Feedback and marking my essay

[LPadlan]

If anyone has the time to give me some constructive criticism and a mark from 1-10(be honest) it will be greatly appreciated.

Following the recent protest for free education, Arjuna Bhamra contends in her piece “the real cost of free education” published on October 2016 in “campus chorus” that students must pay the loan fees as it is not fair for taxpayers to pay the full cost. This piece draws attention to how nothing is free, there is a price to everything, the greed of students who are never satisfied always wanting more and how it should be expected for people to pay for their own education in the same way people are expected to pay for food and shelter, in an attempt to highlight the unfairness to taxpayers. This piece is targeted to the lower and middle class citizens.
Bhamra contends that there is a price to everything, the word free is a connotation, stating that “there is no such thing as a free education” in an attempt to appeal to hip-pocket nerve as it is the taxpayers that have to pay for “free education”. By the use of rhetoric questioning, Lyong questions “who should have to pay these costs?” The author highlights the supposedly obvious answer, thus positioning the audience o feel the need to agree with the author as disagreeing would mean the audience dismissed valid points.
Through the use of a visual showing a protest by students who are never satisfied, Lyong contends that students are selfish, not thinking about how their greed affects others as long as they benefit. Through the use of this imagery, the author shows how students are attached to the idea of things being for free. The image contains repetition of words such as “free and “me, me, me” giving emphasis to her argument. This positions the reader to despise students for their endless never-satisfied greed.
Following the previous arguments, Lyong contends that people should be responsible for paying for their own education a people are responsible for their own “food and shelter”. Through the use of common sense, Lyong states that investing more into higher education will “hurt the economy and our job prospects” as investing into higher education is paid by “taxing more”. Lyong validates her argument that people should be responsible for paying their own education as paying more taxes for someone else’s benefit will “hurt the economy” the same way if the taxes were raised to pay for people who don’t have a house. Through the use of a visual image accompanied with a rhetoric question, the image shows the unfairness of trading nothing for a higher “earning capacity”. This positions the reader to see the unfairness and hence support the author.
The author’s indignant appeal to fairness and justice is designed to persuade normal working citizens and students that there is a price for everything, free things for one person aren’t free for someone else, claiming that this is unfair. Ultimately, by portraying students as greedy and self-entitled, the author seeks to bring about a change in the support for free education.

[clarke54321]

If anyone has the time to give me some constructive criticism and a mark from 1-10(be honest) it will be greatly appreciated.

Following the recent protest for free education, Arjuna Bhamra contends in her piece “the real cost of free education” published on October 2016 in “campus chorus” that students must pay the loan fees as it is not fair for taxpayers to pay the full costnice short and sharp opening. This piece draws attention to how nothing is free, there is a price to everything, the greed of students who are never satisfied always wanting more and how it should be expected for people to pay for their own education in the same way people are expected to pay for food and shelter, in an attempt to highlight the unfairness to taxpayers It seems as though you are just signposting arguments here. I'm not sure of your teacher's preference, but I've always been under the impression that it is best to leave this out of the intro.. This piece is targeted to the lower and middle class citizens. this is quite a direct reference to audience. There is nothing wrong with this. But to add sophistication, it's good to integrate within a larger sentence. Also try and make reference to the author's tone/ tonal shift.
Bhamra contends that there is a price to everything, the word free is a connotationthis is unclear, stating that “there is no such thing as a free education” in an attempt to appeal to hip-pocket nerve as it is the taxpayers that have to pay for “free education”. By the use of rhetoric questioning, Lyong questions “who should have to pay these costs?” The author highlights the supposedly obvious answer, thus positioning the audience o feel the need to agree with the author as disagreeing would mean the audience dismissed valid pointsI see where you're going with this, but the articulation of it is quite unclear. To avoid this, I'd use shorter sentences and spend some more time working directly with evidence. Eg. 'Through the rhetorical question, "who should have to pay these costs?", Lyong appeals to the fairness/justice of X, which in turn seeks to engender (emotion X).' This is a tighter approach to analysis. .
Through the use of a visual showing a protest by students who are never satisfied, Lyong contends that students are selfish, not thinking about how their greed affects others as long as they benefitgood analysis. Obviously I haven't seen the image, but always make sure image analysis moves from objective----> more detailed (ie. what is seemingly subjective).. Through the use of this imagery, the author shows how students are attached to the idea of things being for free. The image contains repetition of words such as “free and “me, me, me” giving emphasis to her argument nice reference to repetition. To make the point even stronger, you could talk about how this repetition works in conjunction with the image. This would give further weight to the idea that students are greedy, etc.. This positions the reader to despise students for their endless never-satisfied greed and react how to free education (as extension)?.
Following the previous arguments, Lyong contends that people should be responsible for paying for their own education as people are responsible for their own “food and shelter”. Through the use of common sense, Lyong states that investing more into higher education will “hurt the economy and our job prospects” as investing into higher education is paid by “taxing more”what is the intent of this? How are readers positioned to thus feel/think?. Lyong validates her argument that people should be responsible for paying their own education as paying more taxes for someone else’s benefit will “hurt the economy” the same way if the taxes were raised to pay for people who don’t have a housethis is quite wordy and needs some editing. You need to focus more on authorial intent?. Through the use of a visual image accompanied with a rhetoric question, the image shows the unfairness of trading nothing for a higher “earning capacity”. <---- where is the intermediate analysis between what and why-----> Need the HOWThis positions the reader to see the unfairness and hence support the author.
The author’s indignant appeal to fairness and justice is designed to persuade normal working citizens and students that there is a price for everything, free things for one person aren’t free for someone else, claiming that this is unfair. Ultimately, by portraying students as greedy and self-entitled, the author seeks to bring about a change in the support for free education.Nice wrap up of your main points

