ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English & EAL => Topic started by: Shanky on June 19, 2018, 07:23:08 pm
-
My topic is the ball tampering scandal in South Africa, and I am contending the punishment that was handed out to the Aussies was too harsh.
-
Personally, I believe that their punishment was just.
-
MAGGOT seems to have picked up on most of your syntax and grammar errors, so I'll focus on critiquing your writing style.
I was not following along with the final sentence in the introductory paragraph. What are you trying to state? The introductory paragraph, as I'm sure you're aware, needs to focus on establishing contentions for ideas, but maintaining conciseness and not elaborating too much. That final sentence runs on for a third of the entire paragraph, sounds really clumsy and doesn't seem to serve an obvious purpose. Please consider rewording that entirely.
Starting your first paragraph with "it is unfortunate" feels like it should be further down in the essay, used as a method of enjambment of two ideas. The topic sentence doesn't appear to be too clear as a result. After reading it a few times and the subsequent sentences, I understood what you were getting at, but establish yourself in the first sentence clearer.
The quote from Chris Eaton doesn't quite feel like it fits, and seems to me like it was jammed in there for a few ethos points by using expert opinion. I'd highly recommend learning how to embed quotes into your sentences, or cutting down and using the important parts to make yourself clearer and more fluent. There's a lot you can do with this quote, way more than just a following rhetorical question. You could emphasise the importance of the expert or further acknowledge his use of the words "criminal", "gambling" and "fraud".
In the second paragraph, the line which says "he shined a lolly...", what does this mean and why is it important? What does shining the ball do that warranted the punishment? Just further clarify for people who don't quite understand cricket.
The third paragraph has a line stating that Bancroft and Warner's press conferences are "proof that they had learned their lesson". Evidence is not proof. You have to use the evidence to prove your point. If you truly believe that their emotional responses is adequate enough evidence to drive your argument home, then reinterpret that and convey it to the audience. I believe you did quite well beginning this paragraph, so perhaps reinstate your thoughts on the "testament to their character".
David Warner's charity contribution shouldn't begin with an "additionally", as you may confuse the identity of the two separate people and make the audience think it's part of the same scenario.
Fourth paragraph - "taken my trust... flushed it down the toilet.", try to replace that with a pun more pertinent to cricket or at least some other sport. The idiom/metaphor can be redone to show author's awareness and fluency.
You mention an "investigation into the culture of the team", and say it's the "root of the problem". Why is this not discussed as its own full paragraph? This is actual gold of an idea, and you could add a new or replace an existing paragraph with this as the contention, which I believe would be quite an interesting perspective.
I don't have much else to critique which hasn't already been mentioned by MAGGOT, so I'll leave it here. See what you can do about editing this, and you'll certainly be closer to a quality speech.