FREE ENGLISH PRACTICE EXAMS
♪ ♫ It's the most wonderful time of the year ♫ ♪
October is upon us!
So you know what that means!?
It's time for another round of Lauren's super-difficult-uber-cruel-oh-dear-god-why-PRACTICE EXAMS FOR VCE ENGLISH!!!
Just a quick disclaimer for those who aren't familiar with my brand of sadism...
...these are meant to be tough exams!
I'm deliberately constructing these to be between a 9/10 - 11/10 on the difficulty scale whilst still making sure they're VCAA-esque in nature. The chances of you getting anything this tricky in your actual exam is pretty low (and you certainly won't get three Sections that are all this mean) but I'm of the belief that you should plan for the worst and hope for the best, so this is my way of issuing a challenge to any of you who are brave enough to put your knowledge to the test!
I'll be putting these up every Saturday morning between now and the exam!
(except this weekend because my internet was down #fucktheNBN)
I'll try and sort out a PDF version but the file size limit on AN is a thorn in my side... hopefully the formatting of the word doc doesn't screw up for too many people - if it does, let me know and I'll figure out a more forum-friendly option.
So there'll be four exams in total, with each one being difficult for different reasons.
No matter how confident you are with English, I would highly recommend at least looking over this material and thinking about how you might handle it. You don't have to sit this in test conditions if you don't feel up for it, but familiarising yourself with difficult content gives you a huuuuge advantage. And for those of you who do manage to write up a response or two, my hope is that when you flip through your exam booklet at 9:00am on October 26th, you think 'ha! this is nothing, Lauren's exams were way worse - this'll be easy!'
This thread will be left open for you to post any essays, questions, or angry cursing in response to this material. I will do my best to address as many of these as possible, though obviously you're all more than welcome to field one another's concerns, or better yet, mark one another's essays.
Best of luck! ;D
Hi Lauren :)
Thanks for creating this exam. It has challenged me and allowed to recognise the need for improvement in my writing. My response for Section C is below:
Spoiler
NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. These allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post.
Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers.
Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority.
Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community.
At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of.
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes” as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.
All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family. She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large.
I have a few questions regarding my response:
- How can I improve the flow of my writing?
- Is my structure acceptable?
- Have I referred to the visual enough?
- Do I over use semicolons?
- How highly would you expect such a response to score on the exam?
Thanks for your help ;D
Hey YellowTongue!
I've decided to take a shot and
try to provide some feedback*!
*Disclaimer: this is my first shot at this, so take my advice with a grain of salt. :P
Original Essay:
NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. These allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post.
Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers.
Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority.
Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community.
At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of.
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes” as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.
All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family. She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large.
Essay with comments
NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. TheseThe allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community which community? involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. A mention of tone here would be a good idea Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post I would also mention the image here, as well.
Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers. This is a really good paragraph, however I would suggest going more into depth into how it affects the reader and maybe identify another technique to allow for a more in-depth analysis of the argument and I would highly suggest 'weaving' one of the supplementary texts into this paragraph, so that you can draw links towards the different contentions each text has.
Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority. I really like this comparison, however as above, weaving it into argument will potentially improve the flow of the analysis, where you can go "in comparison", even if they have completely different contentions!
Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault which technique?. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers but what action are the audience inclined to do? who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community. Yet again, good analysis, however try to narrow down the audience and give an interpretation of what they would be inclined to do.
At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson what does this possibly make the readers do?. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of. Really good use of analysing the visual language here, however I would highly recommend looking at the tone, colour and positioning of the objects in the image. Also beware of writing just a whole paragraph on the image, as most examiners/teachers recommend that you place it in a paragraph that anaylses both the visual and the blog text.
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes” as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.The integration of the quotes here is rather excellent and demonstrates a neat analysis, also mentioning a differing contention to that of the main blog post is great.
All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family. She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large. I like the relationships identified in this conclusion, this is good!
- How can I improve the flow of my writing?
I would suggest trying a basic weave to integrate all areas of the texts given! :)
- Is my structure acceptable?
I believe it is acceptable, however, examiners tend to prefer the "weave" formats
- Have I referred to the visual enough?
You have provided sufficient amount of analysis, but read my comment above. :)
- Do I over use semicolons?
No!
- How highly would you expect such a response to score on the exam?
I would say around 6-7 (out of 10) :)
[/list]
Sorry for the (lack of) feedback! Hope this helps, even a little! :)
Here is my attempt at Section C, found it very hard to incorporate the piece, image and all five comments succinctly so any feedback would be awesome. Also a rough score would also be helpful. Thanks heaps! :)
Spoiler
NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.
Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be.
In accordance with her arguement, Jones has included an image which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have.
Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach.
Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.
Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community.
Original Essay
NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.
Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be.
In accordance with her arguement, Jones has included an image which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have.
Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach.
Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.
Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community.
Essay with feedback
NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.This is an great introduction! However, I feel as if you haven't identified the tone of the piece.
Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic avoid using empathy/empathetic, as these are usually classed as generic terms. Try to be more descriptive, by using words such as sensitive, compassionate or generous. towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be. Overall, a great paragraph, however maybe try to draw a comparison to a comment or the image, as it will be extremely beneficial, as it adds to the analysis and compares and contrasts between the contentions of the separate pieces.
In accordance with her arguement, spelling of argument is incorrect here, but I'm assuming a typo. Jones has included an image I would avoid using "in accordance", however, "Jones strengthens her argument by" would make a clearer statement. which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth I really like this interpretation of the what the image symbolises! and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have. Overall, a great analysis paragraph, with a sentence or two that could be improved upon (see above)
Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach. This is a great little analysis to the supplementary texts! Maybe try to link this into another paragraph from the main blog post?
Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha that (typo :P ) media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her how will they feel inclined to oppose Jones? and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.
Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community. Excellent conclusion, sums the analysis up neatly!
All in all, a great analysis, I would think it would get around a 7-8 out of 10. :)
Thanks for the feedback insanipi! Very helpful! Been trying to work hard on the language analysis and feel as though I'm getting there. Really appreciate taking your time out to give me some feedback. :)
For you, Lauren or anyone who is familiar with Burial Rites and has the time to give feedback I've also got a text response that I whipped up that any feedback would be awesome for. Send a lot of practices to my teacher but it's really good to get some different perspectives on pieces and new ideas and feedback.
