certain facets of his period. Juror 7’s apathy and selfishness criticises the similar traits of many individuals in this era, whilst the prejudiced Jurors 10 and 3 epitomise the false accusations that defined anti-communist hysteria. Even Juror 8, a supposed hero of the play, possesses qualities reminiscent of manipulative U.S politicians and authority figures. Ultimately, Rose’s exploration is a broad, vivid one that both criticises and humanises the harsh truths of McCarthyist U.S.A.Great
Okay, I'm super intrigued. Is that your own analysis, or your teacher's? Moreover, did you type this, or was this handwritten in an hour?
Points of improvement are basically what was written after the first paragraph. Maintain present tense, integrate more analysis into the start of your paragraph. If you did both of these things and maintained the overall quality of analysis, I can't see you getting less than a high mark.
How does In the Country of Men convey its main political lessons?
Hisham Matar’s novel In the Country of Men depicts a “Libya full of bruise-checkered and urine-stained men” What's the point of this quote? I'm unsure if it's intended to make a point about patriarchal men or whether you've just put it in as a fancy adjective. Either way, I don't think it achieves much for you, unfortunately :(. It's probably best to focus on what you'll be doing in your essay within the introduction and save quotes for the body. This quote just distracted me.who live under the oppression of the Qaddafi regime and the patriarchy which parallels it. Through the flawed narration of the child Suleiman and the symbols he associates with particular traitsThe syymbols that Matar or Suleiman associates? In the former, that's a bit unclear, if the latter, it still seems unclear, because I'm unsure wht you mean by Suleiman associating symbols with traits. However, maybe it's a reallly good idea and I'll find out in the body paragraph, but it's usually in your interest to be relatively explicit/as clear as possible in your introductions unless you're being skillfully coy., Matar insinuates the way the dictatorship is detrimental to the individualism of the nation’s people. Matar portrays the consequences of rebellion against the regime, and the betrayal of loyalties which are part and parcel of living under a totalitarian government. Although Matar suggests that there are risks involved with both rebellion and succumbing to the regime, he also demonstrates that familial bonds of love can overcome the effects of oppression.After you've done your three points, you should put a final statement at the end which gives your response to the prompt. So, here it would be, "Hence, ItCoM conveys its political messages in various ways; predominantly through x y and z. Have a look at the Twelve Angry Men essay above ^^ to see how another student did it. Also, All three of those sentences started with "Matar". It's a minor and pesky thing, but try not to have structural repetition unless its deliberate, because it can damage the rhythm of your essay. (It's minor, it doesn't impact on the holistic quality, but still).
The world Matar constructs in the novel is under constant pressure from the autocracy of Qaddafi’s governmentThis is true. However, as a topic sentence, I'd like to see quite specifically what your paragraph idea is, and hwo the paragraph idea relates to the prompt. So, whilst you've told me about the world within the novel, you haven't told me about how ItCoM conveys its political lessons. I mean - what's the lesson(s) it conveys, and how does it conveys those individual lessons in particular?. From the beginning of the novel, Matar highlights the ever-present nature of the “sun”, which is “as wide as the world” with “rare patches of mercy” to escape its gaze. The imagery of this symbol illustrates the extent and power of the oppression which culls public dissent as the Libyans are fearful of the regime’s wrathYep, nice.. Matar examines the effect of the dictatorship on the Libyan people through the eyes of the child Suleiman. Even he is aware of the fact that “everyone knows you musn’t overtake a Revolutionary Committee car”, and is frightened by his close encounter with them even though he knows “only the guilty live in fear”. In addition, he sees the people at Ustath Rashid’s execution as “jubilant and eager, desperate to express their commitment”, showing that people manufacture and exaggerate their loyalty to the regime in order to avoid the regime’s anger. The “beggar” Bahloul is symbolic of the Libyan people. The phrase “I see you”, which he constantly repeats, indicates the constant surveillance of the public and the willingness of the Libyans to spy on their neighboursI like this!. In addition, although Bahloul earns a fishing boat, he is unable to use it. Through this, Matar puts forward the idea that although the Libyans are capable of overcoming the oppression, they are too fearful to do so. Overall, Matar suggests that the people’s fear of the oppression leads to their lack of individualism and the betrayal of their own values in order to conform to the ideals of the regime, at the cost to themselves.Well written paragraph, quotes are nice, there are nice points of analysis - which could be added to more with author views and values. However, there's just a big structural issue here: I don't know how the paragraph answered the prompt. This is a major issue, worse than flawed writing (your writing is nice btw). I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. If I were responding to the prompt, my topic sentence would have been....... "Through illustrating the dire emotional impact that Najwa's mental state has on Suleiman's development, Matar cautions his audience on the pervasive stain patriarchal practices leave on society". So.... What's the political lesson I'm talking about? I'm saying that patriarchy being bad is a political lesson. How is it conveyed? I'm saying it's conveyed through Najwa's treatment and the subsequent influence that has on Suleiman. I would then go on to provide evidence for Najwa's treatment, analysing the way Matar condemns it (analysis), mention some symbols (the white handkerchief used to examine hymen), then I would provide evidence for how messed up Suleiman is, analysing the impact patriarchy has on society (Matar demonstrates... etc), then I'd wrap up and say 'Hence, Matar conveys a gender-based political lesson through..."