What was done well:

-Understanding of arguments
-Quote integration
-Integration of image analysis
-Technique identification

What could be improved:

-Teasing out of analysis (and thus how the author is carrying out their intended effect)
-Shorter sentences
-A revision of introduction set-up


Result:

Given that I am in year 12, I'm not really qualified to give you a mark from 1-10. I honestly have no idea how to grade my own work, let alone the work of someone else. But what I would say is, try not to get too hung up on what mark this would receive. Rather, focus on areas for improvement and the marks will look after themselves. All the best 

[LPadlan]

Can someone please my mark AA essay, i'm unsure where i need to work on, thanks. This is the 2017 sample exam

Following the ever-growing concerns on the increased deterioration rates of biodiversity, Professor Chris Lee performs his speech entitled “Taking stock” at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, held in Nagoya, Japan with a tone of mild distress. Lee declares his concerns about the continuous deterioration of biodiversity. The piece further brings attention to the lack of humanitarian effort performed by national leaders in an attempt to encourage leaders of biodiversity to believe in their knowledge and take immediate action. This piece was also accompanied by a photorealistic image depicting two hands caressing the Earth which invites the audience to join and take care of the Earth.

   Lee begins his speech by asserting the horrors to come as a consequence of the current negligence. Through the use of powerful imagery, the author initially utilises a pleasing tone to depict Earth as “lush” with “clear rivers” lowering the content limitations of the audience. It is due to the sudden shift to a menacing tone where the audience imagines a “scorched Earth” where lifeforms are “groping for life”. By doing this, Lee positions those who are slow getting into action to be more likely to initiate a change in behaviour. Simultaneously, Lee contends the impending “uninhabitable Earth” by referring to the audience as his “colleagues”. By doing this, Lee appeals to the listener’s group loyalty which in turn stimulates a subconscious trigger to adhere with the overall contention. Furthermore, this positions the audience to feel a magnified attachment towards the idea portrayed by Lee.