Prompt: ' "They see I've got a head on my shoulders, and believe a thinking woman cannot be trusted" To what extent does prejudice influence the behaviour of men in Burial Rites? '
Spoiler
Set in 19th century Iceland, Hannah Kent's Burial Rites presents a patriarchal society rife with prejudice and double standards; which significantly impact on the actions of the majority of men within the society. District Commissioner Bjorn Blondal's contradictory treatment of the rebellious Agnes compared to the docile Sigga demonstrates the significant inequalities within the novel. However, Toti's compassion for the condemned Agnes and Natan's lust for Agnes despite lowly social status indicate that although prejudice influences some men's actions, others such as Toti and Natan are able to transcend the unfair nature of their society, and see people a they truly are.
Kent's protagonist within Burial Rites Agnes is presumed guilty of murdering Natan and Petur by Blondal; who uses his unrivaled authority to "set an example of her via her execution. However, Sigga who is thought to remind Blondal of his wife, and her docility are rewarded as she is pardoned for her part in the crimes. The juxtaposition of Blondal's prosecution of Sigga who is "too young and sweet to die" compared to "bloody knowing" Agnes highlights how the inherently judgmental nature of the Icelandic society can alter the way people are treated by men.
Although discrimination and bias is an unquestionable part of the Burial Rites society that is presented by Kent, Toti's actions in his role of preparing Agnes for death reveal how care and affection can overshadow the unfairness of the society. Blondal questions Toti's performance in preparing Agnes for her execution to which he defends his methods as he believes he "provide her with a final audience to her life's lonely narrative." Despite Blondal's chastisement, Toti continues to listen to Agnes rather than preach to her and even risks his own health, and ultimately, his life, to ride to Kornsa and be there for her in her final days. Toti's compassion towards Agnes who is seen only by most as "the whore, the madwoman and the murderess", indicates that prejudice influences the behaviour of many men within the novel however, not all men are influence by it.
Throughout her life Agnes has been shuned constantly due to her lowly status and ambitious nature. The men within Burial Rites value a woman who is obedient over a woman with "a head on her shoulders" such as Agnes. However, Natan strongly lusts for Agnes despite the preconceived ideas held towards illegitimate paupers such as her by the vast majority of others. Natan and Agnes' relationship suggest that despite the large influence prejudice has in the society that Kent presents, not all men allow it to change their actions.
Ultimately, within the patriarchal Burial Rites society judgement and bias often influence the behaviour of men within it, such as Blondal and the vast majority of the public. However, as exemplified by Toti and Natan, prejudice does not always prevail as some men are able to prevent it from changing their behaviour.
Looking for feedback as my teacher gives me A- to A+ on pretty much everything I write and I think I need a second opinion.
Thanks!
Spoiler
Agnes Magnusdottir is found to be guilty, and although there were other factors in the murder of Natan Ketilsson, she is still guilty. But what does it mean to be guilty? Agnes quickly has the little power she did possess stripped away from her as she is taken prisoner. Even at Kornsa, she is shown no respect and is forced to keep her feelings locked away inside her until Margret and herself become friends, as no one else will be associated with her. Ultimately, all of the truly guilty people in Burial Rites end up executed in one way or another, showing that to be guilty is to die.
Agnes never really had much power in her life, but after being found guilty of Natan’s murder, she had what was left swiftly taken away from her. Locked away at Stora-Borg with “no way to mark the day from night”, she was left without the most basic form of power- simple knowledge. This was a far cry from the early days of her life at Illugastadir, where Natan had not yet revealed his true self and she seemed to have equal power in their relationship. Her lack of power becomes more evident on the trip to Kornsa, as she thinks to herself that she is “strapped to the saddle like a corpse being taken to the burial ground”. This shows that Agnes sees Kornsa as the “burial ground”, due to Inga’s death which she had a hand in, letting “the spirit” of death into the house as she opened the door during the storm. In a way, Agnes is partly guilty for Inga’s death, as she let “the cold air in with Inga in such a delicate state”. This was a precursor for a life of guilt as she lost her home as a ‘punishment’ for it, and was once again thrust into the arms of strangers, working up and down the valley for a place to live. Due to her guiltiness, Agnes lost the power to live a basic life when she was a child, and as an adult she lost her freedom. Furthermore, after killing Natan, she became ostracized from everyone but the family she was forced upon.
While Agnes waited out her final months until her execution, she was completely isolated by everyone except those she was forced to be with. When Roslin visited, she spoke of Agnes’ “hideous face” and the “fiendish things” that the “whore” had done. This shows that the hatred for Agnes was widespread, and she was quite right when she thought “they will see the whore, the madwoman, the murderess”. However, all throughout Roslin’s tirade, Margret seems to sympathise with Agnes, for they are “two dying women” and she doesn’t believe that the crime could have just been Agnes’ wickedness because “nothing is simple”. Margret is the only person who considers Agnes to not be a “spider” at this point, but even her trust can be lost in an instant for a guilty woman. When Agnes inspects Lauga’s confirmation gift, Margret grows “furious” and the “blood drains from her face”. Agnes is hit with a “neat crack” and Margret is going to punish her by “working like a dog”, which is similar to the way she was treated by the guards, “another dull-eyed animal”. Even in her younger days, Agnes was guilty of always being “fixed on bettering herself”, which doesn’t sound like a negative, but at the time when a “thinking woman cannot be trusted” it made her seem like a “fjandi”. Agnes lost all hope of having more than Margret as a friend after her guilty verdict, showing that guilt for her meant powerlessness and loneliness. But even more than that, guilt meant death.
The guilty in Burial Rites are dealt with cruelly, and effectively all end up dead. Natan was the first to go, guilty of “toying with people” and manipulating Agnes, Natan “Satan” viewed her as more of a challenge than a real person, after he “could not read” her. But after he actually got to know Agnes and got used to her, he grew tired of her and began his “games”. Sleeping with Sigga while Agnes was lying awake, he openly dismisses her forgiveness, and reveals he doesn’t “wait until you’re [Agnes] asleep”. Natan reveals his true self, one who does not love anyone. In a way, Natan “got what was coming to him”, he had ruined Agnes’ life for his own amusement and was not remorseful in any way. Her undying love for Natan was also her downfall. Even when murdering him, being the executioner of the guiltiest person she had ever met, she viewed her knife thrust as an “ill practiced kiss” rather than a fatal incision. Natan died for his guilt, and Agnes would too. At the execution site, Agnes didn’t want to die, not thinking she was “ready” for it. But in the end, she was forced to die for her crimes, her guilt, just as Natan had earlier.
