VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

<< < (37/42) > >>

Patches:
Now savage mine :P

When animal ‘liberators’ strike, the public response is inevitably socially and philosophically polarised. In this piece, animal activist and ‘publicity officer’ Jo Smith defends the perpetrators of a recent liberation, provocatively equating the trampling of animal rights with abuses of human rights.

Smith’s use of ‘interception’, ‘liberation’ and ‘direct action’ conjure an image of a professional, clinical and almost militaristic animal rights movement, ideologically disciplined and committed wholeheartedly to a ‘noble cause.’ By suggesting that while ‘I wasn’t involved… but as a member of the AAR I understand completely’, Smith attempts to portray the movement as an organised, legitimate political force accountable to its members, elevating the incident from a mere stunt to a valid form of political protest with significant support. This is an attempt to counter commonly held, stereotypical views of animal activists as misguided extremists, neatly expressed in the ‘talkback radio presenter’s’ labelling of ‘idiotic clowns’ and ‘anti-social hippies and bludgers.’ By presenting the activitists and the AAR as the victims of such a rabble-rousing, reactionary response, Smith creates a sense of persecution, whereby her organisation is unfairly demonised as opponents with vested interests are given ‘air time’ while, implicitly, the voices of ‘liberators’ are silenced or ignored. The description of the radio-host is as much a caricature, of the stereotypical ‘shock-jock’, as is his description of the activists, as if to prompt the audience to consider his view a knee-jerk reaction based more on ideological prejudice than an open-minded evaluation of the case at hand. His ‘sneers’, then, are to Smith indication of the protest’s success in drawing attention to an issue in her mind too often suppressed by a ‘media’ committed to the maintenance of an oblivious public.

By stating the ‘beliefs’ of the AAR, Smith furthers her attempt to combat a stereotypical view of animal activists as naïve criminals, challenging the audience to consider the broader implications of the perceived ‘injustice’. Her repeated use of ‘planet’ prompts the audience to consider both the massive scale of the global animal industry as well as humanity’s increasingly destructive impact on the natural world, as our numbers increase while biodiversity ‘drastically’ declines. By equating animal liberation with the broader environmental movement, Smith attempts to bolster the legitimacy of her cause by attaching it to a far more widely held belief in the protection of the natural world, implicitly an ideal shared by all ‘compassionate people’ as well as committed activists. Further, Smith endows the issue with moral relevance in human terms, equating it with the universal principles of ‘human rights’ as she suggests that all our ‘fellow inhabitants of the earth’ should be afforded the same inalienable rights. This view is reflected in the image, which evokes a sense of humanist in the three chikcne as they seem to stare directly into the eyes of the viewer, as if to assert their sentience and even a kind of conscious humanity. The bars are evocative of a prison cell, prompting the audience to consider these ‘farm animals’ as innocent prisoners of ‘farmers.’ By contrasting such an emotionally provocative image of our ‘feathered friends’ with descriptions of birds as ‘cheap food’ housed without room to move or ‘proper ventilation’, Smith implores her audience to consider the parallels between mistreatment of humans and mistreatment of animals. The piercing, accusatory gaze of the three caged chickens, then, serves to visually challenge the reader to discover for themselves the ‘details’ of the lives of prisoners unable to speak for themselves.

Smith’s reference to the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham further elevates the issue to one of profound philosophical importance, worthy of consideration in the world of academia as much as in the ‘farmyard.’ By insisting that the question is not whether animals can ‘reason’ or ‘talk’, Smith by way of Bentham attacks those who subscribe to a ‘human central’ view of animal rights as morally negligent, with such a view implicitly as neglectful of real ‘human rights’ as animal rights. Bentham’s utilitarianism is, then, reflected in the actions of the ‘liberators’ in ‘breaking the law’ in order to serve the greater good, which in Smith’s view encompasses the entire ‘planet’ rather than simply its human inhabitants. The concluding remark – ‘the ends justify the means’ – is the purest statement of utilitarian philosophy, to Smite justifying the seemingly pointless deaths of the liberated birds beneath the wheels of ‘passing traffic’ as serving a greater moral imperative, with ethical ramifications for all of society.

