In conflict it is difficult to recognise the innocent from the guilty. REVIEW??

[Felicity Wishes]

PLEASE!? Gah, had quite a few troubles with this one.

In conflict it is difficult to recognise the innocent from the guilty.

Searching for the truth through uncertainty and disharmony is often a difficult task, making conclusions about who is innocent and who is guilty in a situation can be a challenge because if a majority of individuals present one argument, it can be hard to label the minority as innocent. Additionally, fear and paranoia can shape our perceptions, allowing us to decide that the innocent are at fault and vise versa, but ultimately, there are also some conflicts where it is plainly simple to distinguish between right and wrong, suggesting that the level of difficulty varies between circumstances.

In a dispute, when a large group of people present an idea, it can often take charge and put the minority opinions at fault, causing innocent people to be blamed for actions solely because they are the minority, moreover, if the evidence is wholly based on subjective experiences, it can be even trickier to make conclusions about who is at fault. This confusion occurred in 1692 during the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts when Abigail Williams and her flock of girls made several accusations against particular individuals, claiming that they witnessed the said person ‘writing in the devils book’. In this situation, the fact that the accusations were based on the evidence spoken from the girls, rather than practical facts, made it hard to determine whether the accused was guilty or not, also, one person against a large group of girls is also more likely to come out broken, as it is hard to take a stand when you have so many people suggesting otherwise. Furthermore, the fear of death lead to many members of the town blaming other people of witchcraft due to fear and old prejudice, again making it hard to figure out who is really guilty, or who is being blamed as guilty due to the uncertainty of others.  In hindsight, looking at the trials, it is very difficult to distinguish between wrong and right due to majority rules, a lack of solid evidence and fearful, false blames.

Similarly, the anti-communist trials of the 1950’s also provide us with a period where it was complex to recognise the flawed from the innocent. Trials were started to remove any traces of communism from the United States but as the fear became more widespread, trusts began to break and people began to name other people as communist sympathizers, to avoid trouble on their part, meaning that the lines between innocent and guilty were blurred as people who had done no wrong were being marked as blameworthy due sweeping paranoia. Arthur Miller, for example, is one innocent man who was called for trials and defined as a communist sympathizer due to his willingness to remain truthful. His creative career and finance suffered as a result, despite being innocent. Miller was one of many who were labelled as guilty due to the paranoia of society, rather than due to actually committing an offense, which parallels the events in Salem as many people were labelled as crime-goers due to the insecurity of fellow townspeople. Evidently, these events highlight that extreme terror can alter the characters of a society, making it very problematic to identify the blameworthy in a conflict.
 
On the other hand, unlike the events in the McCarthy era or in Salem, there are some battles where the victims can be easily sought out. A more recent conflict which is still occurring is the hateful attitudes towards the Muslims in the United States. Since the 9/11 bombings, 43% of Americans have admitted to feeling some sort of prejudice against members of the Islamic faith as and as result of this opinion, several attacks on mosques have occurred; fire bombs were thrown, burning the places down and in the space of a week, an Islamic centre was attacked and even a home was attacked. Although it was members of the Islamic faith that started this uneasy attitude through the events of the 9/11, it is not the fault of every single Muslim and most of them are citizens of the United States and are confused as to why they specifically are being shunned upon, when they caused no harm to American society. In this case, it is apparent that the Islamic victims are innocent, as they did not personally attack American in any way that the attackers are clearly reacting out of hate and fear, making generalisations about a whole group of people due to events of the past. In hateful disagreements like this, it is simple to make judgements about who is innocent and who is guilty, providing evidence for the statement that not all conflicts involve difficulty in determining who is at fault.

Overall, it can be said that when disharmony is ruled by a large group or lead by extreme fear, these elements can stimulate confusion and difficulty when it comes to placing blame, on top of this, when the evidence is loose and subjective, it can become increasingly challenging to determine a conclusion, but if a conflict is more straightforward and clearly an attack based on hate, it can be fairly obvious who the victims are in the situation.

[VivaTequila]

PLEASE!? Gah, had quite a few troubles with this one.

In conflict it is difficult to recognise the innocent from the guilty.

This is the prompt, correct?

Searching for the truth through uncertainty and disharmony is often a difficult task, making conclusions about who is innocent and who is guilty in a situation can be a challenge because if a majority of individuals present one argument, it can be hard to label the minority as innocent. Additionally, fear and paranoia can shape our perceptions, allowing us to decide that the innocent are at fault and vise versa, but ultimately, there are also some conflicts where it is plainly simple to distinguish between right and wrong, suggesting that the level of difficulty varies between circumstances.

Your first sentence is too long winded and rather convoluted. Again, this paragraph could have been said using much simpler language and in a short-but-sweet fashion. Something like this would've worked better:

It's often difficult to reckon an individual as being innocent or guilty. Such decisions are plagued by bias and perception, for the human perception of definite events can be skewed by many factors. If the majority wrongly accuse an individual, then it's implied that there is good reason to believe a guilty verdict is in order - and subsequently it's hard to present an argument defending due innocence. Similarly, fear and paranoia can shape human perceptions, influencing whom would otherwise be accused or defended. Contrarily, however, there are some conflicts where it's obvious who's at fault. The decisions aren't necessarily always clear-cut, as there is ambiguity in all circumstances.

