Someone mind marking this for me thanks :)

[jordanclyde]

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vcaa/vce/studies/english/2009english-sample-v2.pdf - The article

This was written under timed conditions, I just wanted to know where i made my mistakes and how i could improve.
Thanks for your time if you can do it . A grade would be good too.

I can honestly say that this is not my strong subject.


Chickens Range Free

In a heroic act to save chickens, two activist released chickens from their caged misery in an attempt to send a message simply that; Chickens should be set “free”. A publication on the Melbourne Newspaper of an opinion piece “Chickens Range Free” (January, 2009) written by Jo Smith, contends that chickens are sentient beings and should be treated with better care. In an overall concerned tone whilst switching subsequently to a more passionate tone as a use to capture her audience’s sense of morality, Smith aims her article at “humans” but specifically, people who have equal values about animal rights as she does about this caged issue along with a range of persuasive techniques to put forth her opinion.

Jo Smith introduces the article by capturing the attention of the reader with a distinct italic box which summarises her opinion and shows her moral stance about the issue at hand. Simultaneously she also inclusively captures the reader’s attention by suggesting that the understanding of “animal” rights is a way that humans can learn to understand their own “rights”, evoking to the reader’s sense of morality which encourages the reader to read on. In an intensive tone, Smith describes Chickens as “oppressed animals” and suggests that “direct action” by the Activists was the “only way” to attain the public’s attention. She follows up this statement by evoking guilt from people who believe that “liberating a truckload of Chickens is too drastic a cause” belittling them and suggesting that the activists who risked “life” and “limb” were of nobility as they were the “someone” who stood up for animal rights. The reader is spoon fed to believe Smith as she is from the “Australians for Animal Rights” organization and are evoked to also feel guilty as they weren’t the “someone” who stood up for animal rights. Smith continues her next paragraph by repetitively using inclusive words such as “we” and “Australians” to indirectly pose emphasis on the idea that being “Australians” and “Humans” we are doing “injustice” by mistreating Chickens, furthermore she suggests that we are also doing ourselves an “injustice”. Appealing to the reader’s sense of justice and evoking the reader to take action as “we” can only blame ourselves, hence giving the readers an opportunity to become the “someone” who stood up for animal rights.

Jo Smith switches from an intensive tone to a more cynical tone beginning her following paragraph by inclusively using the word “we” to widen importance of the issue being discussed. She then goes into an outburst using an alliteration while still simultaneously being inclusive, suggesting that “we” are the ones to blame for the “drastically decreased” numbers of animal species, “we” treat animals in “abdominally cruel” ways with a sole intention of providing cheap food which corresponds to the provided image that depicts the conditions of which Chickens live in, unable to move, trapped and without proper ventilation they innocent yet caged. When “we” are able to afford to pay more which can subsequently benefit the treatment of Chickens in poultry farms. Listing causes where “we” are the ones to blame for the poor conduction of animal rights evoking a drastic sense of guilt yet again from the readers. Smith then switches to a mocking tone posing a connotation on humans suggesting that “condoning” is an action that is necessary. Positioning the reader to want to condone for animal rights as it is a moral act of kindness and is “but a short step to condoning widespread human rights abuses”.

Smith then states that Chickens are the “most abused animals” on earth, she even goes on to state that if the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating them. Appealing to the reader’s sense of security as it is unknown to them and they are encouraged to feel angered by the farms secrecy. Smith continues with an expert opinion from Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher. Jeremy states that “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?” appealing to our rights and positions the reader to feel sorry remorse for the poor Chickens who are suffering. We are more likely to believe this opinion from Jeremy as it is from a philosopher and he has studied and understands the morality that needs to be apprehended regarding chickens. Smith ends his paragraph by emotively evoking the reader’s sense of companionship as we aren’t far apart from Chickens, by suggesting that Chickens are sentient beings with rights and that in respecting Chickens rights, we would expand our understanding of human rights and become more humane positioning his reader to question their sense of right and wrong.

The final paragraph states that animal rights should be of importance to everyone. Smith leaves us with a range of persuasive techniques stating that a humane alternative is essential for chickens to live freely along with an ultimatum; the end definitely justified the means.
 

[nacho]

Chickens Range Free

In a heroic act to save chickens, two activist released chickens from their caged misery in an attempt to send a message simply that; Chickens should be set “free”. A publication on the Melbourne Newspaper of an opinion piece “Chickens Range Free” (January, 2009) written by Jo Smith, contends that chickens are sentient beings and should be treated with better care[i believe you have gotten the contention incorrect. Jo Smith doesn't aim to show the plight of the chicken and that we should treat them better, rather, she aims to justify the actions of the animal rights activists who freed them, and have been widely condemned by the media. It is crucial to the analysis you get the contention right[/i][/u]]. In an overall concerned tone whilst switching subsequently to a more passionate tone as a use to capture her audience’s sense of morality, Smith aims her article at “humans” but specifically, people who have equal values about animal rights as she does about this caged issue along with a range of persuasive techniques to put forth her opinion. I havent read the article recently, but i did this ages ages ago so i vaguely remember it, and don't remember the tone, good to see you identified a tonal shift. Your audience is largely correct though. had you have gotten the contention correct, your audience would have been something along the lines of : "People who have equal values about animal rights, however do not see it justified to act in such extreme ways, as did the two activists.