  In addition to highlighting the impending dangers of negligence, Lee contends that it is due to “reckless actions” of humans that is to be held accountable for the loss of “35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands”. Through the implementation of statistics in ascending order, Lee attempts to invite the audience to take initiative by appealing to their humanitarian instincts. The leaders are thus positioned to feel a fierce desire for the need to scheme a drastic reduction in the ever-growing statistics as a result of their recklessness. Despite this, Lee continues to exploit statistics and facts to further nourish his previous argument. Lee promotes the “804” species extinct and how “38%” of wildlife are threatened as a result of maltreatment of the environment. Lee’s continuous usage of facts and statistics promotes feelings from the audience by empathising with the horror of exponential numbers of animals approaching extinction. Through this, Lee intends to position his colleagues to feel a sense of disgrace, as they are the most knowledgeable about the crisis. Moreover, Lee strengthens his argument by mocking “deniers” who refuse to accept the common literature but instead claim this mass-scale extinction is due to “natural change”. The word denier with its connotations of imbecile and ignorance seems to suggest part of the author’s attempts to exclude these individuals. By portraying deniers as a separate and foolish entity, Lee attempts to position the audience to feel comical about the denial of facts by deniers thus further strengthening his position.

   The final slide is accompanied by a photorealistic image of a hand gently caressing the Earth. It is by the usage of this picture of a hand facing to the side that the speaker is attempting to convey the idea that people are encouraged to join the circle. This encourages the audience to feel obliged to unite together and take great care of this world as the image contains a baby-like figure of Earth, asserting the idea that the audience is responsible f or the prospering of the Earth. The most “educated generation” conveys the idea that there is “no excuse for inaction”. Furthermore, Lee implements the usage of repetition and inclusive language, for example “what have you and your country actually done”? By doing this, Lee is attempting to consolidate the idea that they are all part of this crisis thus positioning the audience to take responsibility for their own doings.

Concluding his speech, Lee implements that it is “time for serious action” to motivate and entice the audience in order to leave a lasting effect. It is by ending his speech like this aims to ingrain a sense of unity and desire to finally take action

[clarke54321]

Can someone please my mark AA essay, i'm unsure where i need to work on, thanks. This is the 2017 sample exam

Following the ever-growing concerns onof the increased deterioration rates of biodiversity, Professor Chris Lee performsvery minor, but a bit odd. Perhaps delivers would be more fitting his speech entitled “Taking stock” at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, held in Nagoya, Japan with a tone of mild distress. Lee declares his concerns about the continuous deterioration of biodiversity can you try and be more specific of these concerns (ie.natural landscape/endangered species). The piece further brings attention to the lack of humanitarian effort performed by national leaders in an attempt to encourage leaders of biodiversity to believe in their knowledge and take immediate action. This piece was also accompanied by a photorealistic slide imageimage depicting two hands caressing the Earth which invites the audience to join and take care of the Earth this is very much a personal preference, but I don't like to start analysing the image in the intro. I just don't like to repeat material later on. But if this has been working for you, and is part of your routine, then definitely keep it! It is only an alternative viewpoint..Great intro.

   Lee begins his speech by asserting the horrorscould you be more specific as to what these horrors are? to come as a consequence of the current negligence. Through the use of powerful imagery, the author initially utilises a pleasing tone to depict Earth as “lush” with “clear rivers” lowering the content limitations not entirely sure what you mean by thisof the audience with the imagery of the lush/clean rivers, coupled with the seemingly praising tone, can you pull out more analysis? What kinds of reflections are provoked? What feeling do these reflections then kindle? Ie. Longing to nurture/protect, cultivate the beauty, etc. Lee establishes this awe-inspiring magnificence early for a reason. . It is due to the sudden shift to a menacing tone where the audience imagines a “scorched Earth” where lifeforms are “groping for life”. By doing this, Lee positions those who are slow getting into action to be more likely to initiate a change in behaviour but why? Take this down to a word-level analysis. What connotations are generated by the verbs "scorched" and "groping". To me these indicate decay/obliteration of essential form. This is disturbing for environment activists in the audience.. Simultaneously, Lee contends the impending “uninhabitable Earth”bit of an awkward phrase by referring to the audience as his “colleagues”. By doing this, Lee appeals to the listener’s group loyalty which in turn stimulates a subconscious trigger to adhere with the overall contention ok good. Lee is establishing the notion of cooperation and teamwork to kindle a sense of zeal, and thus yearning to affect change.. Furthermore, this positions the audience to feel a magnified attachment towards the idea portrayed by Lee.

