English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)

[pikachu975]

It has been seen expect a bit of a delay with the lectures on this week!

Thanks! I know this is off topic but are you guys selling MX2 topic tests and will they run out before friday? Thanks!

[elysepopplewell]

Thanks! I know this is off topic but are you guys selling MX2 topic tests and will they run out before friday? Thanks!

Yes we are, and yes they will be available

[anotherworld2b]

Sorry if this has been seen. I just wanted to check if it has been noticed

Hi I've been trying to write a draft for a discursive essay. I tried to include what my teacher wanted to see in each paragraph.
I was hoping if someone could give me feedback on whether or not I am fulfilling what my teacher wants in terms of content.

Spoiler

Write an essay in which you discuss the values and attitudes that underpin this excerpt from Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space and the possible readings of that text. Use the ‘syllabus-arrowed’ notes and the ‘reading practices’ notes as a starting point for your discussion; comment on the language features that generate empathy or controversy; and conclude with an indication of whether, on balance, you approve or disapprove of Sagan’s perspective.

Inspired by the image of Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990, the excerpt of Carl Sagan’s book ‘Pale Blue Dot’ can be read as reflective of Sagan’s passionate perspective towards how science can be fantastic and improve our world. Sagan’s academic, proselytising and scientific voice further encapsulates this perspective. It represents the view of avid scientists of the time as being in a state of intrigue and curiosity towards exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life. In this excerpt Sagan explores various values and attitudes through the clever use of language features. However, the reader may have a resistant reading based on a differing socio-cultural context than Sagan himself.

Paragraph body #1
Discuss the values and attitudes that you believe underpin his perspective with supporting evidence from the text.
In this passage, Carl Sagan tries to underpin his passionate perspective towards how science can be fantastic in improving our world and fuel the thirst for knowledge beyond Earth through his values and attitudes. The pale blue dot described by Sagan represents Earth being ‘too small...sitting in a beam of light’. Sagan’s description of Earth being a pale blue dot underpins his perspective by inciting his readers to be receptive towards his perspective towards the exploration of the unknown by describing The Earth as a ‘very small stage in a vast cosmic arena’. It is significant that, while we see Sagan’s pro- science attitude, he also spends time is exploring the value of humility and a pro humanity attitude. Clearly, the pale blue dot, symbolic of Earth, has practical relevance to the way space research was often valued by Sagan as necessary because of what we could possibly learn and because of the possibility of extraterrestrial life in this extract.

Paragraph body # 2
Discuss the language features used by Sagan in generating empathy and/or controversy with supporting evidence from the text.
In this passage, the author tries to persuade readers that using vast amounts of money on space exploration is justifiable by the fact our lives, history and issues are insignificant when compared to the wide scope of potential space holds. The passage begins by using Earth as the central element of discussion in the extract. The passage uses the metaphor ‘The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena’  to enhance the reader's sense of isolation to what is being described and uses inclusive language - our tiny world - to create a sense of insignificance in the reader towards being on a tiny planet called Earth and lacking knowledge of what lies within space. The focus on our insignificance continues with the use of  sarcasm ‘as if there were some special significance to this small world’. The figurative language ‘ a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam’ is then used to further suggest the Earth’s relative insignificance, a theme developed throughout the piece. Having created a sense of insignificance and isolation amidst the vast galaxy, the passage then portrays space exploration in a positive light for what it reveals about our own world. The description of ‘astronomy’ being ‘a humbling and character-building experience’ is then used to suggest to the reader that space exploration is the best way to curb our sense of loneliness and insignificance by satisfying the craving for knowledge of the vast unknown. This makes space exploration seem inviting and exciting, generating empathy towards Sagan’s perspective. Thus the passage encourages its readers to feel a sense of receptiveness towards Sagan’s perspective towards space exploration being more valuable than our lives, history and issues.

