VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

<< < (36/42) > >>

darvell:

--- Quote from: Damoz. on October 25, 2013, 06:25:32 pm ---Absolutely! All of her posts deserve a +1.

:O That is a shock, Alwin. darvell gets the love of marking English essays from her brother, Brenden. The love for English runs in the family. HAHA!

--- End quote ---

Oh,
guys guys guyssssssssss
We aren't like blood brother and sister

He's dating my sister
So we're like sibling in laws

idk its weird hahhaa
HE'S A GUN THOUGH.

darvell:
With the rise in smart phones and their ever-expanding capabilities, discussion is it just discussion though? debate? controversy? has arisen over  “our obsession with digital images”. In his opinion piece entitled “Too many smart phones, too few memories” (Newspaper, date), Bernard Toutouji, freelance speaker and writers contendswe don't want to explicitly say contends - sounds too much like a checklist. Asserts? Highlights? Google "verbs showing authorial intent" and a list of them should come up for you. that Australians should be more focused on living their life to the fullest and be less focused on capturing these moments. The piece is aimed at readers of “The age especially those who have a smart phone,  not sure where this quote is meant to end but be careful about using quotes to explain the author's main arguments - reword them so that it is clear that you have an understanding. as the purpose of the piece is, to encourage people to spend more time living their lives. An accompanying image presents a large crowd of people with their smart phones anticipating Pope Francis’s arrivalimmediately outlining the prevalence of phones throughout society? - sentence seemed a bit short .

In a passionate tone Toutounji passionatelyexplains how widespread the use of technology isthis sentence ends very suddenly and screws up your expression . The headline of the piece “too many smart phones, too few memories” captures the enormity of the situation how? explain further. The repetition be careful with this. We want to analyse the way the language effects the reader - and although it's the technique that does that, we want to avoid sounding like our essay is a checklist. Instead - quote what you're talking about and explain the direct effect on the audience (identifying techniques also forces you to use unnecessary words and won't get you any extra marksof the words “too many” followed by “too few” position the reader to acknowledge that perhaps they do not have their priorities right in regard to the way they live their lives how? . Through utilising the statistics  again same deal as earlier. Quote the statistics, we don't need to mention that they are statistics before doing so. that “in 2014” approximately “1.5 billion Smartphone cameras will take nearly I trillion photos”, the writer is presented as well-researched and educated on the issue. mm, this is true - but what is the effect on the reader of the figure you've quoted? why has the author included it? This encourages the reader to feel that Toutouji’s contention  we don't want to explicitly say "contention" - as I mentioned in the intro. Also, this sentence is very short compared the the rest of them and screws up your expression a bit, watch that. is justified. By employing some light humour, weird phrasing, these two things at the start of the sentence sound like different things. Reword the start of it so that this makes more sense listing the events that many people take photos of such as every “funny, strange” moment and everything from “our latest meal to the TV shows” that we are watching. This adds light to the issue as well as positioning the reader to consider whether they are guilty of this excessive photo taking. but what is the effect of them being listed in such a way? Why has the author done it? How is the effect created? The magnitude of this issue this is more like what I want to see, good1 is presented when Toutounji explains that know “every person with a phone” is a photographer and “every location” is now a “backdrop”. Through this the readers common sense is appealed to, iis that all that the author does though? He's making it out to be this HUGE issue. What would that make the reader think, feel?? as the issue may continue to get worse is action is not taken.