Being guilty is death sentence in itself- one becomes powerless, losing their basic ability to live a normal life. They are then almost completely ostracised, seen as a figure of evil by those around them, although there may be a chance for companionship with whoever is kept close, it is not likely. But ultimately, to be guilty is to die, and Agnes and Natan both suffer the same fate. Burial Rites explores what it really means to be guilty, and explicitly shows the consequences of such guilt and how a life changes throughout.
Spoiler
Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.
Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality information. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case.
However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as ‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them.
Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. In response, June R. contends that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past.
Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones asserts that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.
Hey, laksjdlakj, I can give you some feedback on the section C! :)
original essay
Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.
Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality information. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case.
However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as ‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them.
Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. In response, June R. contends that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past.
Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones asserts that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.
Essay with feedback
Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends try to avoid using "contend", instead use words like asserts, affirm, protest or insists. in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County who are the stakeholders in this issue? to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.
Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality informationwhat other reactions could the reader have to the negative connotations?. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning try to avoid using "positioning", instead use words like notions, allows readers to perceive; or increases the readers' awareness of.readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers try to link to the particular parts of the audience, not just "readers" in general. to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case. Brilliant integration of the main and one of the supplementary texts.
However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position try not to over use position, as it tends to be the go-to word for explaining how a technique persuades. readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb eb should be be- a typo, I assume. aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we Don't use first person (such as I and we and us). should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, try to avoid using "contrarily", instead use words like conversly, in opposition to, or alternatively. David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes Jones. Typo. but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as You should insert being either an... or here..‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, try to avoid using "contrastingly", instead use words or phrases like on the other hand, conversly or alternatively. James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages try to avoid using "encourages" a lot, iI suggest using words such as guide, manoeuver or convert.readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them. Overall a good paragraph, however, try to use some other words instead of staying with the 'stock standard' words.
Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests try to avoid using "suggests", instead use words like implies, conveys, hints at or connotes. that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. This sentence is quite long-winded, how can you condense it? Also, how does it affect the readers?In response, June R. contends try not to use contend for each different comment. that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages Perhaps use inspire or stimulate here to vary the vocabulary.readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past. It's a good analysis, however try focusing on multiple ways in which readers will react.
Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert Are the techniques appealing to emotions or more towards logic and reasoning?their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones assertsTry to not use "asserts" a lot, try using insists or claim instead. that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.
All in all, it is a good analysis, however, try and vary the vocab and go into more depth of how certain techniques captivate the readers. :)
Rough score: I would say that it'd score 6-7.
:)
Hey EvanC, sorry for the late post! ;D
Original Essay
Following the recent incident of misreporting on the NSB’s behalf, freelance journalist Kylie Jones reprimands Wickfield residents for their credulity and response to the scandal, whilst maintaining that reporters are expected to report sincerely and hence should be trustworthy sources of information. The blog post, primarily aimed at locals, drew a variety of responses, spanning views from who the blame lies with, to the overall meaninglessness of the debacle, from locals. Jones’ post was also accompanied by an image.
Jones’ support for the practise of local reporting is evident in her stance as a “staunch defender” of the profession, and her praise of local journalists for “do{ing} a pretty decent job” at comprehensively covering local events intimates her appreciation and confidence in this brand of journalism to fulfil the same role as “metropolitan news and current affairs” reporting. The sense of inclusion Jones seeks to create with other local journalists who may have also been belittled as “amateurish hicks” works in tandem with Jones’ appreciation of the profession to ingratiate her with audience members, who are as a result, more inclined to agree on their fallibility as journalists. For those aligned with Jones’, she seeks to downplay the significance of their misjudgements as merely failing to capture the “whole” truth, and since they conduct their investigations with good “intentions,” Jones distinguishes them from the journalists of the NSB, who lack the same “heart” by comparison. Her clearly demarcated tonal shift from humbled while portraying most local reporters as good intentioned, though imperfect, to censorious as accentuates the NSB’s “sloppy… flawed” and imprudent working methods, which were more like a “witch hunt” than journalism, Is intended to create a separation between honest mistakes of journalists and the NSB’s comparatively insidious actions. In this sense, the NSB are clearly differentiated from other reporters as they don't operate under the same morals and hence their actions cannot be dismissed as a “mistake” and “put behind” everyone’s collective memory, but rather require thorough appraisal as to ascertain “whose really to blame.” Whilst Jones feels thorough inquiry is required, Beth Z disregards the incident as merely a “misunderstanding,” and derisively attacks Jones for sanctimony. She scorns Jones for taking a position atop a “high horse” and exaggerating the incident to be an indictment of “journalistic integrity” to engender reader disapproval and distaste for the Jones’ self-righteousness and consequently positions them to feel that “mov[ing] along” is the sensible course of resolution.
By prefacing her jeremiad against community members for their gullibility with an acknowledgement of the media's "power" when it comes to influencing views, Jones seeks to distribute "blame" across all involved parties, so as to avoid antagonising any particular group. The measured tone she adopts, as she begins to focus on the irresponsibility of the citizens' actions serves to solidify that they too share a degree of blame for their involvement in the scandal. Yet whilst Jones is critical of this credulity demonstrated, ultimately she endeavours to spur readers on to become more "critical" of what "they hear," rather than lambasting their actions on this particular occasion. As such, she dichotomises readers into those unperturbed by their credulity and those who see the harm of "taking things at face value" and thus understand the importance of critically appraising information. By alternating sentence starts with the imperative declaration "not" to "be" and "be" and by clearly illustrating the importance of following her instructions as they may provide an opportunity to "rebuild," Jones elucidates a clearly defined path to recovery that requires deeper evaluation of the news, on behalf of citizens, should they hope for Wickfield to recover. Whilst Jones places the onus on viewers, James T contradicts this view, arguing that it is unfair for Jones to retrospectively "judge" and criticise them, when they were acting out of concern for the club. Instead, James T demonises the NSB as a "bunch of liars" who took advantage of "honest... kind and trusting" people, thereby painting the NSB as manipulative and devious and citizens as exploited and vulnerable by contrast. Elizabeth C takes this notion of villainy further, accusing the NSB of "brainwashing innocent minds." Through the connotations of "brainwash", which are indoctrination and inculcation, in conjunction with "innocen'" connotations of helplessness, Elizabeth C seeks to highlight the extent of victimisation and direct condemnation towards the NSB.
