i hate you language analysis ==

[mystikal]

i have to do some venting here, == i stufffed up the analysis, the article was a masssive load of bull.

and the visual == i said that it was against the article == when it was suppose to be in favour.
the visual was so dodgey, i thought it was meant to be a bleak image(dark background) of the future where the person seem emotionless and humans would simplely be a bunch of numbers no individuality and seem less human. I hate you visual == i realised that you were meant to say the visual supported the article.

does that mean i get penalised badly==?

[phuiii]

The thing about language analysis is that it is open to interpretation.
You can basically write anything you want as long as you justified it with evidence from the source before your analysis.
So basically if you explained "How" it positioned the reader, you won't get penalised in fact you probably might score higher than other people by having a fresh view of the opinion article.

[Heiby]

hmmm i thought the visual went with the article....because he was talking about "super sapiens" and i wrote that it symbolised the human brain being replaced by computers because they do everything for us.

but it was a pretty crappy article all around

[mystikal]

actually == if u you read the page before the articles, it says in a small simple sentence 'please explain how the visual and written language persuades the reader in the same opinion of the opinion piece.' == yea im stupid eh?

hmmm i thought the visual went with the article....because he was talking about "super sapiens" and i wrote that it symbolised the human brain being replaced by computers because they do everything for us.

but it was a pretty crappy article all around

yea you are right dw, the visual did go with the article

[dejan91]

I don't think you can get penalised if you justified your viewpoint. Remember that each analysis is going to be different because everybody has their own interpretation on something. So if you could give a reason as to why you thought it was against the article then you should be fine. But honestly, I'm not 100% sure on this. Just my thoughts.

[kendraaaaa]

I think the examiners marking the language analysis definately won't get bored, there's a lot of room for personal interpration in that piece/image.

[PepsiMax]

If you state in your contention that he is pro-tech and then write that he is anti-tech I think that you will be penalised.

[mystikal]

If you state in your contention that he is pro-tech and then write that he is anti-tech I think that you will be penalised.

nahh i said through out the analysis that the image was anti tech and the opinion piece was pro tech.

[kendraaaaa]

If you state in your contention that he is pro-tech and then write that he is anti-tech I think that you will be penalised.

nahh i said through out the analysis that the image was anti tech and the opinion piece was pro tech.

Eh I dunno, if I was reading that it would seem a bit illogical since the image is there to support the author's contention not challenge it. However, if you managed to support yourself I guess it's okay.

[mystikal]

If you state in your contention that he is pro-tech and then write that he is anti-tech I think that you will be penalised.

nahh i said through out the analysis that the image was anti tech and the opinion piece was pro tech.

Eh I dunno, if I was reading that it would seem a bit illogical since the image is there to support the author's contention not challenge it.

i know i know =( thats why i think i stuffed it up, but i did back up my interpretation with evidence.

[PepsiMax]

I wrote that he provided points that were against his contention.........



but he disproved them to remove any doubt in the reader's minds about embracing technology. 

Don't stress though, I seriously doubt you will get hit hard for that, if at all.

[i.am.amanda]

I talked about the image's ambiguity. Voxi might have thought that the image supported his contention, but clearly others think differently (as is seen in this thread). I wrote that it could have been a negative inclusion in the article, as it may be viewed as humans becoming 'robotic'; but the general audience (being internet users) would likely be presuaded to view the image in a positive light.

[NE2000]

Wasn't the audience, while obviously being internet users, more her opposition. Just from the fact that she went to great lengths to appease that she understands their viewpoint while also presenting counterargument and questions like "why be afraid?" or something. It would be an interesting read but of no effect to supporters. Well that's what I thought. I found it a bit weird that the opposition would be reading Voxi's piece in an online journal though, but the purpose of the piece was to persuade those of opposing viewpoint.

[i.am.amanda]

Dunno. I just went with internet users because, as you said, I couldn't see Voxi's opposition reading an internet journal.

I think as long as both points of view were taken into consideration it shouldn't be a big deal, right?

[NE2000]

Yeah I think they're generally lenient with places where you can have multiple interpretations.