I think you have a loose point about individualism and surveilance that you mention in the last sentence; however, there's a big lack of structural clarity that you really need to address. Try a topic sentence that follows the grammatical structure:
**[Author] [verb] [idea/], [verb-ing][prompt connection/idea].
OR
*****[Verb-ing] [prompt connection/idea], [author] [verb] [prompt connection/idea].
**Matar illustrates the pervasive stain that patriarchal practices leave on society, demonstrating the impact that Najwa's mistreatment has on Suleiman's development.
OR
*****Through illustrating the dire emotional impact that Najwa's mental state has on Suleiman's development, Matar cautions his audience on the pervasive stain patriarchal practices leave on society
If you get this right, the rest of your paragraph should be in the clear. I'd really work on being super clear on your topic sentences to sort your structure out. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with the way you're writing. It's just that... I don't know what you're saying. I can see the quotes and the analsyis, but I don't know how you're responding the the prompt on a very specific level.
The people of Libya fear any association with rebellion and as a result, relationships are put to the testWhat's the lesson and how is it conveyed? Is fearing rebellion the lesson? That we should embrace rebellion? If so, that's a fine ieda, but it's just not expressed clearly or precisely enough. . Matar portrays this through the friendships within the novelOkay, this is a good answer on "how". This is clear and precise, he uses friendship to convey a lesson. Despite Najwa being “like long lost sisters” to Auntie Salma, when Rashid is labelled a “traitor”, she ceases any interaction with her and insinuates that “there is no need” to be “close” to her. Najwa’s fear of associating with political dissent overcomes her friendship with Salma. Through this, Matar shows that the power of the dictatorship is strong enough to destroy even the closest friendshipsNice. This is highlighted again Avoid "ed" (see the above Twelve Angry Men essay for examples and explanation)through Suleiman’s relationship with Kareem. Despite their bonds of “blood” and “virtue”, Suleiman is seen to side with authority as he almost calls Kareem’s father a “traitor” and alienates their relationship. Suleiman’s challenge to Kareem to “prove [he] is a man” by playing “My Land, Your Land” demonstrates the way the values of the regime are mimicked by the children. As Suleiman is a “ridiculous child craving concern”, he places greater importance on pleasing authority than maintaining his friendships. The betrayal of these relationships highlight Matar’s suggestion that oppression by an autocracy is detrimental to the relationships of the subjects, even those who are close.Okay, I see that idea. It's clear that you're explaining a causative relationship between oppression and bad relationships; however, I feel like there are stronger political LESSONS to explore. Gender in society - that's political. How politics impacts upon relationships - that's less political. It's related to 'politics' - but would it be discussed at the next election? Gender very well could be. Freedom and surveillance might be another political lesson, about how they're sacred and there should be a distinction between government and the private sphere or something like that. So I feel like you've got opportunities to be more specific on the prompt that you aren't quite taking yet. You have some really nice points of analysis and you express yourself well, but on a structural level it's not completely intricate and cohesive yet.
The consequences of political dissent are portrayed through the rebellion of Faraj and RashidOkay, this is clearer. "consequences" - tha'ts related to lesson, and the "message" is obviously concerning political dissent. I still feel like "political lesson" means "moral of the story", closer to "views and values". Like, How does ItCoM convey its main views and values? That's how I interpret the prompt. However, I actually wrote the prompt, so I'm wondering whether I'm being unfair on you due to a subjective perception. I'm unsure if I would interpret the prompt differently if I had not have written it, but I feel like "political lesson" is slightly missed by you in this essay so far.. In their rebellion, they fail to meet their responsibilities to their families and leave their families vulnerable to “suffer the consequences”. Auntie Salma and Kareem are forced to flee to Benghazi when Rashid is named a “traitor” and Suleiman and Najwa are also left vulnerable, and must rely on Moosa to act as the “man of the house” and protect them when they are visited by the Revolutionary Committee. This shows that the families of rebels are put into danger because of the actions of the rebels. The fate of Faraj and Rashid portray the consequences of rebellion. Rashid is publicly humiliated and despite being true to his “undying loyalty” to Faraj, the “dark stain” of urine at his execution shows his loss of power when the regime uncovers his dissent. As a result of Rashid’s “pleading”, he is viewed as a coward by the public and loses respect despite his actions as a martyr. On the other hand, while Faraj “melted like butter” and is allowed to live, the “betrayal in his eyes” causes his allies to lose trust in him. Although he is viewed as a hero by Suleiman because of the “heroic drip of blood” that he believes represents bravery and courage, Faraj betrays his own values. The covering of the mirrors when he returns home represents his inability to confront his betrayal. Both Faraj and Rashid are emasculated and humiliated through their rebellion, and while Matar privileges neither the option of succumbing to the government or staying true to their rebellion, he suggests that rebellion is often futile. However, the symbolism of the last mulberry tree which stands in Suleiman’s street suggests that there is some merit in rebellion. Ultimately, Matar leaves it up to the reader to decide whether rebellion is worthwhile.This paragraph was clearer. The topic sentence was clear, teh content was clear to the otpic sentence, and there was a clear link. However, I feel like you 'hop' between content without providing clear indications that you're about to transition. It's find to include a lot in your essay, but you want to be really precise and clear for your reader on how it all relates and why you're discussing particular things at that point in time (does it relate to what you've just said?). It can be done as esaily as "Suleiman's developemtn reinforces this notion..." or "Moreover...", but sometimes it might take a sentence "This extends into another way that [thematic relationship]. [New content].