By extending a seemingly ‘extreme’ protest to a comment on human rights, Smith positions the audience to view animal liberation as more than a fringe issue. Her conflation of human and animal rights is intended to provoke an outraged response to the continued ‘abuse’ of our ‘furred and feathered friends’, in effect asking the audience to question the distinction between humans and our next meal, demanding the attention of any compassionate and enlightened reader for such an ‘important issue.’

darvell:
The financial distress caused by increasingly high tuition fees has sparked actionor even debate? (Havent read the article, but usually there's debate hahah)  this sentence is a little short, seems like it ends suddenly. within university students. Whilst some have sought alternative methods of generating funds, the typical university student ventures into the world of part time employment. Seems like you are writing another article here - probably unnecessary. You want to make sure that everything you include is what the author believes (mostly anyway) 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.Is there an image? If there is an image we want a short description of the image here and how it introduces/relates to the issue.

Ostensibly this word means like "apparently, supposedly" - you cant apparently contend something, be careful :P , Olsen contended 1. NEVER EVERRRRRRRR WRITE IN PAST TENSE haha (this will automatically make your writing heaps better) 2. We want to state the author's contention, but we also want to be a bit more subtle so that it doesn't sound like a checklist. The author asserts, highlights, argues? Google "verbs showing authorial intent" to find more! that “if {he}wrong brackets. [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 ill stop pointing out the past tense from here on, but make sure you fix it all up! his financial concerns and a sense of benefits her aid would provide. In this context, Olsen developed an endearing tone I will avoid saying this personally, just hate explicitly listing things. Instead you can say "Olsen endearingly blah blah" - however some people do use it, so it's up to you to arouse sympathy within the readerhow? . Such a mood to the piece weird phrasing - are you trying to say that she is pragmatic? Might sound better hahaha 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 how? why? . Similarly, through illustrating her “kind” don't quote unless you are going to explain the connotations, intended effect, how this effect is achieved and why the author does it. Unnecessary quoting is a really bad habit - won't get you any extra marks! 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 how does "kind" do this though? Make sure you clearly explain the link between the word and the effect. . 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 seems like you might be dawdling on the one point for too long here. See if there's some strong, manipulative language that you can pick out instead. . From the outset of the letter, it is apparent that through illustrating his family hardships quote??, consequently, a level of pity is evoked in the reader how/why??. Particularly, through the short retrospective glimpse into a time “when {his}again wrong bracket, make sure you fix this issue hahaha mother was so ill three years ago.” Olsen employs such a technique this to garner a sense of pathos through his letter,how? 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.  We want to be able to write a whole paragraph on the image - it's really important

Furthermore, Olsen further develops his contention through alluding to the positive opinions of others, such as that of Mr Vukotic. In this way, (First sentence seemed a bit waffly, wasn't doing much for you) Moreover, 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” connotations? effect on reader? how is effect created? with his capabilities, thus, strengthening the notion that Olsen indeed deserves such an opportunityhow??. 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 natureok, cool. But what is the effect on the reader. Why has this been included? How does it intend to make them feel?? . 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. make sure your sentences are directly related to how the author intends to manipulate the reader, it's pretty easy to get off track! :P Such a technique is particularly resonant in the use of rhetoric, inquiring as to whether “Mr Rose {is} still Head of Theatres?”I personally will always avoid analysing rhetorical questions, as you can pretty much say the same thing for them every time they occur. If you are set on analysing them, make sure you're including the effect it has on the reader! In a similar nature, {the job} would probably be more interesting than stacking shelves!” where does this quote start? aims not only to divulge opinion but to prompt an exchange between ‘friends’ whilst still maintaining a sense of formality. effect on reader thoguh?

ok cool, image paragraph.
I'd describe the image a bit before divulging into what it meansThe 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 alright cool. Make sure you're explaining HOW the photograph shows this though. . Thus, it acts as a tool to arouse pity for his clearly troublesome situation why/how?. 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.seems like you're analysing the issue, not the language! Through such references, Olsen not only reflects on the resilience he displayed towards his studies,how? but his ability to simultaneously exceed whilst faced with tremendous family concernsagain, how is it created??. 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. would like to see some more quotes from the article alongside the image analysis, but this is a really good start!

Dan Olsen aimed to persuade his teacher Mrs Tran, to write a professional piece augmenting his chances of securing part time employment. In doing so, he contendedsame deal (even though this is the conclusion pleeeease still make sure you're fixing the tense) 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 aims to garner Mrs Tran’s full support in developing an engaging supporting statement as his referee for the prospective employer.

I think part of why you've struggled with this is because it's a letter for reference and not an article - which is understandable. But just remember, VCAA are sly as and you need to be ready for any curve ball!

