Need help tackling this prompt: "When confronted by Conflict, it is always better to take a side". Any advice would be of much appreciation.
Tasha covered this nicely, so all I have to add is
ASK "WHY?" It's not the most extensive of processes, but if you're ever lost in Context, look at the prompt or the last sentence you've written and ask
"but why??"So, apparently it's always better to take sides in Conflict? -->
WHY?Or, if you're mostly disagreeing, then I guess it's not always a good idea to pick a side. -->
WHY?Then, if you can come up for an answer for that question and get stuck again, repeat the process. Just keep asking
"why" until you get to a point where you're like '...because...that's just how things are!!@!' At that point, you've gone far enough. Everything up till that point is stuff you can include in your essays though, because the assessors like to see students following their train of thought rather than making random, unsubstantiated claims about conflict and the way the world is.
Can be kind of frustrating at first, but once you're used to it, this is a fairly foolproof method for unpacking your ideas
If I'm not wrong, the contention itself is the challenge and all the TS are the arguments stemming from the contention.
Yep!
I wrote the contention and 4 topic sentences as practice for Gattaca, which I studied last year, to the topic below.
It is individual acts of defiance that makes Gattaca so engaging. Discuss.
Hmm... prompt sounds familiar
Contention: Although the vignettes of individual defiance depicted complicate the film's portrayal of morality, ultimately these actions are an integral part of Niccol's attempts to communicate his fascination with the engaging stories of individuals who are affected by the defiance of social construct.
1. Niccol delves into the way in which the omnipresence of defiance against authority renders Gattaca engaging.
Wording is a little bogged down here, but I get what you're going for. The text shows how omnipresent defiance is, which makes it engaging, yeah? It sounds a bit odd to say 'Niccol delves into how X renders the film engaging' since that's kind of like saying 'the author explores how readers enjoy the novel.' And be careful with how you're using 'vignettes.' I'd say it's appropriate in
Stasiland, but
Gattaca has a more straightforward plot. Aside from those little concerns, this is all good.
2. Coalesced with a fixation on the ubiquity of defiance to oppose authority, viewers are exposed to individuals coming to terms with the corollary effects of their acts of resistance against society’s morals in an engaging manner.
Ditto regarding your word choices; 'coalesced' doesn't quite work here, but this is also fine in terms of relevance.
3. Whilst the struggles faced in satiating pursuits are inevitable in a controlled society, Niccol may foster audience engagement in crafting those who harness such defiance to fuel their aspirations, as ultimately being rewarded.
Here, 'satiating' is the odd word, and be careful not to talk about what the author 'may' be doing. Same rule goes for Language Analysis - just assume the author is successful and talk about what they intended to achieve - don't evaluate whether or not it works.
4. Despite the engaging nature of the defiance perpetrated by individuals, viewers are also confronted with the conflicting notions of defiance and morality which permeate the plot, hence divulging Gattaca as engaging in a different manner.
And this time 'divulging' is your weird word. Divulging has to be used in the sense of 'X divulges Y to Z' as in, 'He divulges his secrets to me.' You seem to be using it as a synonym for 'suggests' or 'positioning' which isn't 100% right even if most people would know what you meant.
I feel like I'm getting the gist of what to do when given the topic
Good to hear! If you do get a bit frustrated with this process - as most students will at some point - just know that the fact that you're able to work through these problems and reformulate your arguments is putting you way above the vast majority of the state who just blindly follow the 'agree+agree+disagree' or 'TEEL' methods without even thinking
Hey,
Just have a quick question. Is it good to use colloquial language in creative pieces?
For example: My family will pull off another embarrassing moment.
I am just somewhat confused as my criteria states:
Spoiler
Highly expressive, fluent and coherent written language that employs the skilful and accurate use of appropriate conventions for stylistic effect. <--any recommendations?
Thanks,
Syndicate
Believability matters. If your character would believable use this phrase, then you can use it in your writing.
In fact, it's often worse to stick with a ridiculously formal/ 'essay-ish' tone if you're writing a creative or hybrid piece. Otherwise, you end up with clunky lines like: 'My family are indelibly flawed, and as a consequence of their somewhat neglectful parenting, I am left with an insufficient understanding of the world.' No one talks like that, right? So you shouldn't write like that if you're trying to encapsulate a believable voice for your character