In a passionate yet rational tone I'd avoid using two tone words. I also avoid using the word tone itself but some people do use it, up to you Toutounji explains that by spending so much time capturing photos people are not living their lives to the fullest.alright, cool. By utilising the phrase “losing perspective” when referring to our be really careful with this - it's not OUR photo taking, the AUTHOR is directing this at the READER haha not you :P photo taking, the audience is positioned to question whether they, themselves are focusing more on capturing rather than living. what further implicatiosn does this have, though? How does it make them feel? This also appeals to the reader’s sense of fear because the issue will only continue for future generations who may spend their lives capturing even more and living in the moment even less. so it's going to screw up future generations? Man the whole world is ending here! (or so he says) Analyse it !! :P By employing the analogy of a music concert where Beyonce “scolded a fan” by telling him to put his camera down and “seize this moment”. This adds interests to the piece and allows the reader to identify with the piece, as it is likely that they would have been to an event and spent time capturing it, instead of seizing “this moment”. ok, this is true. What about the language being used though, how does it manipulate the reader? analyse each word - it has been put there for a reason! The accompanying image, or even complementing? Also I'd split this into a seperate paragraph - and give a description of the image before going on to talking about what it means! again presents the magnitude of the issue as almost every person has some sort of electronic device. As Toutounji describes the event as a “sea” what does "sea" make you think of though? the sea is MASSIVE! he's trying to make the issue seem HUGE! make sure you're analysing as much as you can! this gives the audience a real picture of how many people are living this life and whether it should continue.  In the image many people are adjusting their phones or ipads, demonstrating that they are more focused on capturing the moment, instead of living it. The piece also claims that our lives are “meant to be lived and “not tied down to eight mega pixels”. This aims to alienate those who spend more time focused on having a perfect picture by critising them and their end product because it is only “eight mega pixels” instead of a memory. it almost makes the camera/phone seem like a burden or like something that's controlling them. Just food for thought Through utilising the metaphor that life is a symphony, the reader is positioned to acknowledge that life should “be seen with our eyes” and “smelt, heard, tasted and touched”  how? instead of captured in a “two-dimensional” shape for a “later stage”. Make sure you're not excessively quoting, for each quote you want to make sure you've picked strong language and thoroughly explained the effect on the audience. Through the repetition  quote and explain, don't identify of “obsession” and “obese”obsess? these negative connation’s  what are the negative connotations though? What do you think of when you hear that word? What is the effect of associating recording real life with such athing? You've got the jist of it you just need to elaborate a bit and make sure you're analysing each word! create an unflattering image of these people by presenting them as selfish, but how? therefore reader are unlikely to be to be identified as one of these people. 

Toutounji continues his piece by criticising those who “insist on preserving every” moment. don't quote unless you're going to explain the effect on the reader. It's a really bad habit to get into! In a cynical tone the writer discusses “how tragic” it would be if a newly born  “baby missed out on looking into its parent’s eyes” because they were too focused on capturing these “flat” photos of their baby.connotations of the words? how do the words effect the reader? why has the author done this? This again, aims to alienate readers who do this; how? therefore positioning the reader to feel as if only taking photo’s is an injustice to the baby. why is that a problem, how does this make readers feel? Through employing rhetorical questions  I personally will never analyse a rhetorical question - you can pretty much always write the exact same thing for it every time. If you are set on it though, don't identify the technique, just quote and explain the effect - we want to be as concise and nice sounding as we can! such as who “takes pics of the dying, the elderly or the incarcerated" connotations of words? effect on reader? how is that effect creating using those words? why? the reader is positioned to question whether people’s photo taking is justified.  how? It also allows the reader to acknowledge their part in the issue and that they can be a part of the solution. do you think this would make them feel guilty? Maybe just elaborate a little bit here. Through using the reason and logic that if humans want to truly “live a life that is full and rewarding” it is unlikely that this will be done through a “Samdung Galaxy” this writers credibility is extended. how is it extended. Justify yourself, I don't believe you! :P This positions the reader to be more likely to agree that living life is more important that capturing it. yeah ok, good point,. But how does it create that effect? Your main focus should be the language, and always always back to the reader! To conclude his piece he states that living our lives to the fullest will create memories that are “deep within our hearts and minds” this firm statement is the last piece the audience readers and appeals to their sense of compassion. or even makes it seem like anything digitally recorded isn't meaningful? Kind of makes it seem like a gimick in a way? Through this appeal the reader is positioned to view a life focusing on taking pictures and unrewarding and unfulfilling.

In Bernard Toutounji’s opinion piece he employs tactics such as appeals, attacks and rhetorical questions to appeal to his intended audience. instead of doing this, much like in the intro we want to mention a couple of the authors "sub arguments" that they use to get their point across. By explaining he enormity of the situation and describing the negative consequences of not taking in our lives without a camera, combined with the aim to position the reader on his point of view. As shown by the points made and the increasing prevalence of technology, the issue is likely to provoke further discussion in the future.
Goodluck with it! :)

KingofDerp:
man typing out essays takes forever xD anyway heres one I did in an hour that was for a guy writing a letter to his teacher asking for help with a supporting statement. It was gagworthy and I found it quite difficult to write about as it wasnt something Id done before so hopefully its not as bad as I think. Really hoping we get a really good "issue" lang anal and not some dopey suckup letter like this one xD my language analyses have been around the 9-10 mark but I feel this one may be around a 7 for some reason. If someone has time let me know what you think. I also think my tense changed throughout the piece as my teacher said used past tense but it sounded weird for some sentencs so yeah :'D


