ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: Andiio on September 30, 2010, 08:11:05 pm
-
Hey guys, I'm in Year 11 at the moment but I've been writing quite a few 3/4 Language Analysis pieces. Would just like to see how good/bad my piece is, (Hopefully the former :P) and if anyone would have any constructive criticism? Please be as harsh as you can. Thanks!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ongoing issue of child obesity is once again a hot topic of debate within the media. The editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’ which was published in ‘The Age’ (17/10/2006) postulates that the underlying cause of child obesity lies more with the schools and their respective canteens, subsequently announcing the recently enforced limit and ‘ban’ on junk food sold at school; all for the purpose of combating childhood obesity. However, Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ which appeared in ‘The Australian’ (01/08/2006), clearly contends that the blame ultimately lies with the parents of Australian families themselves, hence arguing that the resolution of this issue not only lies with the school canteens and children themselves, but more so the families and parents in particular of Australian children.
The writer of the editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’ utilizes a pun in the title of their piece. The play on words that school life “..just became more fruitful” directly correlates with the content of the article; more fruit and less junk. As the word ‘fruitful’ also relates with the positive idea of surplus happiness, it also implies to the readers that this ban on junk food is a beneficial, welcomed idea. Conversely, it also places junk food in a rather negative light. This positions the reader to relate the idea of less junk food and more healthy food together with the notion of happiness; which may instill a better impression of the ban of junk food at school to the readers.
The writer, through the use of specific loaded language, highlights the negativity of junk food, its chief role in childhood obesity and the converse positivity of the ban enforced on school canteens. The writer reiterates the idea of this ban on junk food at school as a “positive and welcome step” in the fight against childhood obesity; possibly conveying the assumption and impression to the readers that this ‘ban’ is both a vital and benevolent idea. Conversely, the writer also describes childhood obesity as a “national epidemic”, conjuring the image of junk food as the perpetrator of a spreading ‘disease’. Building up on this idea, the writer depicts junk food as being “..sugar-loaded, salt-loaded and fat-loaded..”, coupling repetition well with loaded language. In itself, this is an attempt by the writer to disgust readers and to conjure the vivid image of food being ‘weighed-down’ with harmful chemicals and minerals. The readers may then subsequently feel inclined to regard junk food in a rather negative light, thus possibly agreeing that the ban on junk food in Victorian schools is the first stepping stone to successfully eradicating childhood obesity.
The writer concludes the piece by appealing to the readers’ sense of urgency. Adding the expert opinion that the Australian Medical Association “estimates that in about 20 years half the country’s children will be obese..”, the writer expands on this idea and informs the readers’ that obesity really will consume the country’s children “unless something is done now”. The emphasis on the word ‘now’ is an attempt to instill a sense of fear and urgency within the readers; possibly persuading them to take action now.
The photo attached with the editorial “School life just became more fruitful” clearly depicts the negative state of Australia’s eating culture. Deviated from an expected positive eating culture, the picture portrays a pair of obese people with a younger, slimmer person almost ‘sandwiched’ in between. The differences in both age and gender are clearly evident; implying to the viewers that this how Australia will be like if nothing is done now. Subsequently, this is an attempt to rekindle the flames of urgency within the viewers; reiterating the fact that both schools and homes must unite in order to prevent and ‘defeat’ childhood obesity. Thus, the viewers themselves may feel inclined to accept that something must be done now in order to combat childhood obesity before it is too late.
Contrary to the previous editorial entitled “School life just became more fruitful”, Bockmann, in her article “Parents blamed for fat kids” is firm in her belief that the parents are the culprits of childhood obesity. Bockmann utilizes expert opinion consistently throughout her article. By frequently referring to Peter Clifton, “an internationally recognized scientist with the CSIRO”, Bockmann attempts to lend further credibility to her own arguments and ideas that the parents are the underlying cause for “fat kids”, thus reinforcing her contention. This is especially evident when Bockmann couples together statistics and expert opinion. She states that Dr. Clifton cited that “..children ate 37 per cent of their daily energy intake at school, but only 14 per cent was lunch bought at the school tuckshop”. By providing the readers with these statistics, Bockmann attempts to explicate the fact that the perpetrator of childhood obesity is not “just the canteen”, but more so the ‘lunch box’. Through doing this, Bockmann makes an attempt to succinctly reiterate her contention to the readers; only this time, with the support of evidence. Subsequently, the readers, being subject to these facts, may be inclined to wholeheartedly accept the credibility of Bockmann’s arguments; thus viewing them in a comparatively better light.
