asdfasdf

[paulie9214]

sigh... What are you even trying to achieve with this?

You obviously haven't spoken to many examiners then.

Many, if not most, of the English teachers at my school have been or currently still are assessors for the exam. I don't see why you would choose to directly attack my credibility either when yours is on even shakier ground considering how you retreat from your earlier post and admit in your next sentence that 'no you wont lose 5 marks for not saying the speakers name'.

without it you are not going to be in the top band of students

As my Head of English said, not having the speaker's name is considered as a small error, and many small errors will add up to become a large one which ultimately results in the loss of marks. However, having one small error will not directly result in losing marks if your actual analysis is good enough. Yes, you won't be in the very 'top-tier' because of it, and thus will not get the Premiers Award for English, but a low 10 due to the small error is still a 10 nevertheless.

obviously if they miss the speakers name, they will miss other important parts about the context of the speech.

Well IF they did do that, then that would be many small errors wouldn't it?

Most examiners will see it as these people have failed to pick up on these things and therefore there analysis wont be that good either.

I'd hate to see you as an assessor.
*sees that the student has forgotten to write the name of the speaker*
"You know what, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this essay because forgetting the name MUST mean they've forgotten other things as well! This essay is a 6/10"

I dont remember retreating from my original post because I clearly remember saying in my original post that if you miss something as trivial as the speakers name you are likely to miss other stuff that is given in the background info. As I said in both of my posts. The person also didn't analyse one of the images so this is a big hit too. As you see they have missed two things now. Most English students would tell you that no analysis is good if you leave out important things. Not doing these things will drop your mark.

I never said that you will get a 5 simply because you didnt mention his name, but if you miss that its very unlikely that you will write a good analysis (ignoring the fact that the image was ignored)

[Aden]

Ok, so what is your point, man? Judging by your post, you obviously have not even bothered to fully understand (or even read) any of my posts in this thread. If you actually tried to read and understand them, you’ll realize that never in this thread have I ever attacked your statement that making many mistakes will result in the loss of marks. In fact, believe it or not I have actually supported it and explicitly said that ‘many small errors’ will be detrimental to your final score.

What I have attacked, and you read carefully now, is your wrongful and unjustified assumption that the OP has achieved ‘AT BEST’ 4-5 marks for their language analysis. Last time I checked, no human is omniscient, so what gives you the right to assume that nonstop has made many errors and then have the audacity to tell him that the maximum mark he can achieve is a 5? Judging by your use of ‘there’ instead of the correct word ‘their’, your ability to write essays must be pretty poor and you probably have illegible handwriting that examiners cannot read as well, so I’d say the maximum score you got for your essays is a 0. Don’t like it and feel insulted? So you should be because some random who doesn’t even know you at all has just assumed all your faults from one tiny mistake that you had made earlier. This is what you have done, and it is what I have been arguing against all this time. You may attempt to justify your reasoning however you like, but it still doesn’t change the fact that your initial post was unwarranted and pure hypothesis that unnecessarily made nonstop worry.

I did not originally desire to do this and attack you specifically, and had rather wanted to point out to nonstop that the predictions of 4-6 were incorrect and unsubstantiated.  However, your continued attempts to re-enter this thread and justify your initial point that nonstop will get 4-5 marks for his language analysis has forced me to take a more aggressive approach.

[Andiio]

Ok, so what is your point, man? Judging by your post, you obviously have not even bothered to fully understand (or even read) any of my posts in this thread. If you actually tried to read and understand them, you’ll realize that never in this thread have I ever attacked your statement that making many mistakes will result in the loss of marks. In fact, believe it or not I have actually supported it and explicitly said that ‘many small errors’ will be detrimental to your final score.

What I have attacked, and you read carefully now, is your wrongful and unjustified assumption that the OP has achieved ‘AT BEST’ 4-5 marks for their language analysis. Last time I checked, no human is omniscient, so what gives you the right to assume that nonstop has made many errors and then have the audacity to tell him that the maximum mark he can achieve is a 5? Judging by your use of ‘there’ instead of the correct word ‘their’, your ability to write essays must be pretty poor and you probably have illegible handwriting that examiners cannot read as well, so I’d say the maximum score you got for your essays is a 0. Don’t like it and feel insulted? So you should be because some random who doesn’t even know you at all has just assumed all your faults from one tiny mistake that you had made earlier. This is what you have done, and it is what I have been arguing against all this time. You may attempt to justify your reasoning however you like, but it still doesn’t change the fact that your initial post was unwarranted and pure hypothesis that unnecessarily made nonstop worry.

I did not originally desire to do this and attack you specifically, and had rather wanted to point out to nonstop that the predictions of 4-6 were incorrect and unsubstantiated.  However, your continued attempts to re-enter this thread and justify your initial point that nonstop will get 4-5 marks for his language analysis has forced me to take a more aggressive approach.

GG. Case closed.

In all seriousness, not writing the name of the speaker may impact the examiner's (assuming one examiner) initial impression of the essay; but if you do proceed on to analyse it clearly, concisely and fluently, then I doubt he would remember and mark you down because of that.