Free Original Practice Exam for English 2014

[literally lauren]

On this thread, could we also post various essays we have written about different topics in hope of receiving feedback?

We'll leave this one for essays based on these prompts.
The English Work Submission and Marking is for general stuff, or you could always post on a text/context specific thread if there are a few people studying it, eg. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens Thread, Henry IV Part 1 thread, The Reluctant Fundamentalist thread etc.

[Rishi97]

Scrooge's transformation is purely motivated by self-interest. Do you agree?

INTRODUCTION
Christmas is generally regarded as a time of joy, giving and togetherness; a time to be reminded about our social responsibilities towards others. When an individual has experienced adversities in life, they often become cold-hearted and selfish; unless the influence of others convinces them to undergo change and become a better person. Charles Dickens’ iconic novella, “A Christmas Carol”, depicts the inspiring transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge who through a spiritual journey to his past, present and future is given an opportunity to amend his past mistakes and escape his bleak demise by becoming a beacon of festivity, joy and giving. The prospect of being condemned in a heavy chain ahead of a doomed fate compels the old miser to rectify his faults and establish relations. While Scrooge’s intentions are based primarily upon self-preservation, Scrooge does intend to restore the innate good ness that he has repressed for his miserable pursuit of wealth, by practising generosity and awakening his Christmas spirit.

BODY PARAGRAPH 1
When one has become obsessed with their value and respect in society, it becomes evident that the transformation they undergo is due to the selfish desires they possess. In the opening staves, Dickens represents Scrooge as a “melancholy” and “miserly” man who has become obsessed with wealth and as a result, is living a very miserable and “dark” life. However there is a clear representation of change within Scrooge during the last staves where he is described as a “beacon of light” and as “light as a feather” after the visit by the three ghosts. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge is taken on a journey through London where he is able to witness the harsh perceptions that others have towards him as he isn’t “charitable” and doesn’t use his “wealth for good.” Portraying that during the Victorian Era, helping the poor was expected of everyone and by Scrooge “refusing” to donate his money to the charity workers, he was not respected in society. Furthermore, Scrooge is taken to Fred’s place during their Christmas dinner which Scrooge has rejected year after year, and here, he foresees Fred’s guests comparing him to “savage animals” and “bears” due to his insolent nature. Scrooge is impacted by this experience and immediately wants to leave as he understands the reason of the perceptions that others have of him. He realises that the only way to be liked by others is to change his personality and become more “giving” towards others. Thus, when an individual has sufficient reasons to undergo change, they voluntarily commit to it if their selfish motives are being accomplished.


BODY PARAGRAPH 2
Once an individual is confronted with the prospect of death, they voluntarily transform into a better person to prevent this fate. Scrooge, the rapacious man symbolises greed by living a life where the “pursuit of wealth” was his only goal. Through the misanthropic miser, Scrooge, Dickens informs the readers of the importance of social responsibility that we all have by being charitable for the “poor and destitute.” The spirit of Christmas Yet to come, forces Scrooge to witness the harsh and solitude future Scrooge and people alike, would endure if they continue to be miserly and selfish. Scrooge watches his business ‘friends’ take his money and watches the furniture from his house get stolen by thieves, thus symbolising that consequences will follow for people who are uncaring and selfish. Scrooge understands the consequences of his actions and realises that his dead body will be “unwatched and uncared for” if this transformation doesn’t take place. Dickens challenges the audience to consider the ways they can be influential to those who are less fortunate and remember Christmas as a time of giving. This demonstrates that despite Scrooge’s transformation benefitting many others, the main reason behind this change was his selfish intention to prevent his death.

BODY PARAGRAPH 3
When feelings of guilt and regret become overpowering factors in an individuals’ life, they often undergo change and do what is necessary to minimise the impacts that these factors bring. Experiencing a childhood full of “isolation” and “neglect”, Scrooge became emotionally attached to those who cared for him such as Old Fezziwig, and they played an influential role in his life. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Past, Scrooge visits his previous employer, Fezziwig and comes to the realisation that Fezziwig has “the power to render us happy or sad” which symbolises the authority, positive influence and responsibility all employers have over their employees. Dickens allows the readers to understand the importance of social responsibility and also reflect on the ways they should behave with their employees. The warm and loving behaviour shown to Scrooge by Fezziwig juxtaposes the nasty behaviour that Scrooge portrays towards Bob Crachit. This short encounter with his past causes the accumulation of guilt within Scrooge as he realises that the “jovial voice” used towards him by Fezziwig in his youth must replace the “melancholy tone” he currently uses with his clerk. Leading Scrooge to the conclusion that he must willingly take on social responsibility and provide for his clerk to uphold their relationship. Scrooge happily becomes a benefactor towards the Crachit Family especially towards Tiny Tim who has a disability. Scrooge becomes a “second father” for Tim as he realises that Tim’s life will not be “spared” if he doesn’t receive the crucial treatments he requires. This presents readers to the idea that Scrooge genuinely cares about others and that his repentance is not purely self-interested.

Conclusion
Charles Dickens uses his powerful novella to remind us all of the importance of togetherness and giving during Christmas time, as well as the importance of social responsibility. Change can be ignited within an individual in various ways regardless if these reasons are genuine or selfish. It enforces the idea that Scrooge's transformation was based on selfish motives rather than the genuine intention to become a better person. Dickens challenges the readers to reconsider their actions towards others and become a beacon of festivity and joy, just like Scrooge.

[Yacoubb]

Love both questions for ACC! Very accessible :-) thanks literallylauren!

Whose reality prompt is great too! haven't yet looked at the language analysis article.

[Vermilliona]

Doing this exam really re-iterated that I have to improve my conciseness.. 1300 words per essay = no time left to check over everything at the end, plus a crappy Section A conclusion. The I&B prompt was good and challenging, the wording was a bit strange though, how did others interpret it?

Also good to get some comparative analysis practice in, paying homage to that 'power of ink' exam I see

Thanks for doing this, it was really good practice!

[melbin123]

Awesomee thanks heaps!

[rhinwarr]

How does In the Country of Men convey its main political lessons?

Hisham Matar’s novel In the Country of Men depicts a “Libya full of bruise-checkered and urine-stained men” who live under the oppression of the Qaddafi regime and the patriarchy which parallels it. Through the flawed narration of the child Suleiman and the symbols he associates with particular traits, Matar insinuates the way the dictatorship is detrimental to the individualism of the nation’s people. Matar portrays the consequences of rebellion against the regime, and the betrayal of loyalties which are part and parcel of living under a totalitarian government. Although Matar suggests that there are risks involved with both rebellion and succumbing to the regime, he also demonstrates that familial bonds of love can overcome the effects of oppression.

The world Matar constructs in the novel is under constant pressure from the autocracy of Qaddafi’s government. From the beginning of the novel, Matar highlights the ever-present nature of the “sun”, which is “as wide as the world” with “rare patches of mercy” to escape its gaze. The imagery of this symbol illustrates the extent and power of the oppression which culls public dissent as the Libyans are fearful of the regime’s wrath. Matar examines the effect of the dictatorship on the Libyan people through the eyes of the child Suleiman. Even he is aware of the fact that “everyone knows you musn’t overtake a Revolutionary Committee car”, and is frightened by his close encounter with them even though he knows “only the guilty live in fear”. In addition, he sees the people at Ustath Rashid’s execution as “jubilant and eager, desperate to express their commitment”, showing that people manufacture and exaggerate their loyalty to the regime in order to avoid the regime’s anger. The “beggar” Bahloul is symbolic of the Libyan people. The phrase “I see you”, which he constantly repeats, indicates the constant surveillance of the public and the willingness of the Libyans to spy on their neighbours. In addition, although Bahloul earns a fishing boat, he is unable to use it. Through this, Matar puts forward the idea that although the Libyans are capable of overcoming the oppression, they are too fearful to do so. Overall, Matar suggests that the people’s fear of the oppression leads to their lack of individualism and the betrayal of their own values in order to conform to the ideals of the regime, at the cost to themselves.

The people of Libya fear any association with rebellion and as a result, relationships are put to the test. Matar portrays this through the friendships within the novel. Despite Najwa being “like long lost sisters” to Auntie Salma, when Rashid is labelled a “traitor”, she ceases any interaction with her and insinuates that “there is no need” to be “close” to her. Najwa’s fear of associating with political dissent overcomes her friendship with Salma. Through this, Matar shows that the power of the dictatorship is strong enough to destroy even the closest friendships. This is highlighted again through Suleiman’s relationship with Kareem. Despite their bonds of “blood” and “virtue”, Suleiman is seen to side with authority as he almost calls Kareem’s father a “traitor” and alienates their relationship. Suleiman’s challenge to Kareem to “prove [he] is a man” by playing “My Land, Your Land” demonstrates the way the values of the regime are mimicked by the children. As Suleiman is a “ridiculous child craving concern”, he places greater importance on pleasing authority than maintaining his friendships. The betrayal of these relationships highlight Matar’s suggestion that oppression by an autocracy is detrimental to the relationships of the subjects, even those who are close.