Paragraph body #3
Discuss one alternative reading a reader can make of this text; such as a reading based on a historical/socio-cultural context or a reading based on religion or religious groups.
Published in 1994, American author and science communicator Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale blue Dot’ can be read as a scientist’s endeavour to encourage support towards space exploration. The text was created in an era of space exploration, an era when space exploration had its hits and misses, when some were questioning various countries’ involvement in space exploration when money could have been re-directed to social issues like poverty, employment and education. Derived from this a resistant reading might be that the vast amounts of money spent on space exploration could help eradicate hunger and suffering here on Earth. Space research is often valued as necessary because of what we learn and because of the possibility of other life out there. All indications so far, however, suggest that there is nothing like human or animal life out there, so where is the justification for the continuing expenditure? Furthermore, an alternative reading of ‘Pale blue dot’ can be seen as sad by the fact billions would need to be spent  on space research while thousands of people are suffering from poverty. A starving peasant does not need a photo from Saturn to be reminded that poverty is an issue on Earth. It instead confronts them with the government’s grandeur expenditure on needless things like space exploration rather than pressing issues on Earth. Thus an alternative reading a reader can make of this extract is that space exploration is not necessary and in a sense redundant when thousands of people are suffering from poverty and hunger on Earth.

[elysepopplewell]

Sorry if this has been seen. I just wanted to check if it has been noticed

So sorry for the delay anotherworld - we've been running our free lectures this week so we are behind on the marking front. I expect we'll get to this by the end of the weekend. I'm just trying to respond to as many of the smaller questions as I can now so that we can attack the essays!

[pikachu975]

So sorry for the delay anotherworld - we've been running our free lectures this week so we are behind on the marking front. I expect we'll get to this by the end of the weekend. I'm just trying to respond to as many of the smaller questions as I can now so that we can attack the essays!

All good, the lectures were pretty useful. Went to english only but it helped heaps, they should teach this stuff at school!!

[anotherworld2b]

It's all good. I just wanted to check if my post was noticed that's all

So sorry for the delay anotherworld - we've been running our free lectures this week so we are behind on the marking front. I expect we'll get to this by the end of the weekend. I'm just trying to respond to as many of the smaller questions as I can now so that we can attack the essays!

[mohanedibrahim1]

Hi there, how can we prepare for English paper 1 short answer questions if we have no clue what we going to be asked

[Arib]

Hey people this is my first time posting in these forums! i wanted a Mod B essay checked out. Im doing speeches for this module. Question is: Speeches have been described as ‘passionate and insightful responses to perceived injustices in the modern world’. To what extent does this perspective align with your understanding of the speeches set for study? In your response, make detailed reference to at least TWO of the speeches set for study.
For a speech to have an impact it must be passionate and present insightful ideas. In order to achieve this impact, the destructive consequences of injustice must be highlighted. This ideology is inherent in Anwar Sadat’s Speech to the Israeli Knesset (1977) in which he attempts to establish unity between Egypt and Israel by promoting peace and justice. Sadat relies heavily on religious allusions and emotive language to develop a commonality within the audience and achieve his main purpose of establishing peace whilst devaluing war. Paul Keating’s Redfern Park Address (1992) also adheres to a concept of unity by launching the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People. He acknowledges the wrong doings of the non-Indigenous Australians and attempts to persuade all Australians to support and participate in reconciliation. Through the employment of rhetoric, both orators are able to engage their respective audiences and deliver insightful and passionate responses.
Effective speeches use inclusive rhetoric to resonate the orators’ requests for ceasing conflict in their contexts. Sadat’s speech is successful in encouraging the end to the wars in the Middle East by powerfully impelling his audience to cease the endless tension of the “Arab-Israeli conflict”. The adverse consequences of this conflict are symbolised by the recurring metaphor in, “And yet a wall remained, a psychological barrier.” This metonymy induces pathos in the Israeli Knesset to overcome the metaphorical ‘barrier’ of the religious conflict and “shape a new life and establish peace”. Sadat’s perspective is further demonstrated in the line, “For the sake of them all, for the safeguard of the lives of all our sons and brothers…” The inclusive pronoun ‘our’ depicts how the injustices caused by the conflict between the two nations impacts adversely on both sides. Furthermore, “the battle of permanent peace based on justice” figuratively resembles Sadat’s untainted ambition to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, adhering to ethos to resonate his advocacy for ‘justice’ to the modern world. Through the use of rhetoric, Sadat passionately requests for the recognition of the injustices triggered by war and conflict.
Similarly, Keating employs rhetoric to expose the injustice faced by the Aboriginal People of Australia. He begins his speech by mentioning a “test” regarding the full recognition of the Indigenous people, and the speech is built on this extended metaphor as he conveys how Australians “have always failed”. The idiomatic simplicity of this metaphor resonates with a diverse audience, igniting a sense of inherent failure within them. The high modality of “always” makes the failure more distressing and further reinforces the need to pass this ‘test’ and achieve fair recognition of the suffering that Indigenous people have withstood. Keating uses the word “imagine” as an anaphoric imperative; “Imagine if we had resisted…Imagine if we had suffered the injustice and were blamed for it”. This implicit appeal to pathos conveys the Aboriginal experience while causing his non-Indigenous audience to reflect on the injustices faced by these people, and thus sympathise with them. Therefore, both orators utilise various language features and rhetoric to illuminate the injustices faced in their contexts; thereby, showing that speeches are passionate and insightful responses to conflict and suffering.
Outstanding orators address the exigencies present at the time but also provide resolutions for these issues. Sadat demonstrates the need for peace and justice and also creates a pathway leading to that outcome. The speech begins with “In the name of God, the Gracious and Merciful”. By calling upon the mercy of God to support his mission for peace, Sadat appeals to a high authority recognised by both the Israelis as well as the Egyptians, thus unifying them from the instigation of his speech. He states, with passion, “we all, Muslims, Christians and Jews, worship God and no one but one God” bringing into focus what unites the three parties; their humanity and their faith. The repetition of ‘God’ and the inclusive pronoun reaffirms the oneness of God and allows Sadat to effectively appeal to logos. He recites a quote from the Quran, “We believe in God and we make no distinction between them.” The anaphora of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ fortifies his belief that the inherent conflict could only be resolved by unification. Thus, it is clear that the exigency of unity has shaped Sadat’s central idea of “peace based on justice”, therefore displaying the passion involved in the presentation of this speech.
Similarly, Keating addresses the injustices faced by the Aboriginal people and also provides a coherent resolution to the issues. The speech converges to the second ‘section’, where Keating provides a trail for the audience to follow in order to achieve national reconciliation. He makes use of an optimistic and anecdotal tone in, “…Australians of the 1960s imagined a culturally diverse, worldly and open Australia, and in a generation turned the idea into reality, so we can turn the goals of reconciliation into reality”, to provide his vastly Aboriginal audience with hope of reconciliation and the recognition of their culture. Keating further adds, “the process has already begun.” Through political jargon such as, “Reconciliation Council…establishment of the ATSIC” he is able to present himself as a person with great integrity, allowing him to further connect with his audience. Thus, both speakers introduce exigencies present at their times as well as specific resolutions to end the injustices faced by the people. Thereby, showing the level of passion and insightfulness contained in the speeches.
In summation, both Anwar Sadat’s “Statement to the Israeli Knesset” and Paul Keating’s “Redfern Park Address” employ rhetoric and language features to address the injustices and attempt to facilitate a change within their respective contexts. Hence, speeches are works that require passionate delivery and insightful ideas to resonate in the modern world.

