ATAR Notes Free English Practice Exams 2016

[Evan C]

So I've finally finished my essay on section C. I certainly didn't complete it in an hour, wayyy to hard for me atm and so I tried to make it fairly decent. Any comments are appreciated, especially in regards to summary, cos even reading over it now, I can see im summarising a hella lot. Also, if possible, i'm interested in where I'm at, as in lower range, mid range, etc.
Cheers everyone!
sorry, idk how to do stickies (


 
 
Following the recent incident of misreporting on the NSB’s behalf, freelance journalist Kylie Jones reprimands Wickfield residents  for their credulity and response to the scandal, whilst maintaining that reporters are expected to report sincerely and hence should be trustworthy sources of information. The blog post, primarily aimed at locals, drew a variety of responses, spanning views from who the blame lies with, to the overall meaninglessness of the debacle, from locals. Jones’ post was also accompanied by an image.   

Jones’ support for the practise of local reporting is evident in her stance as a “staunch defender” of the profession, and her praise of local journalists for “do{ing} a pretty decent job” at comprehensively covering local events intimates her appreciation and confidence in this brand of journalism to fulfil the same role as “metropolitan news and current affairs” reporting. The sense of inclusion Jones seeks to create with other local journalists who may have also been belittled as “amateurish hicks” works in tandem with Jones’ appreciation of the profession to ingratiate her with audience members, who are as a result, more inclined to agree on their fallibility as journalists. For those aligned with Jones’, she seeks to downplay the significance of their misjudgements as merely failing to capture the “whole” truth, and since they conduct their investigations with good “intentions,” Jones distinguishes them from the journalists of the NSB, who lack the same “heart” by comparison. Her clearly demarcated tonal shift from humbled while portraying most local reporters as good intentioned, though imperfect, to censorious as accentuates the NSB’s “sloppy… flawed” and imprudent working methods, which were more like a “witch hunt” than journalism, Is intended to create a separation between honest mistakes of journalists and the NSB’s comparatively insidious actions. In this sense, the NSB are clearly differentiated from other reporters as they don't operate under the same morals and hence their actions cannot be dismissed as a “mistake” and “put behind” everyone’s collective memory, but rather require thorough appraisal as to ascertain “whose really to blame.” Whilst Jones feels thorough inquiry is required, Beth Z disregards the incident as merely a “misunderstanding,” and derisively attacks Jones for sanctimony. She scorns Jones for taking a position atop a “high horse” and exaggerating the incident to be an indictment of “journalistic integrity” to engender reader disapproval and distaste for the Jones’ self-righteousness and consequently positions them to feel that “mov[ing] along” is the sensible course of resolution.
 
By prefacing her jeremiad against community members for their gullibility with an acknowledgement of the media's "power" when it comes to influencing  views, Jones seeks to distribute "blame" across all involved parties, so as to avoid antagonising any particular group. The measured tone she adopts, as she begins to focus on the irresponsibility of the citizens' actions serves to solidify that they too share a degree of blame for their involvement in the scandal. Yet whilst Jones is critical of this credulity demonstrated, ultimately she endeavours to spur readers on to become more "critical" of what "they hear," rather than lambasting their actions on this particular occasion. As such, she dichotomises readers into those unperturbed by their credulity and those who see the harm of "taking things at face value" and thus understand the importance of critically appraising information. By alternating sentence starts with the imperative declaration "not" to "be" and "be" and by clearly illustrating the importance of following her instructions as they may provide an opportunity to "rebuild,"  Jones elucidates a clearly defined path to recovery that requires deeper evaluation of the news, on behalf of citizens, should they hope for Wickfield to recover. Whilst Jones places the onus on viewers, James T contradicts this view, arguing that it is unfair for Jones to retrospectively "judge" and criticise them, when they were acting out of concern for the club. Instead, James T demonises the NSB as a "bunch of liars" who took advantage of "honest... kind and trusting" people, thereby painting the NSB as manipulative and devious and citizens as exploited and vulnerable by contrast. Elizabeth C takes this notion of villainy further, accusing the NSB of "brainwashing innocent minds." Through the connotations  of "brainwash", which are indoctrination and inculcation, in conjunction with "innocen'" connotations of helplessness, Elizabeth C seeks to highlight the extent of victimisation and direct condemnation towards the NSB.

The included visual depicting two versions of the scenario where the media have failed to capture the "whole" picture, markedly changing its meaning by consequence, highlights the dangers of misreporting. Thus Jones emphasizes the responsibility of the media, as they wield the power to create and alter meaning so dramatically. But, by placing the camera in the centre and capturing at least part of both figures in on the screen, Jones implies the accidental nature of this incident, appeasing the media, given their incredibly slim margin for error. As a result, Jones implies that the "catastrophe" which ensued, though instigated by the media, was also caused by the way citizens responded. Victimising Benson for having "havoc" wrought upon his life as a result of the way he was treated, Jones portrays the "reckless" citizens as driving the catastrophe. The  asyndeton of  Benson's fears establish  his treatment as the essence of the tragedy and this compounded with Jones'  presentation of the responsible citizens as "reckless vigilantes" suggests that the tragedy could have been avoided with thoughtfulness. By labelling the media report giving rise to the chaos as "one little story" Jones positions the response as disproportionate and therefore unsuitable to cause.

By demonstrating an awareness of the slim margin of error reporters work under, Jones illustrates the fallibility of reporters, despite their overall good intentions but accuses the NSB of lacking of these. Thus, Jones asserts that ultimately it is necessary for community members to thoroughly assess such stories and act prudently to avoid such disasters. 
 

[sweetiepi]

Hey EvanC, sorry for the late post!
 

Original Essay

Following the recent incident of misreporting on the NSB’s behalf, freelance journalist Kylie Jones reprimands Wickfield residents  for their credulity and response to the scandal, whilst maintaining that reporters are expected to report sincerely and hence should be trustworthy sources of information. The blog post, primarily aimed at locals, drew a variety of responses, spanning views from who the blame lies with, to the overall meaninglessness of the debacle, from locals. Jones’ post was also accompanied by an image.   

Jones’ support for the practise of local reporting is evident in her stance as a “staunch defender” of the profession, and her praise of local journalists for “do{ing} a pretty decent job” at comprehensively covering local events intimates her appreciation and confidence in this brand of journalism to fulfil the same role as “metropolitan news and current affairs” reporting. The sense of inclusion Jones seeks to create with other local journalists who may have also been belittled as “amateurish hicks” works in tandem with Jones’ appreciation of the profession to ingratiate her with audience members, who are as a result, more inclined to agree on their fallibility as journalists. For those aligned with Jones’, she seeks to downplay the significance of their misjudgements as merely failing to capture the “whole” truth, and since they conduct their investigations with good “intentions,” Jones distinguishes them from the journalists of the NSB, who lack the same “heart” by comparison. Her clearly demarcated tonal shift from humbled while portraying most local reporters as good intentioned, though imperfect, to censorious as accentuates the NSB’s “sloppy… flawed” and imprudent working methods, which were more like a “witch hunt” than journalism, Is intended to create a separation between honest mistakes of journalists and the NSB’s comparatively insidious actions. In this sense, the NSB are clearly differentiated from other reporters as they don't operate under the same morals and hence their actions cannot be dismissed as a “mistake” and “put behind” everyone’s collective memory, but rather require thorough appraisal as to ascertain “whose really to blame.” Whilst Jones feels thorough inquiry is required, Beth Z disregards the incident as merely a “misunderstanding,” and derisively attacks Jones for sanctimony. She scorns Jones for taking a position atop a “high horse” and exaggerating the incident to be an indictment of “journalistic integrity” to engender reader disapproval and distaste for the Jones’ self-righteousness and consequently positions them to feel that “mov[ing] along” is the sensible course of resolution.
 