The consequences of political dissent are portrayed through the rebellion of Faraj and Rashid. In their rebellion, they fail to meet their responsibilities to their families and leave their families vulnerable to “suffer the consequences”. Auntie Salma and Kareem are forced to flee to Benghazi when Rashid is named a “traitor” and Suleiman and Najwa are also left vulnerable, and must rely on Moosa to act as the “man of the house” and protect them when they are visited by the Revolutionary Committee. This shows that the families of rebels are put into danger because of the actions of the rebels. The fate of Faraj and Rashid portray the consequences of rebellion. Rashid is publicly humiliated and despite being true to his “undying loyalty” to Faraj, the “dark stain” of urine at his execution shows his loss of power when the regime uncovers his dissent. As a result of Rashid’s “pleading”, he is viewed as a coward by the public and loses respect despite his actions as a martyr. On the other hand, while Faraj “melted like butter” and is allowed to live, the “betrayal in his eyes” causes his allies to lose trust in him. Although he is viewed as a hero by Suleiman because of the “heroic drip of blood” that he believes represents bravery and courage, Faraj betrays his own values. The covering of the mirrors when he returns home represents his inability to confront his betrayal. Both Faraj and Rashid are emasculated and humiliated through their rebellion, and while Matar privileges neither the option of succumbing to the government or staying true to their rebellion, he suggests that rebellion is often futile. However, the symbolism of the last mulberry tree which stands in Suleiman’s street suggests that there is some merit in rebellion. Ultimately, Matar leaves it up to the reader to decide whether rebellion is worthwhile.

Matar portrays the strength of familial bonds of love, and their ability to prevail under political oppression. Despite Najwa’s belief that it is better to “walk by the wall” and avoid confronting the regime, she abases herself by grovelling to Ustath Jafer in order to save her husband’s life. Likewise, she goes to great lengths in order to send Suleiman away to the safety of Egypt. While Suleiman feels betrayed by Najwa’s actions, Matar shows the strength of their love through Suleiman’s narration. When Suleiman is first sent away, he distances himself from Najwa, calling her by impersonal names “mother” and “her” and is highly critical of her return to her use of “medicine”. However, once they are reunited at the airport, Suleiman reverts to the tender, childhood name “Mama”, demonstrating that there is still “always love” between them. Through this, Matar portrays the importance of family bonds for support under a political oppression.

The plight of the characters under the Qaddafi dictatorship gives an insight into the effects of political oppression. While the characters are left with few choices other than “silence or exile”, Matar demonstrates that there are risks involved with either option. Through the events, symbolism and the relationships within the novel, Matar explores the consequences of both responses to the totalitarian regime. Matar does not explicitly favour either choice and leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinion of whether it is better to rebel or conform to the ideals of the autocracy.

[Paulrus]

Scrooge's transformation is purely motivated by self-interest. Do you agree?

disclaimer: i haven't studied a christmas carol so i can't really comment on your ideas, but hopefully i can still help with expression/structure! i'm focusing mainly on things to improve rather than the stuff you already do well, so don't be disheartened if it feels a bit harsh cos that's what i'm trying to do haha

INTRODUCTION
Christmas is generally regarded as a time of joy, giving and togetherness; a time to be reminded about our social responsibilities towards others. When an individual has experienced adversities in life, they often become cold-hearted and selfish; unless the influence of others convinces them to undergo change and become a better person. i feel like you don't really need two contextualising sentences here. the first one is a bit too general - get rid of it i reckon Charles Dickens’ iconic novella, “A Christmas Carol”, depicts the inspiring transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge who through a spiritual journey to his past, present and future is given an opportunity to amend his past mistakes and escape his bleak demise by becoming a beacon of festivity, joy and giving. The prospect of being condemned in a heavy chain ahead of a doomed fate maybe change this to 'The prospect of being condemned/doomed to a fate of ________ compels the old miser to rectify his faults and establish relations might need to clarify here. While Scrooge’s intentions are based primarily upon self-preservation, Scrooge does intend to restore the innate goodness that he has repressed for in his miserable pursuit of wealth, by practising generosity and awakening his Christmas spirit. solid intro

BODY PARAGRAPH 1
When one has become obsessed with their value and respect in society, it becomes evident that the transformation they undergo is due to the selfish desires they possess.your topic sentences feel a bit context-y. you don't need to make any sweeping statements about society or individuals - remembering that you're mainly just responding to a text here. you don't want it to be narrow to the point that it restricts your writing, but it should definitely be specific to the text In the opening staves, Dickens represents Scrooge as a “melancholy” and “miserly” man who has become obsessed with wealth and as a result, is living a very miserable and “dark” life. However there is a clear representation of change within Scrooge during the last staves where he is described as a “beacon of light” and as “light as a feather” after the visit by the three ghosts. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge is taken on a journey through London where he is able to witness the harsh perceptions that others have towards him as he isn’t “charitable” and doesn’t use his “wealth for good.” Portraying that during the Victorian Era, helping the poor was expected of everyone and by Scrooge “refusing” to donate his money to the charity workers, he was not respected in society. Furthermore, Scrooge is taken to Fred’s place during their Christmas dinner which Scrooge has rejected year after year, and here, he foresees Fred’s guests comparing him to “savage animals” and “bears” due to his insolent nature. Scrooge is impacted by this experience and immediately wants to leave as he understands the reason of the perceptions that others have of him. He realises that the only way to be liked by others is to change his personality and become more “giving” towards others. Thus, when an individual has sufficient reasons to undergo change, they voluntarily commit to it if their selfish motives are being accomplished. i feel like most of the 'meat' of this paragraph comes at the end. you only really discuss the role of self-interest in the last couple of lines - watch that you don't lapse into summary. apart from that, your writing is quite nice here


BODY PARAGRAPH 2
Once an individual is confronted with the prospect of death, they voluntarily transform into a better person to prevent this fate. i already mentioned this before so i won't bring it up again from here hahaScrooge, the rapacious man symbolises embodies/personifies/epitomises greed by living a life where the “pursuit of wealth” was his only goal. Through the misanthropic miser nice, Scrooge, Dickens informs the readers of the importance of social responsibility that we all have by being charitable for the “poor and destitute.” here you're acknowledging the text as a construct of the author by talking about what dickens does. this is really good - try to do that a few times per essay if you can The spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, forces Scrooge to witness the harsh and solitude future Scrooge he and people alike, would endure if they continue to be miserly and selfish. Scrooge watches his business ‘friends’ take his money and watches the furniture from his house get stolen by thieves, thus symbolising that consequences will follow for people who are uncaring and selfish. Scrooge understands the consequences of his actions and realises that his dead body will be “unwatched and uncared for” if this transformation doesn’t take place. Dickens challenges the audience to consider the ways they can be influential to those who are less fortunate and remember Christmas as a time of giving. This demonstrates that despite Scrooge’s transformation benefitting many others, the main reason behind this change was his selfish intention to prevent his death. hmm your first and last lines talk about preventing death, but most of the paragraph talks about the consequences he'll likely face after dying. make sure your paragraphs stay on topic or you might risk annoying a particularly strict assessor haha. that said, both your analysis and your expression seem pretty sound for the most part.

BODY PARAGRAPH 3
When feelings of guilt and regret become overpowering factors in an individuals’ life, they often undergo change and do what is necessary to minimise the impacts that these factors bring. this is your ' directly challenging the prompt' paragraph. you want to make it abundantly clear that you're doing this, so it might be a good idea to start with a really clear "However," and then talk about how guilt and regret also play a role in his transformation, rather than just self interest. Experiencing a childhood full of “isolation” and “neglect”, Scrooge became emotionally attached to those who cared for him such as Old Fezziwig, and they played an influential role in his life. Through the use of the Ghost of Christmas Past, Scrooge visits his previous employer, Fezziwig and comes to the realisation that Fezziwig has “the power to render us happy or sad” which symbolises the authority, positive influence and responsibility all employers have over their employees. Dickens allows the readers to understand the importance of social responsibility and also reflect on the ways they should behave with their employees.again this is good analysis but you need to make sure you're staying relevant to the topic sentence. you don't want to talk about things that are only tangentially related The warm and loving behaviour shown to Scrooge by Fezziwig juxtaposes the nasty behaviour that Scrooge portrays towards Bob Crachit. This short encounter with his past causes the accumulation of guilt within Scrooge as he realises that the “jovial voice” used towards him by Fezziwig in his youth must replace the “melancholy tone” he currently uses with his clerk. Leading Scrooge to the conclusion that he must willingly take on social responsibility and provide for his clerk to uphold their relationship. Scrooge happily becomes a benefactor towards the Crachit Family especially towards Tiny Tim who has a disability. Scrooge becomes a “second father” for Tim as he realises that Tim’s life will not be “spared” if he doesn’t receive the crucial treatments he requires. This presents readers to the idea that Scrooge genuinely cares about others and that his repentance is not purely self-interested. good stuff

