Practice LA would appreciate feedback

[Callum@1373]

Article is here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/internet-shines-a-light-on-predators/story-fni0fhh1-1227110066022

Word length: 1161

Analysis

Public attention directed towards American comedian Bill Cosby’s alleged sex-related crimes has sparked concern on how he has kept his high status from corrupting due to public opinion. Rita Panahi’s opinion piece, ‘Internet shines a light on predators’, contends that Bill Cosby as well as other celebrities should not be allowed to commit and get away with horrid crimes because of their power and in turn should be made to face the repercussions of their actions. A photograph of Cosby is also included with the piece which targets Cosby to support Panahi’s stance.

Panahi’s title immediately accustoms readers to believing Cosby is a predator as it states that the internet has ‘shine[d] a light on predators’, to which the photograph of Cosby indeed has him in the ray of a light. This contributes to the description of Cosby as a ‘sexual deviant’, when paired positions readers to have a genuine dislike for Cosby as he is a predator (which has connotations of an attacking aggressive animal) who is ‘prey[ing]’ on ‘vulnerable young women’. The choice of the word ‘vulnerable’ acts as an emotional appeal to readers, with an effect most targeting parents, positions them to feel that their children’s wellbeing is at risk as they are vulnerable to the crimes of men such as Cosby. Penahi uses alliteration such as ‘family-friendly’ and ‘father figure’ to mock the nature of Cosby as a caring, mature individual through his celebrity personnel, to compel readers to consider the darker side of Cosby that they do not see on a medium like television. Penahi states that allegations have occurred over the time span of ‘several decades’, which suggests to readers that they should take action against him as Cosby has gone too long as a guilty criminal. The reasons behind this are made evident to readers, with Penahi stating that it is because of a ‘powerful team of lawyers’. In doing so, Penahi aims to frustrate readers as they are likely to believe that Cosby is getting away from his crimes not because he did not commit them, but because he has used his wealth to hire lawyers and thus the less wealthy side of the audience are likely to be offended by this notion as they would not have the resources to escape from said situations. The need to raise more concern on this issue is highlighted to readers as Cosby’s alleged crimes have ‘remained largely unexplored’ in the media, convincing readers to take action against Cosby to create a larger profile of such crimes.

    Panahi keeps a neutral tone while highlighting the extensive effects that Cosby’s alleged crimes have made. Highlighting these effects at a personnel level through Barbara Bowman, Penahi attempts to influence readers into believing that Cosby should be shamed for his actions. The notion that Bowman had ‘dreams of an acting career’ accentuates the devastating effect Cosby has made on an individual as readers are more likely to compel with someone whose ‘dreams’ were crushed than any ordinary girl. Bowman’s four quotes are written with an enthusiastic tone which Panahi uses to give a different perspective to a sub-audience of individuals who know someone who has or have been assaulted by Cosby, as the ‘courage’ shown from ‘the voice of women’ is likely to inspire aforementioned individuals to take action against Cosby.

Panahi shifts her tone to frustration as she attempts to further position readers to disgust Cosby. Panahi probes on the idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words ‘remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event. Panahi further uses the metaphor ‘predator’ when stating that Cosby ‘preyed on impressionable young women’. The adjective ‘impressionable’ attempts to elicit a devastated emotional response from readers, as they would feel very sorry for a girl who was manipulated by a predator because of their weaker, more positive side which was centred on ‘their careers’.

By shifting her argument to a comparison of Cosby to Rolf Harris, Penahi positions readers to consider how the two are similar. By stating that Cosby was ‘Like Rolf Harris before him’, readers are persuaded into considering the dark crimes that Harris committed and associating the same feeling of Harris to Cosby. Panahi moves her focus towards the general public in lieu of Cosby himself to give the public the feeling that they could be responsible for Cosby getting away with his alleged crimes. The question primarily directed to readers asking if ‘the media and the public elevate[d]’ Cosby to a  position where he was ‘virtually beyond reproach’ insists to readers that they feel slightly guilty for Cosby getting away as it was them giving him the popularity that made him so ‘untouchable’ that concern directed towards his actions could be ‘brushed’ over. In doing so, Panahi aims to instil fear into readers so that they are then likely to not show any fan behaviour towards him as it would only lead to him getting away with the allegations of abuse.

A photograph of Cosby holding his hands at shoulder level with a stressed look on his face has been included in the opinion piece to support Panahi’s leading contention. The positioning of his hands appears Cosby is attempting to calm down a large audience, thus causing readers to feel hatred towards him as it appears he is guilty but trying to get away with alleged crimes. The close up shot and centred head make it clear to readers that he is the target that should be put to public concern. It also further highlights the more subtle features of Crosby, his stressed skin and unrelaxed facial gesture suggest to readers that he is disturbed, to which readers are likely to see as a sign he is guilty of his alleged crimes.

Panahi states that Cosby has ‘never publicly addressed’ the serious allegations made against him which emphasises how Cosby has little morale to admit to his actions, which in turn was made clear to readers that he uses a ‘powerful team of lawyers’ to get away with them, thus compelling readers to see him as not the ‘family man’, but in a starkly more negative way. By finishing her argument with the sentence that Cosby is ‘becoming a pariah’, Panahi leaves readers to only agree with this description from previous evidence and thus finish reading the piece with a strong negative view towards Cosby.

Panahi’s opinion piece puts forward the notion that Bill Crosby is an alleged sex offender and should not be able to use his power to get himself out of the allegations placed against him. With a overly frustrated and angry tone, Pariah’s argument is likely to spark further debate on Bill Crosby in the future.