Good luck with it :)

brenden:
Yo Darvell, do you even mark essays bro?

darvell:

--- Quote from: Alwin on October 26, 2013, 08:28:09 pm ---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

--- End quote ---
Hahaha it's good practice, all good! (Thought I would mark it as well as I can probably offer some different tips :P)

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. This part of the sentence seems strange to me, I think it's because you've said "chickens have been released" and then "these protestors" without actualyl mentioning who did it? Might just be me being weirdHowever, one opinion piece by Jo Smith entitled “Chickens Range Free” (Newspaper X, Date) calls upon all Australians to see the ‘other side’ of the issue – Reword your sentences so that dashes aren't necessary. If you read this out loud, you'll notice that it forces you to stop. We want to make sure we're sounding all flowy and beautiful! that animals should be given the same right as humans. For some of the readers of the Melbourne newspaper, this view is too extreme this seems like an odd way to phrase what you're saying, it kind of makes it sound like it's a fact and you've gone and asked them. I think rewording this slightly will fix the problemand 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 to those interested in animal welfare to take action. We also want a brief description of the image here and how it relates to/introduces the issue!

As with many opinion pieces, (seemed unnecessary to me haha) Smith opens with an ironic headline, “Chickens Range Free”, and heavy emotive language many tabloids are famous for. bit of a weird sentence - "tabloids are famous for" could be a little bit irrelevant,  also I wouldn't personally mention that the author uses "emotive language" - although this is true, we don't want to identify her techniques (will NOT gain you any extra marks), we just want to quote her and explain how she intends to manipulate the reader (and how the lang. used creates that effect) The pun, however, is a double edged swordvery short sentence, screws up your nice, flowy expression a bit! . 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.alright cool. Why has the author used all this language though? What are the connotations of the words, how do they make the reader feel? If you're struggling to analyse the words separately I would reccomend quoting one word, analysing the shit out of it and moving on (at least while you become a beast) , it's much easier to make sure you are analysing properly when you don't have to focus on multiple words! However, for some truly passionate advocates for animal rights may condemn her use of a pun as it gives the impression as it MAY give the impression (REMEMBER THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, CAN YOU SPEAK FOR EVERY READER?) I really like that you're critiquing the author in this way though shows skills, good job! Smith is being flippant and not treating the problem with enough respect.bit of a casual end to the sentence. What you're missing here is what is the effect on the reader of that? Do they question her credibility? Will it make them less inclined to trust her future arguments? Moreover, the punI think this paragraph is TOO focused on the headline/pun. It's nice to have some mention of it, but it isn't necessary to have a whole paragraph, especially on the one aspect of it. If you find some other stronger language in the paragraph and group it with SOME of your analysis of the headline, this will be a lot nicer to read (less repetitive) in the headline is too similarvery 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 COULD be viewed as is rather inappropriate given part of Smith’s audience are animal rights activists.be very careful with your sentences like this, you don't wan to be 100% definite. Also, we again want in here the effect on the reader. Why is it a problem that she uses a phrase that's so close, how would that make the audience feel?

Immediately, Smith seeks to position herself as a supporter for animal rights, condoning and even rejoicing I think two words seems like too much, might be personal writing style 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,is this the strongest thing you could analyse? but also explains she is the publicity officer for AAR.alright cool, but why does she do this? to build her own credibility? will this make readers more susceptible to her latter arguments? By describing the living conditions of chickens as the “dire plight of oppressed animals on this planet”, Smith is trying aims to position readers to see this as a global issue not limited to one incident involving a few hundred chickens.ok, but show me how the quote creates that effect. You need to include the link between the two. Write as if you are speaking to someone who wouldn't automatically assume the effect, but would understand it if you explained it Moreover, having positioned never never never write in past tense! 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.it also kind of implies that if "the reader" doesn't do it, who will? It kind of seems like a desperate call to me. Just food for thought. Combined with Smith’s notion “direct action is the only way to bring public attention”I think you might benefit from shortening your quotes, it can be pretty hard to analyse full sentences. Pull out the crux of the quote and analyse it, you will come off as way more beast! it is a call for readers to take actionsorta sounds like you're just rewording the quote, HOW does it create this effect :P . 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 HOW? I don't believe you, prove it! :P Hahaha always alwaysss reference the language! 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 same deal as with the end of the last para, it is okay to say what is LIKELY to be the case, but never that ALL CRITICS hate her, you can't speak for everyone. I really really love cutting down the author though, good work!

