ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: VCE_2012 on March 11, 2012, 09:04:04 pm
-
For creating and presenting. If our prompt is “Our relationships with other help us define the person we become”- in one of our paragraphs (expository) can we talk about the effects on our identity if our relationship with others a neglected- seems to introduce another prompt. To me it seems logical enough. It is okay?
(Can anyone see any persuasive motives in this idea? It is supposed to be an expository)
-
Yes... that's a legitimate perspective to take on the prompt.
Persuasive? Any statement or question can surely elicit persuasive responses -- but since it's expository your intention is not to persuade but to explore, discuss, explain and inform.
-
Anytime you disagree with part of the prompt you should always introduce a counterargument/interpretation to help justify why you disagree and why an alternative argument/interpretation is 'better'.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should actively try to do this as much as possible! Agreeing with the prompt in its entirety limits your essay(etc) to the scope of the prompt and explaining why it is right. In effect, you're letting the person who wrote the question decide what's in your essay.
Disagreeing with the prompt (even in part) allows you to logically address the prompt, but then to move beyond it into your own argument/interpretation - here, you get to define the scope of your writing. You want that control and extra breadth.
-
Anytime you disagree with part of the prompt you should always introduce a counterargument/interpretation to help justify why you disagree and why an alternative argument/interpretation is 'better'.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should actively try to do this as much as possible! Agreeing with the prompt in its entirety limits your essay(etc) to the scope of the prompt and explaining why it is right. In effect, you're letting the person who wrote the question decide what's in your essay.
Disagreeing with the prompt (even in part) allows you to logically address the prompt, but then to move beyond it into your own argument/interpretation - here, you get to define the scope of your writing. You want that control and extra breadth.
You're right, but this is a prompt for creating and presenting not text response. Maybe amend your post.
-
Anytime you disagree with part of the prompt you should always introduce a counterargument/interpretation to help justify why you disagree and why an alternative argument/interpretation is 'better'.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should actively try to do this as much as possible! Agreeing with the prompt in its entirety limits your essay(etc) to the scope of the prompt and explaining why it is right. In effect, you're letting the person who wrote the question decide what's in your essay.
Disagreeing with the prompt (even in part) allows you to logically address the prompt, but then to move beyond it into your own argument/interpretation - here, you get to define the scope of your writing. You want that control and extra breadth.
You're right, but this is a prompt for creating and presenting not text response. Maybe amend your post.
Nothing that he said purports to text response AFAIK...
-
Anytime you disagree with part of the prompt you should always introduce a counterargument/interpretation to help justify why you disagree and why an alternative argument/interpretation is 'better'.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that you should actively try to do this as much as possible! Agreeing with the prompt in its entirety limits your essay(etc) to the scope of the prompt and explaining why it is right. In effect, you're letting the person who wrote the question decide what's in your essay.
Disagreeing with the prompt (even in part) allows you to logically address the prompt, but then to move beyond it into your own argument/interpretation - here, you get to define the scope of your writing. You want that control and extra breadth.
You're right, but this is a prompt for creating and presenting not text response. Maybe amend your post.
Nothing that he said purports to text response AFAIK...
I don't know. Reacting to the prompt by explicitly agreeing with it or disagreeing with it seems like a text responsey thing to do to me. I thought the idea of the prompts in context was to use them as a springboard, thus generally I wouldn't think you would actually directly address the prompt in a Context piece unless it made sense to in your given form. Introducing a counterargument to me, which was one of megan's suggestions, seems to involve responding to the prompt directly, one way megan's suggestion might apply is if you were writing a persuasive piece in response to another (fictional) article which had argued the point of view expressed by the prompt, and you wished to argue against the prompt. I just thought this deserved some form of clarification.
-
I really think it's the same basic idea. You're creating your own thesis, but still in response to a prompt. I think we can generalise the approach into 'staying within the limits of what we're given' versus 'going beyond in a still-responsive way' without splitting hairs too much.
-
I don't know. Reacting to the prompt by explicitly agreeing with it or disagreeing with it seems like a text responsey thing to do to me. I thought the idea of the prompts in context was to use them as a springboard, thus generally I wouldn't think you would actually directly address the prompt in a Context piece unless it made sense to in your given form. Introducing a counterargument to me, which was one of megan's suggestions, seems to involve responding to the prompt directly, one way megan's suggestion might apply is if you were writing a persuasive piece in response to another (fictional) article which had argued the point of view expressed by the prompt, and you wished to argue against the prompt. I just thought this deserved some form of clarification.
This sounds right on the money to me. I will add some of my own thoughts.
In Creating and Presenting you are more or less expected to get into the spirit and main thrust of the prompt.
Loooking for counter-prompts is not the percentage play. For instance, how easy would it be to present a counter-prompt within a Creative piece ? Near enough impossible in the time allowed.
It pays to play it straight. There are practical reasons for this. It allows you to use all your usual tricks. Particularly in expository or persuasive pieces. By the time you do your 'unpacking the prompt' business, you have demonstarted to the assessor that you have COMPREHENDED the meaning of the prompt (tick) and, IMPORTANTLY, you have written the first few hundred words of your essay (tick). This is a big advantage. You only get so much time to write an essay. You dont want to waste too much of it trying to be a hero.