Is it bad to start a conclusion with "In essence..."? I like it but my teacher told me to avoid conclusions that start like this and I'm not sure why.
It's not inherrently bad, but if your teacher doesn't like it, then avoid at all costs.
You might be using it in a strange way, ie. you use a linking phrase but the ideas themselves don't link; you can't just say 'In essence,' at the start unless you're actually talking about the essence of the author's point or your contention. Otherwise it's just a regular conclusion with an odd starting phrase.
In the exam, no teacher would dock marks just for using a word or phrase like this, you just have to be careful that your usage is appropriate.
Just wondering, how would you go about structuring your context notes? like i know for text response, you should do character profiles, and thematic analysis. so for context would you do the same things or, what should you do???
THANKS
if that makes sense
First, go through a bunch of prompts for your Context (there's a big collection in the Resources thread on the main English page if you need) and pick out the major thematic areas you find
eg. Encountering Conflict
- causes of conflict
- the role of power and its effects
- whether conflict is fair/ justifiable
- the lessons we learn from conflict
ect.
Under each of these umbrella sections, start fleshing out your examples and research. There'll be some overlap, so it's up to you whether you double up and explain the same examples in different ways multiple times, or whether you just type a big version out once and then put (refer to...) in other sections where relevant.
This'll also be an excellent way of finding out where the gaps in your knowledge/ research are. If you find that you have absolutely no examples for, let's say, 'the victims of conflict,' then if you got a prompt pertaining to this area you'd be in trouble. Not only does this help you collate all your examples, but if can help you brainstorm what else you should be reading and exploring for the sake of covering as much of the context as possible.
this may seem like a weird question but...
this is from Edrolo:
as you can see, the answer is A) and C)
how is the answer A) when it is asking for money, not talking about saving money?
I've never heard of Edrolo before so I have no idea what their quality is like, but this seems like the sort of pedestrian analysis the assessors have been criticising lately. Just looking at a dollar sign and calling it an 'appeal to hip-pocket nerve' is like calling anything with a question mark in it a 'rhetorical question' - even if it's true,
it's not analysis!I guess if you're abstractifying the idea of an appeal to financial concerns to mean 'any technique pertaining to the mere mention of money' then this might be accurate, but I'd say you're more likely to elicit an eye roll from an exam marker if you used the 'hip-pocket nerve' as part of your analysis here.
I'm getting strong vibes from Assessor's Reports and the teacher grapevine that the exam will be gearing well away from this kind of technique-labelling anyway. You'd be much better off practicing commentary on kinds of language (eg. imperative, superlative) or understanding the context of persuasion. Techniques are still a good starting point, but they're
just a starting point.
edit: JackSon's suggestion would make sense too, but Answer C seems much more sensible. Idk why they've said that