By prefacing her jeremiad against community members for their gullibility with an acknowledgement of the media's "power" when it comes to influencing  views, Jones seeks to distribute "blame" across all involved parties, so as to avoid antagonising any particular group. The measured tone she adopts, as she begins to focus on the irresponsibility of the citizens' actions serves to solidify that they too share a degree of blame for their involvement in the scandal. Yet whilst Jones is critical of this credulity demonstrated, ultimately she endeavours to spur readers on to become more "critical" of what "they hear," rather than lambasting their actions on this particular occasion. As such, she dichotomises readers into those unperturbed by their credulity and those who see the harm of "taking things at face value" and thus understand the importance of critically appraising information. By alternating sentence starts with the imperative declaration "not" to "be" and "be" and by clearly illustrating the importance of following her instructions as they may provide an opportunity to "rebuild,"  Jones elucidates a clearly defined path to recovery that requires deeper evaluation of the news, on behalf of citizens, should they hope for Wickfield to recover. Whilst Jones places the onus on viewers, James T contradicts this view, arguing that it is unfair for Jones to retrospectively "judge" and criticise them, when they were acting out of concern for the club. Instead, James T demonises the NSB as a "bunch of liars" who took advantage of "honest... kind and trusting" people, thereby painting the NSB as manipulative and devious and citizens as exploited and vulnerable by contrast. Elizabeth C takes this notion of villainy further, accusing the NSB of "brainwashing innocent minds." Through the connotations  of "brainwash", which are indoctrination and inculcation, in conjunction with "innocen'" connotations of helplessness, Elizabeth C seeks to highlight the extent of victimisation and direct condemnation towards the NSB.

The included visual depicting two versions of the scenario where the media have failed to capture the "whole" picture, markedly changing its meaning by consequence, highlights the dangers of misreporting. Thus Jones emphasizes the responsibility of the media, as they wield the power to create and alter meaning so dramatically. But, by placing the camera in the centre and capturing at least part of both figures in on the screen, Jones implies the accidental nature of this incident, appeasing the media, given their incredibly slim margin for error. As a result, Jones implies that the "catastrophe" which ensued, though instigated by the media, was also caused by the way citizens responded. Victimising Benson for having "havoc" wrought upon his life as a result of the way he was treated, Jones portrays the "reckless" citizens as driving the catastrophe. The  asyndeton of  Benson's fears establish  his treatment as the essence of the tragedy and this compounded with Jones'  presentation of the responsible citizens as "reckless vigilantes" suggests that the tragedy could have been avoided with thoughtfulness. By labelling the media report giving rise to the chaos as "one little story" Jones positions the response as disproportionate and therefore unsuitable to cause.

By demonstrating an awareness of the slim margin of error reporters work under, Jones illustrates the fallibility of reporters, despite their overall good intentions but accuses the NSB of lacking of these. Thus, Jones asserts that ultimately it is necessary for community members to thoroughly assess such stories and act prudently to avoid such disasters. 

Essay with feedback

Following the recent incident of misreporting on the NSB’s behalf, freelance journalist Kylie Jones reprimands Wickfield residents Are the WIckfield residents the only section of the audience? for their credulity and response to the scandal, whilst maintaining that reporters are expected to report sincerely and hence should be trustworthy sources of information. The blog post, primarily aimed at locals, drew a variety of responses Responses from where?, spanning views from who the blame lies with, to the overall meaninglessness of the debacle, from locals. What is the tone of the blog? Jones’ post was also accompanied by an image. What else accompanied the main blog post?   

Jones’ support for the practise of local reporting is evident in her stance as a “staunch defender” of the profession, and her praise of local journalists for “do{ing} a pretty decent job” at comprehensively covering local events intimates her appreciation and confidence in this brand of journalism to fulfil the same role as “metropolitan news and current affairs” reporting.That is a very long-winded sentence, try to condense this. The sense of inclusion Jones seeks to create Create what? with other local journalists who may have also been belittled as “amateurish hicks” works in tandem with Jones’ appreciation of the profession to ingratiate her with audience members, who are as a result, more inclined to agree on their fallibility as journalists. For those aligned with Jones’, she seeks to downplay the significance of their misjudgements as merely failing to capture the “whole” truth, and since they conduct their investigations with good “intentions,” Jones distinguishes them from the journalists of the NSB, who lack the same “heart” by comparison. What does this make the audience feel or do? Her clearly demarcated tonal shift from humbled while portraying most local reporters as good intentioned, though imperfect, to censorious as accentuates the NSB’s “sloppy… flawed” and imprudent working methods, which were more like a “witch hunt” than journalism, Is intended to create a separation between honest mistakes of journalists and the NSB’s comparatively insidious actions. In this sense, the NSB are clearly differentiated from other reporters as they don't operate under the same morals and hence their actions cannot be dismissed as a “mistake” and “put behind” everyone’s collective memory, but rather require thorough appraisal as to ascertain “whose really to blame.” Again, what is the effect on the audience, what specific section of the audience does this adhere too? Whilst Jones feels thorough inquiry is required, Beth Z disregards the incident as merely a “misunderstanding,” and derisively attacks Jones for sanctimony. She scorns Jones for taking a position atop a “high horse” and exaggerating the incident to be an indictment of “journalistic integrity” to engender reader disapproval I'd suggest to go in more depth here with what type of disapproval, actually I'd suggest not to use disapproval but to use words like dissatisfaction, objection or deprecation.and distaste for the Jones’ self-righteousness and consequently positions them to feel that “mov[ing] along” is the sensible course of resolution. How does this relate to the audience?
 
By prefacing her jeremiad against community members for their gullibility with an acknowledgement of the media's "power" when it comes to influencing  views, Jones seeks to distribute "blame" across all involved parties, so as to avoid antagonising any particular group. The measured tone she adopts, as she begins to focus on the irresponsibility of the citizens' actions serves to solidify that they too share a degree of blame for their involvement in the scandal. Yet whilst Jones is critical of this credulity demonstrated, ultimately she endeavours to spur readers on to become more "critical" of what "they hear," rather than lambasting their actions on this particular occasion. Good connection with effect on the readers. As such, she dichotomises readers into those unperturbed by their credulity and those who see the harm of "taking things at face value" and thus understand the importance of critically appraising information. By alternating sentence starts with the imperative declaration "not" to "be" and "be" and by clearly illustrating the importance of following her instructions as they may provide an opportunity to "rebuild,"  Jones elucidates a clearly defined path to recovery that requires deeper evaluation of the news, on behalf of citizens, should they hope for Wickfield to recover. Whilst Jones places the onus on viewers, James T contradicts Try to use repudiate or challenge here for more sophistication.this view, arguing that it is unfair for Jones to retrospectively "judge" and criticise them, when they were acting out of concern for the club. Instead, James T demonises the NSB as a "bunch of liars" who took advantage of "honest... kind and trusting" people, thereby painting the NSB as manipulative and devious and citizens as exploited and vulnerable by contrast. Does this cause readers to take action? Elizabeth C takes this notion of villainy further, accusing the NSB of "brainwashing innocent minds." Through the connotations  of "brainwash", which are indoctrination and inculcation, in conjunction with "innocen'" innocent? I'm assuming a typo here.connotations of helplessness, Elizabeth C seeks to highlight Highlight to who? the extent of victimisation and direct condemnation towards the NSB. A lot of complex vocabulary here, keep in mind some of the words assessor may not be aware of such words.

The included visual depicting two versions of the scenario where the media have failed to capture the "whole" picture what is the whole picture, how is it symoblised?, markedly changing its meaning by consequence, highlights the dangers of misreporting. Thus Jones emphasizes emphasises, the version you used is the American version and you've used UK/Australian spelling for most of the essay. the responsibility of the media, as they wield the power to create and alter meaning so dramatically. But, by placing the camera in the centre and capturing at least part of both figures in on the screen, Jones implies the accidental nature of this incident, appeasing the media, given their incredibly slim margin for error. As a result, Jones implies that the "catastrophe" which ensued, though instigated by the media, was also caused by the way citizens responded How does this visual persuade the audience?. Victimising Benson for having "havoc" wrought upon his life as a result of the way he was treated, Jones portrays the "reckless" citizens as driving the catastrophe. The  asyndeton of  Benson's fears establish  his treatment as the essence of the tragedy and this compounded with Jones'  presentation of the responsible citizens as "reckless vigilantes" suggests that the tragedy could have been avoided with thoughtfulness How does this inspire readers to react?. By labelling the media report giving rise to the chaos as "one little story" Jones positions the response as disproportionate and therefore unsuitable to cause. Try to avoid writing on the image as a whole paragraph, instead try to incorporate it into another paragraph with an argument from the text.

By demonstrating an awareness of the slim margin of error reporters work under, Jones illustrates the fallibility of reporters, despite their overall good intentions but accuses the NSB of lacking of these. Thus, Jones asserts that ultimately it is necessary for community members to thoroughly assess such stories and act prudently to avoid such disasters.  What is the relationship between the audience and Jones' contention?

Overall, I believe this is a really good effort at analysing the blog and it's supplementary texts, however, I feel that it lacks analysis of the effects towards the readers.
I believe this is roughly a low mid-range piece, from 4-5, however, I believe that with improvement, you can do much better!