[thaaanyan]

This is my first time marking and i'm just basing this on what i was taught, if you were taught something else, it's cool just follow that instead.

Public attention directed towards American comedian Bill Cosby’s alleged sex-related crimes has sparked concern on how he has kept his high status from corrupting ("high status from corrupting" is kind of an awkward word choice, also if you look at what the article is  concerned about, it's talking about the lack of public reprobration Cosby receives and how in turn this means he keeps an unmarred public image) due to public opinion. Rita Panahi’s opinion piece, ‘Internet shines a light on predators’, contends that Bill Cosby as well as other celebrities should not be allowed to commit and get away with horrid crimes because of their power and in turn should be made to face the repercussions of their actions. i'd say this is more of a sub argument and not really the focus of her piece. the contention is more the  idea that all individuals should face public repercussions for their illegal actions, Cosby included. A photograph of Cosby is also included with the piece which targets Cosby to support Panahi’s stance. tone? target audience? i know some schools don't bother with tone but having a target audience is a good idea

Panahi’s title you need to quote the title. whenever you start a section of analysis show us the full quote before analyzing sections of it immediately accustoms readers (dodgy wording) to believing Cosby is a predator as it states that the internet has ‘shine[d] a light on predators’, to which the photograph of Cosby indeed has him in the ray of a light. Okay so here's the thing. you have provided me with a quote and an inclusion of the image but no analysis and more importantly no effect. all your marks are in the effect. try to make it more explicit FOR EXAMPLE: "In having the light shine directly down on Cosby's forehead within the accompanying photo Panahi seeks to magnify that the internet has "shine[d] a light on predators" the clear pun as played out through the title and the visual thus magnify the nature of......in turn thus forcing the audience to consider.....blah blah" This contributes to the description of Cosby as a ‘sexual deviant’,  when paired (your language says your moving on to bigger analysis but there isn't much effect yet positions readers to have a genuine dislike for Cosby (this is too superficial. you need to start looking at this from the perspective of a very emotional member of the audience  - think as the audience not as the writer - i am going to feel disgusted, appalled, filled with righteous indignation, furious is someone who i believe was a national icon and role model is secretly a sadistic violent asshole)  as he is a predator (which has connotations of an attacking aggressive animal) intergrate this into your sentence, also WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THIS!! who is ‘prey[ing]’ on ‘vulnerable young women’. The choice of the word ‘vulnerable’ good your going into micro analysisacts as an emotional appeal (appeal to what emotion?? specify you're too broad) to readers, with an effect most targeting parents (messy wording also what is the effect say it in that line if you start out by saying "a effect" it's too broad and ugh) , positions (find good synonyms you've used this too many times) them to feel that their children’s wellbeing is at risk as they are vulnerable to the crimes of men such as Cosby. Penahi uses alliteration such as ‘family-friendly’ and ‘father figure’ to mock the erroneous public perception of Cosby's naturenature of Cosby as to be a caring, mature individual through his celebrity personnel to compel readers to consider the darker side of Cosby that they do not see on a medium like television MORE EFFECT, FEELINGS TOO. Penahi states that allegations have occurred over the time span of ‘several decades’, which suggests to readers that they should take action against him as Cosby has gone too long as a guilty criminal good but a bit basic, ask yourself why does the phrase "several decades" promote this response. The reasons behind this are made evident to readers, with Penahi stating that it is because of a ‘powerful team of lawyers’. In doing so, Penahi aims to frustrate readers as they are likely to believe that Cosby is getting away from his crimes not because he did not commit them, but because he has used his wealth to hire lawyers and thus the less wealthy side of the audience are likely to be offended by this notion as they would not have the resources to escape from said situations. join this sentence with your last one, analysis and effect should be in one continuous flow where you can so you can kinda see the direct impact of language also the effect is really basic. as a  law abiding member of the audience i would care more about the fact that his money makes him impervious to the laws of justice and thus more likely to take action; look beyond surface level The need to raise more concern on this issue is highlighted to readers as Cosby’s alleged crimes have ‘remained largely unexplored’ in the media, convincing readers to take action against Cosby to create a larger profile of such crimes.

    Panahi keeps a neutral tone while highlighting the extensive effects too vague, go for "highlighting grievous repercussions of Cosby's alleged crimes on the victim's livelihood and welfare" that Cosby’s alleged crimes have made (tone is a device WHY has she used a neutral tone? what is the impact of her neutral tone on the audience? . Highlighting (find another word) these effects at a personnel (personal?) level through the anecdotal use of evidence in the testimony of rape victi,Barbara Bowman, Penahi attempts to influence readers into believing that Cosby should be shamed for his actions.This is her intention Pehani wants readers to believe XYZ, this is NOT the effect on the readers The notion that Bowman had ‘dreams of an acting career’ accentuates the devastating effect Cosby has made on an individual as readers are more likely to compel with someone whose ‘dreams’ were crushed morethan any ordinary girl. Bowman’s four quotes are written with an enthusiastic tone (why is there a shift in tone? effect?which Panahi uses to give a different perspective to a sub-audience of individuals who know someone who has or have been assaulted by Cosby, as the ‘courage’ shown from ‘the voice of women’ is likely to inspire aforementioned individuals to take action against Cosby. identify the audience don't just say some people who will be inspired are likely to go do something about, look beyond that

Panahi shifts her tone to one of frustration (why does she do this? what is the effect?) as she attempts to further position readers to disgust Cosby bad wording, you've also used the effect of disgust on the reader already. dig deeper the reader will not just feel one thing. Panahi probes on intothe idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words ‘remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event. In doing this Panahi brings to light just how often acts of sexual violence occur without public awareness, further accentuating growing anger and fury within audiences who have grown to despise Cosby as a man who is all to willing to manipulate the power of his reputation in order to escape the public limelight.... (you need to work on effect, something along the lines of this sentence) Panahi further uses the metaphor ‘predator’ when stating that Cosby ‘preyed on impressionable young women’. The adjective ‘impressionable’ attempts to elicits a devastated clunky expression emotional response from readers, as they would feel very sorry for a girl who was manipulated by a predator because of their weaker, more positive side which was centred on ‘their careers’. (what you're trying to say in this sentence isn't comeing through. fix expression.