Conclusion
Charles Dickens uses his powerful novella to remind us all of the importance of togetherness and giving during Christmas time, as well as the importance of social responsibility. Change can be ignited within an individual in various ways regardless if these reasons are genuine or selfish. It enforces the idea that Scrooge's transformation was based on selfish motives rather than the genuine intention to become a better person. Dickens challenges the readers to reconsider their actions towards others and become a beacon of festivity and joy, just like Scrooge. you want to sum up your main contention here. you've argued in the body paragraphs that his transformation is not entirely guided by self-interest, and that he's shown to genuinely care about others. you should express that in your conclusion, even if it's just a line. remember that the point of this section is not just to act as an ending for your essay, but a place for you to reach a 'conclusion' about the topic. if the conclusion you've reached is that he's primarily guided by self-interest, but there's a genuine element of altruism in scrooge's transformation, then you should definitely state that here.

again, i'm being deliberately harsh - it's a good essay so don't feel disheartened haha.
overall this is pretty decent, but there are a few things to point out that i think you could easily fix.
- expression is quite solid for the most part, but there are a few errors in phrasing here and there
- make sure you stay on topic! this is the main criticism i have to make tbh
- don't be too broad in your topic sentences
- remember to reach a conclusion in your conclusion

hopefully this helps somewhat! 

[Thorium]

A prompt for "Will You Please Be Quiet Please?" By Raymond Carver please again?

[Camo15]

Twelve Angry Men:

“Okay, your honor, start the show.” It is in Juror Seven’s sarcasm and apathy that Rose presents his most scathing critique of the harsh truth of common attitudes in 1950’s America. Discuss

Echoing the enveloping paranoia of 1950s U.S.A, Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ acts primarily as a social commentary of the suspicious and fallacious accusations that marred this era. Dichotomised with the portrayal of the New York City skyline, reflecting all that is powerful in the U.S.A, the play does to an extent utilise the impatient Juror 7 to denounce the blatant disregard for judicial procedures in this time. However, the ferocity of such criticisms are just as evident in depictions of the prejudiced stubborn jurors. Furthermore, the premise of the play itself, one man convincing an entire jury of one boy’s potential innocence, subtly laments the potential for such influenced to be exercised opportunistically in 1950s U.S.A. Hence, the play doesn't characterise one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America; several are harnessed.

Rose’s portrayal of Juror 7 is a direct, scathing exploration of the potential for individuals to inhibit justice through sheer apathy. Due to “tickets to a ball game” that he possesses, he initially carries little regard for the life of the accused, focusing instead on his own materialistic desires over thoughtful analysis on a case that was supposedly “obvious from the beginning”. His initial stance of the case is portrayed as that of a man who is not simply greedy, but careless to the extent that he “puts [his] hand up to send a boy off to die” without hesitation. Whilst such initial impatience and disdain towards discussion is somewhat magnified by the oppressive heat of the “hottest day of the year”, his convictions are ultimately selfish and not “thoughtful…careful” as the judge ordered. Such a portrayal reflects the ease of many in 1950s U.S.A at facilitating the anti-communist hysteria of McCarthyism due to a desire to protect their capitalist economic prosperity, in the same manner that Juror 7 wants to protect his baseball tickets. Yet, his initial apathy to the case subsides as he changes his vote to “keep things moving”. After realising that his stubborn view is being inevitably resisted in the room, he joins the not guilty voters due to a desire to simply hasten proceedings. His thoughtlessness in such a change is depicted to act as an embodiment and a denunciation of the capacity for regular US citizens to similarly change sides during the McCarthyism trials, accusing their very neighbours of communist activities often without hesitation. Hence, the portrayal of Juror 7 is a duplicitous one in reflecting such realities in post-war America; it accentuates bot the carelessness and selfishness that many possessed in this period.

However, such criticisms about McCarthyist America are also prevalent in depictions of bigoted, biased jurors. Such unwarranted perceptions are evident largely in the hateful Juror 10, who demonises all of “[the accused’s] kind” as “born liars...violent by nature” due to “living with them all [his] life”. He assumes that the boy is guilty due to prejudiced views, regardless of the doubt eventually ascertained within facts of the case like the fallibility in eyewitnesses. Simplistic and almost stereotypical and archetypal in his portrayal, Juror 10’s pernicious influence on what are supposed to be unbiased deliberations criticises the accusations and convictions similarly induced without basis in 1950s U.S.A. Furthermore, his contrastingly ambiguous demeanour within the washroom where he advocates a hung jury so he can “get outta here” embodies the similar duplicity and opportunism of those involved in McCarthyist trials. Similarly accentuating the entrenched bias and inaccuracy in this period is Juror 3, portrayed as assuming that the accused patricide due to abuse by his own son. Believing that he knows “what they’re like”, he blatantly disregards the systematic analysis and evaluation by Jurors 8, 11 and even 4 whom he is supposedly aligned with. Tenaciously resisting all dissenting discussion, his discernible bias is immensely scathing of the capacity for citizens in a U.S.A defined by McCarthyism to be convicted of communist support, contrary to a lack of evidence supporting such claims. Like Juror 10, his characterisation ultimately highlights the callous disregard for the assumption of innocence, a valuable safeguard in a functioning legal system.

Yet, the portrayal of the ostensibly flawless Juror 8 similarly epitomises certain harsh realities of this era. Particularly, his ability to influence an entire group of men “just like any” into believing his view epitomises the support that opportunistic politicians similarly garnered in this time. Whilst initially he apparently just “wants to talk”, his intentions in having the accused acquitted quickly become evident in his bringing on the knife into the jury room. Similarly, he is shown as not simply convincing the other jurors, but persuading them. He calls votes directly after evidence is supposedly discredited to not allow jurors to thoughtfully consider certain elements of the case, such as the ballot directly called after discussion about the boy’s ability to use the knife. The most comfortable position for jurors is one of not guilty as such a stance requires only doubt, not absolute certainty, and Juror 8 manipulates this basic human tendency to achieve his goal, under the guise that he is simply following this “safeguard of enormous value”. Hence, whilst he advocates that “prejudice obscures truth”, Juror 8 himself somewhat allows his own bias to permeate his approach to the case; the view that the boy must be innocent. In essence, his depiction primarily targets how charismatic and authoritative individuals in McCarthyist U.S.A were able to manipulate the masses by appealing the vulnerabilities, such as a desire to remain patriotic or protect from a perceived threat.

Reflecting the intricacies and realities of post war American society, Rose’s drama utilises several characters to lament certain facets of his period. Juror 7’s apathy and selfishness criticises the similar traits of many individuals in this era, whilst the prejudiced Jurors 10 and 3 epitomise the false accusations that defined anti-communist hysteria. Even Juror 8, a supposed hero of the play, possesses qualities reminiscent of manipulative U.S politicians and authority figures. Ultimately, Rose’s exploration is a broad, vivid one that both criticises and humanises the harsh truths of McCarthyist U.S.A.

[brenden]

FTwelve Angry Men:

“Okay, your honor, start the show.” It is in Juror Seven’s sarcasm and apathy that Rose presents his most scathing critique of the harsh truth of common attitudes in 1950’s America. Discuss