[literally lauren]

You know what's fun? Spending your weekend collecting all the various roof tiles and wooden beams that have been strewn across your house after gale force winds knocked a tree into your kitchen :'D

You know what else is fun? Exam 2. Up now. Soz for the delay <3

[literally lauren]

Clearing a backlog of essays at the moment, so just post here or on the submissions boards if you want feedback or have any questions!

"Kent's Novel is about what it means to be guilty Discuss."

Agnes Magnusdottir is found to be guilty, feels a bit abrupt to start your essay off this way; introducing the text/author first would be preferable, though I do like how quickly you're jumping into the prompt and although there were other factors in the murder of Natan Ketilsson, she is still guilty. But what does it mean to be guilty? Agnes quickly has the little power she did possess stripped away from her as she is taken prisoner. Even at Kornsa, she is shown no respect and is forced to keep her feelings locked away inside her until Margret and herself become friends, as no one else will be associated with her. <--this seems more like a listing of various bits of evidence rather than an outlining of ideas. You don't have to run through each of your arguments in the intro, but try to stick to broader concepts rather than jumping into specific textual details too soon Ultimately, all of the truly guilty people in Burial Rites end up executed in one way or another, showing that to be guilty is to die. this might be a bit of an oversimplification... haven't read the rest of your piece yet, but if I were an assessor reading this, I'd be skeptical of such a definitive contention.

Agnes never really had much power in her life, but after being found guilty of Natan’s murder, she had what was left swiftly taken away from her. nice, clear T.S. Locked away at Stora-Borg with “no way to mark the day from night”, she was left without the most basic form of power- simple knowledge good point. This was a far cry from the early days of her life at Illugastadir, where Natan had not yet revealed his true self and she seemed to have equal power in their relationship. Her lack of power becomes more evident on the trip to Kornsa, as she thinks to herself that she is “strapped to the saddle like a corpse being taken to the burial ground”. This shows that Agnes sees Kornsa as the “burial ground”, due to Inga’s death which she had a hand in, letting “the spirit” of death into the house as she opened the door during the storm. In a way, Agnes is partly guilty for Inga’s death, as she let “the cold air in with Inga in such a delicate state”. This was a precursor for a life of guilt as she lost her home as a ‘punishment’ for it, and was once again thrust into the arms of strangers, working up and down the valley for a place to live. Due to her guiltiness bit colloquial; 'guilt' would be fine here, unless you wanted to specify 'feelings of guilt' or something more precise, Agnes lost the power to live a basic life when she was a child, and as an adult she lost her freedom. Furthermore, after killing Natan, she became ostracized from everyone but the family she was forced upon. Thus, Kent suggests that...? / Through this, the novel highlights... <-- having a sentence at the end like this would strengthen this paragraph significantly!

While Agnes waited out her final months until her execution, she was completely isolated by everyone except those she was forced to be with. When Roslin visited, she spoke of Agnes’ “hideous face” and the “fiendish things” that the “whore” had done. This shows that the hatred for Agnes was widespread, and she was quite right when she thought “they will see the whore, the madwoman, the murderess”. However, all throughout Roslin’s tirade, Margret seems to sympathise with Agnes, for they are “two dying women” and she doesn’t believe that the crime could have just been Agnes’ wickedness because “nothing is simple”. Margret is the only person who considers Agnes to not be a “spider” at this point, but even her trust can be lost in an instant for a guilty woman. When Agnes inspects Lauga’s confirmation gift, Margret grows “furious” and the “blood drains from her face”. Agnes is hit with a “neat crack” and Margret is going to punish her by “working like a dog”, which is similar to the way she was treated by the guards, as “another dull-eyed animal” v.good integration of quotes here. Even in her younger days, Agnes was guilty of always being “fixed on bettering herself”, which doesn’t sound like a negative, this expression is a little bit simplistic. On the one hand, it's better to use 'simpler' language to get across ideas clearly than to jazz things up unnecessarily with sophisticated language that just comes across as out of place. But since your textual discussion and use of evidence is so solid, it might be worth fine-tuning smaller stuff like expression given that you've got the other bigger stuff under control but at the time when a “thinking woman cannot be trusted” it made her seem like a “fjandi”. Agnes lost all hope of having more than Margret as a friend after her guilty verdict, showing that guilt for her meant powerlessness and loneliness could you expand upon this? Is Agnes guilty because she's powerless/lonely, or does her powerlessness/loneliness compound her guilt? What's the relationship here, exactly?. But even more than that, guilt meant death again, be careful of making these laconic, swift judgments. You might've put a lot of thought into this idea, but because the assessors haven't taken the same mental journey, they're only seeing this end point, and so it can be hard for them to connect the dots. Also, try to have the ends of each of your paragraphs return to the prompt rather than lead into the next paragraph, if possible.

The guilty in Burial Rites are dealt with cruelly, and effectively all end up dead. Natan was the first to go also a bit too colloquial for a formal T.R. essay, guilty of “toying with people” and manipulating Agnes, Natan “Satan” viewed her as more of a challenge than a real person, after he “could not read” her. But after he actually got to know Agnes and got used to her, colloq. he grew tired of her and began his “games”. Sleeping with Sigga while Agnes was lying awake, he openly dismisses her forgiveness, and reveals he doesn’t “wait until you’re when modifying quotes, just replace any information you don't need (i.e. change 'you're' to 'Agnes is' here, rather than including them both). So this should read: 'he doesn't "wait until [Agnes is] asleep".' [Agnes] asleep”. Natan reveals his true self, one who does not love anyone. this is also a bit sharp and abrupt. How do you know this is the case? In a way, Natan “got what was coming to him”, he had ruined Agnes’ life for his own amusement and was not remorseful in any way. Her undying love for Natan was also her downfall. Okay, you're making a drastic shift here from talking about Natan deserving his fate given his treatment of Agnes --> Agnes' motivations for killing him. I can see the connection, but it feels like you're just drifting between points of evidence here instead of putting things in the right order in a way that's helping you mount an argument. Be careful with the order of your information; it's important for your points to link together, but you don't want the paragraphs to just meander from one example to the next without a clear sense of progression. Even when murdering him, being the executioner of the guiltiest person she had ever met, she viewed her knife thrust as an “ill practiced kiss” rather than a fatal incision. Natan died for his guilt, and Agnes would too. Interesting idea, but I think the lack of linking words means these great sentences feel a little out-of-the-blue because you bring them up in amongst the rest of your discussion with little warning. At the execution site, Agnes didn’t want to die, not thinking she was “ready” for it. But in the end, she was forced to die for her crimes, her guilt, just as Natan had earlier. Therefore...? <-- zoom back out to the prompt and what Kent is saying here!

Being guilty is death sentence in itself- one becomes powerless, losing their basic ability to live a normal life. They are then almost completely ostracised, seen as a figure of evil by those around them, although there may be a chance for companionship with whoever is kept close, it is not likely. Try to avoid these generic sentences. At the moment, there's nothing in these two sentences that tells me you're writing about Burial Rites and virtually every single sentence in your essay should make that apparent! A few 'Kent suggests' or 'Thus, the novel showcases...' kinds of phrases would go a long way here. But ultimately, to be guilty is to die, does being guilty mean being dead, or do characters die because they're guilty? I'm a bit confused as to what you're conflating here and Agnes and Natan both suffer the same fate. Burial Rites explores what it really means to be guilty, and explicitly shows the consequences of such guilt and how a life changes throughout. good concluding sentence, though I reckon you could do more to build up to this idea throughout your piece (rather than having the assessor get to the end and realise 'ooohhh, that's what you were saying.') I know the deceptively basic prompts like 'Burial Rites is about _____' are tough to unpack, but try not to make your argument too reductive. Saying 'to be guilty is to die' could be considered a bit too simplistic by some assessors, even though you're exploring it very well here - you want your argument to reflect the nuance of the text. Something more like 'Kent challenges the idea of guilt as a straightforward, unequivocal label and instead suggests that guilt is inextricably tied to the intentions behind one's actions' would be a bit more 'Text Response-y.' Overall, you've got a solid foundation of textual knowledge here, and your expression is nice and clear (though consider using a few more linking words to help smooth the gaps between some of your ideas). Really great job for such a tricky prompt, so well done!!

[jedly]

Clearing a backlog of essays at the moment, so just post here or on the submissions boards if you want feedback or have any questions!

Hey Lauren, would love some feedback on a text response I did on a Burial Rites prompt from your second practice exam. Found the prompts quite difficult but whenever you could feedback would be great. Also a rough score out of 10 would be awesome!

