VCE English Question Thread

[literally lauren]

Hi guys i need some help with my oral regarding formulating some solid arguments to back up my contention. My topic is child vaccination laws and to give you some background info, the government is basically going to be restricting parents from receiving government child benefits if they do not get there children immunized.

My contention is that instead of penalizing parents, we should focus on the real roots of the issue which is the lack of education and misinformation people are fed when it comes to vaccinations. The part I am struggling with is to come up with 3 solid arguments.

So far I have something along the lines of 1. parents need more education so that there misconceptions can be corrected. 2. There needs to be a ban on over exaggerated stories of the rare side effects of vaccinations as this simply feeds more misinformation to the public. I am not sure what my third argument should be and also not sure how I can clearly distinguish my first two arguments from one another since they are quite similar. Would appreciate any help or even suggestions on bettering my first 2 arguments because I don't feel too confident in them

Your contention is solid, but I'd agree that you need to broaden your arguments a bit more.

The first is decent, but it might be a little bit too similar to your actual contention. For instance, if I was arguing that libraries should be open 24/7, and my first 'sub-argument' was that opening libraries 24/7 would be very beneficial for people... I'm not really being more specific there, I'm just reconfiguring my broader point.

So you've stated your contention is that a lack of education and the perpetuation of misinformation is the real problem surrounding vaccinations, and your first sub-argument is that people need to be educated to correct this misinformation. See how they're a bit too similar?

Also, I'm not sure your second argument is as strong as it could be. Arguing that the media should outright ban covering certain stories doesn't seem very justifiable - it'd probably be more effective to say that media coverage needs to be more balanced, and geared towards informing the public about the issues surrounding vaccination rather than alarming them. That way you can still use similar points, but your overall sub-contention will hopefully be a little less jarring than advocating for a less-than-free press.

In order to come up with sub-arguments, you're going to want to consider the 'key players' = people/things/ideas related to your issue that you want to position in a certain way.

For instance:
   Contention: there needs to be more education to ensure that the public is not misinformed about vaccinations, and that parents can make the right decision and vaccinate their children.

If I want you to believe that vaccinations are a good thing and that people who protest or refuse them are misinformed (excepting those who do so on religious or health grounds, of course) then I'd want to position the kinds of people who perpetuate myths and twisted facts as dangerous predators who exploit parents' love for their children. So to strengthen this contention, we need to construct a sub-argument surrounding how we want to portray this key player.

If our KP here is 'the people and groups who deliberately and maliciously misinform people about vaccinations, or who grossly overestimate the potential risks,' then that section of your speech would be devoted to portraying them as the most sinister, greedy, careless kinds of scum imaginable. Heap on the rhetorical devices and emphasis, and make your audience believe what you want them to believe about anti-vaccination groups and biased media sources.

Because if they believe what you say about the key player, it should make it much easier for you to convince them of your contention.

And you can consider the many other key players that might be relevant for this issue. For example, how do you want people to view:
- vaccinations and their benefits/risks
- parents and their duty to their children
- children's health and well-being
- the government's responsibility to protect its citizens
- the media and their accuracy or intentions
- the skepticism and denial leveled against vaccinations
- people's freedom to make their own decisions
- the value and power of education and information

etc.

You don't have to touch on all these key players, and you might end up grouping some into collective sub-arguments, but hopefully thinking about these strategic portrayals and depictions will give you a little bit more direction in your speech writing.

Having said all that, there's no real reason why you need to have three distinct sub-arguments unless that's something your teacher/school mandates. It's okay to just get up and talk about the issue, so long as what you say is persuasive. And it's fine if your arguments link together; in fact, they should do this! If your arguments are too disconnected then it makes it more difficult to tie things together on a contention-level.

The flow of your speech is more important than how clearly you demarcate your sub-arguments though, so see if you can just expand upon your ideas without the rigid framework of 'Argument 1 = ...' and so on. But if you do prefer/need to use the sub-argument structure, then have a think about the positioning of your key players to give you some direction.