2013 Boobook Education Eng Prac Exam – Lang analysis

The financial distress caused by increasingly high tuition fees has sparked action within university students. Whilst some have sought alternative methods of generating funds, the typical university student ventures into the world of part time employment. In this context, Dan Olsen (a current student), sent a letter with an attached photograph to his trusted teacher Mrs Tran in hope of gaining assistance in securing a position at Simm’s Automotive as a bookkeeper. The letter, sent on May 16th, attempts to garner support in applying for the work through highlighting his interpersonal and academic skills. In doing so, Olsen emphasizes the main factors that not only make him suitable for a position, but deserving of Mrs Tran’s assistance also.

Ostensibly, Olsen contended that “if {he} were to get this job it would make a great difference” and that through Mrs Tran providing him with such assistance, “costs would decrease.” In doing so, he emphasized his financial concerns and a sense of benefits her aid would provide. In this context, Olsen developed an endearing tone to arouse sympathy within the reader. Such a mood to the piece was achieved in the initial apology, “I’m sorry I was unable to talk to you on the phone…” reflecting a level of courteousness in Olsen’s character, immediately appealing to the reader. Similarly, through illustrating her “kind” nature and abilities as a respectable teacher, Olsen aimed to invoke a heightened sense of purpose and vocation alongside emotions of self-admiration within Mrs Tran. In a similar way, Olsen’s opening and closing statements “Dear Mrs Tran” and “Yours sincerely, Dan Olsen” not only serve to establish a level of formality but a sense of respect and endearment toward his teacher. From the outset of the letter, it is apparent that through illustrating his family hardships, consequently, a level of pity is evoked in the reader. Particularly, through the short retrospective glimpse into a time “when {his} mother was so ill three years ago.” Olsen employs such a technique to garner a sense of pathos through his letter, thus enhancing his chances at acquiring her assistance. The accompanying image also supports this notion, through creating a sense of family unity, apparent in their cheerful expressions. Additionally, the photograph exemplified the positive effect of Mrs Tran’s support in the past, increasing the likelihood of her volunteering to help again in another difficult phase of Olsen’s life.

Furthermore, Olsen further develops his contention through alluding to the positive opinions of others, such as that of Mr Vukotic. In this way, Olsen reinforces how adults view him to substantiate Mrs Tran’s already positive perspective of him. This is particularly apparent in Olsen’s allusions to the fact that Mr Vukotic “is confident” with his capabilities, thus, strengthening the notion that Olsen indeed deserves such an opportunity. Similarly, the reference to Mr Rowe feeling “pretty pleased” with Olsen’s co-curricular activities highlights his involvements beyond that of academics and an endearing nature. Whilst Olsen maintains a highly enthusiastic and professional profile throughout the letter, conversational advances were often made as a means of establishing a friendship between student and teacher. Such a technique is particularly resonant in the use of rhetoric, inquiring as to whether “Mr Rose {is} still Head of Theatres?” In a similar nature, {the job} would probably be more interesting than stacking shelves!” aims not only to divulge opinion but to prompt an exchange between ‘friends’ whilst still maintaining a sense of formality.

The accompanying photograph depicting Olsen and his mother is employed as a symbol of survival, yet also acts as a reminder of the social support provided by Mrs Tran. In this context, the photograph directly links to one of Olsen’s evocations of the “awful stuff” that occurred in his high school years. The imagery promotes a sense of overcoming struggle and illustrates their relationship one to have endured hardship. Thus, it acts as a tool to arouse pity for his clearly troublesome situation. Yet despite such struggles, Olsen is seen to have succeeded in his academic endeavours, particularly evident in the focus on his prizes won for “top in Business Studies and Account” along with English scores he emphasized Mrs Tran as partly responsible for. Through such references, Olsen not only reflects on the resilience he displayed towards his studies, but his ability to simultaneously exceed whilst faced with tremendous family concerns. Thus, he is reinforces his capacity to display motivation, likely increasing Mrs Tran’s interested in writing an engaging piece for Olsen’s desire workplace.

