Language analysis help ?????

[molllz]

When doing a language analysis and writing about a technique you found, do you write the order  like technique first then provide evidence through quotes and then explanation Or any order is fine??

[Mr. Study]

Hey,

I am comfortable with not listing the technique straight off the bat.

I remember my teacher saying that we should move away from, 'This is a rhetorical question and as a result, will position readers to question themselves on what is already an apparent answer', or the 'formula' Technique>Evidence>Explain.

To something like, 'It is due to the authors use of strong language that can persuade the readers to see that cats are really, 'blood thirsty sucking monsters' and it is due to this, that they can give the perception, to readers, that cats are vile and dangerous creatures. Conveniently positioning readers into agreeing with the author and hence, influence the readers future actions by viewing cats as 'nothing more than rabid animals'.

The stuff in talking marks are the evidence from the article and hence, I have shown evidence.

Remember I am not too good at english so if anyone can help molllz and correct me, Please do!!

EDIT: Heres another one from my language analysis, Hopefully it gives some idea but remember, I am not too good at english myself.

'Further elaborating this approach, Andrew Bolt makes a denigrating attack over a published book by professional 'ethicists'. He specifically places the words 'ethicists' in quotation marks to question their self title and to emphasise to readers the ordasity to label them as such, despite their 'humane' suggestion to allow abortions. However, he further denigrates these professionals credibility by making a lewd remark about killing ones baby if there was 'unexpected losses at the pokie, leaving you short of cash for money'. Thereby humouring readers into the position that these ethicists proposition, to allow abortions, have no sense of credibility and that it would be ridiculous to legally allow abortions for this very reason'.

Whoopsy, Forgot to say. If it's tl:dr, I just mention the technique by saying how it is shown and then a add quotation marks to integrate evidence thoughout my analysis of the technique. After each integration of the quote, I just mention how it persuades readers and yadda yadda yadda.

[Newton]

Yep. Just stick to a regular template. List your technique, example, quote and than explain. Also used sophisticated vocabulary to make it sound more professional!

[charmanderp]

I remember my teacher saying that we should move away from, 'This is a rhetorical question and as a result, will position readers to question themselves on what is already an apparent answer', or the 'formula' Technique>Evidence>Explain.

To something like, 'It is due to the authors use of strong language that can persuade the readers to see that cats are really, 'blood thirsty sucking monsters' and it is due to this, that they can give the perception, to readers, that cats are vile and dangerous creatures. Conveniently positioning readers into agreeing with the author and hence, influence the readers future actions by viewing cats as 'nothing more than rabid animals'.

As far as I can see, either is appropriate. The second example is better though, obviously, since it's more of an indepth analysis. But either sentence stem lends itself well to the essay format.