Your Thoughts on Prison Reform

Current ideas
-rehabilitation in prisons over punishment to reduce recidivism rates (Using Norway as an example comparing to US and Aust)
- Solitary confinement in prisons resulting in mental illnesses

What kind of prison reform are you looking at exactly? Is this specifically in relation to Australian prisons, and if so, what proposed reform are you considering? US prisons are a horse of an entirely different and more problematic colour, so comparing the two is a little difficult.

Ultimately these debates tend to come down to what you believe prison should accomplish, and whether the priority should be the reform of the individual, or the safety of society, or the sense of justice in 'making the punishment fit the crime,' or the notion of 'setting an example' by doling out lengthier sentences (--> link to some of the recent terror threats and their sentencing,) or whether it's a mix of all of these and more.

But the first step is to be more specific if you're looking to iron out the details - it's one thing to say 'prisons need reform' but quite another to be able to stipulate how and why.

[knightrider]

Generally speaking how many quotes are we allowed to put per paragraph in a text response ?

Like my teacher says no more than 3 to 4 per paragraph.

What do VCAA examiners accept.

Thanks 

[Alter]

There's no perfect/set amount of quotes you need. About four sounds pretty good as a rule of thumb, but you could arguably fit a few more depending on how well you embed your quotes within your response. Just don't add quotes for the sake of adding them, and try to actually justify your mentioning of them in the essay. If you were to put a bunch of quotes throughout section A without ever explaining their significance whatsoever, you may as well not put any at all (which is a bad idea for obvious reasons).

[Hasti]

There's no one that can definitively tell you how many quotes to actually have in each paragraph! Generally, it's better to have more than one, but less than 6 (or depending on how big your paragraph is, more or less). Even still, you have complete agency over how many quotes you want to include. The point is that if you want one quote, you've got to analyse it soooooooo much that there's literally no more analysis left to be done. If you do this, you're proving how amazing you are at deep and insightful analysis - THIS IS GOOD.
But at the same time you want to show your knowledge of the text you're studying, so inherently you'd want to write a couple of techniques or quotes for each theme/paragraph you write. This is where you take control of your essay. Write as many quotes as you feel will prove whatever point you are trying to make.

BUT in saying this, if you've got 17 quotes (hypothetically), you have the physical space of about 5 words per quote to get your analysis done. If you cram your paragraph with quotes, you've got no room for deep analysis and explanation. Essentially, you must be the final judge and decide whether the amount of analysis and quotes per paragraph is enough to prove your argument - not just enough, but totally sufficient. Leave no room for doubt - GENERALLY, as a totally basic, average, 'guesstimation' of how many quotes students have per paragraph is 4 or 5. But like I said, you can stop at 1 quote if you feel that that one quote is the best piece of evidence for your argument and you've analysed it 100%.

Less is more... (if you can do it well).

[knightrider]

There's no perfect/set amount of quotes you need. About four sounds pretty good as a rule of thumb, but you could arguably fit a few more depending on how well you embed your quotes within your response. Just don't add quotes for the sake of adding them, and try to actually justify your mentioning of them in the essay. If you were to put a bunch of quotes throughout section A without ever explaining their significance whatsoever, you may as well not put any at all (which is a bad idea for obvious reasons).

There's no one that can definitively tell you how many quotes to actually have in each paragraph! Generally, it's better to have more than one, but less than 6 (or depending on how big your paragraph is, more or less). Even still, you have complete agency over how many quotes you want to include. The point is that if you want one quote, you've got to analyse it soooooooo much that there's literally no more analysis left to be done. If you do this, you're proving how amazing you are at deep and insightful analysis - THIS IS GOOD.
But at the same time you want to show your knowledge of the text you're studying, so inherently you'd want to write a couple of techniques or quotes for each theme/paragraph you write. This is where you take control of your essay. Write as many quotes as you feel will prove whatever point you are trying to make.