I really want to add critic commentary in my essay but max I can write is 1000 words in 40 min so can u suggest how I can add these comments?!
Sadat: -“Unlike so many of his brother Arab leaders, he was willing to ignore past Arab-Israeli hatreds. Unlike them all, he was daring enough to do what had been unthinkable in the anguished world of Arab politics - to extend the hand of peace to the Israeli foe.” – NY times. Shows his passion for the oration has been recognised by the audience.
Keating - “especially brilliant oratorical moment, especially given the context in which it was performed.” – Tom Clark (CTV News) shows it has resonated over time and still applauded today.

[savannahhughes00]

Hi!
I haven't been on the forum before so sorry if I'm not doing this right... I've pasted in my Mod B essay below, any feedback would be amazing x

In the exploration of political relationships, both Machiavelli’s (1532) The Prince and William Shakespeare’s 16th century play Julius Caesar invite audiences to question the connection between private morality and effective leadership as the basis of leaders’ views are uncovered in tense political circumstances. Whilst The Prince stands as a treatise to Lorenzo Di Medici as he aims to redirect the warring Italian Peninsula, Julius Caesar responds to political instability following multiple assassination attempts of heirless Queen Elizabeth I, in its representation of of human conflict. Human nature is explored through political relationships; as Brutus refuses to come to terms with Machiavellian leadership in seeking Rome’s best interests, and Antony effectively employs such leadership in creating a perceived sense of morality in his manipulation of both Brutus and the public. In this, both texts consider the connection between morality and effective political leadership by providing insight into a range of political relationships.