Matar portrays the strength of familial bonds of love, and their ability to prevail under political oppression. Despite Najwa’s belief that it is better to “walk by the wall” and avoid confronting the regime, she abases herself by grovelling to Ustath Jafer in order to save her husband’s life. Likewise, she goes to great lengths in order to send Suleiman away to the safety of Egypt. While Suleiman feels betrayed by Najwa’s actions, Matar shows the strength of their love through Suleiman’s narration. When Suleiman is first sent away, he distances himself from Najwa, calling her by impersonal names “mother” and “her” and is highly critical of her return to her use of “medicine”. However, once they are reunited at the airport, Suleiman reverts to the tender, childhood name “Mama”, demonstrating that there is still “always love” between them. Through this, Matar portrays the importance of family bonds for support under a political oppression.This is closer to the 'political lesson' interpretation I was talking about. "What's the moral of the story/political lesson?" "Family bonds beat political happenings".
I don't think this fourth paragraph is necessary. Your three above paragraphs definitely had enough density to have you covered, and I feel you might have been able to use the extra time to make those paragraphs clearer, but it doesn't make too much difference if you're comfortable with the time.
The plight of the characters under the Qaddafi dictatorship gives an insight into the effects of political oppression. While the characters are left with few choices other than “silence or exile”, Matar demonstrates that there are risks involved with either option. Through the events, symbolism and the relationships within the novel, Matar explores the consequences of both responses to the totalitarian regime. Matar does not explicitly favour either choice and leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinion of whether it is better to rebel or conform to the ideals of the autocracy.
No worries, Camo! I look forward to seeing how your essays progress! You're got quite a knack for writing - you should consider giving some tips and tricks to people before exams! I first started giving feedback around this time in 2012, before my own exam, and it actually really really boosted my writing ability (it's actually what made me aware of past/present tense and quote integration and stuff - marking does wonders for your own awareness when writing).
Ah, totally makes sense that you studied it in History - a confident understanding really shines through in your discussion. Awesome job on the opportunism thing! That should really boost your confidence going into the exam, because you know that even if you have to write something on the fly/off the top of your head, you have the ability to pull off some really neat, original analysis.
Personally, I found it relatively simple to work that period of time in, regardless of the topic. Firstly, if you're discussing Rose's views and values, the topic lends itself very heavily to that type of analysis. I mean, if you want to say that "Rose condemns societal norms" - which is very relevant to literally every topic - why not say that he condemns societal norms that fester with McCarthyism? Try doing the most difficult topics you can and try to work it in - don't force it, but you'll start to realise that if you try to integrate something into your essay and you REALLY TRY to do it RELEVANTLY you'll actually just start to generate creative ways to be relevant :P. I would never recommend this as a general rule, because it can backfire so brutally, but you can essentially take the same three ideas into any essay and still score really well if you find creative ways to be relevant. This is obviously a horrible idea unless you have to prepare for the exam in like three hours or something lol - but the principle goes that, if you can do it with three ideas, you can definitely do it with a small portion of analysis. I mean, let's say your topic is about the structure of the play? Well, stage directions are structural. Paragraph on stage directions. Integrate how stage directions symbolise McCarthyism " 10th Juror rises" demonstrates MCCarthyist anger etc etc.
It really does just depend on how creative you are WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS that VCAA set you. There's a big different between being irrelevant and being creatively insightful. If you do the latter, McCarthyism lends itself to everything *in my own experience*.
Hey Lauren, recently I have been pretty concerned due to the fact the English exam is just around the corner, and due to majority of my scores being pretty shocking, it is worrying me that I might not be able to score the required 25 study score needed to get into my course. My current scores are as follows: 14/30 - Text Response, 14/20 - Oral Presentation, 15/30 - Context, 15/30 - Language Analysis, 25/50 - Context, and finished off with an improving score of 35/50 for the year. My current theory is, that as long as I generally score about 50% in the English exam, I should be able to pull that 25 study score needed, though I am still confident I will do better than 50% in the exam, due to recent improvements. I'd like to know what your opinion on this is, thanks!There's no other opinion to have other than it's possible to get the 25 and you should do a bit more practice to capitalise on the recent improvements and make very sure you hit the 25!
I know my standard of writing isn't nearly up to par with everyone else on this website, but if anyone could please point me into the direction of achieving an 8 I would be really appreciative. I opt'd to leave all the mistakes in rather than edit them out as that would be pointless. Thanks to anyone who reads it - also tell me if I fall into the trap of telling the story again, because I get confused as to how I'm expected to reference a text alongside my ideas without going into the text :( !!! THANKS!I only read the intro, and a little bit of BP1 and skimmed through the rest.
This is the whose reality prompt 'Reality is too intangible for us to ever fully embrace it.'