Dan Olsen aimed to persuade hi teacher Mrs Tran, to write a professional piece augmenting his chances of securing part time employment. In doing so, he contended that despite all the hardships that have beset him, he holds the capability of maintaining resilience and a positive ”work ethic.” Such a concept was encompassed in the attached photograph, reflecting his strength and endurance manifest. In this way, Olsen provides undeniable appeal that aim to garner Mrs Tran’s full support in developing an engaging supporting statement as his referee for the prospective employer.

Alwin:

--- Quote from: darvell on October 25, 2013, 06:17:41 pm ---Hahahaha Yes I was taught by the master, thought I mays well try and help some people out :P
P.s Alwin cheers for helping out as well there's been so many posts last couple of days LOL
--- End quote ---
No worries Darvell, but erm this is mine up for marking too :P

I SHOULD WARN YOU THOUGH IT IS PRETTY RAMBLING AND I DID IT AFTER A PRACTICE ENGLISH EXAM SO IT AIN'T TOO FLASH

Chickens Range Free
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf

In the wake of the illegal release of hundreds of chickens from a truck, many media outlets have been quick to slam these actions and protestors. However, one opinion piece by Jo Smith entitled “Chickens Range Free” calls upon all Australians to see the ‘other side’ of the issue – that animals should be given the same right as humans. For some of the readers of the Melbourne newspaper, this view is too extreme and Smith endeavours to sway these individuals by exploiting her position as publicity officer for Australians for the Animal Rights (AAR); often pleading to readers especially those interested in animal welfare to take action.

As with many opinion pieces, Smith opens with an ironic headline, “Chickens Range Free”, and heavy emotive language many tabloids are famous for. The pun, however, is a double edged sword. Not only do animal rights supporters recognise “free range” as symbolic of chickens running free in “fresh, clean air” or open farm land, but also do many adult consumers familiar with the option of ‘free range’ or ‘caged’ eggs in supermarkets. However, for some truly passionate advocates for animal rights may condemn her use of a pun as it gives the impression Smith is being flippant and not treating the problem with enough respect. Moreover, the pun in the headline is too similar to the quotation “Fancy a free range chicken?” which Smith slams the talk-back radio presenter for. Indeed, the headline is witty and establishes the issue of chicken living conditions, but is rather inappropriate given part of Smith’s audience are animal rights activists.

Immediately, Smith seeks to position herself as a supporter for animal rights, condoning and even rejoicing at the actions of the two people that freed the chickens. Not only does she make her views clear, “I understand…”, “I think…” and other such phrases, but also explains she is the publicity officer for AAR. By describing the living conditions of chickens as the “dire plight of oppressed animals on this planet”, Smith is trying to position readers to see this as a global issue not limited to one incident involving a few hundred chickens. Moreover, having positioned readers to see the ‘big picture’ not just the two activists, she states that it is “…important for someone to stand up for the rights of animals.” Though the use of italics is unconventional in a formal piece, it emphasis the stress on the word “someone” placing responsibility on the reader. Combined with Smith’s notion “direct action is the only way to bring public attention” it is a call for readers to take action. Furthermore, Smith attempts to create an opposition for readers willing to take action by attacking local media for “… [giving] air time to critics of the action…” By including quotes from these ‘critics’ such as “idiotic…clowns…anti-social hippies and bludgers” Smith entices readers to disagree positioning them on Smith’s side of the argument. However, it should be noticed that critics of the animal rights actions would agree with the quotations and be alienated from the rest of the opinion piece.

Having created a divide of sorts between supports and critics, Smith generalises her arguments moving away from the personal pronoun “I “ and using “we” to make readers feel the problem of animal rights is also their problem too . Initially, Smith state that “…we Australians for the Animal Rights believe that all animals deserve to be free…: stating the view of the organisation she represents. But, she drops the AAR reference for the remainder of the paragraph inviting readers to agree that “we believe” and “we mistreat them” and “we have over populated” rather than making the clear distinction that this is AAR’s view. Thus, any reader who agrees with any point Smith makes is in fact aligning themselves with the AAR because of Smith’s subtle change of address. That is why Smith has so many sentences describing ARR’s beliefs, in order for the reader to identify with one and hence the holistic argument