Both articles and the attached image work to ‘point the finger’ at either school or home for acting as the culprit of childhood obesity. However, all three pieces are united in the viewpoint that collaboration from both the State Government in charge of schools and parents of Australian families is a necessity if childhood obesity is to be eradicated. The editorial from ‘The Age’, ‘School life just became more fruitful’, through the efficacious utilization of a pun, specific loaded vocabulary and appeals to urgency of the readers seeks to explicate the notion that the blame lies with Australian schools, whereas the attached image seeks to ‘build’ on this sense of urgency instilled within the readers through its visual imagery and depiction; in contrast, Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ acts to position the readers to be impacted by the persuasion of a comparatively credible expert opinion that the underlying cause of childhood obesity are ultimately, Australian parents.
-
I don't think your post's title requires question marks. :P
-
I don't think your post's title requires question marks. :P
LOL is that meant to be a joke? -_-
-
I don't joke I'm a really serious person. :P
-
I don't joke I'm a really serious person. :P
Sure. :P Care to comment on my piece? :( Is it of really poor quality or something; no replies or anything! D:
-
I'm hoping for a 30 in english, thus, I'd be the wrong person to comment.
-
Well I can see its really generic.
for the into its like:
1 sentence background
then the article name the date balh blah
its contention
then the following techniques u'll be arguing.
then TEEL
then comparing for conclusion.
I like it but only thing is maybe balance out the paragraphs. You talk so little for one technique then SO much and then little.
-
As if! You did quite well in Methods however, so that must mean something? Good job on it by the way. :)
-
Thanks. But you can't compare methods to english. English is impossible! A 46 in methods doesn't guarantee a 30 in english. :P
-
Thanks. But you can't compare methods to english. English is impossible! A 46 in methods doesn't guarantee a 30 in english. :P
internationals *cough* wahh
-
English is impossible!
haha I agree. English is the worst subject. I hate how there is no concrete answer, everything is so bloody ambiguous.
-
Thanks. But you can't compare methods to english. English is impossible! A 46 in methods doesn't guarantee a 30 in english. :P
internationals *cough* wahh
International? I was born here!
English is impossible!
haha I agree. English is the worst subject. I hate how there is no concrete answer, everything is so bloody ambiguous.
I guess I have to agree to this.
-
Thanks. But you can't compare methods to english. English is impossible! A 46 in methods doesn't guarantee a 30 in english. :P
internationals *cough* wahh
International? I was born here!
English is impossible!
haha I agree. English is the worst subject. I hate how there is no concrete answer, everything is so bloody ambiguous.
I guess I have to agree to this.
lol no not u -.-
-
No ratings out of 10??? D: LOL sorry if I'm being a pest :P
-
The ongoing issue of child obesity is once again a hot topic of debate within the media. The editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’ which was published in ‘The Age’ (17/10/2006) postulates that the underlying cause of child obesity lies more with the schools and their respective canteens, subsequently announcing the recently enforced limit and ‘ban’ on junk food sold at school; all for the purpose of combating childhood obesity. However, Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ which appeared in ‘The Australian’ (01/08/2006), clearly contends that the blame ultimately lies with the parents of Australian families themselves, hence arguing that the resolution of this issue not only lies with the school canteens and children themselves, but more so the families and parents in particular of Australian children.
The writer of the editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’ utilizesutilises a pun in the title of their piece. The play on words that school life “..just became more fruitful” directly correlates with the content of the article; more fruit and less junk. As the word ‘fruitful’ also relates with the positive idea of surplus happiness, it also implies to the readers that this ban on junk food is a beneficial, welcomed idea. Conversely, it also places junk food in a rather negative light. This positions the reader to relate the idea of less junk food and more healthy food together with the notion of happiness; which may instill a better impression of the ban of junk food at school to the readers.
Maybe rephrase these sentences or think of synonym for junk/junk food because it's making the paragraph look repetitive.
The writer, through the use of specific loaded language, highlights the negativity of junk food, its chief role in childhood obesity and the converse positivity of the ban enforced on school canteens. The writer reiterates the idea of this ban on junk food at school as a “positive and welcome step” in the fight against childhood obesity; possibly conveying the assumption and impression to the readers that this ‘ban’ is both a vital and benevolent idea. Conversely, the writer also describes childhood obesity as a “national epidemic”, conjuring the image of junk food as the perpetrator of a spreading ‘disease’. Building up on this idea, the writer depicts junk food as being “..sugar-loaded, salt-loaded and fat-loaded..”, coupling repetition well with loaded language. In itself, this is an attempt by the writer to disgust readers and to conjure the vivid image of food being ‘weighed-down’ with harmful chemicals and minerals. The readers may then subsequently feel inclined to regard junk food in a rather negative light (you've used a similar expression before, by saying "negative manner" and you've used the word negative a bit too often - either change expression or find synonyms), thus possibly agreeing that the ban on junk food in Victorian schools is the first stepping stone to successfully eradicating childhood obesity (good!).