Echoing the enveloping paranoia of 1950s U.S.AI'd personally go for America, U.S.A sounds really... larrikinistic?, Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’Underline it in the exam, italicise it when typed, never inverted commas. acts primarily as a social commentary of the suspicious and fallacious accusations that marred this eraGreat. Interesting word choice in "primarily". Even if you remove 'primarily', the meaning is the same, as, even if it "acts as a social commentary" that doesn't mean that it "only acts as a social commentary". My personal mantra is "no unnecessary words". Primary isn't necessary for your meaning, but you might consider it necessary for your flow. Just an interesting thought for you to consider, everything - content and expression - is great so far. I approve. . Dichotomised with the portrayal of the New York City skyline, reflecting all that is powerful in the U.S.AYep, I absolutely hate it. I'd advice "America" or some other description. , the play does to an extent utilise the impatient Juror 7 to denounce the blatant disregard for judicial procedures in this timeClear contention. Good. I'm unsure about your phrase "judicial procedures" - it seems to be petulantly playing with fire as far as relevancy to the topic goes. The topic says common attitudes, you've said judicial procedures. There's a fine line, I'll be checking to see how you walk it. "Dichotomised" - what's dichotomised, and what's the dichotomy? I feel like the part about New York and the part about Juror 7 is kinda distracting. What's your point? New York, or Juror Seven? I feel like you want to say something smart about New York and power  (and yeah, nice symbolism there), but I think you fit it in with the wrong sentence. . However, the ferocity of such criticisms are just as evident in depictions of the prejudiced stubborn jurorsOkay, that seems better. Obviously talking about common attitudes now. Interesting you've decided to focus on judicial procedure for Juror 7. I look forward to it. . Furthermore, the premise of the play itself, one man convincing an entire jury of one boy’s potential innocence, subtly laments the potential for such influencedtypo? You want to make sure you don't slip up like this so soon in your essay. Introductions should be the most perfect paragraph. to be exercised opportunistically I would have preferred "the opportunistic exercising of such influence".... If you can rephrase things so as to remove words ending with "ed", you can often make it sound better. Not that "ed" is intrinsically bad. It's just a shitty cue to make you rephrase writing that might be iffy. in 1950s U.S.A you can vary it up. I think maybe you thin America sound boring or something? But you can say "pre-civil rights America" or "McCarthyist America" or "post-World War Two America" . Hence, the play doesn't does not. Really don't want to slip up on this stuff in the Intro (or the whole essay) characterise one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America; several are harnessed. "are harnessed". This is where the "ed" rule pays off. That last clause just kills your flow a tiny bit imo. Okay, so how do we remove the "ed"? Well, we'd have to say, "The play does not characters one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America: it harnesses several". But that sounds funny again. Why? Because you use characterise and harness to mean the same thing, so there's an inconsistency in your sentence that is subconsciously displeasing. I still think my sentence is preferable to yours, but I'd probably reconstruct it entirely. "Hence, despite presenting Juror Seven's character as inherently disappointing, the play's [synonym for criticism that has a more negative connotation] of post-war America shines through many of its characters" or something to that effect. This revision is a little bit more specific and better expressed.

Rose’s portrayal of Juror 7 is a direct, scathing exploration of the potential for individuals to inhibit justice through sheer apathyGood. Nice, clear, I can see the idea and its relevance to the prompt. Due to “tickets to a ball game” that he possessesWhat about "Due to Juror 7's tickets..." or "Due to his "tickets...", Juror 7..." -- I feel like "that he possesses" is a roundabout way of saying "his". It's not usually in anyone's interest to be roundabout., he initiallyI like this qualification. It shows sophistication carries little regard for the life of the accused, focusing instead on his own materialistic desires over thoughtful analysis on a case that was supposedly “obvious from the beginning”. His initial stance of the case is portrayedHere's the "ed" rule again. "Rose portrays his initial stance...", much nicer. as that of a man who is not simply greedy, but careless to the extent that he “puts [his] hand up to send a boy off to die” without hesitation. Whilst such initial impatience and disdain towards discussion is somewhat magnified by the oppressive heat of the “hottest day of the year”, his convictions are ultimately selfish and not “thoughtful…careful” as the judge ordered.Your writing is really nice, especially relative to the level that's expected of you, and you're integrating your quotes really skillfully, but it makes me sad that you aren't integrating Rose's views and values directly into your essay. I mean, this reads like a really sophisticated summation of Seventh Juror and what he is, but it's lacking in sophisticated discussion about why, and that's what I'm interested in readingl. Such a portrayal reflects the ease of many in 1950s U.S.AI just hate the rhythm so much. You Es Ay. Yuck. at facilitating the anti-communist hysteria of McCarthyism due to a desire to protect their capitalist economic prosperity, in the same manner that Juror 7 wants to protect his baseball tickets.Shit. Spoke too soon. NICE. Still, would have liked V&V integrated sooner in the paragraph. Yet, his initial apathy to the case subsides as he changes his vote to “keep things moving”. After realising that his stubborn view is being inevitably resisted in the room, he joins the not guilty voters due to a desire to simply hasten proceedings.Wasted sentence. Could've been analysis. His thoughtlessness in such a change is depicted "Rose depicts his thoughtlessness as" to act as an embodiment and a denunciation of the capacity for regular US citizens to similarly change sides during the McCarthyism trials, accusing their very neighbours of communist activities often without hesitation. Hence, the portrayal of Juror 7 is a duplicitous one in reflecting such realities in post-war America; it accentuates bot the carelessness and selfishness that many possessed in this period.
Wrapped up to be a really nice paragraph. Showed good textual knowledge, written really nicely, had a really nice, strong point of analysis that had a lot of analytical integrity. I'd focus on writing in the presnt tense (ed), and whilst I see the analytical style/structure of this paragraph is essentially "set up -> sell the candy", I think you'd hit the criteria more effectively with "candy" the whole way through. This is evidently going to be a high-range response, but I think if you could refine your writing the slightest bit, add more analysis, and do it all in an hour, you'd be set for 9+/10.

However, such criticisms about McCarthyist America are also prevalent in depictions of bigoted, biased jurors. Such unwarranted perceptions are evident largely in the hateful Juror 10" Juror 10 best exemplifies/evidences such unwarranted perceptions." Or, even better, you could integrate some analysis, "Rose characterises Tenth Juror as an embodiment of the McCarthyist paranoia, utilising him to to evidence the distastefulness of such unwarranted perceptions" This would also fix my next point of feedback which is.... or something to that effect, who demonises all of “[the accused’s] kind” as “born liars...violent by nature” due to “living with them all [his] life”.I feel like this really whacks out your "quote to analsyis ratio", So many quotes, bang bang bang in the sentence, but no "in depth" analysis comes out of it. The niext think you say is smply a summation of what he does (assume bla bla bla) He assumes that the boy is guilty due to prejudiced views, regardless of the doubt eventually ascertained within facts of the case like the fallibility in eyewitnesses. Simplistic and almost stereotypical and archetypal in his portrayal, Juror 10’s pernicious influence on what are supposed to be unbiased deliberations criticises the accusations and convictions similarly induced without basis in 1950s U.S.A. Furthermore, his contrastingly ambiguous demeanour within the washroom where he advocates a hung jury so he can “get outta here” embodies the similar duplicity and opportunism of those involved in McCarthyist trialsWow! This is brilliant!! If that's not paraphrased from your teacher, then I'm impressed. . Similarly accentuating the entrenched bias and inaccuracy in this period is Juror 3, portrayed as assuming that the accused patricide due to abuse by his own sonI'd rearrange, so "his son" came first in the clause, because it could be that you're saying the accused has a son (I know grammatically that doesn't make sense, but an assessor could think you made a mistake if they didn't click straight away). Ultimately, you're fully correct in this sentence, but I would still change it because there is a small chance of ambiguity. You don't ever want to be ambiguous. . Believing that he knows “what they’re like”, he blatantly disregards the systematic analysis and evaluation by Jurors 8, 11 and even 4 whom he is supposedly aligned with. Tenaciously resisting all dissenting discussion, his discernible bias is immensely scathing of the capacity for citizens in a U.S.A defined by McCarthyism to be convicted of communist support, contrary to a lack of evidence supporting such claims. Like Juror 10, his characterisation ultimately highlights the callous disregard for the assumption of innocence, a valuable safeguard in a functioning legal systemReally nice, but again, I feel like your paragraph builds up to one or two points of analysis before finally linking it back to the prompt. You could continuously link to the prompt while you analsyis without compromising the effectiveness of your writing. I'm not telling you to cram cram cram until your writing is horrible, but just up the ante a little bit on how much you're analysing. Man, the point of analysis you do have are really good though, so it makes up for it Wish I thought of the opportunism thing..