Continuing, Smith continues to plead to reader’s sympathy and intellectual side. By claiming “too many people have a simplistic human-centred view of the world”, Smith challenges readers to oppose this stereotype. Many readers will because of the negative connotations, again positioning them on the side of Smith and AAR. Smith also makes reference to her caption-less image, that chickens are “…trapped in cages only 450 square centimetres in size…” a clear description of the chickens in the image. The fact that they are three chickens “trapped” in this particular cage is to further extract sympathy from readers for AAR’s cause. However, as many readers would be unfamiliar with what “450 square centimetres looks like, the lack of a visible back wall of the cage does not support Smith’s argument. However, neither does it detract from it because she is seeing the image and imagery in her writing to juxtapose the ‘awful’ living conditions with the ‘joyful’ free range conditions she alludes to in her headline. However what does retract from Smith’s argument in that she claims “…if the public knew the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating the,…” Her omission of specific details makes readers, even ones who have agreed with Smith to that point, speculate what is so ‘bad’ about these conditions and why hasn’t Smith expanded them or if Smith is hiding something.

And only in the penultimate paragraph does Smith seek to sway readers who don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans. Smith quotes Jeremy Bentham a philosopher that “The question is…can they suffer?” forcing readers to ask themselves this question about chickens too. Smith does not explicitly answer this question, but her conclusion that humane methods should be found to keep hens alludes to the answer: yes, chickens can suffer. This is a much more reasoned argument that her initial half lacks, and as such more readers will be able to follow her arguments and not be alienated by her initial use of emotive language. To close off her piece, Smith returns to the initial release and re-justifies their actions

As a whole, the piece operates in many levels, both emotionally and intellectually. However, Smith’s chosen structure of alienating opposition first then attempting to persuade them at the close is dubious. But her use of symbolising the release of chickens is effective especially since she doesn’t mention some chickens were run over by passing cars.

Patches:

--- Quote from: Alwin on October 26, 2013, 08:28:09 pm ---
Chickens Range Free
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf

In the wake of the illegal release of hundreds of chickens from a truck, many media outlets have been quick to slam these actions and protestors. However, one opinion piece by Jo Smith entitled “Chickens Range Free” calls upon all Australians to see the ‘other side’ of the issue – that animals should be given the same right as humans. For some of the readers of the Melbourne newspaper, this view is too extreme and Smith endeavours to sway these individuals by exploiting her position as publicity officer for Australians for the Animal Rights (AAR); often pleading to readers especially those interested in animal welfare to take action.Nothing wrong with your intro - could tighten up the wording a bit especially the last sentence.

As with many opinion pieces, Smith opens with an ironic headline, “Chickens Range Free”, and heavy emotive language many tabloids are famous forSo? The examiner knows what the piece is called - never understood the point of simply restating it.. The pun, however, is a double edged swordyup - so what? Isn't that what all puns do?. Not only do animal rights supporters recognise “free range” as symbolic of chickens running free in “fresh, clean air” or open farm land, but also do many adult consumers familiar with the option of ‘free range’ or ‘caged’ eggs in supermarketsYeah, but take it further. Why is her comparison of the released chickens being 'free range' making a point re 'free range' eggs? All this sentence does is define free range and say that free range eggs exist - how is the phrase being used to persuade/make a point?. However, for some truly passionate advocates for animal rights may condemn her use of a pun as it gives the impression Smith is being flippant and not treating the problem with enough respectwhy would they think this? You need to explain, not just regurgitate the article.. Moreover, the pun in the headline is too similar to the quotation “Fancy a free range chicken?” which Smith slams the talk-back radio presenter forbut whyyyyyyyy. Indeed, the headline is witty and establishes the issue of chicken living conditions, but is rather inappropriate given part of Smith’s audience are animal rights activists.you definitely don't want to make judgements on the success of the argument

