A Written explination

[My name aint bob]

I don't exactly have an essay worth posting to go with it yet, but i was wondering on some feedback for this written explanation

Prompt: A persons true character is revealed during conflict ( for an argumentative essay written in agreement)

Written explanation
My argumentative piece is written in the form of a speech. It utilises relatively common language and a fluid writing style in order to engage with any audience regardless of their background or prior knowledge. It is to be presented in the same way that a student would present an oral to his peers: formal in structure, but with an informal undertone that helps to tap into the pre-existing repour he has with his audience.  The evidence and examples come from ‘The crucible’ and simple life scenarios that can be linked to school, socialising, or popular culture that would be familiar to listeners. Its strength is in its simplicity: it avoids becoming overly complex to limit the risk of sounding confusing or condescending- the presenter after all will be seen as an equal, not a superior.  The piece is based on convincing primarily through the use of regularly occurring real life examples, rather than through arousing appeals or obscure emotionally charged anecdotes. Emotive techniques are however present throughout the piece in order to maintain an interest and relationship with the audience, but not enough to undermine the evidence and examples used. The primary purpose of the speech is to show the audience how you can pick up on people’s character while they are engaged in conflict, and therefore cause them to inadvertently agree with the prompt if they agree with any of the techniques presented. A major advantage of this style is that by presenting the argument in a way that is practical to the listener, the listener automatically becomes sympathetic to the contention as they stand to gain by it being correct. As this is not effective towards people who began the speech in a mindset of disagreement (as what they stand to gain from the tips will be irrelevant to them), this presentation is aimed towards convincing those who were originally ‘on the fence’, those who have not put a great deal of thought into the topic, or to simply reinforce the beliefs of those in already in agreement.

[charmanderp]

Is this for a SAC? Just for anyone who doesn't know, you aren't required to write a written explanation of your context piece for the exam.

[Felicity Wishes]

Okay. I'm not an expert on written explanations but I'll give you a few pointers on what I know.

1. You need to actually identify who your audience are. (You get marked on mentioning form, language, audience, purpose and context.
2. Nit picking here but The Crucible is a name, use capital letters.
3. Imo, you haven't been very clear about who is speaking this speech and in what context.
Otherwise, I don't know about the rest.

[charmanderp]

2. Nit picking here but The Crucible is a name, use capital letters.

And underline it.

[Felicity Wishes]

2. Nit picking here but The Crucible is a name, use capital letters.

And underline it.

Are you not able to put it in single quotation marks or does it have to be underlined?

[charmanderp]

AFAIK you underline titles and put chapter titles or clauses and such in inverted commas.

[Felicity Wishes]

Note taken. Although, my shaky hands make my underline go right through the word, mostly. 

[My name aint bob]

ok, ill get to work in my frees tommorow with the underlining, capital letters and clearing up who's speaking/ audience/context then. Big thanks for the advice charmenderp and felicity 

And by the way, this is for my last sac so i have to do one.