ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => 2009 => End-of-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => English => Topic started by: derivativex on October 30, 2009, 03:22:58 pm
-
I know a lot of people disliked this year's article/opinion piece, but I think VCAA made a really good choice.
The role of technology in society is a really interesting one that would interest a lot of people. I also think that it was really good of them to give us a piece which takes US as the intended audience.
It's great that the VCAA is aware of what interests us and I think we have at least one exam setter to thank for pushing the agenda to put something relevant to us on the exam.
-
I didnt really have the techno vocab to explain what was going on in that visual though...the only thing i could come up with was microchip :S
-
I guess it makes it easier for you guys since your analysis about how readers may react is basically a direct reflection of how you felt whilst reading the article. The image was a bit off-center though and seems quite hard to analyse, but in that respect, I don't think they're expecting much since there really wasn't much in there to begin with. Hopefully not many of you tried to force meaning out of it and went a bit too creative.
-
despite the ambiguity of the visual info, the article was pretty good i thought.
plenty of colloquial/ metaphorical language, rhetorical questions, two distinct groups presented..
it wasnt as bad as people say
-
My take on it: The article was ridiculous in itself, it was just a massive chunk (slab of shit if you will) and VCAA should have stuck with the traditional article that is more realistic and accessible to people who dont understand the ridiculous mumbo jumbo computer slang... Though, analysis of techniques should have given you at least a 7 out of 10 if you did it well. The image was definitely horseshit and bore no connotation or obvious meaning at first glance. The contention was ambiguous; that depends on whether you could find it since the article was so condensed and flaunted contradicting opinions here and there. In the future, VCAA should give students an article that doesnt suck camel dick and rather address the criteria properly by presenting an article with a clear cut contention... after all an opinion piece is an article that clearly demonstrates a specific viewpoint.
-
My take on it: The article was ridiculous in itself, it was just a massive chunk (slab of shit if you will) and VCAA should have stuck with the traditional article that is more realistic and accessible to people who dont understand the ridiculous mumbo jumbo computer slang... Though, analysis of techniques should have given you at least a 7 out of 10 if you did it well. The image was definitely horseshit and bore no connotation or obvious meaning at first glance. The contention was ambiguous; that depends on whether you could find it since the article was so condensed and flaunted contradicting opinions here and there. In the future, VCAA should give students an article that doesnt suck camel dick and rather address the criteria properly by presenting an article with a clear cut contention... after all an opinion piece is an article that clearly demonstrates a specific viewpoint.
Fair enough! hahaha
-
My take on it: The article was ridiculous in itself, it was just a massive chunk (slab of shit if you will) and VCAA should have stuck with the traditional article that is more realistic and accessible to people who dont understand the ridiculous mumbo jumbo computer slang... Though, analysis of techniques should have given you at least a 7 out of 10 if you did it well. The image was definitely horseshit and bore no connotation or obvious meaning at first glance. The contention was ambiguous; that depends on whether you could find it since the article was so condensed and flaunted contradicting opinions here and there. In the future, VCAA should give students an article that doesnt suck camel dick and rather address the criteria properly by presenting an article with a clear cut contention... after all an opinion piece is an article that clearly demonstrates a specific viewpoint.
Fair enough! hahaha
Im glad you agree with me, haha :)
-
That picture was simple to understand.
There was binary code entering his brain (represented by the microchip) which was basically saying that technology enables us to become more intelligent and knowledgeable as it opens up a whole new world of easily accessible information.
Technology is represented as the best method of moving mankind towards the future.
-
LOL AT THE FB GROUP!!!!
search " we dont like you voxi" :P
-
My take on it: The article was ridiculous in itself, it was just a massive chunk (slab of shit if you will) and VCAA should have stuck with the traditional article that is more realistic and accessible to people who dont understand the ridiculous mumbo jumbo computer slang... Though, analysis of techniques should have given you at least a 7 out of 10 if you did it well. The image was definitely horseshit and bore no connotation or obvious meaning at first glance. The contention was ambiguous; that depends on whether you could find it since the article was so condensed and flaunted contradicting opinions here and there. In the future, VCAA should give students an article that doesnt suck camel dick and rather address the criteria properly by presenting an article with a clear cut contention... after all an opinion piece is an article that clearly demonstrates a specific viewpoint.
that is spot on!
-
I don't know what everyone is talking about, I found section C to be very simple, I could have gone on for far longer than what I wrote if I had time. And there was a clear contention...
