50 in English, available for queries :)

[literally lauren]

There are some in earlier threads but I'll repost to save you from going through every page: 3 Language Analysis (I figure that'll be the most help seeing as it's something everyone has to do, and there'll be different texts for the other two sections.)
There's one practice T.R. essay here too on Henry IV Part 1. I can only post 4 at a time, but there should be a Context example earlier in the thread.
Keep in mind though, most of these were from term 3 onwards when I started writing practice exams properly. Also since all of these were due pieces over holidays or weekends, I had time to ponder all my word choices and fix up mistakes; this was a higher standard than I was writing in SACs. Don't feel you have to turn the vocab up to 11 to earn a 50, understanding the task and the content is far more important

[Einstein]

Hey, there's 5 attachments in your first post should I download all?

[zeiinaaa]

Alright thankyou so much!

[zeiinaaa]

Sorry and just one more question, I'm having trouble knowing how many words or lines should the introduction be?

[literally lauren]

There's no real rule about word length per paragraph. I usually recommend 10% of the total word count (an 80 word intro for a 800 word essay, or 100 for 1000) but it's not as though the assessors are going to count. Suffice it to say you can cover the requirements of an intro in about 100 words, so don't cram in too much, but the real credit comes from the analytical discussion in the body paragraphs.

[zeiinaaa]

Oh fair enough, and yeah absolutely agree! Thankyou so much

[yang_dong]

Hi, I was wondering....

in the sentence: ‘dismantle[d] the Howard government’s hard-won border protection’ policies, in effect ‘turbocharged the people smuggling racket and lured asylum seekers…with the promise of open borders’.

How is the word 'hard - won' used? How does it effect the readers?

[literally lauren]

Hi, I was wondering....

in the sentence: ‘dismantle[d] the Howard government’s hard-won border protection’ policies, in effect ‘turbocharged the people smuggling racket and lured asylum seekers…with the promise of open borders’.

How is the word 'hard - won' used? How does it effect the readers?

'Hard-won' implies a great effort and determination was been put into the policy, thus portraying the Howard government as tenacious and hard-working. There is also a sense of loss in the government's policy being 'dismantled' like a machine that was hitherto perfectly functional; hence the audience are positioned to view the outcome as a step backwards for refugee policy, and the new situation as a sinister trap to 'lure' asylum seekers to our shores with false promises.

Hope that helps

[yang_dong]

Thank you so much...

I was just wondering if its the previous government that dismantled the current governments (Howard Government/Liberals) 'hard won' border protection... how would it position the readers then... because the article is trying to encourage readers to view the Left as hypocrites, (hence the title of the article is 'the hypocrites of the the Left').. to get the readers to be more in favour of the liberals?

im not sure...

[literally lauren]

I haven't read the article so it's hard to comment holistically, but I'd assume the author is critiquing the last Labour govt. for dismantling what the Howard govt. achieved, so like I said we're made to feel a sense of loss.
Think about the connotations of 'dismantled' too, not just 'hard-won.' It's as though the policy has been deliberately and methodically taken apart, so that nothing is left, when in fact the system was working fine. This contributes to (what I assume is) out overall impression of the Left as hypocrites as they're operating under a set of false 'promises' when in fact their actions have been to the detriment of refugee welfare and processing efficiency.
In short, yes, it seems the Liberals are comparatively favourable, or at least the Howard govt. was. Trust your judgement! If that's the way you feel having read the article and you can substantiate it with techniques and analysis, then there's little to stop you from getting good marks; it's not as though each phrase will have a set interpretation, it's all about evidence

[yang_dong]

oh ok, thank you

finally I was also wondering:

On the same topic, the quote ‘the opportunistic bleeding hearts who have been parading with their compassion all week’ (Referring to the Labour party)

How would i phrase this cause i want to say how by using the word 'parading' to describe how the Left are expressing their compassion, you wouldn't really associate 'parading' with compassion, cause its not like a happy occasion that should be celebrated? and thus readers feel... not sure how it would impact on readers... feels like the Left are not taking the issue seriously...

[hyunah]

Hello....
Can you please help me?
language analysis:
By informing readers that this tragedy ‘never should have happened’....
not sure how to finish the sentence i'm pretty sure there is an effect on the readers. The tragedy is the deaths of asylum seekrs trying to get here.

Thanks in advance

[literally lauren]

oh ok, thank you

finally I was also wondering:

On the same topic, the quote ‘the opportunistic bleeding hearts who have been parading with their compassion all week’ (Referring to the Labour party)

How would i phrase this cause i want to say how by using the word 'parading' to describe how the Left are expressing their compassion, you wouldn't really associate 'parading' with compassion, cause its not like a happy occasion that should be celebrated? and thus readers feel... not sure how it would impact on readers... feels like the Left are not taking the issue seriously...

'Parading' has little to do with compassion, that's part of the point. Parading connotes putting on a show, an elaborate, contrived production, in this case in an attempt to advertise their compassion. But compassion should need advertising, right? It should be altruistic; doing good for good's own sake, especially for a human rights issue. So we get the sense of the Labour party marching through the streets proclaiming victory for the party, when in fact there is a great deal of suffering behind the farce. It's not that they're not taking the issue seriously, more that they're exploiting human suffering for political purchase/gain.

Rather than trying to cram an interpretation into language, work in the opposite direction. Analyse the word or phrase in isolation (what does it normally make you think of?) then in the context of the issue (not the author's contention, yet.) What does this word/phrase connote? How does this make us view the issue?
THEN: why might the author have chosen this wording/phraseology in particular? How does this choice contribute to our thoughts/feelings towards the issue?
Eventually this process will occur in a much quicker, more fluid, almost automatic way, but for now, go through the process so you know what's required

[literally lauren]

Hello....
Can you please help me?
language analysis:
By informing readers that this tragedy ‘never should have happened’....
not sure how to finish the sentence i'm pretty sure there is an effect on the readers. The tragedy is the deaths of asylum seekrs trying to get here.

Thanks in advance

Same advice as above, look at the phrase in isolation, then contextualise it. If something 'never should have happened' we not only feel that the current situation is inadequate (that we can imagine a better one) but also that absolute 'should' infers there is someone in a position of power meant to prevent this 'tragedy.' It never should have happened because there are systems/people in charge of the situation, and if something went wrong this time, then other people are by definition at risk, as either the system or its caretakers are ill-equipped to handle things. (I'm using such vague words since I don't know what the 'tragedy' was in this case, but it shouldn't matter, this is just to give you a general view of the context.)

If you're pretty sure there's an effect on readers, work out what effect it has on you first. Some persuasive techniques might not be particularly effective, but you can still theorise about how you might be persuaded (eg. for me: 'It never should have happened'... it's not just bad, it's a violation of the natural order, this event was not only tragic, it was an anomaly which serves to shine the spotlight on a flawed system/rule/policy/individual)

Hope that helps.

[scandin9]

Hi,
My teacher says that my essays are often verbose and that my verbosity may be detrementel. Is verbosity something to avoid; or can minor verbosity in the exam help ?
Thanks in advance