VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

<< < (38/42) > >>

darvell:

--- Quote from: e^1 on October 27, 2013, 01:40:52 am ---Hey Darvell, thank you very much for checking LAs :)

I have a few questions from your corrections:
Could you provide an example of a quote that could be used to replace it?
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!

--- End quote ---
Hey man,
Love the questions!
- For the first one, which essay is that from LOL I can't find it, I'll go have a look for you if you let me know

-For the second one:
I think my opinion on this is a bit of a personal preference or suggestion (again I am not English expert, and I can definitely be wrong)
but what I mean is saying "the inclusion may encourage the reader to start riots arguing the issue after reading the article" (or things like this) just seem weird to me. I feel like although that's kind of relevant , we're mostly concerned with how the language itself makes the reader feel! (and whether or not they agree with the author seems VERY relevant to me, however going out and starting riots and things doesn't.
I think it's fine to mention things like this (preferably more just that they are swayed to agree with the author's point of view as a result of the lang.) AS LONG AS as you have said, the analysis is strong and builds a base. If there was beast as analysis and the assessor was all like " wow this is a 10" and then you had that one sentence summing up or whatever, I think it'd be totally fine, they wouldn't see the one sentence and be like "oh.. it's an 8". I think it might just be a preference of mine to avoid this, feel free to 100% disagree, English is a pretty subjective subject and there's many styles! :)
Does this help? (if it doesn't let me know and I'll try and explain this differently!)

darvell:
When animal ‘liberators’ strike, the public response is inevitably socially and philosophically polarised. In this piece,you say "in this piece" but haven't mentioned what the piece is! We want to go: Article x, (Newspaper X, Date) 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.Alright cool. This is a pretty short intro. Might be nice to include a couple of her other "sub arguments" (just one or two) and also we want a brief description of the image and how it relates to/introduces the topic

Smith’s use of ‘interception’, ‘liberation’ and ‘direct action’ conjure an image of a professional, clinical and almost militaristic animal rights movement,how? (You might find it easier to quote words separately and then dissect them rather than multiple at once) ideologically disciplined and committed wholeheartedly to a ‘noble cause.’why have you quoted this? What is the effect on the reader? connotations? make sure you always explain yourself if you're quoting! By suggesting that while ‘[she] wasn’t involved… but as a member of the AAR [she] understand[s ] completely’,sentence sounded weird with the "I" parts in the quote 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. throughout this whole underlined bit, you establish what she aims to do using her language. What you're missing is HOW this effects the reader, and HOW this effect is created. 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 prejudicehow/why? than an open-minded evaluation of the case at hand. His ‘sneers’, then, are to Smith indication weird phrasing, read this out loud and you'll see what I mean (make sure you're proof reading!) of the protest’s success in drawing attention to an issue in her mind too often suppressed by a ‘media’ again if you're going to quote make sure it's something that significantly effects the reader. Quoting in order to fill sentences in this way will not get you any marks - there's no analysis! committed to the maintenance of an oblivious public.

By stating the ‘beliefs’same deal with the quoting 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’. Injustice! this is really strong! They're being stripped of their rights here! hahaha what do you think of when you hear the word? Make sure you're including why/how it effects the reader, nice selection of evidence though! 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 don't use inclusive language, it's the author's effect on the reader, not you! numbers increase while biodiversity ‘drastically’ declines. alright cool. Why is this a problem though, what does it cause the readers to think/feel, and how? 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’explain quote! connotations? effect on reader? how is this achieved? 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’ basic rights are being violated here! Make sure you're analysing all these quotes, as I have mentioned, connotations? effect on reader? how is this achieved? why does the author do it? 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.’pleeeeeease make sure you're explaining when you quote! 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. nice! what further implications does this have on the reader though, comparing the two? 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.hmm.. or even make them feel guilty? Also, we want to be able to write a whole paragraph on the image, it's really important!

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.’ reader? 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 rightssort of makes it sound like it's something really obvious, too. What is the effect of realising that animals are capable of reason? An animal that can think and talk seems much more human, right? How does this manipulate the audience? as morally negligent, with such a view implicitly as neglectful of real ‘human rights’ as animal rights. Bentham’s utilitarianism is, then, not liking the theme of this being used throughout your essay. If you read this out loud you'll notice that it forces the reader to pause twice. We want to be as flowy and beautiful as we can, - maybe use something like consequently? (obv. fit it into the sentence though haha) reflected in the actions of the ‘liberators’ why are they "libarators" not "criminals", how does the author aim to paint them? Connotations of this word? in ‘breaking the law’ in order to serve the greater good, which in Smith’s view encompasses the entire ‘planet’ how does this effect the reader though? Does it make the gravity of the issue seem larger than it actually is? Stress the urgency? Make sure you're being clear! rather than simply its human inhabitants. The concluding remark – avoid using dashes in your essays! They force the reader to pause unnecessarily, it breaks the flow of your essay! ‘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. seems like you've forgotten about the reader! How is this all intended to effect them? How do the words create this effect?
 
By extending a seemingly ‘extreme’ I personally avoid quoting in the conclusion, it won't get you any extra marks and can sometimes mean you can come off as unclear in regards to your own understanding. Perfectly fine if you want to keep doing it though, as long as you're making sure it's VERY clear you understand what the author is saying! 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.’