By shifting her argument to a comparison of Cosby to Rolf Harris,Penahi positions readers to consider how the two are similar. Penahi shifts her argument to a comparison between Cosby to convicted rapist Rolf HarisBy stating that Cosby was proclaiming that (too many words, put in once sentence ‘Like Rolf Harris before him’, readers are persuaded into considering the dark crimes that Harris committed and associating the same feeling of Harris to Cosby. and therefore the readers feel....? Panahi moves her focus towards the general public in lieu of Cosby himself to give the public the feeling that they could be responsible for Cosby getting away with his alleged crimes. too much of describing Panahi is DOING, more analysis The question primarily directed to readers asking if ‘the media and the public elevate[d]’ Cosby to a  position where he was ‘virtually beyond reproach’ insists to readers that they feel slightly guilty for Cosby getting away as it was them giving him the popularity that made him so ‘untouchable’ that concern directed towards his actions could be ‘brushed’ over. In doing so, Panahi aims to instil fear into readers so that they are then likely to not show any fan behaviour towards him as it would only lead to him getting away with the allegations of abuse. In doing so Panahi emphasizes the necessity of social vigilance, as readers are made to understand that no individual is above the scrutiny of the law....

A photograph of Cosby holding his hands at shoulder level with a stressed look on his face has been included in the opinion piece to support Panahi’s leading contention (this sort of stuff is the vague bits which have been dragging this piece down, what parts of her contention? why is it positioned there? . The positioning of his hands appears Cosby is attempting to calm down a large audience, thus causing readers to feel hatred towards him as it appears he is guilty but trying to get away with alleged crimes. more effect The close up shot and centred head make it clear to readers that he is the target that should be put to public concern (clunk expression) . It also further highlights the more subtle features of Crosby, his stressed skin and unrelaxed facial gesture suggest to readers that he is disturbed, to which readers are likely to see as a sign he is guilty of his alleged crimes.how? how does a stressed facial expression = disturbed?

Panahi states that Cosby has ‘never publicly addressed’ the serious allegations made against him which emphasises as readers are in turn made to infer Cosby's how Cosby has little lack of morale in refusing to admit to his actions. which in turn was made clear to readers that he uses a ‘powerful team of lawyers’ to get away with them, thus compelling readers to see him as not the ‘family man’, but in a starkly more negative way. (wording? also what is the point of this sentence? like this all stuff that panahi is doing and no effect) By finishing her argument with the sentence that Cosby is ‘becoming a pariah’, Panahi leaves readers to only agree with this description from previous evidence (don't do this! vague!and thus finish reading the piece with a strong negative view (to vague, what negative view is this? is it mild dislike or raging firs of anger and distress specify!!!!!!!!) towards Cosby.

Panahi’s opinion piece puts forward the notion that Bill Crosby is an alleged sex offender and should not be able to use his power to get himself out of the allegations placed against him. With a overly frustrated and angry tone, Pariah’s argument is likely to spark further debate on Bill Crosby in the future. idk if you've been told to end like this, if you have and this is what the teacher wants then its fine but if not then this doesn't really do anything but summarise, maybe try concluding on the way that the article has ended

sorry if you find this super harsh! i promise its not said with malice or anything. i used to be exactly where you were at and i improved through practice. hope this helps you.
basic stuff for you to fix:
- no more vague "and this positions them to agree with the writer's contention"
- effect for the love of god
- expression sometimes
- it seems formulaic. you use the phrase "positions the reader too much" and your effect is just a single adjective. not enough. WHY do they have that effect? HOW does the use of this word create that effect?
- go DEEPER with your analysis, it's all surface level
things which you did good and should be happy with and continue doing:
- good coherency and sentence flow
- good integration of quotes
- i'm glad that sometimes you go into micro analysis by picking out exact wording, you just need to magnify effect more
- good take on the visuals. you definitely need to flesh it out more but you've connected it with the text which is good and you had a general idea of what to write here

[brenden]

This is my first time marking and i'm just basing this on what i was taught, if you were taught something else, it's cool just follow that instead.