Jo Smith introduces the article by capturing the attention of the reader with a distinct italic box which summarises her opinion and shows her moral stance about the issue at hand. Simultaneously she also inclusively captures the reader’s attention by suggesting that the understanding of “animal” rights is a way that humans can learn to understand their own “rights”, evoking to the reader’s sense of morality which encourages the reader to read on ----> [I disagree, she doesn't do it simultaneously]. In an intensive tone, Smith describes Chickens as “oppressed animals” and suggests that “direct action” by the Activists was the “only way” to attain the public’s attention. She follows up this statement by evoking guilt from people who believe that “liberating a truckload of Chickens is too drastic a cause” belittling them and suggesting that the activists who risked “life” and “limb” were of nobility as they were the “someone” who stood up for animal rights. The reader is spoon fed to believe Smith as she is from the “Australians for Animal Rights” organization and are evoked to also feel guilty as they weren’t the “someone” who stood up for animal rights---->not so sure if saying they are 'spoonfed' is correct. It's best to do this: *what does the writer do/technique used (in this case, mentions she is from "Australians for animal rights" and then, what is the effect this has on the reader "makes them feel that it is central to australian values to respect animal rights" - or something along those lines. Try not simply stating that 'the reader is.. the reader is made to feel, positioned, imo, seems overly used and lacking in depth.. Smith continues her next paragraph by repetitively using inclusive words such as “we” and “Australians” to indirectly pose emphasis on the idea that being “Australians” and “Humans” we are doing “injustice” by mistreating Chickens, furthermore she suggests that we are also doing ourselves an “injustice”. Appealing to the reader’s sense of justice and evoking the reader to take action as “we” can only blame ourselves, hence giving the readers an opportunity to become the “someone” who stood up for animal rights.

Jo Smith switches from an intensive tone to a more cynical tone beginning her following paragraph by inclusively using the word “we” to widen importance of the issue being discussed. She then goes into an outburst using an alliteration---->people do this a lot, it is not correct/recommended. You should never simply state things like "use alliteration" or "there is a pun in the title, on the words..." and not mention the effect. you have to mention the effect of the alliteration, not just that she uses it. while still simultaneously being inclusive, suggesting that “we” are the ones to blame for the “drastically decreased” numbers of animal species, “we” treat animals in “abdominally cruel” ways with a sole intention of providing cheap food which corresponds to the provided image that depicts the conditions of which Chickens live in, unable to move, trapped and without proper ventilation they innocent yet caged. When “we” are able to afford to pay more which can subsequently benefit the treatment of Chickens in poultry farms. Listing causes where “we” are the ones to blame for the poor conduction of animal rights evoking a drastic sense of guilt yet again from the readers. Smith then switches to a mocking tone posing a connotation on humans suggesting that “condoning” is an action that is necessary. Positioning the reader to want to condone for animal rights as it is a moral act of kindness and is “but a short step to condoning widespread human rights abuses”.

you integrate your quotes well good skill for text response

Smith then states that Chickens are the “most abused animals” on earth, she even goes on to state that if the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating them. Appealing to the reader’s sense of security as it is unknown to them and they are encouraged to feel angered by the farms secrecy. Smith continues with an expert opinion from Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher. Jeremy states that “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?” appealing to our rights and positions the reader to feel sorry remorse for the poor --->you can't call the chickens poor, because that means you are bringing your own opinion in to this, which isnt the purpose of LA. unless, "poor'' was a quote, and you are quoting the article. in which case, you would have to explain the effect of the quote. eg. "Calls them poor to elicit a sense of remorse from the reader who is made to sympathise with the chickens.." Chickens who are suffering. We are more likely to believe this opinion from Jeremy as it is from a philosopher and he has studied and understands the morality that needs to be apprehended regarding chickens--->agreed. I would also add that animal rights is then made to seem an issue of age-old issue, and this makes the actions of the activists more justified, as animals rights have been abused for centuries, and finally someone has attempted to put a stop to it. . Smith ends his paragraph by emotively evoking the reader’s sense of companionship as we aren’t far apart from Chickens, by suggesting that Chickens are sentient beings with rights and that in respecting Chickens rights, we would expand our understanding of human rights and become more humane positioning his reader to question their sense of right and wrong.

The final paragraph states that animal rights should be of importance to everyone. Smith leaves us with a range of persuasive techniques stating that a humane alternative is essential for chickens to live freely along with an ultimatum; the end definitely justified the means.

I dislike your last paragraph its like half contention half body, which ended because you ceebs'd writing (did you run out of time maybe?) I disagree with saying 'leaves us a range with persuasive techniques' should be avoided at all costs IMO

Two very big things you missed:
- analysis of image, absolutely crucial!
- you got the contention wrong, although to some extent argued correctly the effect  the writer's language has in persuading the audience

I'd give this a 6.5/10
Not such a bad essay!
if you would have analysed image, got contention right, and 'explained' more than simply stating things like 'Jo uses alliteration'
it could get an 8, i think.

not to bad!