Yet, the portrayal of the ostensibly flawless Juror 8 similarly epitomises certain harsh realities of this era. Particularly, his ability to influence an entire group of men “just like any” into believing his view epitomises the support that opportunistic politicians similarly garnered in this timeFuuuuck, niiiiiiice.. Whilst initially he apparently just “wants to talk”, his intentions in having the accused acquitted quickly become evident in his bringing on the knife into the jury roomExpression. Similarly, he is shown as not simply convincing the other jurors, but persuading them. He calls votes directly after evidence is supposedly discredited to not allow jurors to thoughtfully consider certain elements of the case, such as the ballot directly called after discussion about the boy’s ability to use the knife. The most comfortable position for jurors is one of not guilty as such a stance requires only doubt, not absolute certainty, and Juror 8 manipulates this basic human tendency to achieve his goal, under the guise that he is simply following this “safeguard of enormous value”. Hence, whilst he advocates that “prejudice obscures truth”, Juror 8 himself somewhat allows his own bias to permeate his approach to the case; the view that the boy must be innocentHere, you lose me. It's well-substantiated that he's manipulative and the idea that he's akin to opportunisitc politicians is fantastic. However, I do no believe you have adequately substantiated the notion that J8 believes the boy "must be innocent". I mean, he acknowledges that the boy "could be guilty, and points out that he "would have asked for another lawyer" because some things "[didn't add up]". The things that he mentioned were all deductively valid - and he obviously thoguht of them independently. Doesn't it sound quite probably that by virtue of the case flaws he didn't have a reasonable doubt without being precisely certain of the boy's innocence? I'm sure at the end of the play the stage direction is "He does not know, and never will" know whether the boy is innocent or guilty, and the moment of him staring back at the knife in the table is quite profound as far as "what if he was wrong?". That being said, even if he did just have a reasonable doubt, it still follows that he was manipulative and called for ballots at opportunistic times. I have to starkly disagree that he had certainty that the boy was innocent - I think the last stage direction directly refutes this. An examiner might not notice, but to me, this interpretation actively shows either that you've ignored textual evidence or are unaware of it. Personally, I'd slightly revise your interpretation (whilst maintain the brilliant analysis of his opportunism). Maybe subjectivity and bias is clouding my judgment because my interpretation is different, but I also think you're objectively wrong. Taking a niche interpretation is one thing, but taking a quasi-implausible one is another. Niche is excellent, quasi-implausibility mars the legitimacy of what you're saying. . In essence, his depiction primarily targets how charismatic and authoritative individuals in McCarthyist U.S.A were able to manipulate the masses by appealing the vulnerabilities, such as a desire to remain patriotic or protect from a perceived threat.Fantastic last sentence/overall analysis. Really nice, insightful.

Reflecting the intricacies and realities of post war American society, Rose’s drama utilises several characters to lament certain facets of his period. Juror 7’s apathy and selfishness criticises the similar traits of many individuals in this era, whilst the prejudiced Jurors 10 and 3 epitomise the false accusations that defined anti-communist hysteria. Even Juror 8, a supposed hero of the play, possesses qualities reminiscent of manipulative U.S politicians and authority figures. Ultimately, Rose’s exploration is a broad, vivid one that both criticises and humanises the harsh truths of McCarthyist U.S.A.Great

Okay, I'm super intrigued. Is that your own analysis, or your teacher's? Moreover, did you type this, or was this handwritten in an hour?


Points of improvement are basically what was written after the first paragraph. Maintain present tense, integrate more analysis into the start of your paragraph. If you did both of these things and maintained the overall quality of analysis, I can't see you getting less than a high mark. 

[AmericanBeauty]

Would you please be able to tell me if I'm heading in the right direction? I thought it was a pretty hard prompt so I tried to interpret it my own way.

 'Reality is too intangible for us to ever truly embrace it.'

Intro:

From a young age, our authoritative figures have told us that the world is our oyster. We could grow up to live our wildest dreams and supersede the adversity in our lives. This is a lie that has been ingrained in our DNA's as human beings, programming ourselves to regurgitate the same lies to impressionable others. The truth is that the reality of freedom to make our own choices in life is negated by socialist ideals that we're expected to conform with. Our wild desires are undermined by the safe route in life, to live in quiet desperation. The ability to craft our own reality is still widely existent, but the motions of ostracism and fear limit our ability to follow our own lodestar in life. In Death of a Salesman, Willy and Biff Loman have lived their lives by an external set of ideals which has limited their ability to live out their true callings in life. In American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, the audience is positioned like a fly on a wall, watching the lives and relationships of couples disintegrate due to conforming to a luminary(I'm not sure if you can use this word as a thing rather than a person, was meant to substitute from the word ideals). Humans are naturally conservative by nature due to the lacking opportunity to individuate yourself from society as it takes courage to life the life you want

Death of a Salesman
I was going to talk about Willy Loman dedicating his life to achieving the infallible American Dream, yet never achieving it. This dream is an illusion  Willy therefore doubts the importance of his life, and casts his dreams onto his son through suicide. Before suicide, Willy initiates a last attempt to plant seeds (symbolism) which is a last attempt to provide for his family down an unconventional route to being mocked by his family behind his back. Then I was going to talk about the casting of dreams onto Biff where he puts his life of 'working under the sun' on hold and focussed his life on becoming materialistic successful to make Willy proud. As Biff finds it difficult, he becomes a compulsive thief to obtain his wealth through alternative means and goes to prison, being unable to embrace this lifestyle due to it being frowned upon by society. This presents a lack of opportunity for Biff to live his own life due to expectations and pressure of his father.

American Beauty/Revolutionary Road.

This two texts integrate with each other massively, so I was going to write one paragraph on these two together. American Beauty I was going to focus on the sadness in Lester Burnham's life, living by the socialist ideals set for him to watching his life + family life shatter to pieces as a result of deciding to follow his own ideals, facing the consequences. With Revolutionary Road I was going to speak about the hidden dreams that the individuals in the relationship shared. When they had aspiring lives, such as becoming an actress, or the deep love that they had during the honeymoon phase, soon to reach a fallout to be at each others throats. They wanted to pack their bags and head off to France to follow their life goals after doing the same exact thing as thousands of other men for the entirety of their lives. This created the struggle fear when quitting their jobs, leaving love affairs behind and their friends. The dream was formed on an escapist illusion that provided hope for the family, but as the dream slowly became more and more unrealistic, their relationship turned to ruins for trying something different.

Would this be OK to form the basis of my essay on or am I doing the wrong thing :3 The ideas were all on the basis of conformity shielding them from living out their true, wishful realities and any effort to break the vicious cycle of conformity created disastrous effects in their lives. I only have three texts to talk about atm, only two paragraphs, but I'll have three soon

[Camo15]

FTwelve Angry Men:

“Okay, your honor, start the show.” It is in Juror Seven’s sarcasm and apathy that Rose presents his most scathing critique of the harsh truth of common attitudes in 1950’s America. Discuss

Echoing the enveloping paranoia of 1950s U.S.AI'd personally go for America, U.S.A sounds really... larrikinistic?, Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’Underline it in the exam, italicise it when typed, never inverted commas. acts primarily as a social commentary of the suspicious and fallacious accusations that marred this eraGreat. Interesting word choice in "primarily". Even if you remove 'primarily', the meaning is the same, as, even if it "acts as a social commentary" that doesn't mean that it "only acts as a social commentary". My personal mantra is "no unnecessary words". Primary isn't necessary for your meaning, but you might consider it necessary for your flow. Just an interesting thought for you to consider, everything - content and expression - is great so far. I approve. . Dichotomised with the portrayal of the New York City skyline, reflecting all that is powerful in the U.S.AYep, I absolutely hate it. I'd advice "America" or some other description. , the play does to an extent utilise the impatient Juror 7 to denounce the blatant disregard for judicial procedures in this timeClear contention. Good. I'm unsure about your phrase "judicial procedures" - it seems to be petulantly playing with fire as far as relevancy to the topic goes. The topic says common attitudes, you've said judicial procedures. There's a fine line, I'll be checking to see how you walk it. "Dichotomised" - what's dichotomised, and what's the dichotomy? I feel like the part about New York and the part about Juror 7 is kinda distracting. What's your point? New York, or Juror Seven? I feel like you want to say something smart about New York and power  (and yeah, nice symbolism there), but I think you fit it in with the wrong sentence. . However, the ferocity of such criticisms are just as evident in depictions of the prejudiced stubborn jurorsOkay, that seems better. Obviously talking about common attitudes now. Interesting you've decided to focus on judicial procedure for Juror 7. I look forward to it. . Furthermore, the premise of the play itself, one man convincing an entire jury of one boy’s potential innocence, subtly laments the potential for such influencedtypo? You want to make sure you don't slip up like this so soon in your essay. Introductions should be the most perfect paragraph. to be exercised opportunistically I would have preferred "the opportunistic exercising of such influence".... If you can rephrase things so as to remove words ending with "ed", you can often make it sound better. Not that "ed" is intrinsically bad. It's just a shitty cue to make you rephrase writing that might be iffy. in 1950s U.S.A you can vary it up. I think maybe you thin America sound boring or something? But you can say "pre-civil rights America" or "McCarthyist America" or "post-World War Two America" . Hence, the play doesn't does not. Really don't want to slip up on this stuff in the Intro (or the whole essay) characterise one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America; several are harnessed. "are harnessed". This is where the "ed" rule pays off. That last clause just kills your flow a tiny bit imo. Okay, so how do we remove the "ed"? Well, we'd have to say, "The play does not characters one individual as reflecting the harsh realities of post-war America: it harnesses several". But that sounds funny again. Why? Because you use characterise and harness to mean the same thing, so there's an inconsistency in your sentence that is subconsciously displeasing. I still think my sentence is preferable to yours, but I'd probably reconstruct it entirely. "Hence, despite presenting Juror Seven's character as inherently disappointing, the play's [synonym for criticism that has a more negative connotation] of post-war America shines through many of its characters" or something to that effect. This revision is a little bit more specific and better expressed.