Spoiler

Set in a 19th century Icelandic society, Hannah Kent's Burial Rites portrays a distorted application of justice that results in punishments that are unsuitable for their respective crimes. In the society, where the powerful and men are treasured, meanwhile women and those of a lowly social status are neglected. District Commissioner Bjorn Blondal manipulates his unrivaled authority to fulfill his own desires; as he pardons Sigga but sentences the rebellious Agnes to execution. Furthermore, Natan's indiscretions are overlooked while Agnes and other women who are taken advantage of are seen as "whores." Ultimately, in the Icelandic, patriarchal society where prejudice and injustice are rife, the physical and social punishments can never truly match the crime that caused them.

A fair punishment cannot be attained without a fair trial. Unfortunately, for Agnes this was never an option, as Blondal and his men determined her guilty before she could protest. Agnes later laments "everything I said was taken from me and altered until the story wasn't my own." Although her contribution to the murders is undoubted, her motives were not vengeance or spite as suggest but rather of pity to end Natan's suffering. However Blondal believes she is "reticent, secretive and guilty" and due to his high social standing his opinion overrules hers. A punishment cannot be just in a society where men such as Blondal can exploit their authority and use it in self-serving ways. Agnes did murder Natan, but she was not the evil, vindictive woman she has been portrayed as. Capital punishment is a brutal penalty for a crime of pity and love. Agnes receives the same punishment as Fridrik who was driven by jealousy and revenge for their respective roles in the murders. This demonstrates that in this society the punishments are based off bias rather than facts thus they will never honestly be equivalent to the crimes committed.

Kent's Burial Rites presents a society where obedient women are valued and ambitious women are disciplined. Women are discouraged from learning to read or write, as the society is of the belief that "a thinking woman cannot be trusted." This is exemplified by the contradictory treatment of Sigga and Agnes after the Illgustadir murders. The docile Sigga is thought to be "too young and sweet to die" and to remind Blondal of his wife and is thus pardoned for her part in the murders as she epitomises the traits in a woman that the society appreciates. Conversely, "bloody knowing" Agnes is largely loathed by the society and is sentenced to execution. The juxtaposition of Sigga and Agnes' respective punishments demonstrates how in a society such as the one created by Kent, the crime and it's subsequent punishment will never be equal.

In Kent's Burial Rites society the punishments for a crime go far beyond an official verdict. The condemnation of a person leads to social isolation and judgement from the vast majority of their peers. Natan's sexual indiscretions are well documented yet looked over by most due to his high social standing. Meanwhile women are judged far more harshly for similar actions. Agnes suggests "how other people think of you determines who you are." Agnes, like her mother and many other women servants before her, does what she has to in order to survive. However this results in her being labelled as "a woman loose with her emotions and looser with her morals." The prejudicial nature of the society leads to Blondal deciding Agnes is guilty without second thought. In a society such as this, where prejudice significantly influences public opinion, ensuring a fitting punishment for a crime is not only difficult, but impossible.

Ultimately, it is not possible for a crime to be met with an appropriate punishment in a society where prejudice and patriarchal double standards influence the actions of people, and the powerful can corrupt their authority in self-fulfilling ways. 

[literally lauren]

Yoooooooo!! Exam 3 is up now 

I'll try and catch up on the essays here and on the Sub. board later this weekend - thank you all for your patience!

[literally lauren]

Kent’s novel showcases the difficulty of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. Do you agree?

Set in a 19th century Icelandic society, Hannah Kent's Burial Rites portrays a distorted application of justice that results in punishments that are unsuitable for their respective crimes. In the society, where the powerful and men are treasured, meanwhile women and those of a lowly social status are neglected. District Commissioner Bjorn Blondal manipulates his unrivaled authority to fulfill his own desires; as he pardons Sigga but sentences the rebellious Agnes to execution. Furthermore, Natan's indiscretions are overlooked while Agnes and other women who are taken advantage of are seen as "whores." Ultimately, in the Icelandic, patriarchal society where prejudice and injustice are rife, the physical and social punishments can never truly match the crime that caused them. excellent introduction; love the strong contention/interpretation being set up at the end here

A fair punishment cannot be attained without a fair trial <-- try to make this more relevant to the text (e.g. 'Throughout the novel, Kent suggests that a fair punishment cannot...') At the moment, there's nothing in that opening sentence that tells me you'r analysing Burial Rites. I know it seems like a minor point, but you don't want to risk annoying an assessor before the paragraph has even begun, and they tend to dislike these very broad openers :/ . Unfortunately, for Agnes this was never an option, as Blondal and his men determined her guilty before she could protest. Agnes later laments "everything I said was taken from me and altered until the story wasn't my own." why is this important? Might be worth explaining this idea here Although her contribution to the murders is undoubted, her motives were not vengeance or spite as suggest but rather of pity to end Natan's suffering. However Blondal believes she is "reticent, secretive and guilty" and due to his high social standing his opinion overrules hers. A punishment cannot be just in a society where men such as Blondal can exploit their authority and use it in self-serving ways. okay, this is a big point: HOW DO YOU KNOW?? You're right, but show me you're right! What evidence is there in the novel that suggests that Blondal's exploitation of his social status precludes or prevents justice form taking place? How to you know punishment can't be just in these circumstances? What does Kent say that suggests this? Agnes did murder Natan, but she was not the evil, vindictive woman she has been portrayed as by whom? It's worth specifying 'by Natan/other characters' here since at the moment it sounds like you're saying Kent portrays her as evil and vindictive. Capital punishment is a brutal penalty for a crime of pity and love see above: r.e. your T.S. No sentence in your essay should be outside of the text; if I read this in isolation, I wouldn't know it was about B.R. so try and work Kent's name or some textual evidence in here. Agnes receives the same punishment as Fridrik who was driven by jealousy and revenge for their respective roles in the murders. This demonstrates that in this society the punishments are based off bias rather than facts why is it that their equal punishments demonstrate bias? Agian, you might be right, but you'd need more discussion here to build up to this idea thus they will never honestly be equivalent to the crimes committed.

Kent's Burial Rites presents a society where obedient women are valued and ambitious women are disciplined. much better T.S. here Women are discouraged from learning to read or write, as the society is of the belief that "a thinking woman cannot be trusted." This is exemplified by the contradictory treatment of Sigga and Agnes after the Illgustadir murders. The docile Sigga is thought to be "too young and sweet to die" and to remind Blondal of his wife and is thus pardoned sentence structure is a bit messy here for her part in the murders as she epitomises the traits in a woman that the society appreciates. Conversely, "bloody knowing" Agnes is largely loathed by the society and is sentenced to execution. The juxtaposition of Sigga and Agnes' respective punishments demonstrates how in a society such as the one created by Kent, the crime and it's subsequent punishment will never be equal. Good points, but this paragraph feels a little short. Is there any more you can say about the treatment of women in the text, or perhaps how Agnes and/or Sigga respond to this treatment? Or even the male characters' motivations in this regard?

In Kent's Burial Rites society the punishments for a crime go far beyond an official verdict <-- expression?. The condemnation of a person leads to social isolation and judgement from the vast majority of their peers this is another generic sentence that you'd either want to cut or avoid entierly. Natan's sexual indiscretions are well documented yet looked over by most due to his high social standing evidence?. Meanwhile women are judged far more harshly for similar actions. Agnes suggests "how other people think of you determines who you are." what's the significance of this quote? Agnes, like her mother and many other women servants before her, does what she has to in order to survive how do you know?. However this results in her being labelled as "a woman loose with her emotions and looser with her morals." The prejudicial nature of the society leads to Blondal deciding Agnes is guilty without second thought okay, this is quite interesting, but you need to explain how social prejudice leads to injustice. In a society such as this, where prejudice significantly influences public opinion, ensuring a fitting punishment for a crime is not only difficult, but impossible be careful with these absolute statements. It's probably easier to argue that it's 'difficult' than to say it's 100% impossible

Ultimately, it is not possible for a crime to be met with an appropriate punishment in a society where prejudice and patriarchal double standards influence the actions of people, and the powerful can corrupt their authority in self-fulfilling ways. <-- need to insert 'Kent suggests...' or 'In B.R.' here to make this relevant, but this is a very good interpretation overall.

Structurally, this is a very good piece with some excellent arguments, but I think you'd need to zoom in on textual details to unpack how certain evidence is substantiating your points. You're probably sitting at a mid-range 5-6/10 at the moment, but you could easily bump this up to a high-range mark by spelling out the connection between your examples and ideas

[drehara]

I've written this context essay for 'Whose Reality', was wondering if anyone would be able to mark it and give me a rough score out of 10.
Thanks! 