Public attention directed towards American comedian Bill Cosby’s alleged sex-related crimes has sparked concern on how he has kept his high status from corrupting ("high status from corrupting" is kind of an awkward word choice, also if you look at what the article is  concerned about, it's talking about the lack of public reprobration Cosby receives and how in turn this means he keeps an unmarred public image) due to public opinion. Rita Panahi’s opinion piece, ‘Internet shines a light on predators’, contends that Bill Cosby as well as other celebrities should not be allowed to commit and get away with horrid crimes because of their power and in turn should be made to face the repercussions of their actions. i'd say this is more of a sub argument and not really the focus of her piece. the contention is more the  idea that all individuals should face public repercussions for their illegal actions, Cosby included. A photograph of Cosby is also included with the piece which targets Cosby to support Panahi’s stance. tone? target audience? i know some schools don't bother with tone but having a target audience is a good idea

Panahi’s title you need to quote the title. whenever you start a section of analysis show us the full quote before analyzing sections of it immediately accustoms readers (dodgy wording) to believing Cosby is a predator as it states that the internet has ‘shine[d] a light on predators’, to which the photograph of Cosby indeed has him in the ray of a light. Okay so here's the thing. you have provided me with a quote and an inclusion of the image but no analysis and more importantly no effect. all your marks are in the effect. try to make it more explicit FOR EXAMPLE: "In having the light shine directly down on Cosby's forehead within the accompanying photo Panahi seeks to magnify that the internet has "shine[d] a light on predators" the clear pun as played out through the title and the visual thus magnify the nature of......in turn thus forcing the audience to consider.....blah blah" This contributes to the description of Cosby as a ‘sexual deviant’,  when paired (your language says your moving on to bigger analysis but there isn't much effect yet positions readers to have a genuine dislike for Cosby (this is too superficial. you need to start looking at this from the perspective of a very emotional member of the audience  - think as the audience not as the writer - i am going to feel disgusted, appalled, filled with righteous indignation, furious is someone who i believe was a national icon and role model is secretly a sadistic violent asshole)  as he is a predator (which has connotations of an attacking aggressive animal) intergrate this into your sentence, also WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THIS!! who is ‘prey[ing]’ on ‘vulnerable young women’. The choice of the word ‘vulnerable’ good your going into micro analysisacts as an emotional appeal (appeal to what emotion?? specify you're too broad) to readers, with an effect most targeting parents (messy wording also what is the effect say it in that line if you start out by saying "a effect" it's too broad and ugh) , positions (find good synonyms you've used this too many times) them to feel that their children’s wellbeing is at risk as they are vulnerable to the crimes of men such as Cosby. Penahi uses alliteration such as ‘family-friendly’ and ‘father figure’ to mock the erroneous public perception of Cosby's naturenature of Cosby as to be a caring, mature individual through his celebrity personnel to compel readers to consider the darker side of Cosby that they do not see on a medium like television MORE EFFECT, FEELINGS TOO. Penahi states that allegations have occurred over the time span of ‘several decades’, which suggests to readers that they should take action against him as Cosby has gone too long as a guilty criminal good but a bit basic, ask yourself why does the phrase "several decades" promote this response. The reasons behind this are made evident to readers, with Penahi stating that it is because of a ‘powerful team of lawyers’. In doing so, Penahi aims to frustrate readers as they are likely to believe that Cosby is getting away from his crimes not because he did not commit them, but because he has used his wealth to hire lawyers and thus the less wealthy side of the audience are likely to be offended by this notion as they would not have the resources to escape from said situations. join this sentence with your last one, analysis and effect should be in one continuous flow where you can so you can kinda see the direct impact of language also the effect is really basic. as a  law abiding member of the audience i would care more about the fact that his money makes him impervious to the laws of justice and thus more likely to take action; look beyond surface level The need to raise more concern on this issue is highlighted to readers as Cosby’s alleged crimes have ‘remained largely unexplored’ in the media, convincing readers to take action against Cosby to create a larger profile of such crimes.

    Panahi keeps a neutral tone while highlighting the extensive effects too vague, go for "highlighting grievous repercussions of Cosby's alleged crimes on the victim's livelihood and welfare" that Cosby’s alleged crimes have made (tone is a device WHY has she used a neutral tone? what is the impact of her neutral tone on the audience? . Highlighting (find another word) these effects at a personnel (personal?) level through the anecdotal use of evidence in the testimony of rape victi,Barbara Bowman, Penahi attempts to influence readers into believing that Cosby should be shamed for his actions.This is her intention Pehani wants readers to believe XYZ, this is NOT the effect on the readers The notion that Bowman had ‘dreams of an acting career’ accentuates the devastating effect Cosby has made on an individual as readers are more likely to compel with someone whose ‘dreams’ were crushed morethan any ordinary girl. Bowman’s four quotes are written with an enthusiastic tone (why is there a shift in tone? effect?which Panahi uses to give a different perspective to a sub-audience of individuals who know someone who has or have been assaulted by Cosby, as the ‘courage’ shown from ‘the voice of women’ is likely to inspire aforementioned individuals to take action against Cosby. identify the audience don't just say some people who will be inspired are likely to go do something about, look beyond that

Panahi shifts her tone to one of frustration (why does she do this? what is the effect?) as she attempts to further position readers to disgust Cosby bad wording, you've also used the effect of disgust on the reader already. dig deeper the reader will not just feel one thing. Panahi probes on intothe idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words ‘remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event. In doing this Panahi brings to light just how often acts of sexual violence occur without public awareness, further accentuating growing anger and fury within audiences who have grown to despise Cosby as a man who is all to willing to manipulate the power of his reputation in order to escape the public limelight.... (you need to work on effect, something along the lines of this sentence) Panahi further uses the metaphor ‘predator’ when stating that Cosby ‘preyed on impressionable young women’. The adjective ‘impressionable’ attempts to elicits a devastated clunky expression emotional response from readers, as they would feel very sorry for a girl who was manipulated by a predator because of their weaker, more positive side which was centred on ‘their careers’. (what you're trying to say in this sentence isn't comeing through. fix expression.