Rose’s portrayal of Juror 7 is a direct, scathing exploration of the potential for individuals to inhibit justice through sheer apathyGood. Nice, clear, I can see the idea and its relevance to the prompt. Due to “tickets to a ball game” that he possessesWhat about "Due to Juror 7's tickets..." or "Due to his "tickets...", Juror 7..." -- I feel like "that he possesses" is a roundabout way of saying "his". It's not usually in anyone's interest to be roundabout., he initiallyI like this qualification. It shows sophistication carries little regard for the life of the accused, focusing instead on his own materialistic desires over thoughtful analysis on a case that was supposedly “obvious from the beginning”. His initial stance of the case is portrayedHere's the "ed" rule again. "Rose portrays his initial stance...", much nicer. as that of a man who is not simply greedy, but careless to the extent that he “puts [his] hand up to send a boy off to die” without hesitation. Whilst such initial impatience and disdain towards discussion is somewhat magnified by the oppressive heat of the “hottest day of the year”, his convictions are ultimately selfish and not “thoughtful…careful” as the judge ordered.Your writing is really nice, especially relative to the level that's expected of you, and you're integrating your quotes really skillfully, but it makes me sad that you aren't integrating Rose's views and values directly into your essay. I mean, this reads like a really sophisticated summation of Seventh Juror and what he is, but it's lacking in sophisticated discussion about why, and that's what I'm interested in readingl. Such a portrayal reflects the ease of many in 1950s U.S.AI just hate the rhythm so much. You Es Ay. Yuck. at facilitating the anti-communist hysteria of McCarthyism due to a desire to protect their capitalist economic prosperity, in the same manner that Juror 7 wants to protect his baseball tickets.Shit. Spoke too soon. NICE. Still, would have liked V&V integrated sooner in the paragraph. Yet, his initial apathy to the case subsides as he changes his vote to “keep things moving”. After realising that his stubborn view is being inevitably resisted in the room, he joins the not guilty voters due to a desire to simply hasten proceedings.Wasted sentence. Could've been analysis. His thoughtlessness in such a change is depicted "Rose depicts his thoughtlessness as" to act as an embodiment and a denunciation of the capacity for regular US citizens to similarly change sides during the McCarthyism trials, accusing their very neighbours of communist activities often without hesitation. Hence, the portrayal of Juror 7 is a duplicitous one in reflecting such realities in post-war America; it accentuates bot the carelessness and selfishness that many possessed in this period.
Wrapped up to be a really nice paragraph. Showed good textual knowledge, written really nicely, had a really nice, strong point of analysis that had a lot of analytical integrity. I'd focus on writing in the presnt tense (ed), and whilst I see the analytical style/structure of this paragraph is essentially "set up -> sell the candy", I think you'd hit the criteria more effectively with "candy" the whole way through. This is evidently going to be a high-range response, but I think if you could refine your writing the slightest bit, add more analysis, and do it all in an hour, you'd be set for 9+/10.

However, such criticisms about McCarthyist America are also prevalent in depictions of bigoted, biased jurors. Such unwarranted perceptions are evident largely in the hateful Juror 10" Juror 10 best exemplifies/evidences such unwarranted perceptions." Or, even better, you could integrate some analysis, "Rose characterises Tenth Juror as an embodiment of the McCarthyist paranoia, utilising him to to evidence the distastefulness of such unwarranted perceptions" This would also fix my next point of feedback which is.... or something to that effect, who demonises all of “[the accused’s] kind” as “born liars...violent by nature” due to “living with them all [his] life”.I feel like this really whacks out your "quote to analsyis ratio", So many quotes, bang bang bang in the sentence, but no "in depth" analysis comes out of it. The niext think you say is smply a summation of what he does (assume bla bla bla) He assumes that the boy is guilty due to prejudiced views, regardless of the doubt eventually ascertained within facts of the case like the fallibility in eyewitnesses. Simplistic and almost stereotypical and archetypal in his portrayal, Juror 10’s pernicious influence on what are supposed to be unbiased deliberations criticises the accusations and convictions similarly induced without basis in 1950s U.S.A. Furthermore, his contrastingly ambiguous demeanour within the washroom where he advocates a hung jury so he can “get outta here” embodies the similar duplicity and opportunism of those involved in McCarthyist trialsWow! This is brilliant!! If that's not paraphrased from your teacher, then I'm impressed. . Similarly accentuating the entrenched bias and inaccuracy in this period is Juror 3, portrayed as assuming that the accused patricide due to abuse by his own sonI'd rearrange, so "his son" came first in the clause, because it could be that you're saying the accused has a son (I know grammatically that doesn't make sense, but an assessor could think you made a mistake if they didn't click straight away). Ultimately, you're fully correct in this sentence, but I would still change it because there is a small chance of ambiguity. You don't ever want to be ambiguous. . Believing that he knows “what they’re like”, he blatantly disregards the systematic analysis and evaluation by Jurors 8, 11 and even 4 whom he is supposedly aligned with. Tenaciously resisting all dissenting discussion, his discernible bias is immensely scathing of the capacity for citizens in a U.S.A defined by McCarthyism to be convicted of communist support, contrary to a lack of evidence supporting such claims. Like Juror 10, his characterisation ultimately highlights the callous disregard for the assumption of innocence, a valuable safeguard in a functioning legal systemReally nice, but again, I feel like your paragraph builds up to one or two points of analysis before finally linking it back to the prompt. You could continuously link to the prompt while you analsyis without compromising the effectiveness of your writing. I'm not telling you to cram cram cram until your writing is horrible, but just up the ante a little bit on how much you're analysing. Man, the point of analysis you do have are really good though, so it makes up for it Wish I thought of the opportunism thing..

Yet, the portrayal of the ostensibly flawless Juror 8 similarly epitomises certain harsh realities of this era. Particularly, his ability to influence an entire group of men “just like any” into believing his view epitomises the support that opportunistic politicians similarly garnered in this timeFuuuuck, niiiiiiice.. Whilst initially he apparently just “wants to talk”, his intentions in having the accused acquitted quickly become evident in his bringing on the knife into the jury roomExpression. Similarly, he is shown as not simply convincing the other jurors, but persuading them. He calls votes directly after evidence is supposedly discredited to not allow jurors to thoughtfully consider certain elements of the case, such as the ballot directly called after discussion about the boy’s ability to use the knife. The most comfortable position for jurors is one of not guilty as such a stance requires only doubt, not absolute certainty, and Juror 8 manipulates this basic human tendency to achieve his goal, under the guise that he is simply following this “safeguard of enormous value”. Hence, whilst he advocates that “prejudice obscures truth”, Juror 8 himself somewhat allows his own bias to permeate his approach to the case; the view that the boy must be innocentHere, you lose me. It's well-substantiated that he's manipulative and the idea that he's akin to opportunisitc politicians is fantastic. However, I do no believe you have adequately substantiated the notion that J8 believes the boy "must be innocent". I mean, he acknowledges that the boy "could be guilty, and points out that he "would have asked for another lawyer" because some things "[didn't add up]". The things that he mentioned were all deductively valid - and he obviously thoguht of them independently. Doesn't it sound quite probably that by virtue of the case flaws he didn't have a reasonable doubt without being precisely certain of the boy's innocence? I'm sure at the end of the play the stage direction is "He does not know, and never will" know whether the boy is innocent or guilty, and the moment of him staring back at the knife in the table is quite profound as far as "what if he was wrong?". That being said, even if he did just have a reasonable doubt, it still follows that he was manipulative and called for ballots at opportunistic times. I have to starkly disagree that he had certainty that the boy was innocent - I think the last stage direction directly refutes this. An examiner might not notice, but to me, this interpretation actively shows either that you've ignored textual evidence or are unaware of it. Personally, I'd slightly revise your interpretation (whilst maintain the brilliant analysis of his opportunism). Maybe subjectivity and bias is clouding my judgment because my interpretation is different, but I also think you're objectively wrong. Taking a niche interpretation is one thing, but taking a quasi-implausible one is another. Niche is excellent, quasi-implausibility mars the legitimacy of what you're saying. . In essence, his depiction primarily targets how charismatic and authoritative individuals in McCarthyist U.S.A were able to manipulate the masses by appealing the vulnerabilities, such as a desire to remain patriotic or protect from a perceived threat.Fantastic last sentence/overall analysis. Really nice, insightful.

Reflecting the intricacies and realities of post war American society, Rose’s drama utilises several characters to lament certain facets of his period. Juror 7’s apathy and selfishness criticises the similar traits of many individuals in this era, whilst the prejudiced Jurors 10 and 3 epitomise the false accusations that defined anti-communist hysteria. Even Juror 8, a supposed hero of the play, possesses qualities reminiscent of manipulative U.S politicians and authority figures. Ultimately, Rose’s exploration is a broad, vivid one that both criticises and humanises the harsh truths of McCarthyist U.S.A.Great

Okay, I'm super intrigued. Is that your own analysis, or your teacher's? Moreover, did you type this, or was this handwritten in an hour?