The writer concludes the piece by appealing to the readers’reader's sense of urgency. Adding the expert opinion that the Australian Medical Association “estimates that in about 20 years half the country’s children will be obese..”, the writer expands on this idea and informs the readers’ (I'd suggest having the reader as singular, makes punctuation a lot easier too) - reader that obesity really will consume the country’s children “unless something is done now”. The emphasis on the word ‘now’ is an attempt to instill a sense of fear and urgency within the readers; possibly persuading them to take action now immediately.
The photo attached with the editorial “School life just became more fruitful” clearly depicts the negative (once again, be careful not too overuse a word or expression) state of Australia’s eating culture. Deviated from an expected positive eating culture, the picture portrays a pair of obese people with a younger, slimmer person almost ‘sandwiched’ in between. The differences in both age and gender are clearly evident; implying to the viewers that this is how Australia will be like if nothing is done now...rephrase the end cos it's not fluid, get rid of "now" use something else, it doesn't look right at the end of a sentence. Subsequently, this is an attempt to rekindle the flames of urgency within the viewers; reiterating the fact that both schools and homes must unite in order to prevent and ‘defeat’ childhood obesity. Thus, the viewers themselves may feel inclined to accept that something must be done now in order to combat childhood obesity before it is too late.
Contrary to the previous editorial entitled “School life just became more fruitful”, Bockmann, in her article “Parents blamed for fat kids” is firm in her belief that the parents are the culprits of childhood obesity. (good!) Bockmann utilises expert opinion consistently throughout her article. By frequently referring to Peter Clifton, “an internationally recognized recognised scientist with the CSIRO”, Bockmann attempts to lend further credibility to her own arguments and ideas that the parents are the underlying cause for “fat kids”, thus reinforcing her contention. This is especially evident when Bockmann couples together statistics and expert opinion. She states that Dr. Clifton cited thatreplace with something else cos it's a bit clunky - maybe discovered that) “..children ate 37 per cent of their daily energy intake at school, but only 14 per cent was lunch bought at the school tuckshop”. By providing the readers with these statistics, Bockmann attempts to explicate the fact that the perpetrator of childhood obesity is not “just the canteen”, but more so the ‘lunch box’. Through doing this, Bockmann makes an attempt to succinctly reiterate her contention to the readers; only this time, with the support of evidence. Subsequently Consequently, the readers, being subject to these facts, may be inclined to wholeheartedly accept the credibility of Bockmann’s arguments; thus viewing them in a comparatively better light.
Both articles and the attached image work to ‘point the finger’ at either school or home for acting as the culprit of childhood obesity. (good!)However, all three pieces are united in the viewpoint that collaboration from both the State Government in charge of schools and parents of Australian families is a necessity if childhood obesity is to be eradicated. The editorial from ‘The Age’, ‘School life just became more fruitful’, through the efficacious utilization of a pun, specific loaded vocabulary and appeals to urgency of the readers seeks to explicate the notion that the blame lies with Australian schools, whereas the attached image seeks to ‘build’ on this sense of urgency instilled within the readers through its visual imagery and depiction; in contrast, Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ acts to position the readers to be impacted by the persuasion of a comparatively credible expert opinion that the underlying cause of childhood obesity are ultimately, Australian parents.
Okay, good effort! Can't believe a year 11 is already doing 3/4 english work. My comments are just my own personal opinion so they may not be right but take them as you will.
To me this looks like a 6.5/10, I see how you've tried to alter sentences or change the pattern of them but it can result in bad expression, so if it doesn't sound right in your head - change it! Be careful not to overuse words or phrases, the word "negative" came up at least 6 times so watch out for that.. It's good to use quotes but I think you rely on them too much. Get rid of some of the quotation marks that aren't necessary. Keep writing essays cos by next year you'll be writing 9s and maybe 10s if you keep putting in solid work. Also be weary of American spelling, you used "z" too often in words that by Australia standards are spelt with an "s". Good luck for next year. Let me know if you have any questions :)
-
Thanks shilayli06 for the comments and corrections! Taken on board. (Btw haha a lot of the american spelling was due to my computer :P Microsoft Word auto corrects it to that!)