BUT in saying this, if you've got 17 quotes (hypothetically), you have the physical space of about 5 words per quote to get your analysis done. If you cram your paragraph with quotes, you've got no room for deep analysis and explanation. Essentially, you must be the final judge and decide whether the amount of analysis and quotes per paragraph is enough to prove your argument - not just enough, but totally sufficient. Leave no room for doubt - GENERALLY, as a totally basic, average, 'guesstimation' of how many quotes students have per paragraph is 4 or 5. But like I said, you can stop at 1 quote if you feel that that one quote is the best piece of evidence for your argument and you've analysed it 100%.

Less is more... (if you can do it well).

Thanks so much for your help Alter  and Hasti 

[kimmytaaa]

hi,
has anyone read the lieutenant by kate Grenville? if anyone has can you give me some external ideas that are relevant to the conflicts that arises in the novel?

Thanks

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

hi,
has anyone read the lieutenant by kate Grenville? if anyone has can you give me some external ideas that are relevant to the conflicts that arises in the novel?

Thanks

Yea I did and used it in the exam. I can't remember everything that happens in it, but here's some ideas:

1. Sense of duty vs morality- Rooke and his fellow soldiers are embroiled in a land of rules, notions of honour and duty, and a rather emphasised hierarchy. Subordinates, such as Rooke and Gardiner, are required to follow higher orders unquestionably, and the consequences of "mutiny". These consequences also tie in ideas of fear- in the start of the book you should remember Rooke witnessing the execution of soldiers who betrayed the marine forces (I forgot what they did but you get the point).

2. It is often easier to remain a bystander- Rooke's slowly emerging moral scruples with how the governor treats not only his people, but also the Cardigal tribe are suppressed by the tempting ease of simply watching- he is not directly hurting the convict who attempted to steal potatoes, so it was much easier/less personal risk for him to just watch and make a presence. This is also quite related to the first idea- as if he encouraged dissent towards the lashings, he would certainly be punished. Contrast these first two ideas to Rooke's actions at the end of the novel, where he realises "if you were part of the machine, you were part of its wrong" (or something Idk the quote anymore-used it in the end of year though ), and openly challenges the Governer's order to capture of slaughter 6 Aboriginal men.

3. Communication barriers- There is not only a language barrier between the settlers and the Cardigal tribe, but also a stark contrast in values and culture. This heightens the growing conflict between the two "sides" as genuine compromise and cooperation is hindered.

4. Understanding/lack of open-mindedness- the settlers in the novel are quite 'pushy' with imprinting their values on the Cardigal tribe, to the extent of kidnapping and forced immersion. They also have quite rigidly instilled prejudiced views against people of 'colour'. This creates difficulties, as there is no sense of mutual respect, instead, it's tainted cultural superiority, and a perceived justified subjugation of fellow human beings.

That's all I can think of at the moment, but hope it helps

[kimmytaaa]

Yea I did and used it in the exam. I can't remember everything that happens in it, but here's some ideas:

1. Sense of duty vs morality- Rooke and his fellow soldiers are embroiled in a land of rules, notions of honour and duty, and a rather emphasised hierarchy. Subordinates, such as Rooke and Gardiner, are required to follow higher orders unquestionably, and the consequences of "mutiny". These consequences also tie in ideas of fear- in the start of the book you should remember Rooke witnessing the execution of soldiers who betrayed the marine forces (I forgot what they did but you get the point).

2. It is often easier to remain a bystander- Rooke's slowly emerging moral scruples with how the governor treats not only his people, but also the Cardigal tribe are suppressed by the tempting ease of simply watching- he is not directly hurting the convict who attempted to steal potatoes, so it was much easier/less personal risk for him to just watch and make a presence. This is also quite related to the first idea- as if he encouraged dissent towards the lashings, he would certainly be punished. Contrast these first two ideas to Rooke's actions at the end of the novel, where he realises "if you were part of the machine, you were part of its wrong" (or something Idk the quote anymore-used it in the end of year though ), and openly challenges the Governer's order to capture of slaughter 6 Aboriginal men.

3. Communication barriers- There is not only a language barrier between the settlers and the Cardigal tribe, but also a stark contrast in values and culture. This heightens the growing conflict between the two "sides" as genuine compromise and cooperation is hindered.