The Prince questions the strategic benefits of morality to the acquisition of power, guided by his personal relationships and overall view of human nature. Machiavelli articulates this in saying “if you want to play the good man in a world where most people are not good, you’ll end up badly.”, his political standpoint prompted by the standpoint of the public in his pragmatic approach. He furthers this notion in his doubts of society’s morality, describing people as “ungrateful” and “unreliable”, again taking cues from the morality of society in sharing “since they are a sad lot and won’t be keeping their promises to you, you hardly need to keep yours to them.”. This cynical outlook largely directs his political standpoint as he does not prioritize morality. He defends this notion with contextual examples, as “Pope Alexander VI never did anything but con people…yet his deceptions always worked, because he knew this side of human nature.” Not only does Machiavelli reflect society’s lack of morality, but takes confidence in the success of other leaders in their understanding of the imperfection of human nature. Thus, The Prince questions the role of morality in political situations, grounded on Machiavelli’s personal relationships and experience with human nature.

Disregarding Machiavellian ideals, Brutus adopts a moralistic standpoint through his relentless pursuit for an honourable relationship with the people of Rome, in a situation where pragmatics are required. He establishes himself in saying “I love/The name of honour more than I fear death”, highlighting that every action he takes is motivated by the “greater good” of Rome. Foreseeing the threat that Caesar’s ambition poses to this good in his soliloquy “it is the bright day that bring forth the adder”, he comes to be “with himself at war”, struggling to be honourable in both his relationship with Caesar and his relationship with the public. Following the suggestions of Machiavelli, he not only foresees but forestalls this problem in deciding protecting Rome “must be by (Caesar’s) death”. In this it becomes apparent that Brutus sees the act not as an assassination, but a necessary and honourable act for the good of Rome. Still struggling with the idea of killing his close friend for a common good, he urges the conspirators to be “sacrificers, but not butchers”, in carving “him as a dish fit for the gods”. This is epitomised as he declares to the public “ambitions debt is paid”, reinforcing the honour of his actions not only to the people of Rome, but to himself. In this it becomes apparent that Brutus is a character motivated by honour, seen both in his relationships with Caesar and the people, as he struggles to honour both in conflicting circumstances.

Unlike Brutus, Machiavelli holds a lack of faith in human nature, which he meets with shrewd leadership, largely disregarding morality in his exploitation of the public in order to consolidate power. He understands that politics cannot be governed by ethical codes, and thus works slyly in order to achieve his personal goals. Machiavelli explores this through zoomorphism, as he shares “you have to play the fox to see the snares and play the lion to scare the wolves”. Here he expresses that two distinctive qualities are needed in leadership. Leaders must be both sly like a fox in order to outsmart opposition, alternate leadership or that of the public, and also must employ qualities of a lion in order to scare away potential threat. Focusing more closely on the public, Machiavelli writes “you must either pamper people or destroy them; harm them just a little and they’ll hit back; harm them seriously and they won’t be able to.”, highlighting how he employs political strategy, largely disregarding morality, in order to eliminate opposition and consolidate power. Value is seen in perceived morals, as Machiavelli notes “it is absolutely imperative that (leaders) seem to possess them”, with appearances being more critical to effective leadership than true morality. This is epitomised in Machiavelli’s exploration of fear and love. He questions “is it better to be loved or feared?” concluding that “it’s safer to be feared than loved”, emphasising that while Machiavelli respects moral principles, he recognizes them as incompatible to the acquisition and maintaining of power, preferring to motivate the public out of fear. Thus, The Prince sees leadership advice stemming from a lack of faith in human morality, largely impacting the nature of political leaders.

Unlike Brutus, Antony is a man who can engage with moral ambiguity, largely following Machiavellian principles as he forms relationships motivated by manipulation and personal gain. As Machiavelli writes “men are so ready to congratulate themselves”, Antony employs flattery on Brutus in describing him as “noble, wise, valiant and honest”. This leads Brutus to believe he “shall have (Antony) well to friend”, allowing Antony to exploit the relationship having secured Brutus’s trust. Antony does this in publicly incriminating Brutus for the murder of Julius Caesar, undermining him in his monologue as he repeats “Brutus is an honourable man”. In positioning the public, Antony exercises dramatic techniques, making use of pauses in sharing “My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar/And I must pause till it come back to me”. He furthers this through negatio, as he “must not read” Caesar’s will. Whilst he leads the public to believe he is saving them heartache, Antony only makes the public more desperate for information, thus using his skills of rhetoric to manipulate the general public. Whilst Antony manipulates his relationship with the public, he also recognizes situations where it is appropriate to employ honour. This is seen as he closes the play in eulogizing Brutus, who kills himself to maintain his honour. Antony addresses the people in saying Brutus was “the noblest Roman of them all”, concluding that “This was a man!”, his deep respect for Brutus’s morality finally being made plain. In this, he uses his Machiavellian skills of rhetoric to befriend Brutus, whilst incriminating him and increasing his own perceived character in the minds of the Plebeian public, highlighting a disregard for morals in the midst of political gains.

