Section C Language Analysis: Thoughts

[brenden]

What's you guys think of the LA article? I think it's well accessible, no nasty comments or things of that sort.

How'd you guys go?!

[werdna]

What was the analysis on?

[brenden]

What was the analysis on?

A newsletter from the leader of an environmental group, aiming to persuade a city council to grow a garden. Two images.

I went to school to see my guys in and I was able to read a copy once my teachers got a copy.

[pi]

Just edited the title of a few posts and organised the board a little, hope you don't mind Brendo

[werdna]

A newsletter from the leader of an environmental group, aiming to persuade a city council to grow a garden. Two images.

I went to school to see my guys in and I was able to read a copy once my teachers got a copy.

Hmm that's interesting! Newsletter format, credibility, target audience will be important. Hopefully you all did well!!!

[brenden]

Yeah, the background info says the newsletter will be distributed to every household in the council.

I don't think the tone is extremely obvious, not like 2012 anyway. A good article, all in all.

[SamSam123]

I'd learned all these tones for aggression and anger and sarcasm. Oopsies

[alondouek]

I'd learned all these tones for aggression and anger and sarcasm. Oopsies

Don't worry, so long as you've adequately justified what you wrote based on evidence from the text, it's hard to mark you as being wrong.

[Damoz.G]

I think I did well, but I didn't like the piece. Very dry

[lala1911]

I found it challenging. Was it important to know that they were being delivered to people?

What was the tone and target audience.

[alondouek]

I found it challenging. Was it important to know that they were being delivered to people?

If it's in the background info, you should have discussed in the intro - probably tying it to target audience. Again, not such a big deal so long as you did mention a target audience!

[Stick]

I found it a bit difficult too, but that was because I left it until last and was short on time. In terms of complexity, the formatting was much easier this year since it was only one article with two visuals. However, a few of us felt that there was a lot to analyse, and I cannot help but think that perhaps I summarised, rather than analysed, a bit much. Oh well, it's done now.

[abcdqdxD]

I found it a bit difficult too, but that was because I left it until last and was short on time. In terms of complexity, the formatting was much easier this year since it was only one article with two visuals. However, a few of is felt that there was a lot to analyse, and I cannot help but think that perhaps I summarised, rather than analysed, a bit much. Oh well, it's done now.

Exactly my thoughts.

[shooterblitz]

I was happy with the article, until I realised by the end of the reading that there's no name given for the writer. I was left writing in the whole article with 'the leader', 'the writer', and sometimes even 'the author'. Was sort of awkward and frustrating. Overall, it was an article which could be decently analysed, nothing too hard.

[Damoz.G]

I just wrote "the writer", "the leader", "the use of".

But you are allowed to pick a gender as long as you are consistent when referring to it.