By shifting her argument to a comparison of Cosby to Rolf Harris,Penahi positions readers to consider how the two are similar. Penahi shifts her argument to a comparison between Cosby to convicted rapist Rolf HarisBy stating that Cosby was proclaiming that (too many words, put in once sentence ‘Like Rolf Harris before him’, readers are persuaded into considering the dark crimes that Harris committed and associating the same feeling of Harris to Cosby. and therefore the readers feel....? Panahi moves her focus towards the general public in lieu of Cosby himself to give the public the feeling that they could be responsible for Cosby getting away with his alleged crimes. too much of describing Panahi is DOING, more analysis The question primarily directed to readers asking if ‘the media and the public elevate[d]’ Cosby to a  position where he was ‘virtually beyond reproach’ insists to readers that they feel slightly guilty for Cosby getting away as it was them giving him the popularity that made him so ‘untouchable’ that concern directed towards his actions could be ‘brushed’ over. In doing so, Panahi aims to instil fear into readers so that they are then likely to not show any fan behaviour towards him as it would only lead to him getting away with the allegations of abuse. In doing so Panahi emphasizes the necessity of social vigilance, as readers are made to understand that no individual is above the scrutiny of the law....

A photograph of Cosby holding his hands at shoulder level with a stressed look on his face has been included in the opinion piece to support Panahi’s leading contention (this sort of stuff is the vague bits which have been dragging this piece down, what parts of her contention? why is it positioned there? . The positioning of his hands appears Cosby is attempting to calm down a large audience, thus causing readers to feel hatred towards him as it appears he is guilty but trying to get away with alleged crimes. more effect The close up shot and centred head make it clear to readers that he is the target that should be put to public concern (clunk expression) . It also further highlights the more subtle features of Crosby, his stressed skin and unrelaxed facial gesture suggest to readers that he is disturbed, to which readers are likely to see as a sign he is guilty of his alleged crimes.how? how does a stressed facial expression = disturbed?

Panahi states that Cosby has ‘never publicly addressed’ the serious allegations made against him which emphasises as readers are in turn made to infer Cosby's how Cosby has little lack of morale in refusing to admit to his actions. which in turn was made clear to readers that he uses a ‘powerful team of lawyers’ to get away with them, thus compelling readers to see him as not the ‘family man’, but in a starkly more negative way. (wording? also what is the point of this sentence? like this all stuff that panahi is doing and no effect) By finishing her argument with the sentence that Cosby is ‘becoming a pariah’, Panahi leaves readers to only agree with this description from previous evidence (don't do this! vague!and thus finish reading the piece with a strong negative view (to vague, what negative view is this? is it mild dislike or raging firs of anger and distress specify!!!!!!!!) towards Cosby.

Panahi’s opinion piece puts forward the notion that Bill Crosby is an alleged sex offender and should not be able to use his power to get himself out of the allegations placed against him. With a overly frustrated and angry tone, Pariah’s argument is likely to spark further debate on Bill Crosby in the future. idk if you've been told to end like this, if you have and this is what the teacher wants then its fine but if not then this doesn't really do anything but summarise, maybe try concluding on the way that the article has ended

sorry if you find this super harsh! i promise its not said with malice or anything. i used to be exactly where you were at and i improved through practice. hope this helps you.
basic stuff for you to fix:
- no more vague "and this positions them to agree with the writer's contention"
- effect for the love of god
- expression sometimes
- it seems formulaic. you use the phrase "positions the reader too much" and your effect is just a single adjective. not enough. WHY do they have that effect? HOW does the use of this word create that effect?
- go DEEPER with your analysis, it's all surface level
things which you did good and should be happy with and continue doing:
- good coherency and sentence flow
- good integration of quotes
- i'm glad that sometimes you go into micro analysis by picking out exact wording, you just need to magnify effect more
- good take on the visuals. you definitely need to flesh it out more but you've connected it with the text which is good and you had a general idea of what to write here

Awesome

[Callum@1373]

I'll read it when I get home but as brenden said, thanks very much!

[thaaanyan]

I'll read it when I get home but as brenden said, thanks very much!

very welcome

[Callum@1373]

Thanks very much thaaanyan!!! My teacher doesn't really teach LA at all and I'm sorta left in the dark to figure it all out, so getting extensive feedback like this is really helpful and i appreciate it very much 

Although, I would really like it if you could give me your thoughts on the following things in regard to that essay.

First, wording
I totally agree with you where you've noticed that the way I've worded stuff is a bit clunky, I think it's cos i'm trying hard to write a bit more sophisticated and where it is evident that I am in some places it also means I stuff up because i'm not familiar with the language i'm using, but that's not the biggest problem.

Arguments of the author
One of the main frustrations I found when trying to analyse this is that I could only see one argument. Put it simply and fleshed out, it was 'bill crosby is a bad rapest and he's horrible blah blah and he should not use his status to get away with  those horrible predator like crimes....'

This meant that almost every point made in the article I could relate back to that. I felt Penahi kept on referring to crosby as a 'predator' because that was her sole argument - to paint crosby as evil so he goes to jail etc

How do I find the other arguments? I know there's that tonal shift stuff but I find it really hard to find even if I pretend that the author is speaking it out loud, and the only words I have to describe it are really basic (e.g angry, positive, upset, irritated, frustrated). What would you say the arguments were?

Also on the topic of arguments, you said 'the contention is more the  idea that all individuals should face public repercussions for their illegal actions, Cosby included. '

I disagree with that. The WHOLE article is talking about crosby and his power. The whole effect is to get people to not like crosby so much that he can shrug away his crimes with lawyers. Therefore, the contention is not 'all individuals', that's too broad, but that Crosby should not use power/status/respect to get away.

Effect
I have heard so many times 'dont just paraphrase the text, but analyse it and say how it's being used to persuade'.