I'd definitely reccomend splitting up your quotes and ripping apart individual words before moving on to the next one. It's easy to get lost in a sea of quotes!

Good luck with it :)

Patches:
Thanks Darvell - plenty there to improve on.

I've never understood why people regurgitate the name of the article and its date in the introduction, the examiner does, presumably, know...
Especially given the title is going to be analysed in a later paragraph.

brenden:

--- Quote from: Patches on October 27, 2013, 10:42:28 am ---I've never understood why people regurgitate the name of the article and its date in the introduction, the examiner does, presumably, know...
Especially given the title is going to be analysed in a later paragraph.

--- End quote ---
Is it, though? :p

Alwin:
lol sorry for the last piece, kinda was half dead when I did it and no Patches you weren't too scathing. Was expecting most of the comments coz I was too tired when I typed it up, thanks for marking it for me :D (if you post another one I'll mark it for you too, if darvell doesn't get to it first :P)

I have a few questions left (seen in blue):

2010 International Biodiversity Conference from the VCAA 2010 exam

Having been declared the year of International Biodiversity, 2010 poses a potential turning point to biodiversity activists. Given the commitment in 2002 to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity attributing to poverty, many participants at the International Diversity Conference perceive this event as an opportunity for self-congratulations (is this explicit enough for identifying the audience?). However, the keynote speaker Professor Chris Lee opens the conference by imploring already biodiversity-minded listeners to not rest on their laurels (what is your opinion of using metaphors or proverbs in formal writing? My teacher discourages it). Professor Lee challenges listeners at the conference to frankly assess their efficacy and what “real action” they have done. Given the conference was held on the 25th to the 27th of October, Professor Lee is calling upon his fellow biodiversity compatriots to make real change and not be contented with simply talking about the issue. Darvell, is it a stylistic thing to include sub-arguments in the intro, or is it actually assessed? I've never done it before, try to keep my intros as brief as possible

As the keynote speaker, Professor Lee quickly establishes the main theme of the conference, (colon or comma?) reflection and evaluation. His opening slide entitled “Taking Stock” is intended to bring images of shopping centres and food venders counting remaining goods in order to calculate their profits or otherwise in listeners’ minds. Thus, when coupled with fact Professor Lee is presenting at a biodiversity conference, there is little doubt that he is making reference to the state of the ecosystem, and that the ‘counting of stock’ is reference to the number of species left in the world with a ‘profit’ representing successful preservation. In conjunction, the image on the slide makes reference to the year, 2010 clearly seem in the outline, but the white cutaways are also indicative of a variety of species: fish, flamingos, humans and trees. Again, Professor Lee is aiming to draw on connotations in the picture, as the fish symbolise sea creatures, the flamingo representing land and air animals, the tree representing plants and the human child grasping the adults hand a symbol of the importance of the connection between all animals and humans. Thus, this opening slide establishes the subject of the presentation, but also alludes to the importance of biodiversity to human survival. (too long to spend on one slide given there is an entire speech and another closing slide?)

Professor Lee opens by reflecting on the significance of the year 2010 because it is “the International year of Biodiversity” signifying the wide-scale of this issue, but also referring to the opening slide and the combination of humans and animals in the lettering of the year “2010”. The speaker does not mince words because he knows his audience has come to the conference to hear about biodiversity, and openly questions the purpose of the year “2010”. (too much background info in the opening of this paragraph?) As the speech was held in October, the majority of the year has already come to past and Professor Lee is attempting to guilt listeners who have perceived 2010 as a “year of celebration”. By making reference to the time span of the commitment that started “Eight years ago” he is further manipulating readers to question if they have committed themselves fully over the many years. Coupled with the strong use of the word “Honestly” in his question directed at his audience of how well they have done, Professor Lee is implying many have been self-deluded believing they have achieved their goals of reducing loss of biodiversity. Professor Lee reiterates his ‘wakeup call’, questioning again and again “how well” and “how far” have these activists come in their commitment. By repeating his question, he increases the guilt of some sectors of the audience and positions (odd word choice. what would sound better) the remainder to challenge their supposed “success” so far.

The speaker substantiates his case, quoting statistics of loss in biodiversity to break any final delusion in listeners that their commitment is working. Though the statistics are credible from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and shocking in that there are losses of up to 50%, Professor Lee is manipulating his audience through fear-mongering (this even a word? teacher sometimes comments "Neologism" on my work lol). The statistics he quotes are “over the last one hundred” years not the eight years since the commitment was made. Thus, the problem is presented as a greater one than it may actually be; a contradiction to Professor Lee’s call for “honesty” in his opening. For readers that pick up on this subtle deception, he has lost credibility in their minds and are less willing to accept Professor Lee's arguments. He moves on by making the comparison of actions by humans and the extinction of dinosaurs, claiming that “in truth” they are similar. Such an extreme analogy has humans being equivocal to a meteorite striking the Earth (the common reason for the dinosaurs’ disappearance), which is the professor’s intention, to strike fear into his listener’s minds about their actions. His continuation of the metaphor, that “we affluent hunters and gathers must hunt less, gather less [and] conserve more” is to present a solution in terms his audience can more likely understand and accept. Moreover, this simplifies the solution etc etc (I won't bore you with the rest but that's pretty much how the LA goes and most of my questions are in the first bit of my analysis anways)

You thoughts on it and any answers to my questions in blue would be much appreciated :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page