Immediately, Smith seeks to position herself as a supporter for animal rights, condoning and even rejoicing at the actions of the two people that freed the chickens. Not only does she make her views clear, “I understand…”, “I think…” and other such phrases, but also explains she is the publicity officer for AARbut why does she do this? What makes her opinion as a member of the AAR different from the opinion of some bum on the street?. By describing the living conditions of chickens as the “dire plight of oppressed animals on this planet”, Smith is trying to position readers to see this as a global issue not limited to one incident involving a few hundred chickens. Moreover, having positioned readers to see the ‘big picture’ not just the two activists, she states that it is “…important for someone to stand up for the rights of animals.” Though the use of italics is unconventional in a formal pieceI guesss... there are much more interesting things to talk about. What are the connotations of 'planet' re environmentalists?, it emphasis the stress on the word “someone” placing responsibility on the readerplacing responsibility on the reader to what?. Combined with Smith’s notion “direct action is the only way to bring public attention” it is a call for readers to take actionyep, that's what she said, so what?. Furthermore, Smith attempts to create an opposition for readers willing to take action by attacking local media for “… [giving] air time to critics of the action…” but why oh why oh why does she do that? What purpose does it serve?By including quotes from these ‘critics’ such as “idiotic…clowns…anti-social hippies and bludgers” Smith entices readers to disagreehow do those specific words achieve this? positioning them on Smith’s side of the argument. However, it should be noticed that critics of the animal rights actions would agree with the quotations and be alienated from the rest of the opinion piece.again, no need to judge the effectiveness of her argument

Having created a divide of sorts between supports and critics, Smith generalises her arguments moving away from the personal pronoun “I “ and using “we” to make readers feel the problem of animal rights is also their problem toonot bad . Initially, Smith state that “…we Australians for the Animal Rights believe that all animals deserve to be free…: stating the view of the organisation she representsyep, so what?. But, she drops the AAR reference for the remainder of the paragraph inviting readers to agree that “we believe” and “we mistreat them” and “we have over populated” rather than making the clear distinction that this is AAR’s view. Thus, any reader who agrees with any point Smith makes is in fact aligning themselves with the AAR because of Smith’s subtle change of addressgood idea. That is why Smith has so many sentences describing ARR’s beliefs, in order for the reader to identify with one and hence the holistic argument

Continuing, Smith continues to plead to reader’s sympathy and intellectual side. By claiming “too many people have a simplistic human-centred view of the world”, Smith challenges readers to oppose this stereotypewhat's the stereotype? how does it square with the shock jock she quotes earlier? You need to add some value to the quotes you use rather than restate everything she says. Many readers will because of the negative connotations, again positioning them on the side of Smith and AAR. Smith also makes reference to her caption-less image, that chickens are “…trapped in cages only 450 square centimetres in size…” a clear description of the chickens in the image. The fact that they are three chickens “trapped” in this particular cage is to further extract sympathy from readers for AAR’s causeyou're a much better writer than this - how does she 'extract sympathy'?. However, as many readers would be unfamiliar with what “450 square centimetres looks like, the lack of a visible back wall of the cage does not support Smith’s argumentonce more, no need to evaluate the quality of her argument. However, neither does it detract from it because she is seeing the image and imagery in her writing to juxtapose the ‘awful’ living conditions with the ‘joyful’ free range conditions she alludes to in her headline. However what does retract from Smith’s argument in that she claims “…if the public knew the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating the,…” Her omission of specific details makes readers, even ones who have agreed with Smith to that point, speculate what is so ‘bad’ about these conditions and why hasn’t Smith expanded them or if Smith is hiding something.definitely definitely definitely stop doing this

And only in the penultimate paragraph does Smith seek to sway readers who don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans. Smith quotes Jeremy Bentham a philosopher that “The question is…can they suffer?” forcing readers to ask themselves this question about chickens toothat's like 2/10 quality. Why does she quote a philosopher rather than a baker or a carpenter?. Smith does not explicitly answer this question, but her conclusion that humane methods should be found to keep hens alludes to the answer: yes, chickens can suffer. This is a much more reasoned argument that her initial half lacks, and as such more readers will be able to follow her arguments and not be alienated by her initial use of emotive language. To close off her piece, Smith returns to the initial release and re-justifies their actions

As a whole, the piece operates in many levels, both emotionally and intellectually. However, Smith’s chosen structure of alienating opposition first then attempting to persuade them at the close is dubious. But her use of symbolising the release of chickens is effective especially since she doesn’t mention some chickens were run over by passing cars.

--- End quote ---

You are not judging the quality of her argument!
You are not judging the quality of her argument!
You are not judging the quality of her argument!
You are not judging the quality of her argument!


You write really fluently, but you pretty much miss the analysis part of the task. Slow down and think about what she's saying - why does she use specific images, what are the connotations of stereotypes?

Almost every time your conclusion was something like 'smith uses persuasive technique x in order to persuade the reader.' Well, yeah, but how? Why that technique?
I hope that wasn't too scathing - obviously I've focused the comments on the bits you could improve rather than the good parts.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page