I obviously have a problem in doing so as you have pointed out so many times. What I think the problem is, is that I think i am talking about the effect it has on the reader but possible in not enough detail. Let me use an example to illustrate that.

The routine is to tyipcally go 1. Summary/technique 2. Quote 3. Effect
I've said this:

Panahi probes on the idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words ‘remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event.

As you can see in that red section, I felt I was showing the EFFECT, and thus a satisfactory point of analysis.

However, you added to the effect:

'In doing this Panahi brings to light just how often acts of sexual violence occur without public awareness, further accentuating growing anger and fury within audiences who have grown to despise Cosby as a man who is all to willing to manipulate the power of his reputation in order to escape the public limelight....'

Which quite clearly sounds a lot better.

How can I get into the habit of doing this? As you can see I tried to do the 1,2,3 thing so it is evident that I am trying to show the effect on reader, but there was room for more, which I could not think of that time and throughout the essay.


If you can give me some tips on how to improve in these areas it would be great. I'm in year 11 and if I could alter these mistakes to something a lot better by the end of the yearn then it would set me up for year 12 very well.

Honestly though, this is more help from you than I will ever get from my teacher. He never showed us an essay and has spent NO time explaining how to avoid these mistakes, let alone with one practice essay in class all the mistakes would magically disappear in 2 weeks time when we write the essay 

</rant>

Thankyou so damn much that was freaking incredible!

[thaaanyan]

First, wording
I totally agree with you where you've noticed that the way I've worded stuff is a bit clunky, I think it's cos i'm trying hard to write a bit more sophisticated and where it is evident that I am in some places it also means I stuff up because i'm not familiar with the language i'm using, but that's not the biggest problem.

Not a problem, i'm happy to help! For wording i think it's good that you're going out of your way to expand your vocab and these are definitely the years to do it, just make sure on your real assessment all the words you're using are the ones you know, teachers tend to be slightly finicky about this stuff.

Arguments of the author
One of the main frustrations I found when trying to analyse this is that I could only see one argument. Put it simply and fleshed out, it was 'bill crosby is a bad rapest and he's horrible blah blah and he should not use his status to get away with  those horrible predator like crimes....'

This meant that almost every point made in the article I could relate back to that. I felt Penahi kept on referring to crosby as a 'predator' because that was her sole argument - to paint crosby as evil so he goes to jail etc

How do I find the other arguments? I know there's that tonal shift stuff but I find it really hard to find even if I pretend that the author is speaking it out loud, and the only words I have to describe it are really basic (e.g angry, positive, upset, irritated, frustrated). What would you say the arguments were?

Also on the topic of arguments, you said 'the contention is more the  idea that all individuals should face public repercussions for their illegal actions, Cosby included. '
I disagree with that. The WHOLE article is talking about crosby and his power. The whole effect is to get people to not like crosby so much that he can shrug away his crimes with lawyers. Therefore, the contention is not 'all individuals', that's too broad, but that Crosby should not use power/status/respect to get away.

Ok so over here you seem to have a jumble of questions.
1. arguments are basically reasons why the contention is true. so let's go with my initial idea of a contention which is that "people like Cosby are using their public image to get away with doing awful things and that people should face repercussion for this."


HOW does Panahi prove this contention to be true? what arguments does she use to show that Cosby is using his reputation to get away with terrible things??? Since your essay was done chronologically i'll do the same thing here:

- through highlighting the distinction between Cosby's image as a "wholesome" family man and the real savage nature of his relations to women
- through anecdotally emphasising the sufferring of rape victims
- through pointing out other celebrities like roman polanski, woody allen and rolf harris and highlighting the ability celebrities have to escape public scrutiny over the immoral nature of their actions due to their fame.
- through highlighting the ability of individuals in society to acknowledge the suffering of the victims and move past glorifying the abusive actions of men like cosby


2. our contentions aren't dissimilar the only thing different between your contention and mine is that yours is sort of saying "Panahi thinks Bill Cosby is bad" and i'm saying "Panahi thinks that Bill Cosby is the latest in the line of many celebrities who is using his public image to get away with being bad."

You need to sort of expand your ideas. and the best way to this is to continuously ask "why?" if it's just about bill cosby why refer to other celebrities? why refer to the power of "the internet age" to act as a platform for individuals to hold celebrities morally accountable (via hannibal burress anecdote).
this is part of the reason all your analysis is sort of surface level, because you keep returning to the singular argument as if it was the contention and then it ends up as a repetitive cycle. i still do this now and again with text response. the best way to snap out of it is to look at the aim of the piece as a whole; you're really getting into the swing of micro analysis, step back a bit and look at the full picture.

THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT: what is panahi trying to do by pointing out bill cosby is bad?
THIS IS HOW IT LINKS TO A GENERAL CONTENTION: she is trying to show the fact that he is able to use his reputation to hide the dual nature of his violent personality, and that other celebrities and people have done the same.
THIS IS HOW IT LINKS TO AN EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE:why is she doing this? to highlight the need for the public to realise that cosby is getting away with hurting people, and so have other celebrities and as part of the global age of information citizens should realise what Cosby is doing and allow for moral responsibility/public scrutiny.

a contention should be broad, that's what contentions *are* you need to look at the broadest picture then see how all the tiny components of language add up to make an argument which add up to prove the contention and therefore make it into a picture. yes???

Effect
I have heard so many times 'dont just paraphrase the text, but analyse it and say how it's being used to persuade'.