Having created watch the past tense a divide of sorts between supportsers? 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 . Ok I see what you're trying to do here, but it seems like it's taken too many words. Maybe even say something like "directly targets the audience" or "directly incorporates the reader" - means the same thing but is a lot more succint. Initially, Smith states that “…we Australians for the Animal Rights believe that all animals deserve to be free…: I'd definitely cut down your quotes. It's really hard to get good analysis from lengthy quotes unless they're really strong as a whole stating the view of the organisation she represents.alright cool. Why does she do this though? How does she intend to manipulate the readeR? How is that effect created? (Once you get this problem sorted your analysis will be LOADS better) But, too casual she drops the AAR referenceagain the rest of this sounds very casual, be careful 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. I'd analyse something else in this paragraph, what you have above is probably enough for incluisve language. You seem to separate your paragraphs based on techniques, you do NOT need to do this and I would suggest against it, makes the essay seem blocky and repetitive 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. irrelevant 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 argumentok yeah, (this is also too casual) I think if you analyse more different uses of language in the paragraph instead of blocking it into techniques you won't have such an issue at the end here. Also pleeeeeease dont forget to talk about the connotations of words, very important! What do you think of when you hear the word? How does that effect the reader?

Continuing, Bit weird. Furthermore/moreover? (also doesn't work with the "continues" right there --> Smith continues to plead to reader’s sympathy and intellectual side.very short and choppy sentence, breaks the flow By claiming “too many people have a simplistic human-centred view of the world”,def. shorten quotes. What are the most important words? Smith challenges readers to oppose this stereotype alright, why/how? If you're gonna make assertions you gotta make sure you're backing yourself up!:P . Many readers will because of the negative connotations, again positioning them on the side of Smith and AAR. read your essays out loud and you will see what I mean with this sentence being weird 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. this would be great to have in the image paragraph! The fact that they are three chickens “trapped” connotations? effect on reader? how is this created?in this particular cage is to further extract sympathy how?? 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. hmmmmm not sure about this. I wouldn't argue this personally. I see what you're trying to do but it doesn't come off as very strong. Pick your battles son! 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. very casual and it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I'd cut out the first sentence and make this one a bit more clear. 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 conditionshm.. is this really the effect on the reader though? I reckon she aims to incriminate the chicken industry - them hiding the details from the public make them look preeeetty dodgy. Just something to ponder. and why hasn’t Smith expanded them or if Smith is hiding something. try not to type like you talk :P

And only in the penultimate paragraph does Smith seeks to sway readers who don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans.I kind of thought this was meant to be the vibe of the whole article (I didn't actually read it though) Smith quotes Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher that asserts? “The question is…can they suffer?” forcing readers to ask themselves this question about chickens too. ok but what are the implications of them doing so? 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 casual will be able to follow her arguments and not be alienated we want to talk about what the reader DOES, not what they don't do! by her initial use of emotive language.same deal as earlier with this 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 casual she doesn’t mention some chickens were run over by passing cars. ok very much like in the introduction, we want to mention what the author's "sub arguments: are in the conclusion here. Also, you would want to be able to write a whole paragraph about the image in the exam, the image is really important!

Goodluck with it :)


--- Quote from: Brencookie on October 27, 2013, 12:42:21 am ---Yo Darvell, do you even mark essays bro?

--- End quote ---

What now son?

e^1:
Hey Darvell, thank you very much for checking LAs :)

I have a few questions from your corrections:


--- Quote ---... the editor uses descriptive language unnecessary, quote what you're talking about! to encourage readers to visually see them in such a way.
--- End quote ---
Could you provide an example of a quote that could be used to replace it?


--- Quote ---As such, the inclusion may encourage readers to act. I think the last bit is maybe unecessary, might be a nice ending sentence but it doesnt really add anything to your analysis - your job is to say how the reader will feel in response to what the author has intentionally done - but not necessarily how they will act in future. I  tend to avoid sentences like these personally, I think they're a bit irrelevant to the article analysis.
--- End quote ---
If I said "the inclusion may encourage readers to act against the issue.", as well as explained why (eg. the word "must" provokes a sense of urgency and the words "bravely" and "history" highlight the seriousness of the issue as the two words are seemingly referred to military and war situations) would this be ok? Or should I just avoid altogether? I ask this because I feel this part does take a part in persuading the audience to share a point of view of the writer.


Once again, thank you!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page