-
I don't know what everyone is talking about, I found section C to be very simple, I could have gone on for far longer than what I wrote if I had time. And there was a clear contention...
The contention was definitely not clear, this was evident since there was NO contention, he had many opinions, it was just a matter of choosing which one sounded least rudimentary... you cannot argue, and i think 99% of the state would agree that the article was junk compared to other years, it was not an interesting topic and was also nothing prominent, they should have done something written in a newspaper or a letter and not a blog/webpage/online journal/magazine...
-
I don't know what everyone is talking about, I found section C to be very simple, I could have gone on for far longer than what I wrote if I had time. And there was a clear contention...
The contention was definitely not clear, this was evident since there was NO contention, he had many opinions, it was just a matter of choosing which one sounded least rudimentary... you cannot argue, and i think 99% of the state would agree that the article was junk compared to other years, it was not an interesting topic and was also nothing prominent, they should have done something written in a newspaper or a letter and not a blog/webpage/online journal/magazine...
lol he was clearly contending that we should vouch for technological advancement and not be afraid of change
-
I don't know what everyone is talking about, I found section C to be very simple, I could have gone on for far longer than what I wrote if I had time. And there was a clear contention...
The contention was definitely not clear, this was evident since there was NO contention, he had many opinions, it was just a matter of choosing which one sounded least rudimentary... you cannot argue, and i think 99% of the state would agree that the article was junk compared to other years, it was not an interesting topic and was also nothing prominent, they should have done something written in a newspaper or a letter and not a blog/webpage/online journal/magazine...
lol he was clearly contending that we should vouch for technological advancement and not be afraid of change
Exactly. I think it surprised some people because it didn't try to make the issue a dichotomy.
I liked the lack of divisive techniques though.. much more subtle making someone feel like they're missing out by choice than telling them that they're wrong!
-
You made a thread praising the vcaa. what the fuck?
-
You made a thread praising the vcaa. what the fuck?
I sure did. I loved the piece.
-
sigh
-
I don't know what everyone is talking about, I found section C to be very simple, I could have gone on for far longer than what I wrote if I had time. And there was a clear contention...
The contention was definitely not clear, this was evident since there was NO contention, he had many opinions, it was just a matter of choosing which one sounded least rudimentary... you cannot argue, and i think 99% of the state would agree that the article was junk compared to other years, it was not an interesting topic and was also nothing prominent, they should have done something written in a newspaper or a letter and not a blog/webpage/online journal/magazine...
lol he was clearly contending that we should vouch for technological advancement and not be afraid of change
go back and read the article, he poses 3 or 4 minor contentions of his own that do not relate to his general contention... trust me, go back and read, think clearly and you will understand what im saying, it was a crap article, simple as that.
-
i agree with the slab of shit analogy
-
I agree with the topic creator. Whilst I didn't sit the exam myself, after reading the article I believe it was fairly cohesive and straightforward; people are just whining because it isn't the same clear-cut formulaic piece as generic newspaper social issue article #4654. The contention was definitely not ambiguous (just say something along the lines "Voxi praises the virtues of the digital age" or "Voxi contends that rather than something to be feared, the digital age is to be welcomed with excitement"), and his "minor contentions" are just subpoints of his main topic. The one thing I will grant is that the image was VERY open in regards to what you could say about it, but instead of being impossible to analyse it's more of a question of choosing what to say in particular.
-
i thought the audience was mainly aimed at the older generation? oh crap...
-
i thought the audience was mainly aimed at the older generation? oh crap...
The audience were users of the internet; the audience changed halfway through, there was a turn.
At first, it was the general internet user. Later, he begins talking to the younger generation and praising them for what he claims the older find difficult to understand.
It could have been identified as a technique.
-
I actually thought it was a decent article to analyse. The fact 'Voxi' contradicted themselves so much made it easier to write about i thought. It meant you could talk about the persuasiveness off the piece being...well not so persuasive..
Not sure if anyone took this spin on the picture, but the quote on the page before was talking about how technology diminishes cognitive abilities, the next thing we see a head with no brain? Instead chips and such.. Perhaps persuades the reader to think technology really does take over our brain & therefore not agree with Voxi..
-
Not sure if anyone took this spin on the picture, but the quote on the page before was talking about how technology diminishes cognitive abilities, the next thing we see a head with no brain? Instead chips and such.. Perhaps persuades the reader to think technology really does take over our brain & therefore not agree with Voxi..
The image was relatively incongruous.
I thought it was just sarcastic, really.