Okay, I'ma give you some feedback
GENERAL COMMENTS:- Cardinal rule no. 1, NEVER GIVE YOUR OPINION ON THE PIECE BEING ANALYSED!!!! To be more specific, stating that Mrs. Brown is "a fine woman who does well at getting what she wants" is
not a good idea (even in the conclusion) You are not analysing the effectiveness of the article (ie. "a convincing way"), you area analysing how the article attempts to persuade.
- There is no mention of specific audience. Remember, each device employed by Brown is unlikely to affect everyone the same way. It is important to note which audience Brown is targeting ie. overprotective parents, people without children, authority figures who have to deal with mollycoddled children, etc.
- Avoid listing persuasive techniques, or even identifying them by name if possible. This does not mean you can't name a specific technique, just that you should avoid listing them (as you have done in your intro).
- Your introduction is a bit bland. Here is one (albeit rather formulaic) approach to writing an introduction for language analysis using the checklist ATTACCKS (or ATTACKS for slightly less advanced)
A; Author (make sure the author's name is the introduction somewhere)
T; Title (What is the title of the piece?)
T; Type (What type is the piece? eg. letter to the editor, feature article, blog)
T; Tone (What tone does the author use. This does not necessarily have to be in the intro but must be mentioned in the piece)
A; Audience (Who are the author's key audience(s)?)
C; Contention (What is the author's contention?)
C; Context (What is the context in which this piece was written? Give some background info. This is not essential and if you're not all that strong a student you can omit this, but it really does beef up your intro and make it sound more professional)
K; Key points (What are the main arguments the author makes / what are the key portrayals made)
S; Source (Date and publication (if applicable) eg, 11/11/11
Herald Sun)
Remember, this is a checklist, not an order. It does not mean that you can't start you language analysis off with the Title, it just means that the author should be mentioned in the intro. This is rather formulaic (as language analysis is in general) but you might find it helpful as your starting out.
- When you use a particular persuasive device it is important to mention the, who, how and why. Who does this technique affect (audience), how does it affect them (what is the intended reaction) and why does it affect them (what about the technique elicits this response).
- Regarding structure of your piece, it appears as if you have gone through and chronologically analysed the article. This is okay, but it doesn't allow for deep analysis of the article. Marks are given for showing
effect (the who how and why) not simply stating the technique, and chronological analyses don't really lend themselves to this. There are a number of ways to structure your piece. One way is to group persuasive techniques with similar effects together. Each paragraph explores an "effect" and the various ways in which the author achieves this effect through the piece. Another (similar way) is to group paragraphs as key portrayals of groups, individuals, ideas or things. eg. One paragraph discussing how X idea is portrayed as Y and another on how P individual is portrayed as Z. Another method for structuring articles is to make each paragraph a key argument of the author. Eg. One paragraph discusses argument X and other argument Y.
- Your conclusion is a tad short (probably because you were timed) but in general, a conclusion should tie all the points each of your paragraphs make together and show that it reaffirms the contention of your piece (ie. that the author's contention is X)
Okay now that that's put of the way, let me say, very nice for a first try

. My criticism was not meant to sound harsh, just highlighting how you can improve through the course of next year. Understand that as the year continues and you keep writing more and more essays, your technique will become much more refined and you'll be able to write much more in shorter amounts of time. Right now, I think the best thing to do is perfect your writing style. Don't do any timed pieces until two months or so before the English exam when you have your style right down pat. It's a waste of time learning to do something wrong quickly. It's much better to learn how to do something right slowly; speed will come later with experience. Good luck for the year ahead!
Hope I helped