Introduction:
Dear Samantha (16/10/14),
In this world, living a life by your own set of ideals is a rarity forcing humans to life in quiet desperation. As we are born into this world, we are taught right from wrong and the pathway to a happy life. The dichotomy that presents itself reveals that there is little happiness in going down the conventional route in life as we are simply one of many, rather than leaving our significant footprint behind in this world. As such, the life that millions of men and women live today are as a result of generations casting down their dreams to be outlived by those that secede them, living their dreams vicariously. We are then presented with a problem in life sa to whether we should follow our own personal set of ideals and face the consequences, or join in on the universal cookie-cutter lifestyle to mediocrity and insignificance. The consequences that proceed after following your heart can hold you in the limelight, revered by many, or facing adversity from the masses.
"Willy envisages the 'magnificence of $20 thousand' as a life insurance payout and wants his son of 'personal attractiveness' to secede his ideology of the American Dream."Not only are a lot of these irrelevant to the prompt, a fair few are barely connected to Whose Reality at all.
...
"The casting off of dreams from father to son can create conflict."
...
"In life we are presented with many decisions, and we must make our own choices and face the consequences."
...but if anyone could please point me into the direction of achieving an 8 I would be really appreciative.Regardless of what you think you're capable of, or what scores you've gotten this year, you should be aiming for a 10. Aim for the moon and land amongst the stars and all that jazz. even though the stars are further away from the moon but whatevs Yes you should be aware of what characterises an 8/10, but there's no sense aiming for that when it is, by definition, flawed. Not all 10/10 essays are inaccessible pieces of academic, philosophical garble; many are written in plain English with clear and concise expression; in fact that tends to be the sort VCAA prefer. Likewise, it's not just people who've been writing 10s all year who score 10s on the exam. My highest context score would have been a 7 or an 8 right up until SWOT-VAC. If you concentrate on improving and use feedback effectively, there's no reason why you can't score well.
What exactly is confusing you?I don't really know what to talk about when it comes to whose reality. I thought I could get away with doing three key ideas that I thought were relevant to the prompt and just talking about that key idea so it makes sense. I thought what I was speaking about was relative to whose reality but I must be mistaken which leads me to this confusion :P It sucks because I'm struggling with both context and LA and only have like 10 or so days to learn what to do.
If it's the prompt itself, just define a word so it makes sense in your head. ie. 'intangible'=not real, abstract. Then reword the whole thing to start to form a contention: 'the prompt is suggesting reality isn't obvious or physical; it's more of an idea than an actual collection of things/people/stuff we can sense, so we can't embrace it properly. Do I agree with this?'I wish I could deconstruct prompts like that. I think my interpretations are quite off. I was interpreting an intangible reality to mean that living the identity you want is often hard due to the presented problems making it difficult to embrace this identity.
When you read through your essay, try and pick out the bits that are demonstrating this understanding vs. bits that aren't so closely linked.I really think I must be confused as to what whose reality is and what I'm meant to be speaking about. I've usually gotten around 24/30 for context and I've been doing the same thing all year. I think my struggle is deconstructing the prompt and what to actually talk about. I don't know if I'm meant to be structuring my response around themes like 'illusions' and stuff; and I don't have enough of these themes either to interconnect an essay together. :(
Also ensure you're mini-contentions/paragraph arguments are based on this understanding, and not just 'reality' as a general idea. If you know this, then great, apply it in your writing. Otherwise, it might be worthwhile to read some high scoring responses and identify what they're doing right.
I don't really know what to talk about when it comes to whose reality. I thought I could get away with doing three key ideas that I thought were relevant to the prompt and just talking about that key idea so it makes sense. I thought what I was speaking about was relative to whose reality but I must be mistaken which leads me to this confusion :P It sucks because I'm struggling with both context and LA and only have like 10 or so days to learn what to do.Okay, if it's the conceptual understanding of what you're meant to be doing, here are the most helpful ones I could find: (1), (2), (3), (4). I don't know what you're teacher is like, but it might be worth organising a time to go through some of your questions. Try and be as specific as possible too, it can be frustrating when students request help only to say 'i don't know what I'm doing, I don't understand the task.' State what you know and go from there. Although you can't properly build on a wonky foundation, it's good to know where the bumps are rather than just saying 'why isn't it a skyscraper yet?'
I wish I could deconstruct prompts like that. I think my interpretations are quite off. I was interpreting an intangible reality to mean that living the identity you want is often hard due to the presented problems making it difficult to embrace this identity.This was probably just a definition error. Remember you'll have a dictionary in the exam, so find a reliable one now. I was deliberately including some more challenging words anyway; VCAA don't normally do this, but it's happened once or twice, so be prepared.
I really think I must be confused as to what whose reality is and what I'm meant to be speaking about. I've usually gotten around 24/30 for context and I've been doing the same thing all year. I think my struggle is deconstructing the prompt and what to actually talk about. I don't know if I'm meant to be structuring my response around themes like 'illusions' and stuff; and I don't have enough of these themes either to interconnect an essay together.Admittedly the vagueness of the contexts can get a bit annoying. My criticism (and Zezima's) was in no way meant to imply everything you were doing was wrong, just that some refinements were needed. All that happened here was that you over-corrected in trying to avoid writing a text response, and the format didn't really work.