Points of improvement are basically what was written after the first paragraph. Maintain present tense, integrate more analysis into the start of your paragraph. If you did both of these things and maintained the overall quality of analysis, I can't see you getting less than a high mark.     

Thank you so much for that response, its some of the most thorough feedback I've ever gotten . Thanks for picking up especially on the past tense thing I had going, I'll make sure to work on that in the next two and a bit weeks with 12AM. Analysis integration is also a criticism I've received from my teacher, will definitely make sure to find better ways to work it in. Pre civil rights America, I like that too - will definitely eliminate U.S.A.

This was handwritten in an hour last night after mulling over the topic for a few minutes, and I transcribed it onto my computer whilst at school today. The ideas are all my own, the implications of the play regarding McCarthyist society are something I really find interesting especially after studying this period in history last year. So naturally, this topic lent itself to that stuff and was perfect for me haha. The opportunism stuff I sorta just conjured up as I madly wrote but I've taken note of it now and will consider using it further when I can.

Quick question, in a topic that doesn't present itself to talk about this period so easily, would there still be a reasonable way to work it in consistently?

[brenden]

No worries, Camo! I look forward to seeing how your essays progress! You're got quite a knack for writing - you should consider giving some tips and tricks to people before exams! I first started giving feedback around this time in 2012, before my own exam, and it actually really really boosted my writing ability (it's actually what made me aware of past/present tense and quote integration and stuff - marking does wonders for your own awareness when writing).

Ah, totally makes sense that you studied it in History - a confident understanding really shines through in your discussion. Awesome job on the opportunism thing! That should really boost your confidence going into the exam, because you know that even if you have to write something on the fly/off the top of your head, you have the ability to pull off some really neat, original analysis.

Personally, I found it relatively simple to work that period of time in, regardless of the topic. Firstly, if you're discussing Rose's views and values, the topic lends itself very heavily to that type of analysis. I mean, if you want to say that "Rose condemns societal norms" - which is very relevant to literally every topic - why not say that he condemns societal norms that fester with McCarthyism? Try doing the most difficult topics you can and try to work it in - don't force it, but you'll start to realise that if you try to integrate something into your essay and you REALLY TRY to do it RELEVANTLY you'll actually just start to generate creative ways to be relevant . I would never recommend this as a general rule, because it can backfire so brutally, but you can essentially take the same three ideas into any essay and still score really well if you find creative ways to be relevant. This is obviously a horrible idea unless you have to prepare for the exam in like three hours or something lol - but the principle goes that, if you can do it with three ideas, you can definitely do it with a small portion of analysis. I mean, let's say your topic is about the structure of the play? Well, stage directions are structural. Paragraph on stage directions. Integrate how stage directions symbolise McCarthyism " 10th Juror rises" demonstrates MCCarthyist anger etc etc.
It really does just depend on how creative you are WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS that VCAA set you. There's a big different between being irrelevant and being creatively insightful. If you do the latter, McCarthyism lends itself to everything *in my own experience*.

[brenden]

How does In the Country of Men convey its main political lessons?

Hisham Matar’s novel In the Country of Men depicts a “Libya full of bruise-checkered and urine-stained men” What's the point of this quote? I'm unsure if it's intended to make a point about patriarchal men or whether you've just put it in as a fancy adjective. Either way, I don't think it achieves much for you, unfortunately . It's probably best to focus on what you'll be doing in your essay within the introduction and save quotes for the body. This quote just distracted me.who live under the oppression of the Qaddafi regime and the patriarchy which parallels it. Through the flawed narration of the child Suleiman and the symbols he associates with particular traitsThe syymbols that Matar or Suleiman associates? In the former, that's a bit unclear, if the latter, it still seems unclear, because I'm unsure wht you mean by Suleiman associating symbols with traits. However, maybe it's a reallly good idea and I'll find out in the body paragraph, but it's usually in your interest to be relatively explicit/as clear as possible in your introductions unless you're being skillfully coy., Matar insinuates the way the dictatorship is detrimental to the individualism of the nation’s people. Matar portrays the consequences of rebellion against the regime, and the betrayal of loyalties which are part and parcel of living under a totalitarian government. Although Matar suggests that there are risks involved with both rebellion and succumbing to the regime, he also demonstrates that familial bonds of love can overcome the effects of oppression.After you've done your three points, you should put a final statement at the end which gives your response to the prompt. So, here it would be, "Hence, ItCoM conveys its political messages in various ways; predominantly through x y and z. Have a look at the Twelve Angry Men essay above ^^ to see how another student did it. Also, All three of those sentences started with "Matar". It's a minor and pesky thing, but try not to have structural repetition unless its deliberate, because it can damage the rhythm of your essay. (It's minor, it doesn't impact on the holistic quality, but still).

The world Matar constructs in the novel is under constant pressure from the autocracy of Qaddafi’s governmentThis is true. However, as a topic sentence, I'd like to see quite specifically what your paragraph idea is, and hwo the paragraph idea relates to the prompt. So, whilst you've told me about the world within the novel, you haven't told me about how ItCoM conveys its political lessons. I mean - what's the lesson(s) it conveys, and how does it conveys those individual lessons in particular?. From the beginning of the novel, Matar highlights the ever-present nature of the “sun”, which is “as wide as the world” with “rare patches of mercy” to escape its gaze. The imagery of this symbol illustrates the extent and power of the oppression which culls public dissent as the Libyans are fearful of the regime’s wrathYep, nice.. Matar examines the effect of the dictatorship on the Libyan people through the eyes of the child Suleiman. Even he is aware of the fact that “everyone knows you musn’t overtake a Revolutionary Committee car”, and is frightened by his close encounter with them even though he knows “only the guilty live in fear”. In addition, he sees the people at Ustath Rashid’s execution as “jubilant and eager, desperate to express their commitment”, showing that people manufacture and exaggerate their loyalty to the regime in order to avoid the regime’s anger. The “beggar” Bahloul is symbolic of the Libyan people. The phrase “I see you”, which he constantly repeats, indicates the constant surveillance of the public and the willingness of the Libyans to spy on their neighboursI like this!. In addition, although Bahloul earns a fishing boat, he is unable to use it. Through this, Matar puts forward the idea that although the Libyans are capable of overcoming the oppression, they are too fearful to do so. Overall, Matar suggests that the people’s fear of the oppression leads to their lack of individualism and the betrayal of their own values in order to conform to the ideals of the regime, at the cost to themselves.Well written paragraph, quotes are nice, there are nice points of analysis - which could be added to more with author views and values. However, there's just a big structural issue here: I don't know how the paragraph answered the prompt. This is a major issue, worse than flawed writing (your writing is nice btw). I'll illustrate what I mean with an example. If I were responding to the prompt, my topic sentence would have been....... "Through illustrating the dire emotional impact that Najwa's mental state has on Suleiman's development, Matar cautions his audience on the pervasive stain patriarchal practices leave on society". So.... What's the political lesson I'm talking about? I'm saying that patriarchy being bad is a political lesson. How is it conveyed? I'm saying it's conveyed through Najwa's treatment and the subsequent influence that has on Suleiman. I would then go on to provide evidence for Najwa's treatment, analysing the way Matar condemns it (analysis), mention some symbols (the white handkerchief used to examine hymen), then I would provide evidence for how messed up Suleiman is, analysing the impact patriarchy has on society (Matar demonstrates... etc), then I'd wrap up and say 'Hence, Matar conveys a gender-based political lesson through..."
I think you have a loose point about individualism and surveilance that you mention in the last sentence; however, there's a big lack of structural clarity that you really need to address. Try a topic sentence that follows the grammatical structure:
**[Author] [verb] [idea/], [verb-ing][prompt connection/idea].
OR
*****[Verb-ing] [prompt connection/idea], [author] [verb] [prompt connection/idea].

**Matar illustrates the pervasive stain that patriarchal practices leave on society, demonstrating the impact that Najwa's mistreatment has on Suleiman's development.
OR
*****Through illustrating the dire emotional impact that Najwa's mental state has on Suleiman's development, Matar cautions his audience on the pervasive stain patriarchal practices leave on society

If you get this right, the rest of your paragraph should be in the clear. I'd really work on being super clear on your topic sentences to sort your structure out. It's not that there's something inherently wrong with the way you're writing. It's just that... I don't know what you're saying. I can see the quotes and the analsyis, but I don't know how you're responding the the prompt on a very specific level.