Spoiler

"Our realities are formed by our opinions and beliefs."

In everyone's own realities, there are differences. These can arise from differing experiences throughout life, changing situations, but ultimately it is our opinions and beliefs that dictate how we view the world and thus our personal reality. If two people have different beliefs on the same idea, often there are two completely valid interpretations emanating from each person, only each have their own personal bias towards their own view. However, there are not always legitimate, truthful views forming in an individual's mind, and this can result in completely delusional 'realities' becoming prevalent in  a person, which can be dangerous. But just like opinions, views of reality can change, and result in a broader understanding of the world.

For almost every event to occur in history, there have been multiple interpretations of the details which shape the realities of those who experience and question what happened. These differences in views prove that each person's reality can be shaped by their beliefs, while still maintaining accuracy based on one's personal experiences. These interpretations are incredibly prevalent in religious groups, where there can be huge differences between two religions that split from the same core belief based on small changes in interpretation and political beliefs. The People's Temple for the Disciple's of Christ was a Church in California during the 1970s, and became famous for the Jonestown Massacre, in which it's members committed mass suicide in protest to capitalism in the USA. Jim Jones, the leader of the church, was a firm believer in Marxism, and following the harsh treatment of communists in the USA during the Cold War, he created the church in hope of gaining support for socialism. To Jone's and his 900 followers in their Guyana settlement, the fact that the USA existed under capitalism was too much, and caused them to commit mass suicide. In contrast to Joneses extreme views, the majority of Americans at the time viewed communists as the enemy- and this was a completely valid viewpoint during the Cold War as tensions were running high between the USA and the USSR. Both of these interpretations of the political situation are perfectly acceptable, because as a persecuted Marxist, Jone's obviously would have felt a victim of the 'oppressive' capitalist society, whereas the average American would have viewed a communist as a traitor- a supporter of the enemy. But not all opinions create realities that are in any way truthful, and often this results in harsh realizations or a life of delusion. 

With so many different realities forming within everyone's minds, some of them are bound to be completely incorrect with false beliefs to back them up as 'evidence'. Those with realities that are seemingly false often have little understanding of their illusionary 'reality', and don’t actually know that they are not seeing the world clearly. On his final car ride to his death, Willy Loman thinks about the "fortune" that he will leave behind to his sons upon his death, and about how he "always knew we were gonna make it- Biff and I". But sadly, Willy's delusions are nothing more, and he does not leave Biff with twenty thousand dollars, instead he leaves him fatherless, questioning whether he had the "wrong dreams" or not. Willy had legitimate delusions throughout his whole life, seeing his uncle Ben multiple times, but in the real world seemingly normal people can experience the same form of delusion, or claim to at least. Wellness blogger Belle Gibson claims she 'cured' her cancer by following a healthy lifestyle, which she went on to post about and eventually sell on her blog "The Whole Pantry". Despite being told multiple times that there are no records of her ever having cancer, Gibson swears on her memory of the 'doctors' she saw and her denial of traditional cancer treatment. While it is possible that she truthfully does not know the difference between her fantasy and reality, it is also not out of the question to suggest that she may be lying to protect herself from any further legal action than she is already facing. If the former is true, and she is not a complete fraud, Gibson does not hold a strong grasp over what is real and what is not, and it has led her to personal destruction. Her incorrect beliefs about her past have permanently impacted her reality, and have shaped it into one where she will be forever in and out of court rooms. However, some people are able to accept new details within their reality with ease, and integrate them into their lives for a possible positive or negative change.

In everyone's lives, we experience changes in our opinions, and our realities can change just as easily if we can just accept a new point of view. A change in view on the world can often result in positive changes, but also can effectively end lives if it is too extreme of an opinion. While waiting six hours to meet Bill Oliver, Biff Loman has an epiphany- he was never actually a salesman for Oliver. This comes at a huge surprise to Willy and Happy, who are adamant that Biff had been a salesman, but they "never told the truth for ten minutes" so it is quite clear that they are clutching onto a false reality to maintain the dream of becoming a sporting goods giant. Biff was freed by his revelation, and could finally see the reality of his family- the "wrong dreams" that they possessed, and the true failure of his father's affair. But not all 'revelations' end positively. When extreme views are adopted and followed strictly, the end result can be tragedy. Craigieburn teen Jake Bilardi began reading about the situation in the Middle East as a normal 14 year old boy- naive about the harsh reality of war. But as he delved deeper into the causes, he discovered that it was the USA and allies who were truly at fault, not the jihadist "defenders" who he began to sympathize with. This sent him into a spiral of terror, first plotting to bomb Melbourne but instead travelling to Syria himself to join the fight with his Islamic 'brothers'. His whole journey was in vain, as he was sacrificed in a failed suicide bombing- not even being able to achieve anything for the group he had travelled so far for. Jake had adopted one of the most extreme views on geopolitics that exists in this day, and his zealotry towards his cause ultimately led to his death. When an opinion changes a reality to make a certain group the 'enemy', there is bound to be conflict, and most likely it will end with a negative outcome.

In everyone's minds, they are correct. Everyone see's themselves as the center of the universe- and this often causes us to disregard opinions and beliefs that conflict with our own. Even if our reality is objectively false, the other options just seem completely ludicrous and ideas of fantasy. However, when outside ideas are adopted- it can end in both enlightenment- showing us a new viewpoint on life- or catastrophe- taking our lives and mines away from us. Ultimately, our reality is based upon our beliefs, but can be molded by exterior ideas, changing details and us as people.

[mayonnaise]

Hi! Can anyone help point out any weaknesses in my language analysis? The exam date is coming closer and I'm really worried about it D:

Exam 3

Spoiler

With year eight students about to elect their language subject of choice next year, four teachers have propounded the various benefits of the own languages they teach in an attempt to attract more students to study them. They each wrote an ad in the school’s newsletter, published 20/7/16, appealing to both parents and students of Parkland Secondary College. A variety of images have also been included. (Is it worth naming each author here? Because that would take really long.)

The school’s logo, which depicts a number of different coloured hands reaching upwards, reflects the school’s values of embracing all different cultures and ethnicities. Not only that, but it is as if the hands are supporting each other, giving a ‘helping hand’ which will allow student to ‘rise to the challenge’ and fulfill their own academic potentials. Hence, reader are reassured in whatever LOTE subject they make as the author elucidates them to the integrity of the school’s values in aiding with all. (Is this paragraph needed? Because it doesn't really relate to any of the teacher's contentions.)

Mr. Ranesh, the Head of French, encourages future language students to choose French with a very buoyant and impassioned tone. He takes ‘immense pride’ in his subject, insinuating that if a student also picks French, they too will be able to find ‘immense pride’ in themselves for it. The employment of verb ‘utilising’, as opposed to its synonym ‘use’, reflects a much more scientific connotation, which consolidates Ranesh’s proposals of the ‘latest’ technologies being used in teaching his subject. To this end, the author coerces more students to study French by extolling it as the most efficient subject to help a student achieve ‘rapid fluency’. Moreover, the author’s verbal illustration of a ‘golden opportunity’ to go overseas when undertaking French studies also elicits an image of something very rare and precious, piquing student’s desire to study French in order to experience this ‘unique experience’ they would not be able to have otherwise.

Likewise, Ms. Kant, the Head of Latin, also promotes her subject on a results based case, but instead of fluency, she focusses on how studying Latin will help her students achieve the best ATAR. This is supported by the included graph, which clearly depicts the average high achieving results of Latin students, regardless of length of study, which informs readers to the immediate positive boost it would give to their ATAR score, even if only picking it up for a short while. Furthermore, Kant appeals particularly to students who want a ‘challenge’, intimating that Latin is a subject only the ‘most intelligent and committed’ students can study, and thereby motivating more people to pick it up in order to be associated with such a group. Nevertheless, there is a  prevailing viewpoint in readers that Latin is simply a ‘dead subject’, and Kant attempts to repudiate those claims by describing the benefits of the language in ‘highly paid’ careers such as ‘medicine or law’, which would particularly intrigue those who have an interest in such careers to consider studying Latin.