The included visual depicting two versions of the scenario where the media have failed to capture the "whole" picture, markedly changing its meaning by consequence, highlights the dangers of misreporting. Thus Jones emphasizes the responsibility of the media, as they wield the power to create and alter meaning so dramatically. But, by placing the camera in the centre and capturing at least part of both figures in on the screen, Jones implies the accidental nature of this incident, appeasing the media, given their incredibly slim margin for error. As a result, Jones implies that the "catastrophe" which ensued, though instigated by the media, was also caused by the way citizens responded. Victimising Benson for having "havoc" wrought upon his life as a result of the way he was treated, Jones portrays the "reckless" citizens as driving the catastrophe. The asyndeton of Benson's fears establish his treatment as the essence of the tragedy and this compounded with Jones' presentation of the responsible citizens as "reckless vigilantes" suggests that the tragedy could have been avoided with thoughtfulness. By labelling the media report giving rise to the chaos as "one little story" Jones positions the response as disproportionate and therefore unsuitable to cause.
By demonstrating an awareness of the slim margin of error reporters work under, Jones illustrates the fallibility of reporters, despite their overall good intentions but accuses the NSB of lacking of these. Thus, Jones asserts that ultimately it is necessary for community members to thoroughly assess such stories and act prudently to avoid such disasters.
Essay with feedback
Following the recent incident of misreporting on the NSB’s behalf, freelance journalist Kylie Jones reprimands Wickfield residents Are the WIckfield residents the only section of the audience? for their credulity and response to the scandal, whilst maintaining that reporters are expected to report sincerely and hence should be trustworthy sources of information. The blog post, primarily aimed at locals, drew a variety of responses Responses from where?, spanning views from who the blame lies with, to the overall meaninglessness of the debacle, from locals. What is the tone of the blog? Jones’ post was also accompanied by an image. What else accompanied the main blog post?
Jones’ support for the practise of local reporting is evident in her stance as a “staunch defender” of the profession, and her praise of local journalists for “do{ing} a pretty decent job” at comprehensively covering local events intimates her appreciation and confidence in this brand of journalism to fulfil the same role as “metropolitan news and current affairs” reporting.That is a very long-winded sentence, try to condense this. The sense of inclusion Jones seeks to create Create what? with other local journalists who may have also been belittled as “amateurish hicks” works in tandem with Jones’ appreciation of the profession to ingratiate her with audience members, who are as a result, more inclined to agree on their fallibility as journalists. For those aligned with Jones’, she seeks to downplay the significance of their misjudgements as merely failing to capture the “whole” truth, and since they conduct their investigations with good “intentions,” Jones distinguishes them from the journalists of the NSB, who lack the same “heart” by comparison. What does this make the audience feel or do? Her clearly demarcated tonal shift from humbled while portraying most local reporters as good intentioned, though imperfect, to censorious as accentuates the NSB’s “sloppy… flawed” and imprudent working methods, which were more like a “witch hunt” than journalism, Is intended to create a separation between honest mistakes of journalists and the NSB’s comparatively insidious actions. In this sense, the NSB are clearly differentiated from other reporters as they don't operate under the same morals and hence their actions cannot be dismissed as a “mistake” and “put behind” everyone’s collective memory, but rather require thorough appraisal as to ascertain “whose really to blame.” Again, what is the effect on the audience, what specific section of the audience does this adhere too? Whilst Jones feels thorough inquiry is required, Beth Z disregards the incident as merely a “misunderstanding,” and derisively attacks Jones for sanctimony. She scorns Jones for taking a position atop a “high horse” and exaggerating the incident to be an indictment of “journalistic integrity” to engender reader disapproval I'd suggest to go in more depth here with what type of disapproval, actually I'd suggest not to use disapproval but to use words like dissatisfaction, objection or deprecation.and distaste for the Jones’ self-righteousness and consequently positions them to feel that “mov[ing] along” is the sensible course of resolution. How does this relate to the audience?
By prefacing her jeremiad against community members for their gullibility with an acknowledgement of the media's "power" when it comes to influencing views, Jones seeks to distribute "blame" across all involved parties, so as to avoid antagonising any particular group. The measured tone she adopts, as she begins to focus on the irresponsibility of the citizens' actions serves to solidify that they too share a degree of blame for their involvement in the scandal. Yet whilst Jones is critical of this credulity demonstrated, ultimately she endeavours to spur readers on to become more "critical" of what "they hear," rather than lambasting their actions on this particular occasion. Good connection with effect on the readers. As such, she dichotomises readers into those unperturbed by their credulity and those who see the harm of "taking things at face value" and thus understand the importance of critically appraising information. By alternating sentence starts with the imperative declaration "not" to "be" and "be" and by clearly illustrating the importance of following her instructions as they may provide an opportunity to "rebuild," Jones elucidates a clearly defined path to recovery that requires deeper evaluation of the news, on behalf of citizens, should they hope for Wickfield to recover. Whilst Jones places the onus on viewers, James T contradicts Try to use repudiate or challenge here for more sophistication.this view, arguing that it is unfair for Jones to retrospectively "judge" and criticise them, when they were acting out of concern for the club. Instead, James T demonises the NSB as a "bunch of liars" who took advantage of "honest... kind and trusting" people, thereby painting the NSB as manipulative and devious and citizens as exploited and vulnerable by contrast. Does this cause readers to take action? Elizabeth C takes this notion of villainy further, accusing the NSB of "brainwashing innocent minds." Through the connotations of "brainwash", which are indoctrination and inculcation, in conjunction with "innocen'" innocent? I'm assuming a typo here.connotations of helplessness, Elizabeth C seeks to highlight Highlight to who? the extent of victimisation and direct condemnation towards the NSB. A lot of complex vocabulary here, keep in mind some of the words assessor may not be aware of such words.