I'm a pain I know.Not at all. This is exactly what AN is for, clarifying knowledge and filling in the gaps. Very few people get through Year 12 always knowing exactly what they're meant to be doing. It's way better that you're asking questions now than in the exam room :)
Could you read mine Lauren :)
It is for Mabo
The characters’ weaknesses are never truly resolved in Mabo. Discuss.
Revolving around the inspirational story of the ground-breaking 1992 Native Title Case, Rachel Perkins’ 2012 biopic narrative “Mabo” recounts the tale of the influential yet somewhat flawed man on his fight for justice a bit nitpicky, but i'd replace "of the _______ man" to "of its ______ protagonist". Perkins illustrates to the audience Eddie Mabo this is down to stylistic choice but i feel like the word order seems a bit disjointed here. it might flow a bit better if you moved 'Eddie Mabo' after the word 'illustrates' - but again, it's your choice as a courageous man as he is seen to be defiant in the face of authority. However, she does also nonetheless focuses on his flaws. Sometimes family comes secondary sometimes for him you've used sometimes twice here - you can get rid of one of them. also i feel like you've used too many "short" sentences in a row. read it aloud and you might see what i mean. if you mix up the length of your sentences it'll flow a lot more nicely. Though this may be consideredasa fault, it no longer exists as one when at the end; Eddie Mabo recognises and acknowledges that he was never there for his kids. you've misused a semicolon here where i think a comma would work better. The antagonist, Killoran is also portrayed to have weaknesses. Symbolic of the paternalistic and racist state and laws of Queensland, Killoran’s sense of being superior compared to the Indigenous Australians is implied to be abolished through the High Court getting rid of Terra Nullius and recognising the Merriam People as the true custodians of the land. Perkins as a result indicates to the viewers that the characters’ weaknesses are met and resolved. there are some interesting ideas here in this opening paragraph, and i like the way you're evidencing similarities between killoran and eddie, who are shown as very different characters. that said, i'm not sure i personally agree with your interpretation of killoran - i feel like his prejudices were still intact by the end of the film. but then again, i'm only at the start of the essay and this is english, so if you can justify your arguments well enough then you can't really be considered wrong.
Despite Perkins portraying Eddie Mabo as the powerful and acknowledged hero who sets out to fight for justice, many may consider Eddie Mabo as a neglectful father and husband which may be regarded as a flaw in the pursuit for equality. He is often illustrated in the film as sacrificing time to spend with his children and wife to instead fight for the rights of the Merriam people. Eddie is twice denied service at the front bar of a pub and he stages a silent protest sitting in the bar with a sign reading, ‘I’m not leaving until I get a drink’. This mis-en-scene is immediately juxtaposed with close up-shots of Bonita packing prawns and cycling home in the dark whilst heavily pregnant. The cost of Koiki’s actions are highlighted by this contrast and by Bonita’s courage and love, Perkins makes the audience empathise with her hard life lived in support of the crusading activist. This trait of Eddie Mabo shows the audience that he is human with weaknesses. However, as it is the agenda of Perkins in the end to iconize Eddie Mabo as a true hero whom Australians can be proud of, she attempts to show that his imperfections are not really flaws and that they have been recognised and resolved by him. this is interesting. do you think eddie's remorse fully resolves his character flaws by the time he dies? i feel like he never really has time in the end to fix his mistakes, and it's mainly that fact which makes him so regretful. This can be seen in the scene towards the end of the film where Eddie Mabo can be seen remorseful through a mid-close-up shot and acknowledges the sacrifices that Bonita makes so that he could pursue his battle and at his lack of involvement in his children’s upbringing, when he says that “the most important person in my life has stuck with me”. It provides a sentimental view of the Eddie who sacrificially puts his cause before his family and the audience is made to understand that what Eddie is doing is for the greater good of all Indigenous Australians and not just a quest for a personal victory for himself. this is a nice interpretation i think. in the movie he's portrayed as neglectful and stubborn for focusing so much on his case, but your suggestion that he had to make a personal sacrifice for the good of indigenous australians is pretty nice. Therefore Perkins tries to show the viewers that no knots of Eddie Mabo are left untangled at the end of the film. decent first paragraph overall. your expression and flow is better here than in the intro i think.
