How strict are assessors on Language Analysis essay structure?

[8dy89]

Hi I have my Comparative LA SAC on Friday and was wondering how strict the assessors are on essay structure?

For instance, could they mark you down if you don't follow the conventional {5 PARAGRAPH: Introduction, B1, B2, B3, B4, Conclusion} structure?

I find that I repeat myself a lot when I write in large chunks/paragraphs, so I was thinking of doing:

Each > is a chunk/paragraph

> (one to two sentences max): introduce issue and the three stances

> introduce article 1 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 1

> introduce article 2 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 2 with links to article 1

> introduce article/visual 3 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 3 with links to article 1 and 2

> short 1-3 sentence conclusion

Also, do I have to keep repeating the target audience throughout my piece? i.e. in the introduction, then again while analysing... or can there be more than one kind of audience for each argument?

My teacher likes the basic template formula approach so I'm a bit conflicted as it will, in the end, be marked by my teacher. I'm afraid I will lose marks on structure, even though everything is included =[

thanks!

[meganrobyn]

Hi I have my Comparative LA SAC on Friday and was wondering how strict the assessors are on essay structure?

For instance, could they mark you down if you don't follow the conventional {5 PARAGRAPH: Introduction, B1, B2, B3, B4, Conclusion} structure?

I find that I repeat myself a lot when I write in large chunks/paragraphs, so I was thinking of doing:

Each > is a chunk/paragraph

> (one to two sentences max): introduce issue and the three stances

> introduce article 1 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 1

> introduce article 2 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 2 with links to article 1

> introduce article/visual 3 {tone, TA, contention etc.}

> analyse article 3 with links to article 1 and 2

> short 1-3 sentence conclusion

Also, do I have to keep repeating the target audience throughout my piece? i.e. in the introduction, then again while analysing... or can there be more than one kind of audience for each argument?

My teacher likes the basic template formula approach so I'm a bit conflicted as it will, in the end, be marked by my teacher. I'm afraid I will lose marks on structure, even though everything is included =[

thanks!

Firstly, you'll be pleased to know that there is no conventional structure. Every school I know teaches a slightly different approach, so the real test is whether it works.

For your suggested, I am concerned you've got a whole bunch of introductions. You also have really limited opportunity to compare the texts. So I'd play with that structure a bit. I prefer combining the texts into a united introduction, where you lay out where they all stand on the same issue and draw attention to basic differences/similarities in TA and approach (not analysing yet), and then progressing into comparative analysis (which people all structure a bit differently). Keep in mind, too, that you do little analysis in an intro, so you get limited marks for it in this task - which is focused on analysis.

[meganrobyn]

Sorry - just with the other questions...

You do have to keep talking about the TA, because the whole piece is about how the author tries to position them and influence them and their feelings and thoughts. The TA isn't a person or a demographic, though: it's a PoV. So, what exact PoV do you think the author is targeting and trying to change? Then, how might someone with that PoV respond to the structure, language, etc, of the text?

For SACs, 100% go with what your teacher likes. Try it out. UNLESS you're sure they're entirely flexible (but few people truly are). Then see what you like and don't like about it so you can make an informed choice for the exam.

[vor0005]

While you can deviate from the conventional structure, I certainly wouldn't recommend it - this is because it would make your essay look incomplete (and probably just messy overall). The huge problem with the structure you have proposed is that it doesn't force you to compare and contrast the two articles throughout your essay - instead, you've restricted comparisons of the articles to one paragraph.

With my own students, I force them to compare and contrast solely through the structure I teach them.
That is:
- Each paragraph is based on an argument/idea/POV that both writers have either agreed on, or disagreed on & this contrast is highlighted in the topic sentence
- First half of paragraph deals with how the 1st article argues its side of the particular argument
- Second half of paragraph deals with how the 2nd article argues its side of the particular argument
- Lastly, you finish off with a linking sentence which highlights how audiences are positioned to feel/act/believe OVERALL as a result of the argument/s (could be 2 effects if the articles disagree on an argument)

I know that might be a lot to take in, particularly without an example, but hope it makes sense.

Let me know if you have any further questions