A tad confused at the moment as my teacher told me that this essay was quite excellent and that I should keep it as a model essay to look over in future :/
-
Thanks shilayli06 for the comments and corrections! Taken on board. (Btw haha a lot of the american spelling was due to my computer :P Microsoft Word auto corrects it to that!)
A tad confused at the moment as my teacher told me that this essay was quite excellent and that I should keep it as a model essay to look over in future :/
haha no problem. I think for year 11 its a high standard but each year heightens the level expected. So just keep working hard and you'll be at the top end in year 12. Be careful if you're teacher thinks its excellent because you might stop trying, there's still a lot more you'll learn in your twelve about expression, vocab and structure so I think you're doing well for where you're at. Good luck for next year.
-
Oh, okay haha. Sweet. :P Yeah I know, i'm always looking for more criticisms and comments in which I can utilise to even further improve my writing. :P Thanks!!! <3
Was just wondering if anyone else had any corrections/comments/criticisms/ratings? :)
-
You really think that language analysis is only a 6.5?
Jeez tough...
-
You really think that language analysis is only a 6.5?
Jeez tough...
hahaha. Fair enough. That's just my opinion. What would you give it? I'm kinda being harsh to push andio though. Nothing worse than getting complacent. I'd be interested to see what others would give it..
Get 99.95-for-sure to rate it. He basically rates everything. Should give you a good indication..
-
Get 99.95-for-sure to rate it. He basically rates everything. Should give you a good indication..
Uhh... i don't rate everything?
But anyway, i gave your piece a read. I'm assuming you are in year 11 from your sig.
This seems to be a very good analysis for a non-yr12.
6.5/10
I would point out all the things you could do better but i haven't got the luxury of time.
By the time you sit your english exam end of next year, you'll be a pro writer. Potential 50? :P
-
Yep I am.
Haha 50 seems impossible though! D:
Hope so, however. :P
Hmmm still need to improve though, 6.5/10 is bleh D: Could you please give me any suggestions once you do have time? :)
Thanks a lot! <3
-
Yep I am.
Haha 50 seems impossible though! D:
Hope so, however. :P
Hmmm still need to improve though, 6.5/10 is bleh D: Could you please give me any suggestions once you do have time? :)
Thanks a lot! <3
Yes of course. Provided i don't forget. Remind me down the track :)
-
Okay; Prepare to be spammed. :) LOL JK haha
-
Anyone else willing to comment/rate? :)
-
Get 99.95-for-sure to rate it. He basically rates everything. Should give you a good indication..
Uhh... i don't rate everything?
But anyway, i gave your piece a read. I'm assuming you are in year 11 from your sig.
This seems to be a very good analysis for a non-yr12.
6.5/10
I would point out all the things you could do better but i haven't got the luxury of time.
By the time you sit your english exam end of next year, you'll be a pro writer. Potential 50? :P
Probably the most committed person to looking at english stuff on vn I've seen recently. So I generalised to "you rate everything".. hmm that's interesting how we both gave it the same score. Maybe get an assessor to have a look andio and see what they say? Would be good to know from a professional I guess. Cos we could be a bit too harsh or too lenient.
-
:O YES PLEASE LOL
There are assessors on VN? O_O
-
:O YES PLEASE LOL
There are assessors on VN? O_O
haha no, I wish! (sorry to get your hopes up) I meant from your school :S I'm sure there would be at least one.. You've got basically all holidays to find one to show and convince them to mark it haha. It would be worthwhile though.
-
I'll take out a snippet
" Conversely, the writer also describes childhood obesity as a “national epidemic”, conjuring the image of junk food as the perpetrator of a spreading ‘disease’. Building up on this idea, the writer depicts junk food as being “..sugar-loaded, salt-loaded and fat-loaded..”, coupling repetition well with loaded language."
You need to go into the specifics how how stating it is a "national epidemic" appeals to the reader and exactly why this happens. Because the next bit where you say it conjures up an image, I haven't read the text but it sounds a bit like you're summarizing it more than you're analyzing. Also you spot the technique with the "sugar loaded, salt loaded...", etc but you need to state how this is loaded, and the effect of that repetition. You then have to say how this makes junk food look like to the reader (not just say "in a negative light"), and then after that you can say something along the lines of what you said.