Also, Perkins uses the character of Killoran to represent the racist views of the state government and its laws as being a negative force and trait that Australians should feel ashamed of some teachers might suggest to write "...trait of which Australians should feel ashamed" instead, cos it's seen as bad form to end a sentence with a preposition. it's entirely up to you though. Patrick Killoran is ‘The Protector’ of the Murray Islanders when Eddie is just a teenager. The first scene in which he appears shows him sitting in his dark office, surrounded by his own cigarette smoke. Smoke may be interpreted as being symbolic of his clouded prejudice and his overbearing character good analysis of film technique and metalanguage. Perkins implicitly shows the endemic injustice that was present in Australia at that time. This is particularly seen in the scene where Killoran is trying to manipulate George to not be part of the case and a low angle shot conveys a sense of dominance and power over George and perhaps other aboriginals. again, discussion of film technique here is good. actually, on a semi-related note, it's interesting to note that perkins uses this same technique to show eddie's dominance over bonita after attacking her. in another essay you could possibly draw parallels between the two characters and the similar flaws they show, despite having opposing ideals. but yeah anyway Perkins uses this scene to condemn these racist views of the state as being imperfections. However, she also shows to the viewers that Australia has changed and rectified its mistake towards the end of the film. This is implied through Eddie Mabo winning the High Court Case and finally getting rid of Terra Nullius. Quoting the famous Redfern speech of Paul Keating, Perkins’s message is that “Mabo establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice”, and also the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and non-Aboriginal Australians, indicating to the viewers that perhaps racism towards Indigenous people ceases to exist. this last part is a veeeery bold statement, i'd probably avoid saying this haha. eddie's case lays a foundation for legal equality, but the entrenched, institutionalised systems of discrimination are still alive. don't suggest that racism is solved by the end of the film, just saying that society begins to approach equality is enough to support your contention without being too outlandish
The diminishing prejudicial values of minor characters from the film also exhibit a righteous resolution; a resolution with deeper symbolic value representing the changing ideals of general Australian citizens. i like your wording here, good stuff Right at the end of the film, Bonita and her son are depicted as having tea with an aged white Australian couple. After the announcement that the case has been won, a mid-shot is used to show how the white Australian couple are genuinely happy for Bonita and her son for winning the case. This is immediately put adjacent to maybe use 'compounded with'Bonita and her son going in a car as happy and upbeat non-diegetic music plays in the background, and a car full of white Australian youngsters drive past showing thumbs up to them. This is used by Perkins to show how it is not only the older generations who have reconciled but also the young generations who represent the future, implying that life for Aboriginals after the case may perhaps be better and easier. this paragraph builds on the prompts nicely. i like the idea that the resolution of character flaws reflects the ideals of society changing
The film Mabo not only focuses on the historic case, but also what sacrifices Eddie Mabo has to make in order to win the case and how they are resolved by him. Instead ending the film as him neglecting his family as a flaw, Perkins shows that he recognises this and feels guilty. he never really has the chance to act on his flaws though, so i'm not sure i would argue they were resolved. it's all up to interpretation of course, but i feel like an assessor could take issue with this. This makes viewers feel sympathetic towards him. The character of Killoran representing the state is also seen resolving their weakness by acknowledging their mistakes. Perkins in the end has successfully put Eddie Mabo on a pedestal shown to the viewers that here is a hero everyone can feel proud of. hmm personally i felt perkins's intention was to do the opposite. his flaws make it impossible to canonise him, so we're instead forced to view him not as a hero, but as a man who is both flawed and admirable
...my level of unhingement though......she says, to someone who writes practice exams in her spare time :P
The moment of anticipation captured by the image where the fingers of the child nears the blade of the saw creates suspense and fear in the readership with the wild and jocular facial expression of the adult in the background suggesting the consequences of this proposal.
By placing the child in the foreground and the adult in the background, the image allows Eli to suggest that it is students, not the grown-ups of the school, who are most susceptible to the haphazard consequences of the vocational studies, eliciting fear and paranoia in the readership.
In this era of globalisation and interconnectivity, it is not surprising that some folk might want to escape such a scary new millennium, but how can one reject the manifold beauty of a city for the comparatively . It’s the difference between a magnificent painting that challenges and inspires you, full of whatever you chose to see, and a blank canvas claiming to be giving your eyes a “much-needed break from seeing”.
How can one reject the manifold beauty of a city?Thanks for the pick-up, speedy. I'll change both versions now. Apologies to anyone who downloaded/printed a copy already, just cross out those three words :)for the comparatively
How has the writer/speaker used written and visual language to communicate his/her point of view?I realise this name was a bit ambiguous, but I was prioritising shortness for clarity (my year 12 L.A. SAC was on an article by Elif Seriogolopolous >:() This is definitely not the sort of thing you lose marks for, but it can annoy some assessors, which is something you want to avoid.
In response to the recent decision by St Jude’s Academy to allocate more funding towards vocational activitiesinstead of educationThey aren't replacing education with vocational activities, has sparked outrage within the students as they realise the impact this will have on their future Read this opening sentence out loud, it doesn't make sense. The 'response' is the newsletter, yet you do not mention this? . In the newsletter “We don’t need no SHEDucation”, student Armanno Eli contends that this decision is illogical as it is involuntarily robbing students of their rights to a good education They aren't robbing rights, instead, he argues that the decision hinders the efficiency and practicality of the school education system. The article is accompanied with contrasting photographs of students participating in various activities and the extra inclusion Avoid tautology, 'extra' and 'inclusion' mean the same thing, you want to try to be succinct of comments from other students, add weight to Eli’s arguments Actually, one of those comments opposes the writer. Intro needs a bit of readjusting. I think you should mention the audience and Armanno's tone.