The included visual depicting two versions of the scenario where the media have failed to capture the "whole" picture what is the whole picture, how is it symoblised?, markedly changing its meaning by consequence, highlights the dangers of misreporting. Thus Jones emphasizes emphasises, the version you used is the American version and you've used UK/Australian spelling for most of the essay. the responsibility of the media, as they wield the power to create and alter meaning so dramatically. But, by placing the camera in the centre and capturing at least part of both figures in on the screen, Jones implies the accidental nature of this incident, appeasing the media, given their incredibly slim margin for error. As a result, Jones implies that the "catastrophe" which ensued, though instigated by the media, was also caused by the way citizens responded How does this visual persuade the audience?. Victimising Benson for having "havoc" wrought upon his life as a result of the way he was treated, Jones portrays the "reckless" citizens as driving the catastrophe. The asyndeton of Benson's fears establish his treatment as the essence of the tragedy and this compounded with Jones' presentation of the responsible citizens as "reckless vigilantes" suggests that the tragedy could have been avoided with thoughtfulness How does this inspire readers to react?. By labelling the media report giving rise to the chaos as "one little story" Jones positions the response as disproportionate and therefore unsuitable to cause. Try to avoid writing on the image as a whole paragraph, instead try to incorporate it into another paragraph with an argument from the text.
By demonstrating an awareness of the slim margin of error reporters work under, Jones illustrates the fallibility of reporters, despite their overall good intentions but accuses the NSB of lacking of these. Thus, Jones asserts that ultimately it is necessary for community members to thoroughly assess such stories and act prudently to avoid such disasters. What is the relationship between the audience and Jones' contention?
Overall, I believe this is a really good effort at analysing the blog and it's supplementary texts, however, I feel that it lacks analysis of the effects towards the readers.
I believe this is roughly a low mid-range piece, from 4-5, however, I believe that with improvement, you can do much better! :)
Clearing a backlog of essays at the moment, so just post here or on the submissions boards if you want feedback or have any questions! :)
Hey Lauren, would love some feedback on a text response I did on a Burial Rites prompt from your second practice exam. Found the prompts quite difficult but whenever you could feedback would be great. Also a rough score out of 10 would be awesome!
Spoiler
Set in a 19th century Icelandic society, Hannah Kent's Burial Rites portrays a distorted application of justice that results in punishments that are unsuitable for their respective crimes. In the society, where the powerful and men are treasured, meanwhile women and those of a lowly social status are neglected. District Commissioner Bjorn Blondal manipulates his unrivaled authority to fulfill his own desires; as he pardons Sigga but sentences the rebellious Agnes to execution. Furthermore, Natan's indiscretions are overlooked while Agnes and other women who are taken advantage of are seen as "whores." Ultimately, in the Icelandic, patriarchal society where prejudice and injustice are rife, the physical and social punishments can never truly match the crime that caused them.
A fair punishment cannot be attained without a fair trial. Unfortunately, for Agnes this was never an option, as Blondal and his men determined her guilty before she could protest. Agnes later laments "everything I said was taken from me and altered until the story wasn't my own." Although her contribution to the murders is undoubted, her motives were not vengeance or spite as suggest but rather of pity to end Natan's suffering. However Blondal believes she is "reticent, secretive and guilty" and due to his high social standing his opinion overrules hers. A punishment cannot be just in a society where men such as Blondal can exploit their authority and use it in self-serving ways. Agnes did murder Natan, but she was not the evil, vindictive woman she has been portrayed as. Capital punishment is a brutal penalty for a crime of pity and love. Agnes receives the same punishment as Fridrik who was driven by jealousy and revenge for their respective roles in the murders. This demonstrates that in this society the punishments are based off bias rather than facts thus they will never honestly be equivalent to the crimes committed.
Kent's Burial Rites presents a society where obedient women are valued and ambitious women are disciplined. Women are discouraged from learning to read or write, as the society is of the belief that "a thinking woman cannot be trusted." This is exemplified by the contradictory treatment of Sigga and Agnes after the Illgustadir murders. The docile Sigga is thought to be "too young and sweet to die" and to remind Blondal of his wife and is thus pardoned for her part in the murders as she epitomises the traits in a woman that the society appreciates. Conversely, "bloody knowing" Agnes is largely loathed by the society and is sentenced to execution. The juxtaposition of Sigga and Agnes' respective punishments demonstrates how in a society such as the one created by Kent, the crime and it's subsequent punishment will never be equal.
In Kent's Burial Rites society the punishments for a crime go far beyond an official verdict. The condemnation of a person leads to social isolation and judgement from the vast majority of their peers. Natan's sexual indiscretions are well documented yet looked over by most due to his high social standing. Meanwhile women are judged far more harshly for similar actions. Agnes suggests "how other people think of you determines who you are." Agnes, like her mother and many other women servants before her, does what she has to in order to survive. However this results in her being labelled as "a woman loose with her emotions and looser with her morals." The prejudicial nature of the society leads to Blondal deciding Agnes is guilty without second thought. In a society such as this, where prejudice significantly influences public opinion, ensuring a fitting punishment for a crime is not only difficult, but impossible.
Ultimately, it is not possible for a crime to be met with an appropriate punishment in a society where prejudice and patriarchal double standards influence the actions of people, and the powerful can corrupt their authority in self-fulfilling ways.
Thanks! :)
Spoiler
"Our realities are formed by our opinions and beliefs."
In everyone's own realities, there are differences. These can arise from differing experiences throughout life, changing situations, but ultimately it is our opinions and beliefs that dictate how we view the world and thus our personal reality. If two people have different beliefs on the same idea, often there are two completely valid interpretations emanating from each person, only each have their own personal bias towards their own view. However, there are not always legitimate, truthful views forming in an individual's mind, and this can result in completely delusional 'realities' becoming prevalent in a person, which can be dangerous. But just like opinions, views of reality can change, and result in a broader understanding of the world.