  In addition to highlighting the impending dangers of negligence, Lee contends that it is due to “reckless actions” of humansso this argument will focus on human recklessness? Influence in precipitating environmental turmoil? I'd try and make this clearer in the topic sentence. I had to read it a few times to understand the distinction between this point and the previous one. that is to be held accountable for the loss of “35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands”. Through the implementation of statistics in ascending order, Lee attempts to invite the audience to take initiative by appealing to their humanitarian instincts this is a bit general. By continuously increasing the statistics, Lee implicitly mimics the stealthy decay of these creatures, which hence serves to engender strident panic in audiences, who are positioned to reflect on their own complicity in this destruction.. The leaders are thus positioned to feel a fierce desire for the need to scheme bit clunkya drastic reduction in the ever-growing statistics as a result of their recklessness good. Despite this, Lee continues to exploit statistics and facts to further nourishI really like this!  his previous argument. Lee promotes not too sure about thisthe “804” species extinct and how “38%” of wildlife are threatened as a result of maltreatment of the environment. Lee’s continuous usage of facts and statistics promotes again not too surefeelings from the audience by empathising this may not be the best verb choice. It's ambiguous who is doing the empathising? Further, can one empathise with something horrific?with the horror of exponential numbers of animals approaching extinction. Through this, Lee intends to position his colleagues to feel a sense of disgrace, as they are the most knowledgeablevery minor- but possibly too subjective. Maybe: As they are inherently knowledgeable, and carry some responsibility in the matter. about the crisis. Moreover, Lee strengthens how does this mocking strengthen the argument? I didn't get much sense of this after having read the paragraph.his argument by mocking “deniers” who refuse to accept the common literature but instead claim this mass-scale extinction is due to “natural change”. The word denier with its connotations of imbecileimbecility and ignorance seems to suggest part of the author’s attempts to exclude these individualsbit awkward. Perhaps Lee endeavours to silently admonish/castigate these individuals.
This will be a smoother transition to your next sentence.. By portraying deniers as a separate and foolish entity, Lee attempts to position the audience to feel comical about the denial of facts by deniers thus further strengthening his position.

   The final slide is accompanied by a photorealisticI'm not too keen on this. It is a slide image, so I'd maybe just stick to that image of a hand gently caressing the Earth <--- here is what I mean about repeating material. It is by the usage It is the inclusion of.....of this picture of a hand facing to the side that the speaker is attempting to convey the idea that people are encouraged to join the circle try and be more specific. The gentle caress of the hand intimates that our Earth requires gentle nurturing. But more----> significant that it is a human hand holding it. Direct link to audience members, who are prompted to achknowledge, that Earth and it's survival depends on our strength of action.. This encourages the audience to feel obliged to unite together and take great care of this world as the image contains a baby-like figure of Earth, asserting the idea that the audience is responsible f or the prospering of the Earth lovely. The most “educated generation” conveys the idea that there is “no excuse for inaction”why? Be sure to elaborate on quoted evidence. As the "most educated generation"
there is the suggestion that we are equipped with the most dynamic knowledge, and innovative tools, to affect a change that is magnificently novel. This bolsters the feelings of zeal/exhilaration among audiences.. Furthermore, Lee implements the usage of repetition and inclusive language, for example “what have you and your country actually done”? By doing this, Lee is attempting to consolidate the idea that they are all part of this crisis thus positioning the audience to take responsibility for their own doings this level of directness too warns audiences that if change is not made, they will only be subject to the unfavourable feelings of guilt/shame for their inactivity. This ends on a sour note to reinforce the notion of raw necessity..

Concluding his speech, Lee implements be careful with this verb choice. Rather, Lee avers/maintains/contents/assertsthat it is “time for serious action” to motivate and entice the audience in order to leave a lasting effect the flow of this sentence is a bit off. It is by ending his speech like this aims to ingrain a sense of unity in audiences and desire to finally take action

Well done on the analysis! Beautiful integration of quotes and highly logical delineation of argument. The structure of the piece was also very clear, in terms of the what-->how--->why. To take your analysis to the next level, I'd encourage you to be more specific with argument/evident analysis.
Really try and imagine how you'd react if you were listening to this speech. What thoughts, feelings, uncertainties would you have? All the very best for the exam!