The recent decision to allocate more funding to the vocational activities department, forms the basis of Eli’s opening as he asserts that this is unnecessary and will only have negative implications. I think this should be in your intro! The clever pun Explain the pun, don't mention something without examples used in the title along with the alliteration of “reading, riting and rithmatic” used in the introductory sentences, may at first seem comical Why? Is is to engage? To include? , but as Eli expands the threat of excessive vocational activities on a child’s future Not necessarily, it's not threatening, readers are compelled to concede this new allocation of funding as a threat Not a threat, but rather, a hindrance? . The use ofhighlyhyperbolic terms such as “commanding” It would be wise to include/explain the context of which this is used and “get our fingers sawn off by electronic equipment”, instils a sense of fear within the minds of the parents as they recognise that the high prioritising of vocational activities, may actually be harmful to their children I wouldn't use 'harmful', the writer says 'get our fingers sawn off' to highlight that vocational activities are not suitable for everyone. This emotion is further fuelled through the inclusion of a photograph of a student using an electric saw with his fingers pointing towards the blade, symbolising the hazards of excessive extra-curricular activities on innocent and studious students Again, not a 'hazard', the writer is not trying to appeal to safety. The student in the background eagerly waiting for the boy to injure himself represents the notion that there are always negative impacts of certain activities and the school is quietly waiting for it to happen Interesting interpretation, don't make assumptions that the school is 'waiting for it to happen', because they're not. Instead, they are uninformed about the potential negative affects of their proposal on the quality of education given to students. Thus implying that if education is not given priority, students will be negatively impacted as they won’t be able to “fulfil necessary university prerequisites” and obtain a decent future Hmm, the writer acknowledges that 'balance is important' and addresses the benefits of the 'vocational learning', so this argument is jumping to conclusions. You use the quote 'fulfil necessary university prerequisites' incorrectly, as the writer does not say this - in the article, he uses it to address academics who also need 'variation' and 'balance' .
Hey
I have completed an introduction and a body paragraph for "We don't need no SHEDucation". Could someone please read it and give me feedback so that I can continue with the rest of my analysis.
In response to the recent decision by St Jude’s Academy to allocate more funding towards vocational activities instead of education, has sparked outrage within the students as they realise the impact this will have on their future. In the newsletter “We don’t need no SHEDucation”, student Armanno Eli contends that this decision is illogical as it is involuntarily robbing students of their rights to a good education. The article is accompanied with contrasting photographs of students participating in various activities and the extra inclusion of comments from other students, add weight to Eli’s arguments.
The recent decision to allocate more funding to the vocational activities department, forms the basis of Eli’s opening as he asserts that this is unnecessary and will only have negative implications. The clever pun used in the title along with the alliteration of “reading, riting and rithmatic” used in the introductory sentences, may at first seem comical, but as Eli expands the threat of excessive vocational activities on a child’s future, readers are compelled to concede this new allocation of funding as a threat. The use of highly hyperbolic terms such as “commanding” and “get our fingers sawn off by electronic equipment”, instils a sense of fear within the minds of the parents as they recognise that the high prioritising of vocational activities, may actually be harmful to their children. This emotion is further fuelled through the inclusion of a photograph of a student using an electric saw with his fingers pointing towards the blade symbolising the hazards of excessive extra-curricular activities on innocent and studious students. The student in the background eagerly waiting for the boy to injure himself represents the notion that there are always negative impacts of certain activities and the school is quietly waiting for it to happen. Thus implying that if education is not given priority, students will be negatively impacted as they won’t be able to “fulfil necessary university prerequisites” and obtain a decent future.
Thanks :)
p.s. feel free to mark harshly
Could someone please take a look at my LA (it's from the second practice exam by the way)? It's not amazing quality, I have a lot of trouble with this part of the exam, so a mark out of 10 would be really helpful. Just a warning though, the quality really deteriorates as it goes on, as I wrote it in an hour :/
And by the way, thank you so much Lauren for these wonderful exams, they have been incredibly helpful, and also written amazingly!
With the advent of the industrialisation of cities, increasing numbers of people are facing the decision of whether to reside in the city or rural areas. Accordingly, author Liz Bates has written a blog Post, appearing in an online journal entitled “New Horizons,” in which she contends that city dwelling is far superior to that in the country. In doing so, she utilizes her role as an individual who has lived in both the city and country, this then enabling her to present a perceivably informed and experienced orientation opinion, which readers are likely to assume is based on solid evidence. This is further by her use of a conversational tone, through the utilisation of first and second person pronouns “I” and “you” respectively, which establishes a rapport between the reader and author. This allows Bates to appear both pleasant and helpful, which readers are likely to subconsciously assume to signify that the arguments are based on a desire to assist. This in turn increases their susceptibility of accepting such arguments. Indeed, this is relevant for the audience, who are presumably already living in the city, or which are considering a move to the city, as they have accessed a blog based on city culture.
Bates firstly alludes to the idea that the city provides inhabitants with a far more sophisticated way to live. This is established firstly through the juxtaposition between “city slicker” and “country bumpkin;” the negative connotations of the description of rural inhabitants evoking assumptions regarding individuals who are uncivilised and uneducated, whereas the phrase “city slicker” alludes to individuals who are cultured and sophisticated. This subtle juxtaposition between the two establishes the identity of city dwellers to be far more desirable; audience members who may be looking to move to the city likely to subconsciously viewing the city in a favourable light, an assumption carried throughout the text. Indeed, this concept is furthered through the idea that the country is situated “away from civilisation” and is highlighted by the image of two sheep, symbolising the country, and the skyscrapers, portraying the city. The use of a close up angle in the country representation is utilised to illustrate the desolate nature of the country, whereas the long shot angle depicts the expansive symbolism of “civilisation” which the other is clearly lacking. All in all, city dwellers who have never ventured to the country are likely to assume this as being an accurate contrast, thereby positioning such readers to value their perceivably superior life in the city and diminishing any desire to relocate.