For almost every event to occur in history, there have been multiple interpretations of the details which shape the realities of those who experience and question what happened. These differences in views prove that each person's reality can be shaped by their beliefs, while still maintaining accuracy based on one's personal experiences. These interpretations are incredibly prevalent in religious groups, where there can be huge differences between two religions that split from the same core belief based on small changes in interpretation and political beliefs. The People's Temple for the Disciple's of Christ was a Church in California during the 1970s, and became famous for the Jonestown Massacre, in which it's members committed mass suicide in protest to capitalism in the USA. Jim Jones, the leader of the church, was a firm believer in Marxism, and following the harsh treatment of communists in the USA during the Cold War, he created the church in hope of gaining support for socialism. To Jone's and his 900 followers in their Guyana settlement, the fact that the USA existed under capitalism was too much, and caused them to commit mass suicide. In contrast to Joneses extreme views, the majority of Americans at the time viewed communists as the enemy- and this was a completely valid viewpoint during the Cold War as tensions were running high between the USA and the USSR. Both of these interpretations of the political situation are perfectly acceptable, because as a persecuted Marxist, Jone's obviously would have felt a victim of the 'oppressive' capitalist society, whereas the average American would have viewed a communist as a traitor- a supporter of the enemy. But not all opinions create realities that are in any way truthful, and often this results in harsh realizations or a life of delusion.
With so many different realities forming within everyone's minds, some of them are bound to be completely incorrect with false beliefs to back them up as 'evidence'. Those with realities that are seemingly false often have little understanding of their illusionary 'reality', and don’t actually know that they are not seeing the world clearly. On his final car ride to his death, Willy Loman thinks about the "fortune" that he will leave behind to his sons upon his death, and about how he "always knew we were gonna make it- Biff and I". But sadly, Willy's delusions are nothing more, and he does not leave Biff with twenty thousand dollars, instead he leaves him fatherless, questioning whether he had the "wrong dreams" or not. Willy had legitimate delusions throughout his whole life, seeing his uncle Ben multiple times, but in the real world seemingly normal people can experience the same form of delusion, or claim to at least. Wellness blogger Belle Gibson claims she 'cured' her cancer by following a healthy lifestyle, which she went on to post about and eventually sell on her blog "The Whole Pantry". Despite being told multiple times that there are no records of her ever having cancer, Gibson swears on her memory of the 'doctors' she saw and her denial of traditional cancer treatment. While it is possible that she truthfully does not know the difference between her fantasy and reality, it is also not out of the question to suggest that she may be lying to protect herself from any further legal action than she is already facing. If the former is true, and she is not a complete fraud, Gibson does not hold a strong grasp over what is real and what is not, and it has led her to personal destruction. Her incorrect beliefs about her past have permanently impacted her reality, and have shaped it into one where she will be forever in and out of court rooms. However, some people are able to accept new details within their reality with ease, and integrate them into their lives for a possible positive or negative change.
In everyone's lives, we experience changes in our opinions, and our realities can change just as easily if we can just accept a new point of view. A change in view on the world can often result in positive changes, but also can effectively end lives if it is too extreme of an opinion. While waiting six hours to meet Bill Oliver, Biff Loman has an epiphany- he was never actually a salesman for Oliver. This comes at a huge surprise to Willy and Happy, who are adamant that Biff had been a salesman, but they "never told the truth for ten minutes" so it is quite clear that they are clutching onto a false reality to maintain the dream of becoming a sporting goods giant. Biff was freed by his revelation, and could finally see the reality of his family- the "wrong dreams" that they possessed, and the true failure of his father's affair. But not all 'revelations' end positively. When extreme views are adopted and followed strictly, the end result can be tragedy. Craigieburn teen Jake Bilardi began reading about the situation in the Middle East as a normal 14 year old boy- naive about the harsh reality of war. But as he delved deeper into the causes, he discovered that it was the USA and allies who were truly at fault, not the jihadist "defenders" who he began to sympathize with. This sent him into a spiral of terror, first plotting to bomb Melbourne but instead travelling to Syria himself to join the fight with his Islamic 'brothers'. His whole journey was in vain, as he was sacrificed in a failed suicide bombing- not even being able to achieve anything for the group he had travelled so far for. Jake had adopted one of the most extreme views on geopolitics that exists in this day, and his zealotry towards his cause ultimately led to his death. When an opinion changes a reality to make a certain group the 'enemy', there is bound to be conflict, and most likely it will end with a negative outcome.
In everyone's minds, they are correct. Everyone see's themselves as the center of the universe- and this often causes us to disregard opinions and beliefs that conflict with our own. Even if our reality is objectively false, the other options just seem completely ludicrous and ideas of fantasy. However, when outside ideas are adopted- it can end in both enlightenment- showing us a new viewpoint on life- or catastrophe- taking our lives and mines away from us. Ultimately, our reality is based upon our beliefs, but can be molded by exterior ideas, changing details and us as people.
Exam 3
Spoiler
With year eight students about to elect their language subject of choice next year, four teachers have propounded the various benefits of the own languages they teach in an attempt to attract more students to study them. They each wrote an ad in the school’s newsletter, published 20/7/16, appealing to both parents and students of Parkland Secondary College. A variety of images have also been included. (Is it worth naming each author here? Because that would take really long.)
The school’s logo, which depicts a number of different coloured hands reaching upwards, reflects the school’s values of embracing all different cultures and ethnicities. Not only that, but it is as if the hands are supporting each other, giving a ‘helping hand’ which will allow student to ‘rise to the challenge’ and fulfill their own academic potentials. Hence, reader are reassured in whatever LOTE subject they make as the author elucidates them to the integrity of the school’s values in aiding with all. (Is this paragraph needed? Because it doesn't really relate to any of the teacher's contentions.)
Mr. Ranesh, the Head of French, encourages future language students to choose French with a very buoyant and impassioned tone. He takes ‘immense pride’ in his subject, insinuating that if a student also picks French, they too will be able to find ‘immense pride’ in themselves for it. The employment of verb ‘utilising’, as opposed to its synonym ‘use’, reflects a much more scientific connotation, which consolidates Ranesh’s proposals of the ‘latest’ technologies being used in teaching his subject. To this end, the author coerces more students to study French by extolling it as the most efficient subject to help a student achieve ‘rapid fluency’. Moreover, the author’s verbal illustration of a ‘golden opportunity’ to go overseas when undertaking French studies also elicits an image of something very rare and precious, piquing student’s desire to study French in order to experience this ‘unique experience’ they would not be able to have otherwise.