Nevertheless, I think the level to which you are writing (expression) is very good especially for a year 11, and you clearly know what you are doing. I think you are just falling into the trap of knowing what you want to say, but not putting it all down onto paper. It is better than the standard to which the average year 12 writes though (though you want to be well above it), but at this stage I'ld give you between 6 or 7, but until you start writing a bit more about how the use of language persuades the reader, it will be hard to get above 7. But once you get that I see no problem in you getting above that and ending up with a 9 or 10 come next year :)
-
Thank you very much for the comments taigastyle; will definitely continue to write essays and improve in that respect. Mmm I think I also need to improve my writing speed. By the way, is it advisable to identify and to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques which you'd be analysing further on in the article in the intro? :/
Any more people willing to help? :)
Much appreciated everyone!
-
Thank you very much for the comments taigastyle; will definitely continue to write essays and improve in that respect. Mmm I think I also need to improve my writing speed. By the way, is it advisable to identify and to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques which you'd be analysing further on in the article in the intro? :/
Any more people willing to help? :)
Much appreciated everyone!
From my understanding of yr12 English we don't actually analyse the persuasive techniques as such but rather the language that is used within them and how that effects the reader.
So like instead of 'the author uses an appeal to hip pocket nerve to affiliate himself with the less fortunate audience of this article'
its 'the authors use of exaggerated amounts of money, eg $26.50 per litre of petrol, places the reader in a state of shock where he can further manipulate their perceptions of the economy with words such as ...' blah blah blah
But I think you will end up using the technique in your writing anyway...
There are quite a few really good study guides written by VN members in the English board. Have a read of them to get a feel of a really good essay
-
I give it 8/10 its better then my language analysis and im getting 7s and 8s from my tutor and teacher. im actually kinda jealous of it
-
So like instead of 'the author uses an appeal to hip pocket nerve to affiliate himself with the less fortunate audience of this article'
its 'the authors use of exaggerated amounts of money, eg $26.50 per litre of petrol, places the reader in a state of shock where he can further manipulate their perceptions of the economy with words such as ...' blah blah blah
Sorry, but... 'exaggerated amounts of money' sounds a LOT worse than the simplistic 'hip pocket nerve'.
I would use something along the lines of:
The writer raises concerns regarding the prominent issue of financial detriment/worries through his timely mentioning of, "$26.50 per litre of petrol". This apparent "rip off" purveys a sense of blah blah blah, thus cajoling the readership to blah blah blah.
Little things like using clumsy sentences have a significant effect on what mark an examiner will give you.
-
I shall critique the introduction of your LA since others have already taken the liberty of reviewing for you. Hopefully, this gives you wider insight into the detriments of your piece.
The ongoing prominent/current/relevant issue of child obesity is once again a hot topic of debate within the media has come under renewed criticism following the recent implementation of a 'junk food ban' imposed upon school canteens. The editorial entitled ‘School life just became more fruitful’ which was published in ‘The Age’ (17/10/2006) postulates asserts/identifies that the underlying cause perpetrators of the matter, that is of childhood obesity are none other than their own educational institutions lies more with the schools and their respective canteens, subsequently announcing the recently enforced limit and ‘ban’ on junk food sold at school; all for the purpose of combating childhood obesity. However Conversely/On the other hand/In opposition, Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ which appeared in ‘The Australian’ (01/08/2006), clearly denounces/villifies/vindicates contends that the blame ultimately lies with the parents of Australian families. themselves, hence arguing that the resolution of this issue not only lies with the school canteens and children themselves, but more so the families and parents in particular of Australian children.[you've already said all this, it's unnecessary and makes you sound mechanical (sticking to a set structure/formula)
Let me know what you think of my corrections
-
I shall critique the introduction of your LA since others have already taken the liberty of reviewing for you. Hopefully, this gives you wider insight into the detriments of your piece.
The ongoing prominent/current/relevant issue of child obesity is once again a hot topic of debate within the media has come under renewed criticism following the recent implementation of a 'junk food ban' imposed upon school canteens. The editorial entitled ‘School life just became more fruitful’ which was published in ‘The Age’ (17/10/2006) postulates asserts/identifies that the underlying cause perpetrators of the matter, that is of childhood obesity are none other than their own educational institutions lies more with the schools and their respective canteens, subsequently announcing the recently enforced limit and ‘ban’ on junk food sold at school; all for the purpose of combating childhood obesity. However Conversely/On the other hand/In opposition, Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ which appeared in ‘The Australian’ (01/08/2006), clearly denounces/villifies/vindicates contends that the blame ultimately lies with the parents of Australian families. themselves, hence arguing that the resolution of this issue not only lies with the school canteens and children themselves, but more so the families and parents in particular of Australian children.[you've already said all this, it's unnecessary and makes you sound mechanical (sticking to a set structure/formula)
Let me know what you think of my corrections
Ohhhh, I get it now. Mmm I thought we had to specify which newspaper/magazine it was published in and what date? :S Oh and, are we supposed to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques/arguments we are going to be focussing on later on within the introduction?