Similarly, Bates argues that city life facilitates a favourable balance of “peace” and excitement. This is used by the author in the beginning of the blog to detract from the most popular attractions of the country, its peaceful nature, thereby increasing the readers’ openness to Bates’ proceeding arguments. The use of sibilance in “surprisingly peaceful” evokes feelings of serenity which the audience are likely to subconsciously associate with the act of residing in the city. Similarly, this is furthered by the use of ellipses in “but still…peaceful;” the drawn out manner in which readers are inclined to read the phrase, which again positions the audience to associate such tranquillity with the city. However, Bates also presents the dichotomy between the serenity of the city, combined with that of its potential for “hustle and bustle;” this is designed to avoid an alienation of audience members who prefer one characteristic of the other. This is idea is established through the images; the monochrome representation of the country contrasts with that of the vividly colourful and busy city, thus positioning readers to view the city as a possibility for excitement.
Moreover, Bates also suggests that the country’s vast desolate nature is not resourceful, thereby detracting from its viability as a place of residence. This is achieved through the employment of adjectives such as “empty” and “wasted potential” pertaining to rural areas. This would likely elicit an indignant response in city readers who are too forced to live in a “cramped apartment,” thereby establishing a sense of subconscious animosity towards rural inhabitants which diminishes a desire to relocate. Moreover, Bates’ description of her stay in the country as a “brief stint” alludes to the idea that it was the result of a bout of ill-thinking, and that its consequences were so terrible that it was kept “brief.” This provides a subtle hint to the readers who may be considering to do the same, and because Bates has insinuated that such an idea is likely to end in failure, so too will the readers. Indeed, this advice is further through Bates’ role as a person who has resided in both the country and in the city; readers are likely to value her opinion as being substantiated through fact, and are thus more inclined to accept her opinion.
Furthermore, Bates refers to city dwellers as being individuals who “band together” and “help one another.” Through using this argument preceding the others, Bates is aiming to debunk any remaining “stereotypes” which remain, for those residing in the country and considering a move of residence. Moreover, this argument is supported through the use of an anecdote regarding her grandmother’s “heart attack”. The shocking nature of the story, combined with the inference that rural residents would have had to “wait hours for assistance” evokes a sense of danger in relation to residing in the country. This is especially effective for those who have never ventured to the country, as the hyperbole of “hours” is likely to be interpreted as truth, the benefits of country dwelling therefore detracted from.
To conclude, Bates utilises a cliché in “thick as thieves” and the inclusive “we” to reinforce the sense of unity and familiarity that purportedly characterised the city. This is used to leaver the readers with the idea that an entire city is able to constitute a “home,” those that already live there left with a sense of belonging which furthers its appeal, as well as enticing country residents who are likely considering a change of residence.
For now, I'll just do your introduction:
With the advent of the industrialisation of cities, an increasing numbers of peoplearehave recently been facing the decision of whether to reside in the city or rural areas. Accordingly, author Liz Bates has written a blog Post, appearing in an online journal entitled “New Horizons,” in which she contends that city dwelling is far superior to that in the country.In doing so, she utilizes her role as an individual who has lived in both the city and country, this then enabling her to present a perceivably informed and experienced orientation opinion, which readers are likely to assume is based on solid evidence. This is further by her use of a conversational tone, through the utilisation of first and second person pronouns “I” and “you” respectively, which establishes a rapport between the reader and author. This allows Bates to appear both pleasant and helpful, which readers are likely to subconsciously assume to signify that the arguments are based on a desire to assist. This in turn increases their susceptibility of accepting such arguments.Good analysis. But not for your introduction. You could analyse this in your first body paragraph, and it'll be great analysis discussing how at the outset, the writer establishes her credentials in the hope of readers crediting her argument, etc. Omit this from your introductions because no analysis is necessary.Indeed, this is relevant for the audience, who are presumably already living in the city, or which are considering a move to the city, as they have accessed a blog based on city culture. I try and incorporate audience & tone into the same sentence. You could say: Adopting a conversational tone, Bates intends to appeal to an audience of individuals residing within the city, or who are skeptical regarding the location of their residence - just something along those lines.
Keep any analysis for your body paragraphs :)
Thank you, this makes a lot of sense! However, would I still mention the tone in the intro, and then analyse it in the paragraph?
muahahahahaIs this in reference to exam 1 and 3?
...I mean, you're welcome too.
***
Everyone: this was designed as a worst-case-scenario-style to test you; VCAA wouldn't be this tough in every Section, but they might be this tough in one of them, so see how you handle it, but you should by no means freak out about scary prompts etc.
Plus, there's only so many times you can test what you already know before you're no longer learning anything. Thinking on your feet will be important in the exam; as is admitting 'okay, this is a hard one. But I've covered worse than this before thanks to Lauren's cruelty, and I got through it. Everyone else will be struggling with this too, so I just have to buckle down and try. The prompts were out of my control, but all I can do is my best.'
The people who don't experience the 'what the hell' moments before the exam will probably be in a worse position, regardless of the prompts. Challenge yourself, and VCAA won't be able to :)
Best of luck everyone!
And you people think I'm evil...