4. Understanding/lack of open-mindedness- the settlers in the novel are quite 'pushy' with imprinting their values on the Cardigal tribe, to the extent of kidnapping and forced immersion. They also have quite rigidly instilled prejudiced views against people of 'colour'. This creates difficulties, as there is no sense of mutual respect, instead, it's tainted cultural superiority, and a perceived justified subjugation of fellow human beings.

That's all I can think of at the moment, but hope it helps

thankyou

[huehue]

Hello! Can someone please read over my introduction? I've tried something new here because my teacher said my introductions had way too much signposting, but I feel like it's a bit..random?? The prompt is below and my contention is that Achilles' actions represent the uncertainty of humanity in war. My two (couldn't think of three) supporting arguements are that morality is presented as lost in war and grief is presented as heightened by war.

Prompt: "The rage of Achilles and the defiant treatment of Hector's body express the essential loss of humanity in war". Discuss.

Written in the time of the Iliad, Malouf's Ransom could be seen as a modern day commentary on the effects of war on humanity. Malouf presents war as a herald for pain and anguish, with morality being lost in the chaos, but grief as only heightened and strengthened by war. The character Achilles' actions for example, represent his loss of morality, but shows the power grief ultimately has. However, his actions in the end reflect the uncertainty of humanity in war.

Thanks for all help in advance! 

[jacurt]

Anyone doing Cloudstreet?

[Swagadaktal]

Hey guys, need help with All About Eve.
I'm struggling to remember the movie, so I'm going to keep watching it until I can hopefully remember it. But more importantly, how do I do more close scene analysis?
I'm trying to write an essay on the prompt "The only values to succeed in the theatre is egotism and ruthless ambition. Is this true?"
My contention is that these qualities are definitely important and can be used to be successful, however they are not the only qualities that can be used to succeed. My first argument is that other qualities such as loyalty is a requirement to succeed (also talk about what success means... coz is eve really successful?) - My second argument is that egotism is important, but only in moderation. and my third argument is that ruthless ambition alone will not make someone successful, but it must be used in conjunction with talent.

Now, I have some quotes here and there but I need to analyse more film techniques, and I need to do more close-scene analysis. But currently I'm struggling to find some...
Anyone got any ideas?

[huehue]

Hey guys, need help with All About Eve.
I'm struggling to remember the movie, so I'm going to keep watching it until I can hopefully remember it. But more importantly, how do I do more close scene analysis?
I'm trying to write an essay on the prompt "The only values to succeed in the theatre is egotism and ruthless ambition. Is this true?"
My contention is that these qualities are definitely important and can be used to be successful, however they are not the only qualities that can be used to succeed. My first argument is that other qualities such as loyalty is a requirement to succeed (also talk about what success means... coz is eve really successful?) - My second argument is that egotism is important, but only in moderation. and my third argument is that ruthless ambition alone will not make someone successful, but it must be used in conjunction with talent.

Now, I have some quotes here and there but I need to analyse more film techniques, and I need to do more close-scene analysis. But currently I'm struggling to find some...
Anyone got any ideas?

My advice would be to not jump ahead and start writing an essay, but rather analyse the film part by part first. This way you'll memorise and gain a better understanding of the film.

[Sine]

How should we structure our evidence/interpretation through close analysis of the text? By Themes or Characters or something else

[Swagadaktal]

My advice would be to not jump ahead and start writing an essay, but rather analyse the film part by part first. This way you'll memorise and gain a sound understanding of the film.

Yeah I see what you mean.
I've done a lot of reading about this film and I've been able to generate some sophisticated ideas, however I think my main problem is finding the right evidence due to me not knowing the film well enough..
But like tbh just re-watching the film over and over is waaaaaaaaaay too boring I need to write some stuff down, I need to see some tangible proof of my work. So like whilst im analysing the film part by part I find some quotes I write down with some scenes and then I go and write an essay on it. -- But the flaw in that is that im only using parts of the film in my essay and not the whole film

[vor0005]

How should we structure our evidence/interpretation through close analysis of the text? By Themes or Characters or something else

Structure your paragraphs by arguments or ideas - then, use your evidence/interpretation to prove these arguments/ideas.