PLEASE READ AND CRITICISE MY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS ESSAY - I AM DESPERATE

[StressedAlready]

I implore help from the fantastic atarnotes community... Can someone... anyone... read and criticise my language analysis essay?

I've attached the file here -- apparently the format of my quotes disagrees with the site.

You can see the photo associated with the article here: http://www.pressreader.com/australia/herald-sun/20150331

And the written text for the article here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/adrian-bayley-rape-cases-show-why-juries-work-brilliantly/story-fni0ffsx-1227284876047

[heids]

Woah mate, 2,328 words...?!  Halve it, for your sake and the examiner's (and mine).

(btw, I guess your problem with posting it was that you had a

Code: [Select]

[s] which starts a strikethrough)

I only read about half, gotta run now, and will hopefully give you better feedback tomorrow (but am posting now in case I don't get round to it coz it's too long... )

Firstly, you don't have to be desperate; it looks great to me (so much so that I'm not competent to criticise)!  You understand the task, can analyse well, and have great expression.  BUT it needs to be shorter.  You have 2 options:
a) cut out heaps, focusing only on analysing a few selected most important points; an important skill to learn.
b) make your language far more concise - it's not bad but could be better.

e.g. your intro:

The legislative failings that enabled the recurrent misdemeanours of Andrew Bayley have nurtured emergent concerns in the form of a widespread media response. Of these includes Justin Quill’s opinion piece entitled “In a flawed system, juries work brilliantly”. First published in The Herald Sun on the 31st of March, 2015, the author detailed his praise for the “cornerstone” of the current system of which reform is unnecessary: the purportedly faultless “jury system”. (72 words)

Sample shortening:

Responding to the legislative failings that enabled Andrew Bailey's recurrent midemeanours, Justin Quill's opinion piece 'In a flawed system, juries work brilliantly' (published 31 March, 2015 in the Herald Sun) praises the jury system as the 'cornerstone' of the current system.(41 words)

Sure, making things too short overloads the reader; but conciseness is excellent to practise.

So, some things you could cut out:
 - doubling up on adjectives (e.g. ‘succinct and short’)
 - things like ‘is not only... but that it is also’ (= ‘is both’), ‘there is a juxtaposition between’ (= ‘he juxtaposes’)
 - repeating what you’ve already said in different words - i.e. get to the point in just one sentence, rather than clarifying/repeating in the next sentence
 - using big words or roundabout, impressive-sounding but rambling ways of saying things - could often be served by one simple word
etc.

And focus again and again on impact on the reader - you've got that, but can never emphasise it enough.

Organisation of your paragraphs seemed a little random, I would rethink how you group paragraphs, so that each paragraph centres round a clear argument chunk or approach.  The intro could also include something about the author's general approach (e.g. mocking, dismissive, tries to show himself credible, appeals to emotion etc.) and overall how the author tries to impact the reader.

(sorry, rushing now so this doesn't make sense I'll do better tomorrow)

[StressedAlready]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOU AWESOME HUMAN BEING!!!!

I know. It's awfully long BUT my school demands 2000 word essays for practice essays because otherwise we get into our SACs and our problems will be not having enough to write. Everyone has to write 5 pages minimum, apparently. *facepalm*

It was probably my issue... Lines going through everything with no idea how to get rid of them. ;p

You do not know how much better I feel. My English teacher has made me write FIVE practice essays but has given me NO feedback on ANY of them. I am now writing my sixth because apparently it's better than doing nothing; despite the fact that I KNOW I'm carrying over the same mistakes across all of my essays.

I think the absence of concise language in my essay is a partly due to the insane word minimum we were set.

Organisation of your paragraphs seemed a little random, I would rethink how you group paragraphs, so that each paragraph centres round a clear argument chunk or approach.

Do you mean pargraphing around changes in tone/focus/ideas presented in the article?

The intro could also include something about the author's general approach (e.g. mocking, dismissive, tries to show himself credible, appeals to emotion etc.) and overall how the author tries to impact the reader.

How would you deal with the general approach without having an overlap later on in your essay when you look at it more in-depth?

Also, isn't the overall impact stuff you cover in the conclusion? If so, then how would you prevent an overlap with your intro + conclusion?

[heids]

Catch !  Great effort but much room for improvement.  Hope I haven't torn you to shreds in some places, I haven't bothered editing my comments.

(I'm still learning how to give feedback, but I think I'm getting a little better.  Ask if you have questions - hope I've addressed your questions in the feedback, but if not tell me.)

EDIT: btw, addressing the stuff about intro and conclusion.
In the file, I've commented on how I would rearrange your paragraphs.  One of the first things to improve is a) finding a clear contention and b) finding then the 3-5 major arguments/ways that the author argues, that support the overall contention and try to make the audience agree with the author's contention.

So, in the intro I would mention firstly the overall contention, but then perhaps a very brief summary of the author's arguments or major ways of arguing.  Often TONE is an excellent way.  This shows that you understand the author's overall ways of persuading - I mean, do they appeal throughout heavily to emotion and how people feel? or is it a more balanced, reasoned argument that attempts to get people to agree by force of reason? or does it spend most of the time sarcastically mocking the opposition/idea they're against, trying to get the audience to ridicule the idea?  This way, you show a) contention and arguments and b) how the author persuades, overall.

Conclusion... personally I never reached a conclusion because I was bad with times and my conclusions lacked power anyway.  Ask literally lauren for more conclusion details...