Even then, the content matter isn't groundbreaking. You've pretty much said:
1. When someone is highly suspected it's hard to make them appear innocent
2. Fear and paranoia change our minds
3. Sometimes it's obvious

not amazing material... I think you would benefit from investigating some ideas relating to the prompt. 6/10

In a dispute, when a large group of people present an idea, it can often take charge and put the minority opinions at fault, causing innocent people to be blamed for actions solely because they are the minority, moreover, if the evidence is wholly based on subjective experiences, it can be even trickier to make conclusions about who is at fault. This confusion occurred in 1692 during the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts when Abigail Williams and her flock of girls made several accusations against particular individuals, claiming that they witnessed the said person ‘writing in the devils book’. In this situation, the fact that the accusations were based on the evidence spoken from the girls, rather than practical facts, made it hard to determine whether the accused was guilty or not, also, one person against a large group of girls is also more likely to come out broken, as it is hard to take a stand when you have so many people suggesting otherwise. Furthermore, the fear of death lead to many members of the town blaming other people of witchcraft due to fear and old prejudice, again making it hard to figure out who is really guilty, or who is being blamed as guilty due to the uncertainty of others.  In hindsight, looking at the trials, it is very difficult to distinguish between wrong and right due to majority rules, a lack of solid evidence and fearful, false blames.

Hold your horses with your introductory sentences. Something like "Group mentalities can have severe implications for who we rationalise as being innocent or guilty" would have been much better. That was slightly convoluted. Good 2nd sentence. Your sentences are too long and contain too many clauses, particularly the 3rd sentences, and there's some expression issues. Consider "The evidence came from the accused rather than... etc. You also need to explain what you mean by it - what was the evidence exactly? I haven't heard of these witch trials so I don't know - you can't include tacit stuff like that. Some expression issues in the 2nd last sentence. Last sentence again only had minor expression issues. 7/10

Similarly, the anti-communist trials of the 1950’s also provide us with a period where it was complex to recognise the flawed from the innocent. Trials were started to remove any traces of communism from the United States but as the fear became more widespread, trusts began to break and people began to name other people as communist sympathizers, to avoid trouble on their part, meaning that the lines between innocent and guilty were blurred as people who had done no wrong were being marked as blameworthy due sweeping paranoia. Arthur Miller, for example, is one innocent man who was called for trials and defined as a communist sympathizer due to his willingness to remain truthful. His creative career and finance suffered as a result, despite being innocent. Miller was one of many who were labelled as guilty due to the paranoia of society, rather than due to actually committing an offense, which parallels the events in Salem as many people were labelled as crime-goers due to the insecurity of fellow townspeople. Evidently, these events highlight that extreme terror can alter the characters of a society, making it very problematic to identify the blameworthy in a conflict.

The opening sentence is again weak - you need more conviction. As a general rule, every word in your essay should contribute to the overall meaning. You're first sentence could read "The anti-communist trails of the 1950s also demonstrate the intricacies of justice" - it reads better and is punchier. 2nd sentence is way too long; you need to learn how to split sentences up. Second half of the paragraph markedly improved and functioned well. 7/10
 
On the other hand, unlike the events in the McCarthy era or in Salem, there are some battles where the victims can be easily sought out. A more recent conflict which is still occurring is the hateful attitudes towards the Muslims in the United States. Since the 9/11 bombings, 43% of Americans have admitted to feeling some sort of prejudice against members of the Islamic faith as and as result of this opinion, several attacks on mosques have occurred; fire bombs were thrown, burning the places down and in the space of a week, an Islamic centre was attacked and even a home was attacked. Although it was members of the Islamic faith that started this uneasy attitude through the events of the 9/11, it is not the fault of every single Muslim and most of them are citizens of the United States and are confused as to why they specifically are being shunned upon, when they caused no harm to American society. In this case, it is apparent that the Islamic victims are innocent, as they did not personally attack American in any way that the attackers are clearly reacting out of hate and fear, making generalisations about a whole group of people due to events of the past. In hateful disagreements like this, it is simple to make judgements about who is innocent and who is guilty, providing evidence for the statement that not all conflicts involve difficulty in determining who is at fault.

First two sentences are good, although the latter is too long-winded again. I would re-write that as "The ongoing conflict between those American-born and those who engage with Islamic practice due to the the 9/11 bombings in the United States. Since the bombings, 43% of Americans have admitted to feeling prejudicial untoward those who practice Islam. This has resulted in several recent attacks on mosques. or something to that effect. The rest is mostly good except for a few minor issues.

Overall, it can be said that when disharmony is ruled by a large group or lead by extreme fear, these elements can stimulate confusion and difficulty when it comes to placing blame, on top of this, when the evidence is loose and subjective, it can become increasingly challenging to determine a conclusion, but if a conflict is more straightforward and clearly an attack based on hate, it can be fairly obvious who the victims are in the situation.

Incredibly weak conclusion. It's one sentence. Enough said. I want clear, succinct points that summarise your essay - not a coalescent farrago of half-arguments that eventuate into a splurged sentence.

Good Points:
- Mostly clear - your individual paragraphs do show individual contentions which is actually pretty significant for VCE
- Readable and understandable, your expression is developing

Areas to improve on instantly:
- Develop short, punchy, and most importantly clear topic sentences
- Shorter sentences
- Less clauses in your sentences
- Use less words to communicate the same amount of information

Areas to think about improving on in the long term:
- Develop stronger material as discussed in review of your intro
- Reading some classics to develop your expression more than now because it's going to be a big component in breaking the 8-9/10 mark. In fact I really can't see you breaking more than an 8/10 without improving the expression to be inspiring.

IMHO You're expression and contention are present. This is significant - not many people have this ability. However there is definitely still more room for improvement. Until you learn the art of short, sweet sentences and develop some conviction in your expression, I can't see the mark breaking an 8/10. Later on, when you have the expression down pat, I would focus on writing using higher-tier ideas.

Overall nb

7/10

[Felicity Wishes]

Thank you so much! I'll try take that on board.