So for the Medea one, I've literally been staring at it for days and cannot come up with three arguments for it. I've reworded it to "the worst 'insult' to Medea is the 'violation' of her pride", I don't know if that's right but I still can't seem to think of three paragraphs for it!
And the conflict one I'm assuming it's talking about how the history of the conflict can also shape any future conflicts experienced?
That's alright, the Medea one was quite left-of-field; consider what you could say about the different kinds of challenges Medea faces and the different wrongs that she endures. The prompt kind of hints that they can all be traced back to her pride (e.g. the reason she's so upset that Jason betrayed her was that it undermined her sense of self, etc.) so that should give you somewhere to start.
For the conflict one, yes, definitely, you could look at it from a variety of perspectives. Though I don't think anything like that would crop up in the exam since it wouldn't really suit the set texts.
What do you mean by link to argument???
I've been doing LA intuitively all year but apparently exam stress is screwing up my intuition... 
As in, why would the author do this and how would it help their argument? (like linking things back to the key player, though it's more like an optional step - you don't have to do this for every single point of analysis)
Also: can exhorts and encourage be used interchangeably??
'exhorts' is a little stronger; 'exhorts' is more like 'implores,' whereas 'encourages' would be a more generic, mild version.
How would you structure the interview in the practise exam 2? I'm having trouble figuring out what would be analysed
The host of the show didn't really have a contention, so you can leave him out. But you'd want to deal with both of the guests and their contentions, so the easiest structure would probably be to pick out three core concepts that they both talk about (e.g. the respectfulness of young people) and then talk about how they both position that concept (approx half a paragraph on each) - does that make sense?
For LA, would I lose marks for not using paragraphs at all (Unless it's two pieces in which case I would use two)? I discuss the techniques chronologically as they are in the piece and sometimes one technique can appear in different sections of the piece (for example in the e-book LA from 2012 the author emphasises that she's open to change both at the beginning and at the end of the piece).
Your analysis will probably be stronger if you can find some sub-arguments to talk about.
See:
this guideAssessors wouldn't be keen on a wall of text with no paragraphs or breaks though, so try and divy up the material if you can. Also, the fact that one technique can appear multiple times is kind of a reason why you should AVOID tackling things chronologically since you may end up repeating yourself. But that's a good back-up option in case you get some really tough material and just want to try and work through the analysis
could someone please tell me what exactly will the examiners be looking for in a context (imaginative)
That's a pretty general question... is there anything in particular you're unsure of or struggling with?
There's some broad advice if you click on the links in the 'Context' section in
this post - hope that helps!
Home
Help
Search
Login