In conclusion, both The Prince and Julius Caesar take a pragmatic approach to morality, in that while characters respect morality, they see it as incompatible with effective political leadership. Morality is seen as a compromising factor as Brutus is conflicted by situational demands, with naivety leading to exploitation and ultimate demise. Contrastingly, The Prince does not consider morality to this extent, disregard being justified by the imperfection of human nature, encouraging leaders to be firm and strategic in their approaches in order to maximise the extent of their control. Thus, morality largely draws out similarities between the texts in their prioritising of power over morality.

[Nialllovespie]

Hiya!

This is my King Henry IV essay.

It's my worse essay I've written and needs a lot of work but oh well here's draft one.

I would really appreciate if someone could give some feedback! Thank you!

Power and politics is a multiplex interaction of an individual's political motivation and actions exploited to manipulate, persuade and influence individuals and the society contemporary to them. The key facet to understanding the relationship between power and politics is to examine how people and politics is represented, the political motivations of individuals and the impact of political acts on individual lives and society. William Shakespeare's historical play, Henry IV Part 1, was set during the social and political turmoil of early 15th century England and examines the themes regarding the legitimacy of sovereignty and honour by commenting on the personal qualities and assets that are most important for a successful leader.

Shakespeare examines the legitimacy of sovereignty through the representation of characters with competing roles and their demonstrations of leadership. Hals leadership qualities are juxtaposed against that of his contemporaries; Hot Spur and King Henry IV. Henry the IV part 1, centers upon the turbulence of civil war as it acts as an indirect commentary on the contextual concerns of succession and leadership faced by England. King Richard II’s deposition is described by Hotspur through the horticultural imagery in ‘put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose / and plant this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke’. The contrast between the pleasant imagery of King Richard as a ‘sweet lovely rose’ juxtaposed against the brutal tone of King Henry as a ‘thorn’ and then a ‘canker’ expresses Hotspurs disapproval of Henry illegally inheriting the throne and further amplifies his perception of England as a garden that is on the cusp of ruin and decay. Prince Hal denies he is the mischievous person he appears to be as he uses visual imagery to describe how his friends ‘cloud’ and ‘smother up’ his true nature and further compares himself to the sun, through the rhetorical question ‘Yet herein will I imitate the sun?’ to highlight his true ‘beauty’. Furthermore, Hal declares his true ‘beauty’ will be revealed by ‘breaking through the foul and ugly mists’ where by the visual imagery amplifies the audiences’ stunned reaction from his transformation. Hal, through first person narration and soliloquy, confesses to the audience, “My reformation, glittering o’er my fault, Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes.” drawing upon his expectations for the audience to be more loyal and obedient when he is king. Furthermore, it elevates his debut and demonstrates the ability of his politically savvy nature to manipulate his image, and influence the nobles and his own reputation hence questioning the legitimacy of sovereignty within the play. Likewise, Shakespeare presents King Henry IV as a shrewd politician whose perception of power and his role as King signifies his potential to control and manipulate others. King Henry is aware of the impact of his political actions through the alliteration and synecdoche ‘By being seldom seen / that I did pluck allegiance from men's hearts’ illustrating that his awareness will impact his political image and attitude. Therefore Shakespeare has clearly represented that in the contest of legitimacy for sovereignty, Hal is the most competent to pose the position of a King that will lead England to prosperity.