Thanks!
-
I thought we had to specify which newspaper/magazine it was published in and what date?
No
are we supposed to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques/arguments we are going to be focussing on later on within the introduction?
No
Gosh... what are year 11 teachers teaching these kids nowadays. Good thing i didn't pay attention all through last year and scored D's, which translated to A's this year.
-
D: omg so confused LOL :/
Some of the worked examples in the Eng Worked Examples directory (e.g. EvangelionZeta's lang analysis') specify the date and newspaper it was published in though :/
-
Read what you said.
I thought we had to specify which newspaper/magazine it was published in and what date?
are we supposed to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques/arguments we are going to be focussing on later on within the introduction?
You do not HAVE to do anything. The examiner does not say "oh, he neglected to mention the specific day, month and year. That's 3 things, therefore -3 marks out of 10"
-
Ohhh oops haha didn't mean it in that way. So, in retrospect, would it be best to mention the date/publication IF your intro seems too short? Conversely, if your intro seems 'fine' with the identification of their contention, tone etc, you wouldn't mention the date/publication? Would the above be an appropriate guide?
-
Ohhh oops haha didn't mean it in that way. So, in retrospect, would it be best to mention the date/publication IF your intro seems too short? Conversely, if your intro seems 'fine' with the identification of their contention, tone etc, you wouldn't mention the date/publication? Would the above be an appropriate guide?
Ok your worries are just becoming silly... I will reiterate that language analysis is not marked on structure or length, but rather depth and expression of analysis. Your intro can be 1 sentence long for all they care, doesn't hinder your chances at getting a 10 any extra.
Furthermore, an introduction is not the major determinant of your score. EVERYONE's introduction is gonna be similar, you can't stand out from the pack in that area. It's the analysis in the bulk of your piece that makes you shine in the eyes of the sadistic vboss marker.
-
So like instead of 'the author uses an appeal to hip pocket nerve to affiliate himself with the less fortunate audience of this article'
its 'the authors use of exaggerated amounts of money, eg $26.50 per litre of petrol, places the reader in a state of shock where he can further manipulate their perceptions of the economy with words such as ...' blah blah blah
Sorry, but... 'exaggerated amounts of money' sounds a LOT worse than the simplistic 'hip pocket nerve'.
I would use something along the lines of:
The writer raises concerns regarding the prominent issue of financial detriment/worries through his timely mentioning of, "$26.50 per litre of petrol". This apparent "rip off" purveys a sense of blah blah blah, thus cajoling the readership to blah blah blah.
Little things like using clumsy sentences have a significant effect on what mark an examiner will give you.
It was just an example to emphasise the element that should be analysed is the language. Both of our examples do the same thing but yours is of a higher standard, obviously. :D
-
I thought we had to specify which newspaper/magazine it was published in and what date?
No
are we supposed to 'signpost' the persuasive techniques/arguments we are going to be focussing on later on within the introduction?
No
Gosh... what are year 11 teachers teaching these kids nowadays. Good thing i didn't pay attention all through last year and scored D's, which translated to A's this year.
Aigoo! My teacher said that we HAVE to add in those things.
W.es Doing English Language next year anyway.
-
Noteworthy is the fact that many of these teachers are not year 12 teachers because they simply are not good enough, rather than personal choice. I wouldn't take their advice too seriously.
-
Noteworthy is the fact that many of these teachers are not year 12 teachers because they simply are not good enough, rather than personal choice. I wouldn't take their advice too seriously.
Now I understand why I didn't get a great score for the midyear English exam..
Btw, my teacher holds a legendary story of how she failed her final exam for English, because she didn't read the question properly.
She also wants to teach 3/4 English. Thank Habib Bibah that I'm not doing mainstream anymore.
The worst thing about her teaching: The fact that she only pays attention to about 3 of the students in the class.. and she treats me like shit.
-
Mmmmm okay. Thanks everyone for the comments! :) Very much appreciated.
Anyone else interesting in commenting/rating? :D
-
*Anyone else interested in commenting/rating? :)
sorry typo!