Ms. Oran’s addition to the newsletter when advocating for the subject of Asian Languages has a much more impersonal tone compared to the others, with employment of the wider including pronoun ‘we’, rather than ‘I’. This perhaps may make the subject appear more objective to readers - less biased- and thus lends more credibility to the author’s arguments concerning the benefits of studying Asian Languages. Furthermore, Oran degrades the attractivity of the other language subjects by describing them as ‘locking’ up a child’s future choices, harkening to the image of a restrictive jail cell which is clearly undesirable to parents and students alike. Hence, the author’s substantiation of the benefits of Asian Languages due to their flexibility is delineated as a result. In addition to these points, Oran accentuates the benefits of this subject with the image included which depicts connections between people in Australia and the surrounding countries, regardless of distance, which reiterates the ‘vital’ importance of studying the culture and language of ‘our closest neighbours’, Asia. Subsequently, studying languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian takes on an image of very practical and tangible benefits in the audience’s mind, bolstering them to choose it if they wish to widen their viewpoint on the world.

Conversely, with a much more distinguished tone, Mr. Abe targets mainly parents when lauding the benefits of studying Auslan for their children. With his explications of Parkland Secondary College as ‘the only school’ ‘pioneering’ this subject, the author propels his readers to view Auslan as an exciting new endeavour that can only be experienced at this school, and so the idea of refraining from taking it up would seem like a waste. Indeed, not only that, but having established the attractiveness of the subject, Abe extends these benefits to real life values where Auslan is an ‘unfortunate rarity’ in the workplace, intimating that having skills in it would make one extremely prized as an employee, and thereby encouraging more students to choose it for their elective as they begin to see the job opportunities it would offer to them. Likewise, by presenting himself ‘as a parent’ as well, the author projects himself as knowing the best course to take for a parent regarding the welfare of their child, and he intimates this to be undertaking the study of Auslan as it fulfills his ‘want’ - and by extension also the ‘want’ of readers as parents- of their children growing up to become a ‘well rounded citizen’, which is vital for a person’s success in the future. As a result, parents are hastened to consider the various benefits their child will obtain by studying Australian Sign Language.

Ultimately, each of the teachers attempt to persuade students to study their respective languages using a variety of techniques.
(My teacher said this is sufficient as a conclusion because they aren't that important, but it seems kind of sparse. What else would you put in here?)
 

Thanks for the help!

[mayonnaise]

I've written this context essay for 'Whose Reality', was wondering if anyone would be able to mark it and give me a rough score out of 10.
Thanks! 

Spoiler

"Our realities are formed by our opinions and beliefs."

In everyone's own realities, there are differences. These can arise from differing experiences throughout life, changing situations, but ultimately it is our opinions and beliefs that dictate how we view the world and thus our personal reality. If two people have different beliefs on the same idea, often there are two completely valid interpretations emanating from each person, only each have their own personal bias towards their own view. However, there are not always legitimate, truthful views forming in an individual's mind, and this can result in completely delusional 'realities' becoming prevalent in  a person, which can be dangerous. But just like opinions, views of reality can change, and result in a broader understanding of the world.

For almost every event to occur in history, there have been multiple interpretations of the details which shape the realities of those who experience and question what happened. These differences in views prove that each person's reality can be shaped by their beliefs, while still maintaining accuracy based on one's personal experiences. These interpretations are incredibly prevalent in religious groups, where there can be huge differences between two religions that split from the same core belief based on small changes in interpretation and political beliefs. The People's Temple for the Disciple's of Christ was a Church in California during the 1970s, and became famous for the Jonestown Massacre, in which it's members committed mass suicide in protest to capitalism in the USA. Jim Jones, the leader of the church, was a firm believer in Marxism, and following the harsh treatment of communists in the USA during the Cold War, he created the church in hope of gaining support for socialism. To Jone's and his 900 followers in their Guyana settlement, the fact that the USA existed under capitalism was too much, and caused them to commit mass suicide. In contrast to Joneses extreme views, the majority of Americans at the time viewed communists as the enemy- and this was a completely valid viewpoint during the Cold War as tensions were running high between the USA and the USSR. Both of these interpretations of the political situation are perfectly acceptable, because as a persecuted Marxist, Jone's obviously would have felt a victim of the 'oppressive' capitalist society, whereas the average American would have viewed a communist as a traitor- a supporter of the enemy. But not all opinions create realities that are in any way truthful, and often this results in harsh realizations or a life of delusion. 

With so many different realities forming within everyone's minds, some of them are bound to be completely incorrect with false beliefs to back them up as 'evidence'. Those with realities that are seemingly false often have little understanding of their illusionary 'reality', and don’t actually know that they are not seeing the world clearly. On his final car ride to his death, Willy Loman thinks about the "fortune" that he will leave behind to his sons upon his death, and about how he "always knew we were gonna make it- Biff and I". But sadly, Willy's delusions are nothing more, and he does not leave Biff with twenty thousand dollars, instead he leaves him fatherless, questioning whether he had the "wrong dreams" or not. Willy had legitimate delusions throughout his whole life, seeing his uncle Ben multiple times, but in the real world seemingly normal people can experience the same form of delusion, or claim to at least. Wellness blogger Belle Gibson claims she 'cured' her cancer by following a healthy lifestyle, which she went on to post about and eventually sell on her blog "The Whole Pantry". Despite being told multiple times that there are no records of her ever having cancer, Gibson swears on her memory of the 'doctors' she saw and her denial of traditional cancer treatment. While it is possible that she truthfully does not know the difference between her fantasy and reality, it is also not out of the question to suggest that she may be lying to protect herself from any further legal action than she is already facing. If the former is true, and she is not a complete fraud, Gibson does not hold a strong grasp over what is real and what is not, and it has led her to personal destruction. Her incorrect beliefs about her past have permanently impacted her reality, and have shaped it into one where she will be forever in and out of court rooms. However, some people are able to accept new details within their reality with ease, and integrate them into their lives for a possible positive or negative change.

In everyone's lives, we experience changes in our opinions, and our realities can change just as easily if we can just accept a new point of view. A change in view on the world can often result in positive changes, but also can effectively end lives if it is too extreme of an opinion. While waiting six hours to meet Bill Oliver, Biff Loman has an epiphany- he was never actually a salesman for Oliver. This comes at a huge surprise to Willy and Happy, who are adamant that Biff had been a salesman, but they "never told the truth for ten minutes" so it is quite clear that they are clutching onto a false reality to maintain the dream of becoming a sporting goods giant. Biff was freed by his revelation, and could finally see the reality of his family- the "wrong dreams" that they possessed, and the true failure of his father's affair. But not all 'revelations' end positively. When extreme views are adopted and followed strictly, the end result can be tragedy. Craigieburn teen Jake Bilardi began reading about the situation in the Middle East as a normal 14 year old boy- naive about the harsh reality of war. But as he delved deeper into the causes, he discovered that it was the USA and allies who were truly at fault, not the jihadist "defenders" who he began to sympathize with. This sent him into a spiral of terror, first plotting to bomb Melbourne but instead travelling to Syria himself to join the fight with his Islamic 'brothers'. His whole journey was in vain, as he was sacrificed in a failed suicide bombing- not even being able to achieve anything for the group he had travelled so far for. Jake had adopted one of the most extreme views on geopolitics that exists in this day, and his zealotry towards his cause ultimately led to his death. When an opinion changes a reality to make a certain group the 'enemy', there is bound to be conflict, and most likely it will end with a negative outcome.

In everyone's minds, they are correct. Everyone see's themselves as the center of the universe- and this often causes us to disregard opinions and beliefs that conflict with our own. Even if our reality is objectively false, the other options just seem completely ludicrous and ideas of fantasy. However, when outside ideas are adopted- it can end in both enlightenment- showing us a new viewpoint on life- or catastrophe- taking our lives and mines away from us. Ultimately, our reality is based upon our beliefs, but can be molded by exterior ideas, changing details and us as people.

I can't give a mark because I never write expository and I have no idea what to look for (if anyone else wants to, feel free!), but my first impressions of your piece is that there are a lot of grammatical errors and problems with flow.
Also your summarisations of your examples are very long and I think it would be better using that time to explore your ideas in more depth instead

So I would recommend working on these things to improve your piece

[literally lauren]

4th and final exam is up!

And so ends another round of cruelty for another year of English - best of luck to you all; I hope you've found these sadistic exercises useful.

(I'll still be giving feedback up until Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, so don't hesitate to post your essays if you're in need of advice! )

[anthonyttran]

You are a legend Lauren!