The representation of people and politics is seen through an individual's tactics of deception and manipulation that reveal their honour, or lack of. Hal’s in his soliloquy admits that his political strategy is ‘like bright metal on sullen ground’ by foreshadowing the effects of his conspiratorial ideas. The simile symbolises his manipulation of public opinion through his political actions and further juxtaposes him as character when he stated, ‘My reformation…shall show more goodly and attract more eyes’. Furthermore, Hal foreshadows his reformation through metaphor as ‘glitt’ring’ drawing upon the dramatic irony of his incompetence for the position and elucidates his political strategy by manipulating and influencing others for his own political desires. The nature of Henry IV’s political authority employs contrasting tactics to Hal ‘by being solemn seen...but like a comet I wondered at’ drawing insight to the celestial imagery portraying the effectiveness of his aristocratic distance rather than companionship as political assets. Shakespeare represents Hotspur as having matrimonial leadership during times of war, as an archaic knight and a warrior prince illustrated when King Henry states enviously that “My Lord Northumberland is blest with / A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue.” The set up, foreshadows the qualities of which Hal will acquire as he moves closer to his predestined role as King Henry V. Furthermore, the juxtaposition and personification in ‘Honours tongue’ symbolises Hotspurs intentions whilst the metaphor ‘straightest plant’ utilised in King Henry’s address compares Hotspurs appropriacy for the heir contrasted against Prince Hal’s inadequacy through the brutal tone in ‘riot and dishonour stain the brow’. Shakespeare presents the human nature as driven by one’s political motivations and strategies they acquire to meet their own desires despite their inadequacy and incompetence to act as a political role model.


William Shakespeare’s ‘King Henry IV Part One’ draws upon the interaction between people and politics by invariably exposing aspects of human nature that are tied to political motivations and strategies. The thematic concerns regarding the legitimacy of sovereignty and honour are evident throughout the play as political models embody strategies whilst pursuing for their personal advantage in spite of political provocations.

Thank you again!

Nia )

[bholenath125]

Hi Guys,

I have a module B, T.S. Eliot essay that I was hoping to get marked. Unfortunately, the last time I posted something to get marked it actually didnt get marked...so although I have 30 posts I have still only gotten one marking done.


Would it be okay for me to post my essay here?

[bholenath125]

Hi there, how can we prepare for English paper 1 short answer questions if we have no clue what we going to be asked

Hey Mohanedibrahim1,

The paper 1 is definitely a very important paper because its the one all of NSW shares. The short answer section is definitely something that I struggled with as well and I believe the best way to prepare for them is practise. I'm sorry for this generic advice but I still hope it helps.

The first step is to go to the Area of Study Rubric on the NESA website. You need to know what the module is essentially about. From thereon, just search practice paper 1 discovery on the internet, and you'll find tonnes of papers you can work. In terms of getting feedback, I can recommend someone who you can email your work to and he can give you extremely helpful advice but most of the time, I think, if you just refer to the rubric statements and practise analysing, you will be able to solidify your understanding of Discovery and be able to answer the short answer section, skilfully.

[beau77bro]

I'm trying to hand write any and all notes/work from now on, is it possible to get handwritten essays marked by you guys or should i type and edit them before hand?

[jamonwindeyer]

I'm trying to hand write any and all notes/work from now on, is it possible to get handwritten essays marked by you guys or should i type and edit them before hand?

Handwritten should be fine! Just give us a way to look at the images, and comments will be at the end not throughout obviously

Sorry for the delay in marking guys! We've been resting over the weekend to recover from lectures, we're resuming marking this evening and tomorrow!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello!
I was wondering if someone could please take a look at my Mod B Speech plans? Specifically, if the quotes work well with my ideas/thesis statements.
Thank you! 

Hey Beth! Sorry this took a while, but a few comments on your plans:

- Love the ideas you've put forward for Atwood's speeches, though be careful you distinguish between "common human values" and the ideas Atwood puts forward. There could be crossover there! I think on the whole you are using good evidence and supporting your argument effectively - In the second body paragraph, watch the use of rhetorical question in your own writing. Keep things academic. Also watch for places where you discuss Atwood's intention specifically but perhaps not how it relates to a greater theme or resonates with wider audiences - Those are important to consider too

- Ditto for Sadat, you are considering intent well and including the contextual audience in how the technique is used and received. You've also given evidence of effectiveness. I'm not super sure about your second idea for this speech though, it doesn't quite mesh with the first idea. In one you are saying, "Challenge perceptions," the other you are sort of saying, "Those perceptions need to form foundation for the speech," it is an interesting play off but I am personally unsure about it!

- Excellent consideration of what you are arguing when choosing techniques for Keating. Paragraph #1 is all about emotion and that is where all your techniques for the paragraph revolve around the creation of emotion. Great work there! For your second body paragraph, the idea is very text specific, meaning, you are relying a lot on the specific context of Keating to establish it. Be careful, you want to be able to make more universal links!

- Great work on Pearson too - Especially like you considering links/contradictions between the speakers, I'd like to see more of that! It is important to keep in mind how to draw connections between all the different speeches.

Not much to suggest, I think these will work well for you