The people of Libya fear any association with rebellion and as a result, relationships are put to the testWhat's the lesson and how is it conveyed? Is fearing rebellion the lesson? That we should embrace rebellion? If so, that's a fine ieda, but it's just not expressed clearly or precisely enough. . Matar portrays this through the friendships within the novelOkay, this is a good answer on "how". This is clear and precise, he uses friendship to convey a lesson. Despite Najwa being “like long lost sisters” to Auntie Salma, when Rashid is labelled a “traitor”, she ceases any interaction with her and insinuates that “there is no need” to be “close” to her. Najwa’s fear of associating with political dissent overcomes her friendship with Salma. Through this, Matar shows that the power of the dictatorship is strong enough to destroy even the closest friendshipsNice. This is highlighted again Avoid "ed" (see the above Twelve Angry Men essay for examples and explanation)through Suleiman’s relationship with Kareem. Despite their bonds of “blood” and “virtue”, Suleiman is seen to side with authority as he almost calls Kareem’s father a “traitor” and alienates their relationship. Suleiman’s challenge to Kareem to “prove [he] is a man” by playing “My Land, Your Land” demonstrates the way the values of the regime are mimicked by the children. As Suleiman is a “ridiculous child craving concern”, he places greater importance on pleasing authority than maintaining his friendships. The betrayal of these relationships highlight Matar’s suggestion that oppression by an autocracy is detrimental to the relationships of the subjects, even those who are close.Okay, I see that idea. It's clear that you're explaining a causative relationship between oppression and bad relationships; however, I feel like there are stronger political LESSONS to explore. Gender in society - that's political. How politics impacts upon relationships - that's less political. It's related to 'politics' - but would it be discussed at the next election? Gender very well could be. Freedom and surveillance might be another political lesson, about how they're sacred and there should be a distinction between government and the private sphere or something like that. So I feel like you've got opportunities to be more specific on the prompt that you aren't quite taking yet. You have some really nice points of analysis and you express yourself well, but on a structural level it's not completely intricate and cohesive yet.

The consequences of political dissent are portrayed through the rebellion of Faraj and RashidOkay, this is clearer. "consequences" - tha'ts related to lesson, and the "message" is obviously concerning political dissent. I still feel like "political lesson" means "moral of the story", closer to "views and values". Like, How does ItCoM convey its main views and values? That's how I interpret the prompt. However, I actually wrote the prompt, so I'm wondering whether I'm being unfair on you due to a subjective perception. I'm unsure if I would interpret the prompt differently if I had not have written it, but I feel like "political lesson" is slightly missed by you in this essay so far.. In their rebellion, they fail to meet their responsibilities to their families and leave their families vulnerable to “suffer the consequences”. Auntie Salma and Kareem are forced to flee to Benghazi when Rashid is named a “traitor” and Suleiman and Najwa are also left vulnerable, and must rely on Moosa to act as the “man of the house” and protect them when they are visited by the Revolutionary Committee. This shows that the families of rebels are put into danger because of the actions of the rebels. The fate of Faraj and Rashid portray the consequences of rebellion. Rashid is publicly humiliated and despite being true to his “undying loyalty” to Faraj, the “dark stain” of urine at his execution shows his loss of power when the regime uncovers his dissent. As a result of Rashid’s “pleading”, he is viewed as a coward by the public and loses respect despite his actions as a martyr. On the other hand, while Faraj “melted like butter” and is allowed to live, the “betrayal in his eyes” causes his allies to lose trust in him. Although he is viewed as a hero by Suleiman because of the “heroic drip of blood” that he believes represents bravery and courage, Faraj betrays his own values. The covering of the mirrors when he returns home represents his inability to confront his betrayal. Both Faraj and Rashid are emasculated and humiliated through their rebellion, and while Matar privileges neither the option of succumbing to the government or staying true to their rebellion, he suggests that rebellion is often futile. However, the symbolism of the last mulberry tree which stands in Suleiman’s street suggests that there is some merit in rebellion. Ultimately, Matar leaves it up to the reader to decide whether rebellion is worthwhile.This paragraph was clearer. The topic sentence was clear, teh content was clear to the otpic sentence, and there was a clear link. However, I feel like you 'hop' between content without providing clear indications that you're about to transition. It's find to include a lot in your essay, but you want to be really precise and clear for your reader on how it all relates and why you're discussing particular things at that point in time (does it relate to what you've just said?). It can be done as esaily as "Suleiman's developemtn reinforces this notion..." or "Moreover...", but sometimes it might take a sentence "This extends into another way that [thematic relationship]. [New content].

Matar portrays the strength of familial bonds of love, and their ability to prevail under political oppression. Despite Najwa’s belief that it is better to “walk by the wall” and avoid confronting the regime, she abases herself by grovelling to Ustath Jafer in order to save her husband’s life. Likewise, she goes to great lengths in order to send Suleiman away to the safety of Egypt. While Suleiman feels betrayed by Najwa’s actions, Matar shows the strength of their love through Suleiman’s narration. When Suleiman is first sent away, he distances himself from Najwa, calling her by impersonal names “mother” and “her” and is highly critical of her return to her use of “medicine”. However, once they are reunited at the airport, Suleiman reverts to the tender, childhood name “Mama”, demonstrating that there is still “always love” between them. Through this, Matar portrays the importance of family bonds for support under a political oppression.This is closer to the 'political lesson' interpretation I was talking about. "What's the moral of the story/political lesson?" "Family bonds beat political happenings".
I don't think this fourth paragraph is necessary. Your three above paragraphs definitely had enough density to have you covered, and I feel you might have been able to use the extra time to make those paragraphs clearer, but it doesn't make too much difference if you're comfortable with the time.

The plight of the characters under the Qaddafi dictatorship gives an insight into the effects of political oppression. While the characters are left with few choices other than “silence or exile”, Matar demonstrates that there are risks involved with either option. Through the events, symbolism and the relationships within the novel, Matar explores the consequences of both responses to the totalitarian regime. Matar does not explicitly favour either choice and leaves it up to the reader to form their own opinion of whether it is better to rebel or conform to the ideals of the autocracy.

Your writing is expressive, however, within the paragraphs you could be more blatant about your transitions (and learn to hide the blatancy later, once you've got the clarity down). There were just a few times per paragraph where there was a "hop", but a lot of the time I could still follow.
Your textual knowledge is really good, you obviously know the book pretty intimately.
I feel like you could have integrated views and values into it more. You have good analysis on symbolism and imagery, however, you could analyse more often by discussing the 'bigger picture' that Matar is trying to convey. Further, as I've discussed already, I had issues with how clear your ideas were in relation to the prompt, so that's something to be wary of. that you're precisely and blatantly relevant in every way possible, but again, I'm unsure if my interpretation of "political lesson" is marred by having written the prompt. It might be, but I also think you still could have been clearer even if it was, so make sure you're really clear! It's unfortunate that I felt lthis lack of structural clarity, because I feel like you have the obvious potential for a really great essay. If that wasn't an issue, it would have been really solid. Good writing, good quoting. Probably just a once off thing

[Camo15]

No worries, Camo! I look forward to seeing how your essays progress! You're got quite a knack for writing - you should consider giving some tips and tricks to people before exams! I first started giving feedback around this time in 2012, before my own exam, and it actually really really boosted my writing ability (it's actually what made me aware of past/present tense and quote integration and stuff - marking does wonders for your own awareness when writing).

Ah, totally makes sense that you studied it in History - a confident understanding really shines through in your discussion. Awesome job on the opportunism thing! That should really boost your confidence going into the exam, because you know that even if you have to write something on the fly/off the top of your head, you have the ability to pull off some really neat, original analysis.

Personally, I found it relatively simple to work that period of time in, regardless of the topic. Firstly, if you're discussing Rose's views and values, the topic lends itself very heavily to that type of analysis. I mean, if you want to say that "Rose condemns societal norms" - which is very relevant to literally every topic - why not say that he condemns societal norms that fester with McCarthyism? Try doing the most difficult topics you can and try to work it in - don't force it, but you'll start to realise that if you try to integrate something into your essay and you REALLY TRY to do it RELEVANTLY you'll actually just start to generate creative ways to be relevant . I would never recommend this as a general rule, because it can backfire so brutally, but you can essentially take the same three ideas into any essay and still score really well if you find creative ways to be relevant. This is obviously a horrible idea unless you have to prepare for the exam in like three hours or something lol - but the principle goes that, if you can do it with three ideas, you can definitely do it with a small portion of analysis. I mean, let's say your topic is about the structure of the play? Well, stage directions are structural. Paragraph on stage directions. Integrate how stage directions symbolise McCarthyism " 10th Juror rises" demonstrates MCCarthyist anger etc etc.
It really does just depend on how creative you are WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS that VCAA set you. There's a big different between being irrelevant and being creatively insightful. If you do the latter, McCarthyism lends itself to everything *in my own experience*.

Alright, I'll keep notes of all the ways I think certain characters reflect McCarthyism and try to work it in in a couple of practices. I suppose the key is to be creative without being irrelevant,

Thanks!