[literally lauren]

mayonnaise, you're a wonderful condiment and you've given amazing feedback to others so far, so here's some comments for your L.A. piece 

With year eight students about to elect their language subject of choice next year, four teachers have propounded the various benefits of the own languages they teach in an attempt to attract more students to study them. They each wrote an ad in the school’s newsletter, published 20/7/16, appealing to both parents and students of Parkland Secondary College. might be more natural to bring up the publication details before the contentions. Also, you don't need to include the date(s) if you don't want to or if it's not relevant. A variety of images have also been included. (Is it worth naming each author here? Because that would take really long.) not at all! This is definitely sufficient, and it'd be a waste of time being like 'the French teacher contends that French is good. the Latin teacher contends that Latin is better' etc. If in doubt, apply the 'spread of material = spread of analysis' rule: if something's taking up about half the material (i.e. one article/piece that goes on for about a page, like in Exam 4) then you should probably include it in the intro. But if you get nothing but little fragments like this, then you could just talk about the issue/background info in general and then jump into the contentions when relevant

The school’s logo, which depicts a number of different coloured hands reaching upwards, reflects the school’s values of embracing all different cultures and ethnicities. Not only that, but it is as if the hands are supporting each other, giving a ‘helping hand’ which will allow student to ‘rise to the challenge’ and fulfill their own academic potentials. Hence, reader are reassured in whatever LOTE subject they make as the author elucidates them to the integrity of the school’s values in aiding with all. (Is this paragraph needed? Because it doesn't really relate to any of the teacher's contentions.) your analysis is decent, so you could still get credit for it, but as you've said, it doesn't really relate to any of the authors, and since the task is about how the writers are using written/visual language, you could probably skip the logo. Also, again, "spread of the material" - if the logo is taking up 3 cm² and you've got two pages of stuff to talk about, you can afford to skip the small stuff.

Mr. Ranesh, the Head of French, encourages future language students to choose French with a very buoyant and impassioned tone. He takes ‘immense pride’ in his subject, insinuating that if a student also picks French, they too will be able to find ‘immense pride’ in themselves for it nice association . The employment of verb ‘utilising’, as opposed to its synonym ‘use’, reflects a much more scientific connotation, which consolidates Ranesh’s proposals of the ‘latest’ technologies being used in teaching his subject. To this end, the author coerces this has somewhat negative connotations; try to use fairly neutral words to describe the persuasion like 'positions,' 'influences,' 'conveys to readers...' etc. more students to study French by extolling it as the most efficient subject to help a student achieve ‘rapid fluency’. <-- this is an example of quoting to summarise, meaning you've chucked the quote in here and integrated it well, but you haven't actually analysed it or explained its significance. This is totally fine in T.R. essays, but should be avoided in L.A. in favour of unpacking quotes and discussing their effect. Moreover, the author’s verbal illustration what does this mean exactly? Could you be more specific/descriptive here? How is the author portraying this opportunity? What tone is being used? of a ‘golden opportunity’ to go overseas when undertaking French studies also elicits an image of something very rare and precious, I'm not sure it's 'eliciting an image,' exactly, and where does the notion of 'rareness and preciousness' come from? You're right, but show me you're right by explaining how you came to that conclusion using the language piquing student’s desire to study French in order to experience this ‘unique experience’ they would not be able to have otherwise. great coverage of this piece overall, and you've clearly understood the contention, which is excellent. There are a couple of opportunities for closer analysis of language though.

Likewise, Ms. Kant, the Head of Latin, also promotes her subject on a results based case, this is a bit colloquial; 'on the basis of academic results' might be a more formal/clearer way of conveying this but instead of fluency, she focusses on how studying Latin will help her students achieve the best ATAR. This is supported by the included graph, which clearly depicts the average high achieving results of Latin students, regardless of length of study, which informs readers to the immediate positive boost it would give to their ATAR score, even if only picking it up for a short while. Furthermore, Kant appeals particularly to students who want a ‘challenge’, intimating that Latin is a subject only the ‘most intelligent and committed’ students can study, and thereby motivating more people to pick it up in order to be associated with such a group v. good point . Nevertheless, there is a  prevailing viewpoint in readers that Latin is simply a ‘dead subject’ how do you know? Don't make suppositions about the readers' possible beliefs; just focus on what the author is attempting to do and why, and Kant attempts to repudiate those claims this is a valid point, but you can say this without having to bring up the possibility of readers considering it a dead language by describing the benefits of the language in ‘highly paid’ careers such as ‘medicine or law’, which would particularly intrigue those who have an interest in such careers to consider studying Latin. this ending lets the paragraph down a little bit; try and be more specific about the effect. Moreover, the target audience of this piece was parents more so than students (e.g. referring to "your child" rather than "you") so working them into this end statement would be ideal.

Ms. Oran’s addition to the newsletter when advocating for the subject of Asian Languages has a much more impersonal tone compared to the others, with employment of the wider including pronoun ‘we’, rather than ‘I’. This perhaps may make the subject appear more objective to readers - less biased- and thus lends more credibility to the author’s arguments how so? Why would the pronoun change have this effect? I think a stronger line of argument here would be to look at how Oran positions herself as a member of a team that coordinates different language studies rather than THE Latin teacher like Kant does - perhaps comparing this with Ranesh's description of the different French teachers would also make for a neat link? concerning the benefits of studying Asian Languages. Furthermore, Oran degrades the attractivity 'attraction' is the more conventional noun form of the other language subjects by describing them as ‘locking’ up a child’s future choices, harkening you can usually only use this to mean 'refering back to something' e.g. the author harks back to her opening anecdote when she says 'remember that story I told you before?' Also, the context of this quote was that students would be 'locked in' to a particular language stream, rather than 'locked up,' so I'm not sure the description of jail cell imagery is valid in this context, though you've argued your point well, so I'd still give you credit for this to the image of a restrictive jail cell which is clearly undesirable to parents and students alike. Hence, the author’s substantiation of the benefits of Asian Languages due to their flexibility is delineated as a result. In addition to these points, Oran accentuates the benefits of this subject with the image included which depicts connections between people in Australia and the surrounding countries, regardless of distance, which reiterates the ‘vital’ <-- analyse connotations? importance of studying the culture and language of ‘our closest neighbours’, Asia. Subsequently, studying languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian takes on an image of very practical and tangible benefits in the audience’s mind, bolstering them to choose it if they wish to widen their viewpoint on the world. Okay, this is a minor point, but generally, assessors want you to write about how the author is positioning readers to think/feel/believe, but NOT act. In other words, you should have sentences like 'this is designed to make readers want to study Asian languages' rather than 'this is designed to make readers study Asian languages.' It's a small shift, but saying stuff like 'the author wants readers to do XYZ' can come across as a little too definitive to assessors, so try and focus on how ideas are being manipulated within their minds, rather than the potential consequences of these actions.

Conversely, with a much more distinguished tone, Mr. Abe targets mainly parents when lauding the benefits of studying Auslan for their children. With his explications of Parkland Secondary College as ‘the only school’ ‘pioneering’ this subject, the author propels his readers to view Auslan as an exciting new endeavour that can only be experienced at this school, and so the idea of refraining from taking it up would seem like a waste. Indeed, not only that, but having established the attractiveness of the subject, Abe extends these benefits to real life values where Auslan is an ‘unfortunate rarity’ in the workplace, intimating that having skills in it would make one extremely prized as an employee, and thereby encouraging more students to choose it for their elective as they begin to see the job opportunities it would offer to them. Likewise, by presenting himself ‘as a parent’ as well, the author projects himself as knowing the best course to take for a parent regarding the welfare of their child, and he intimates this to be undertaking the study of Auslan as it fulfills his ‘want’ - and by extension also the ‘want’ of readers as parents- of their children growing up to become a ‘well rounded citizen’, which is vital for a person’s success in the future. quite a long sentence, but good analysis in this para. As a result, parents are hastened to consider the various benefits their child will obtain by studying Australian Sign Language.

Ultimately, each of the teachers attempt to persuade students to study their respective languages using a variety of techniques.
(My teacher said this is sufficient as a conclusion because they aren't that important, but it seems kind of sparse. What else would you put in here?) I'm not a fan of the super generic conclusions, so avoid this sentence if you can because just saying 'they use techniques to persuade readers' is a bit of an unnecessary point. It's like saying 'each of the authors use words and sentences to target their audience' Instead, you can say something about each contention and the intended effect of each piece in general; so for material like this, you could group the pieces together and maybe have one sentence that covers two at a time. e.g.

'To this end, Abe aims to encourage parents to view Auslan as having inestimable benefits on their child's emotional growth, whereas Kant appeals more so to parents' desire to see their child succeed academically in their pursuit of a subject like Latin. Both Ranesh and Oran address the practicalities of learning their respective languages with an emphasis on individual experience and employability respectively. To this end, each of the teachers attempt to position their language as the most appealing option for prospective students.'