Likewise, Ms. Kant, the Head of Latin, also promotes her subject on a results based case, but instead of fluency, she focusses on how studying Latin will help her students achieve the best ATAR. This is supported by the included graph, which clearly depicts the average high achieving results of Latin students, regardless of length of study, which informs readers to the immediate positive boost it would give to their ATAR score, even if only picking it up for a short while. Furthermore, Kant appeals particularly to students who want a ‘challenge’, intimating that Latin is a subject only the ‘most intelligent and committed’ students can study, and thereby motivating more people to pick it up in order to be associated with such a group. Nevertheless, there is a prevailing viewpoint in readers that Latin is simply a ‘dead subject’, and Kant attempts to repudiate those claims by describing the benefits of the language in ‘highly paid’ careers such as ‘medicine or law’, which would particularly intrigue those who have an interest in such careers to consider studying Latin.
Ms. Oran’s addition to the newsletter when advocating for the subject of Asian Languages has a much more impersonal tone compared to the others, with employment of the wider including pronoun ‘we’, rather than ‘I’. This perhaps may make the subject appear more objective to readers - less biased- and thus lends more credibility to the author’s arguments concerning the benefits of studying Asian Languages. Furthermore, Oran degrades the attractivity of the other language subjects by describing them as ‘locking’ up a child’s future choices, harkening to the image of a restrictive jail cell which is clearly undesirable to parents and students alike. Hence, the author’s substantiation of the benefits of Asian Languages due to their flexibility is delineated as a result. In addition to these points, Oran accentuates the benefits of this subject with the image included which depicts connections between people in Australia and the surrounding countries, regardless of distance, which reiterates the ‘vital’ importance of studying the culture and language of ‘our closest neighbours’, Asia. Subsequently, studying languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian takes on an image of very practical and tangible benefits in the audience’s mind, bolstering them to choose it if they wish to widen their viewpoint on the world.
Conversely, with a much more distinguished tone, Mr. Abe targets mainly parents when lauding the benefits of studying Auslan for their children. With his explications of Parkland Secondary College as ‘the only school’ ‘pioneering’ this subject, the author propels his readers to view Auslan as an exciting new endeavour that can only be experienced at this school, and so the idea of refraining from taking it up would seem like a waste. Indeed, not only that, but having established the attractiveness of the subject, Abe extends these benefits to real life values where Auslan is an ‘unfortunate rarity’ in the workplace, intimating that having skills in it would make one extremely prized as an employee, and thereby encouraging more students to choose it for their elective as they begin to see the job opportunities it would offer to them. Likewise, by presenting himself ‘as a parent’ as well, the author projects himself as knowing the best course to take for a parent regarding the welfare of their child, and he intimates this to be undertaking the study of Auslan as it fulfills his ‘want’ - and by extension also the ‘want’ of readers as parents- of their children growing up to become a ‘well rounded citizen’, which is vital for a person’s success in the future. As a result, parents are hastened to consider the various benefits their child will obtain by studying Australian Sign Language.
Ultimately, each of the teachers attempt to persuade students to study their respective languages using a variety of techniques.
(My teacher said this is sufficient as a conclusion because they aren't that important, but it seems kind of sparse. What else would you put in here?)
Thanks for the help!
Hey! thanks for this! Would love some feedback, feel free to tear me apart! Also would appreciate a score out of ten, and what you think I could get on the actual exam. Cheers <3
The first maus prompt
Spoiler
The death of Anja Spiegelman is a key emotional point in the graphic novel The Complete Maus by Art Spiegelman. A comic embedded in the graphic novel titled “Prisoner on the Hell Planet” depicts Artie’s recount of the event. Artie shows himself as a prisoner, blaming himself for Anja’s suicide.
A quote from Prisoner on the Hell Planet describes Artie’s various emotions he felt, “You murdered me, Mommy, and you left me here to take the rap!”. The first part “You murdered me” embodies Artie’s resentment to Anja, saying her actions killed him emotionally. This phrase also shows Artie projecting his guilt of her death onto her, reversing the roles. However, Arties still calls her “Mommy”, a childish term evoking a sense of dependency and connectedness; something Artie still craves from his mother. The final part “you left me here to take the rap!” shows how Artie feels blamed for Anja’s suicide- both blame given by himself and others.
Artie perceives that others blame him for Anja’s suicide. A family member is drawn with a thought bubble of “It’s his fault the punk”. Although nobody told Artie it was his fault, the blame accusations are not entirely resultant of projection from Artie. Upon finding the comic, Mala tells Artie “It was like how you said” reaffirming Artie’s suspicions of being blamed for Anja’s suicide. If others are blaming Artie, he is likely to feel at fault for her suicide.
Within the comic, Artie illustrates reason to be blamed for the suicide. He draws himself in bed, with his mother anxiously at the door. She queries “Do you still love me?” and Artie, facing away from her replies “Sure ma”, a cruelly cold curt response to a final plea for affection from his mother. Like in Maus, Artie is brutally honest with his mistakes, even to depict himself as a reason towards Anja’s suicide. Artie blames himself for her death because he has reason to, as shown in the comic.
However, Anja’s mental health was not consistent even before the Holocaust. The death of Richieu would have cause deep trauma to Anja’s emotional being. Artie knows this, and also feels like he can never compare to Richieu. Artie refers to him as a “ghost brother” and envies him. In Arties eyes, his parents saw the photograph as a perfect child. A picture who “never threw tantrums” and would probably “marry a rich Jewish girl”. The pressure of sibling rivalry with a perfect child gave Artiea deep-rooted guilt of never meeting his parents’ expectations. This guilt carries over to his mother’s suicide. Richieu would never have rejected his mother’s love.