I obviously have a problem in doing so as you have pointed out so many times. What I think the problem is, is that I think i am talking about the effect it has on the reader but possible in not enough detail. Let me use an example to illustrate that.

The routine is to tyipcally go 1. Summary/technique 2. Quote 3. Effect
I've said this:
Panahi probes on the idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words ‘remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event.

As you can see in that red section, I felt I was showing the EFFECT, and thus a satisfactory point of analysis.

However, you added to the effect:

'In doing this Panahi brings to light just how often acts of sexual violence occur without public awareness, further accentuating growing anger and fury within audiences who have grown to despise Cosby as a man who is all to willing to manipulate the power of his reputation in order to escape the public limelight....'

OK so im gonna tackle this three fold, first im gonna say whats wrong with the sentence, then im gonna explain just generally how to show effect.

Panahi probes on the idea that Cosby is indeed drugging and raping women as she states that many women told a ‘remarkably similar story’. The choice of words 'remarkably similar’ is an attempt to highlight just how certain assaulted women are as they all have a similar story which positions readers to feel that those women are part of a group which has experienced the same event. 

1) WHAT IS THIS EFFECT NONSENSE AND HOW DO I DO THIS? An effect is basically a result, a consequence. in the context of L.A we're saying that Panahi's language impacted the reader into THINKING, FEELING or DOING something; and this effect in turn proves the argument which proves the contention. Shit summary, but you get the idea.

1a.) the first problem is your argument(s)/contention "bill cosby is bad" has nothing to do with the language and the effect. "remarkably similar" does not prove bill cosby is bad, you feel me? the limited scope of your contention is hurting you again. basically the first problem is that the language you've chosen doesn't show anything about the argument or contention/

1b). the second problem with this sentence is that your effect is less of an effect and kinda more a "what Panahi is doing" youre saying "Panahi says this and then they feel this" which is RIGHT, but only to a most basic degree. you need to a) extrapolate on effect more (see 1c) and b) look at the effect from the audiences point of view. YOU are not panahi, i am not interested in WHY you do things i am interested in the EFFECT of the things you do...in a sense the phrasing of "positions the reader" because it's so stale/overused kind of makes readers feel as if your focusing more on the WHY and less on the effect, and this impression is made more apparent to me because of 1a) the analysis you've given me has no connection to any other argument.

1c). the third problem is you haven't extrapolated on the effect enough, it's too shallow. what is the point of showing to the reader that all the women are experiencing the similar thing? why is panahi doing this?? ask yourself WHY??

she's doing this to show the horror of sexual degradation/the universal feeling of powerlessness experienced by rape victims/ the brutality present in the fact that Cosby is willing to repeat his crimes with other women. etc. etc.

SO know that you know WHY she's doing this ASK YOURSELF HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME FEEL/THINK/WANT TO DO?
THINK: it makes me feel scared and vulnerable to know that predators lurk so brazenly in the public limelight, to know that my mothers and sisters may one day also share "a remarkably similar story" to the women Panahi is describing.
FEEL: it makes me feel angry that he is allowing for a society where there is a normalised degradation of women as in the lack of public culpability faced by people like Cosby there can be continued violent acts towards women
DO: this makes me willing to take action by public reviling Cosby's image, etc. you get the picture
           
              SUBSECTION TO 1C): 1D) HOW DO I LEARN TO DO THIS
Try and make it a chain effect, pick a piece of language which connects to your argument then ask yourself what it will make people think, then feel and then do. you obviously can't do this for every section of your essay but it'll open your eyes to the sheer depth of impact language can have on an individual's way of processing and evaluating info.


2) GENERALLY HOW TO IMPROVE:
2a) move beyond phrases like "positions the reader" the 1, 2, 3 bones of the essay are really apparent, switch it up. talk about effect first (3) then link to your argument (1), talk about what the audience is thinking in one and then feeling in another and then all three in relation to a third technique. otherwise your essay will just be repetitive even if you have different arguments. it's totally cool to have the 1, 2, 3 structure just try to have it less apparent, maybe make a word document of phrases you find now and again that are better than "POSITIONS THE READER"

2b) incorporate each piece of feedback one step at a time. obvs this is a lot of feedback and some of these problems (e.g. expanding on contention, elaboration on effect) aren't gonna improve in one go. they have to do more with your skills in interpretation and that will only improve with the number of essays you write.

2c) as for teachers, i feel you. i know what that's like but each and every individual has something to contribute and even if teachers aren't awesome at teaching still rely on them as a resource - they offer different perspective. maybe turn to someone else at your school/ trade work with a friend. i struggled through this as well in year 10/11 and i still struggle with it now, so it's all good, you're not out of time or anything


Hope this is useful to you.


Edited because I can't spell.

[Callum@1373]

Not a problem, i'm happy to help! For wording i think it's good that you're going out of your way to expand your vocab and these are definitely the years to do it, just make sure on your real assessment all the words you're using are the ones you know, teachers tend to be slightly finicky about this stuff.

Ok so over here you seem to have a jumble of questions.
1. arguments are basically reasons why the contention is true. so let's go with my initial idea of a contention which is that "people like Cosby are using their public image to get away with doing awful things and that people should face repercussion for this."