If you wanted to, you could just have that final sentence, I suppose, but it can be good to revisit overall arguments and/or zoom out to talk about the audience at the end, if possible.

Overall, you've got some very strong analysis here. There were a few opportunities for connections between the material that I think could've strengthened this (i.e. rather than just dealing with one author per paragraph) but the quality of your analysis outweighs the lack of comparison (and there are no marks explicitly for comparison either, so I'm just being fussy ). Your linking of the visuals was solid, and you've got a good grasp of the arguments. Just be sure to be as specific as possible when talking about the intended effect

[mayonnaise]

Thanks Lauren!

Delicious feedback as usual
Especially on not quoting to summarise and also 'spread of the material' rule
They never teach this stuff at school 

I feel a lot better about my analysis now!

[angrypotato1]

Hey! thanks for this! Would love some feedback, feel free to tear me apart! Also would appreciate a score out of ten, and what you think I could get on the actual exam. Cheers <3

The first maus prompt

Spoiler

The death of Anja Spiegelman is a key emotional point in the graphic novel The Complete Maus by Art Spiegelman. A comic embedded in the graphic novel titled “Prisoner on the Hell Planet” depicts Artie’s recount of the event. Artie shows himself as a prisoner, blaming himself for Anja’s suicide.
A quote from Prisoner on the Hell Planet describes Artie’s various emotions he felt, “You murdered me, Mommy, and you left me here to take the rap!”. The first part “You murdered me” embodies Artie’s resentment to Anja, saying her actions killed him emotionally. This phrase also shows Artie projecting his guilt of her death onto her, reversing the roles. However, Arties still calls her “Mommy”, a childish term evoking a sense of dependency and connectedness; something Artie still craves from his mother. The final part “you left me here to take the rap!” shows how Artie feels blamed for Anja’s suicide- both blame given by himself and others.
Artie perceives that others blame him for Anja’s suicide. A family member is drawn with a thought bubble of “It’s his fault the punk”. Although nobody told Artie it was his fault, the blame accusations are not entirely resultant of projection from Artie. Upon finding the comic, Mala tells Artie “It was like how you said” reaffirming Artie’s suspicions of being blamed for Anja’s suicide. If others are blaming Artie, he is likely to feel at fault for her suicide.
Within the comic, Artie illustrates reason to be blamed for the suicide. He draws himself in bed, with his mother anxiously at the door. She queries “Do you still love me?” and Artie, facing away from her replies “Sure ma”, a cruelly cold curt response to a final plea for affection from his mother. Like in Maus, Artie is brutally honest with his mistakes, even to depict himself as a reason towards Anja’s suicide. Artie blames himself for her death because he has reason to, as shown in the comic.
However, Anja’s mental health was not consistent even before the Holocaust. The death of Richieu would have cause deep trauma to Anja’s emotional being. Artie knows this, and also feels like he can never compare to Richieu. Artie refers to him as a “ghost brother” and envies him. In Arties eyes, his parents saw the photograph as a perfect child. A picture who “never threw tantrums” and would probably “marry a rich Jewish girl”. The pressure of sibling rivalry with a perfect child gave Artiea deep-rooted guilt of never meeting his parents’ expectations. This guilt carries over to his mother’s suicide. Richieu would never have rejected his mother’s love.
Artie is also shown to have difficulty relating to his parents, mostly through his interactions with Vladek. “I can’t even understand my father, how am I supposed to understand Auchwitz” Arties complained to Francoise. Artie’s ability to understand his parents is tied to their story. When starting Maus, instead of skipping to the war Artie requests “Tell me how you guys met”. Artie wants to know the story of his mother so he can finally understand her, just like how he tries to understand Vladek through his stories. His inability to connect with his mother gives him reason to blame himself for her suicide. Artie’s search for his mother’s memoirs is persistent, showing his drive and importance he holds to them. He continuously pesters his father with questions about them, even tears his bookcase apart much to Mala’s dismay. When Artie finds out Vladek threw the diaries away he only mutters one word, “Murderer”. Arties assigns the blame for Anja’s death to Vladek because he “killed” the stories she left behind. This shows htat understanding Anja’s story was paramount for Artie’s guilt for her death. Artie can now never amend his failed connection with Anja.
Artie blames himself for his mother’s death for many reasons. For his whole childhood he couldn’t connect with her or live up to her expectations. Around her suicide, Artie is blamed by others and he accepts this blame and believes he failed at being a caring son. Even when Artie tries absolve his guilt, the remnants of Anja’s story are lost due to Vladek.

Section c

Spoiler

To aid job-seekers, Lana Deed writes a post in the forum CareerReady about interview attire. Deed argues the importance of appropriate attire to be worn at an interview. She uses an enthusiastic tone which can be seen through the litter of exclamation marks, starting with her title “Dress to Impress!”. Commenters share their opinions on the piece.
Deed ensures that the readers understand he intentions of the post. Her subtitle “Lana Deed’s guide…” is passive, suggesting she is just trying to help rather than instructing job-seekers what to do. Deed states that the guide is “for all you first-timers”, casually addressing her audience. Casual and passive language seeks to prevent job-seekers from being alienated by her potentially controversial contention. In the cause of Misha Lyndon, who states that “this is an awesome guide”, is instead alienated by interviewers themselves. He appeals to justice by highlighting how shallow the process is said to be. “can’t they just look beyond that and judge what’s on the inside” he pleas to the “interviewers [who] are so harsh”. Lyndon seeks for employment via a fair interview system, and encourages potential interviewers to look on the inside.
Deed continues to demonstrate the importance of her guide. She states that “almost every job application” will require an interview. Deed also confirms “the old adage” to cause a logical step that a job-seeker must know to make a good “first impression”. Deed uses firm language to suggest that clothing is key to the first impressions. “Substantial effect” and the emphasis of “you need to consider” suggests to job-seekers that they have no choice, and must follow Deed’s guide and contention. Richard Mandle contests this idea. Mandle states his experience in interviewing “involved… a few times” to ensure forum members can trust his opinions. He proceeds to ridicule Deed’s idea by stating that he cares more about “knowledge and attitude” than “the colour of their shirt”. By oversimplifying an interviewer’s attention to attire, he makes the focus seem ridiculous, which supports his contention that interviewers care much more about the candidate’s skills and interests rather than their clothes.
In order to gain the readers’ trust, Deed shares her qualifications for writing the post. Deed is a “senior recruitment officer and interviewer at Telstra for four years”. Her position title “senior” suggests a deep level of expertise and Telstra is a well-known and respected company. By name dropping Telstra and “senior”, Deed appears trustworthy. The mention of “four years” further reaffirms her experience in the field of interviews. On a forum full of conflicting opinions, potentially confused job-seekers have a reason to believe Deed’s arguments more than someone else’s. Deed’s qualifications also demonstrate her passion for the interview process. She uses lots of italics and exclamation marks like “you need to… will be!” to show this enthusiasm. This further builds trust and a sense of shared enthusiasm for interviews with the reader. A shared passion brings more power to Deed’s message.
An annotated picture is used to exaggerate what not to do. Deed asks the reader “would you hire the guy on the left?”. This, combined with clear annotated flaws of the interviewee leads the reader to answer no. This projects to the job-seekers that their attire is important. The annotations show how easy it is to point out flaws in an interviewees attire. This suggest to the reader how simple it is to both improve and be discriminated by an interviewer. Job-seekers are more likely to take action in Deed’s contention once the believe this.
Deed follows with an anecdote exemplifying how poor attire is common and throws out interviews. Deed’s tone shifts to be more exasperated- “for those of you who do actually want to get hired”. Deed’s exasperation reflects how other interviewers feel frustrated about poor attire in interviews. As readers obviously want to get hired, this statement either offends them or leads them to understand the significant value of “apparel [being] the most telling indicator”. Her previous attempts at preventing alienation work to lead readers to the latter conclusion. Hob-seekers now await the guidance on what to wear.
A simple, neat diagram shows the job-seeking audience what to wear. The diagram reflects the idea Deed perpetuates- that job-seekers should look neat and “keep things simple!”. Deed’s explanation of what to wear is concise and precise, helping the reader to easily enact the contention. By making things simple, this gives reluctant job-seekers even more reason to wear proper attire.
While commenters may disagree, Deed connects her experience and why attire is important to help guide job-seekers to dress appropriately for interviews.