How bad did people screw section C!!?

[johnson]

section C is analysis, i think i screwed bad because i said the contention was to try harder to reduce global warming..... instead of biodiversity,
i thought he was emphasizing on global warming acting on biodiversity since it was said in the speech, but i'm not sure T.T

[bomb]

You'd be in worse trouble had you said 'to reduce biodiversity'.

[taiga]

I'll keep it honest, you screwed that up.

[EvangelionZeta]

Whilst I don't think that that would necessarily dock you entire marks, it'd definitely make the examiner lose "confidence" in your piece.

[claire92]

I think their will be quite a few things they will take into consideration, especially with the whole 'is it a transcript or a speech? what would the audience therefore be then....' debate.

[PringlePop]

Like bomb said, it could be worse...

[Greggler]

chin up. kick on to the next exam. its not something worth losing sleep over.

As EZ said, the examiner may initially lose confidence in your piece; but as long as you analyse those techniques adequately you should be relatively alright.

[eadvice]

stuff it mate, that would be the least of my worries on the exam.

[monicapham93]

worst section for me

[johnson]

You'd be in worse trouble had you said 'to reduce biodiversity'.

i meant, i didn't right anything about biodiversity, but only reducign global warming which affects biodiversity.

[Robbey]

just totally skipped the first image..being a gimp myself i thought it was the heading or something hahaha..then when i got out of the exam everyone was talking about how they analyzed 2 images and i was like FUCK

[8039]

I made one screw up by making up a possible contention to fit in the first picture. I said that there was an underlying message of 'unity' for people to work together to solve this problem, and talked about the picture of man/child holding hands... cringe worthy stuff.

[appianway]

How is that a screw up? It'sa valid idea, which does support the need for unity and action (think about all of the inclusive language used in the article).

[tcb1993]

i mucked up too man

had to rush through it and barely spoke about important stuff

i remember i blanked and couldnt find anything to talk about so i said something like because he said they 'lost so and so amount of trees' instead of saying 'there are so and so amount of trees left', the active verb 'to lose' makes it sound like they've each had an active part in its loss and it invokes guilt

or something like that wow it made no sense whatsoever