Artie is also shown to have difficulty relating to his parents, mostly through his interactions with Vladek. “I can’t even understand my father, how am I supposed to understand Auchwitz” Arties complained to Francoise. Artie’s ability to understand his parents is tied to their story. When starting Maus, instead of skipping to the war Artie requests “Tell me how you guys met”. Artie wants to know the story of his mother so he can finally understand her, just like how he tries to understand Vladek through his stories. His inability to connect with his mother gives him reason to blame himself for her suicide. Artie’s search for his mother’s memoirs is persistent, showing his drive and importance he holds to them. He continuously pesters his father with questions about them, even tears his bookcase apart much to Mala’s dismay. When Artie finds out Vladek threw the diaries away he only mutters one word, “Murderer”. Arties assigns the blame for Anja’s death to Vladek because he “killed” the stories she left behind. This shows htat understanding Anja’s story was paramount for Artie’s guilt for her death. Artie can now never amend his failed connection with Anja.
Artie blames himself for his mother’s death for many reasons. For his whole childhood he couldn’t connect with her or live up to her expectations. Around her suicide, Artie is blamed by others and he accepts this blame and believes he failed at being a caring son. Even when Artie tries absolve his guilt, the remnants of Anja’s story are lost due to Vladek.
Section c
Spoiler
To aid job-seekers, Lana Deed writes a post in the forum CareerReady about interview attire. Deed argues the importance of appropriate attire to be worn at an interview. She uses an enthusiastic tone which can be seen through the litter of exclamation marks, starting with her title “Dress to Impress!”. Commenters share their opinions on the piece.
Deed ensures that the readers understand he intentions of the post. Her subtitle “Lana Deed’s guide…” is passive, suggesting she is just trying to help rather than instructing job-seekers what to do. Deed states that the guide is “for all you first-timers”, casually addressing her audience. Casual and passive language seeks to prevent job-seekers from being alienated by her potentially controversial contention. In the cause of Misha Lyndon, who states that “this is an awesome guide”, is instead alienated by interviewers themselves. He appeals to justice by highlighting how shallow the process is said to be. “can’t they just look beyond that and judge what’s on the inside” he pleas to the “interviewers [who] are so harsh”. Lyndon seeks for employment via a fair interview system, and encourages potential interviewers to look on the inside.
Deed continues to demonstrate the importance of her guide. She states that “almost every job application” will require an interview. Deed also confirms “the old adage” to cause a logical step that a job-seeker must know to make a good “first impression”. Deed uses firm language to suggest that clothing is key to the first impressions. “Substantial effect” and the emphasis of “you need to consider” suggests to job-seekers that they have no choice, and must follow Deed’s guide and contention. Richard Mandle contests this idea. Mandle states his experience in interviewing “involved… a few times” to ensure forum members can trust his opinions. He proceeds to ridicule Deed’s idea by stating that he cares more about “knowledge and attitude” than “the colour of their shirt”. By oversimplifying an interviewer’s attention to attire, he makes the focus seem ridiculous, which supports his contention that interviewers care much more about the candidate’s skills and interests rather than their clothes.
In order to gain the readers’ trust, Deed shares her qualifications for writing the post. Deed is a “senior recruitment officer and interviewer at Telstra for four years”. Her position title “senior” suggests a deep level of expertise and Telstra is a well-known and respected company. By name dropping Telstra and “senior”, Deed appears trustworthy. The mention of “four years” further reaffirms her experience in the field of interviews. On a forum full of conflicting opinions, potentially confused job-seekers have a reason to believe Deed’s arguments more than someone else’s. Deed’s qualifications also demonstrate her passion for the interview process. She uses lots of italics and exclamation marks like “you need to… will be!” to show this enthusiasm. This further builds trust and a sense of shared enthusiasm for interviews with the reader. A shared passion brings more power to Deed’s message.
An annotated picture is used to exaggerate what not to do. Deed asks the reader “would you hire the guy on the left?”. This, combined with clear annotated flaws of the interviewee leads the reader to answer no. This projects to the job-seekers that their attire is important. The annotations show how easy it is to point out flaws in an interviewees attire. This suggest to the reader how simple it is to both improve and be discriminated by an interviewer. Job-seekers are more likely to take action in Deed’s contention once the believe this.
Deed follows with an anecdote exemplifying how poor attire is common and throws out interviews. Deed’s tone shifts to be more exasperated- “for those of you who do actually want to get hired”. Deed’s exasperation reflects how other interviewers feel frustrated about poor attire in interviews. As readers obviously want to get hired, this statement either offends them or leads them to understand the significant value of “apparel [being] the most telling indicator”. Her previous attempts at preventing alienation work to lead readers to the latter conclusion. Hob-seekers now await the guidance on what to wear.
A simple, neat diagram shows the job-seeking audience what to wear. The diagram reflects the idea Deed perpetuates- that job-seekers should look neat and “keep things simple!”. Deed’s explanation of what to wear is concise and precise, helping the reader to easily enact the contention. By making things simple, this gives reluctant job-seekers even more reason to wear proper attire.
While commenters may disagree, Deed connects her experience and why attire is important to help guide job-seekers to dress appropriately for interviews.
Spoiler
To aid job-seekers, Lana Deed writes a post in the forum CareerReady about interview attire. Deed argues the importance of appropriate attire to be worn at an interview. She uses an enthusiastic Is it really enthusiastic?tone which can be seen through the litter of exclamation marksToo vague, "litter" is too colloquial, starting with her title “Dress to Impress!”. Commenters share their opinions on the piece.
Deed ensures that the readers understand he intentions of the post. Be more specific. This is like saying "Deed makes the readers think stuff. You figure out what stuff that is."Her subtitle “Lana Deed’s guide…” is passive, suggesting she is just trying to help rather than instructing job-seekers what to do. Oh? How so?Deed states that the guide is “for all you first-timers”, casually addressing her audience. Casual and passive language seeks to prevent job-seekers from being alienated by her potentially controversial contention. In the cause of Misha Lyndon, who states that “this is an awesome guide”, is instead alienated by interviewers themselvesHow do you know?. He appeals to justice by highlighting how shallow the process is said to be. “can’t they just look beyond that and judge what’s on the inside” he pleads to the “interviewers [who] are so harsh”. Lyndon seeks for employment via too colloquiala fair interview system, and encourages potential interviewers to look on the inside. Sooooo?
Only had the time to do the intro and first BP.
You need to focus more on the effect on the reader and some specificity is needed sometimes. It's a really good effort though and heaaaaaps of potential here. Keep up the great work! :D