HOW does Panahi prove this contention to be true? what arguments does she use to show that Cosby is using his reputation to get away with terrible things??? Since your essay was done chronologically i'll do the same thing here:

- through highlighting the distinction between Cosby's image as a "wholesome" family man and the real savage nature of his relations to women
- through anecdotally emphasising the sufferring of rape victims
- through pointing out other celebrities like roman polanski, woody allen and rolf harris and highlighting the ability celebrities have to escape public scrutiny over the immoral nature of their actions due to their fame.
- through highlighting the ability of individuals in society to acknowledge the suffering of the victims and move past glorifying the abusive actions of men like cosby


2. our contentions aren't dissimilar the only thing different between your contention and mine is that yours is sort of saying "Panahi thinks Bill Cosby is bad" and i'm saying "Panahi thinks that Bill Cosby is the latest in the line of many celebrities who is using his public image to get away with being bad."

You need to sort of expand your ideas. and the best way to this is to continuously ask "why?" if it's just about bill cosby why refer to other celebrities? why refer to the power of "the internet age" to act as a platform for individuals to hold celebrities morally accountable (via hannibal burress anecdote).
this is part of the reason all your analysis is sort of surface level, because you keep returning to the singular argument as if it was the contention and then it ends up as a repetitive cycle. i still do this now and again with text response. the best way to snap out of it is to look at the aim of the piece as a whole; you're really getting into the swing of micro analysis, step back a bit and look at the full picture.

THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT: what is panahi trying to do by pointing out bill cosby is bad?
THIS IS HOW IT LINKS TO A GENERAL CONTENTION: she is trying to show the fact that he is able to use his reputation to hide the dual nature of his violent personality, and that other celebrities and people have done the same.
THIS IS HOW IT LINKS TO AN EFFECT ON THE AUDIENCE:why is she doing this? to highlight the need for the public to realise that cosby is getting away with hurting people, and so have other celebrities and as part of the global age of information citizens should realise what Cosby is doing and allow for moral responsibility/public scrutiny.

a contention should be broad, that's what contentions *are* you need to look at the broadest picture then see how all the tiny components of language add up to make an argument which add up to prove the contention and therefore make it into a picture. yes???

OK so im gonna tackle this three fold, first im gonna say whats wrong with the sentence, then im gonna explain just generally how to show effect.


1) WHAT IS THIS EFFECT NONSENSE AND HOW DO I DO THIS? An effect is basically a result, a consequence. in the context of L.A we're saying that Panahi's language impacted the reader into THINKING, FEELING or DOING something; and this effect in turn proves the argument which proves the contention. Shit summary, but you get the idea.

1a.) the first problem is your argument(s)/contention "bill cosby is bad" has nothing to do with the language and the effect. "remarkably similar" does not prove bill cosby is bad, you feel me? the limited scope of your contention is hurting you again. basically the first problem is that the language you've chosen doesn't show anything about the argument or contention/

1b). the second problem with this sentence is that your effect is less of an effect and kinda more a "what Panahi is doing" youre saying "Panahi says this and then they feel this" which is RIGHT, but only to a most basic degree. you need to a) extrapolate on effect more (see 1c) and b) look at the effect from the audiences point of view. YOU are not panahi, i am not interested in WHY you do things i am interested in the EFFECT of the things you do...in a sense the phrasing of "positions the reader" because it's so stale/overused kind of makes readers feel as if your focusing more on the WHY and less on the effect, and this impression is made more apparent to me because of 1a) the analysis you've given me has no connection to any other argument.

1c). the third problem is you haven't extrapolated on the effect enough, it's too shallow. what is the point of showing to the reader that all the women are experiencing the similar thing? why is panahi doing this?? ask yourself WHY??

she's doing this to show the horror of sexual degradation/the universal feeling of powerlessness experienced by rape victims/ the brutality present in the fact that Cosby is willing to repeat his crimes with other women. etc. etc.

SO know that you know WHY she's doing this ASK YOURSELF HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME FEEL/THINK/WANT TO DO?
THINK: it makes me feel scared and vulnerable to know that predators lurk so brazenly in the public limelight, to know that my mothers and sisters may one day also share "a remarkably similar story" to the women Panahi is describing.
FEEL: it makes me feel angry that he is allowing for a society where there is a normalised degradation of women as in the lack of public culpability faced by people like Cosby there can be continued violent acts towards women
DO: this makes me willing to take action by public reviling Cosby's image, etc. you get the picture
           
              SUBSECTION TO 1C): 1D) HOW DO I LEARN TO DO THIS
Try and make it a chain effect, pick a piece of language which connects to your argument then ask yourself what it will make people think, then feel and then do. you obviously can't do this for every section of your essay but it'll open your eyes to the sheer depth of impact language can have on an individual's way of processing and evaluating info.


2) GENERALLY HOW TO IMPROVE:
2a) move beyond phrases like "positions the reader" the 1, 2, 3 bones of the essay are really apparent, switch it up. talk about effect first (3) then link to your argument (1), talk about what the audience is thinking in one and then feeling in another and then all three in relation to a third technique. otherwise your essay will just be repetitive even if you have different arguments. it's totally cool to have the 1, 2, 3 structure just try to have it less apparent, maybe make a word document of phrases you find now and again that are better than "POSITIONS THE READER"

2b) incorporate each piece of feedback one step at a time. obvs this is a lot of feedback and some of these problems (e.g. expanding on contention, elaboration on effect) aren't gonna improve in one go. they have to do more with your skills in interpretation and that will only improve with the number of essays you write.

2c) as for teachers, i feel you. i know what that's like but each and every individual has something to contribute and even if teachers aren't awesome at teaching still rely on them as a resource - they offer different perspective. maybe turn to someone else at your school/ trade work with a friend. i struggled through this as well in year 10/11 and i still struggle with it now, so it's all good, you're not out of time or anything


Hope this is useful to you.


Edited because I can't spell.

Shit, your incredible. This is literally gonna be so useful for ne