Zeitgeist:
Language Analysis is more about acquiring a skillset to handle unseen content. This is kind of the case for Sections A and B, though I can understand why L.A. might be freaking you out. But it's not like they just hit a randomizer button on the internet and print whatever article comes up
(well, except 2011)They don't expect you to conduct an in-depth assessment of the author's motivations and values, but it's fairly simple to draw logical conclusions from the information presented.
Author: 'the government are smelly and inept.'
You in your L.A: 'The author seeks to denigrate the government with ad hominem attacks, thereby engendering the readers' disdain for their 'smelly' ineptitude.'
^This isn't proper analysis, but you get the idea.
It sounds like you're picking up on your common mistakes, so start implementing strategies to fix them now. There's still time to improve.
Yes, you can write as a deceased author, provided you have good reason for doing so. Is what you're writing unique to Christopher Hitchens' voice, or could it be from the perspective from any contemporary political commentator or outspoken atheist?
walkec:
I'm with your teacher on this one; signposting is a little tedious to read. You'd never loose marks for it, but it's a tad simplistic, so only use it as a last resort. Introductions have the fun job of picking apart the prompt, expanding on your contention so that it's more than a simple on-line rewording of the prompt or agree/disagree thing. (You can have a simplified version in your head, but on paper you can keep adding to this.)
Conclusions can zoom out to the bigger picture. Even for close character or structural prompts, there should be an opportunity to look at some views and values within those last few lines. In some sense you can build out from the prompt, though that should still be the basis of your discussion.
As a general tip: I often found myself coming up with a nice sounding line to end the 3rd or 4th paragraph, and I'd usually end up crossing it out and using it as my concluding line instead. You can have a couple of these generalisable 'purpose of the text' or 'author's overall intention' statements that should work for most prompts.
In short, no you can't be penalised for a lack of clearly demarcated arguments. The body paragraphs are where most of the marks are, and a good set-up/closer will probably just put most of them in a more amenable mood, which is exactly what you want
Brunette15:
Yes, you would use 'listeners' for a radio show. You can also use this for a presentation (eg. 2010 or 2012 VCAA exams.)
Generally speaking, the words 'audience' and 'text' work for everything - books, plays, films, poetry etc.
scandin9:
I would say it's better to give your paragraphs more of a linear focus, ie. the topic sentence introduces the idea, eg. 'the way we respond to a conflict is dependent on many factors' and then the concluding line actually hones in on the specific elements, eg. 'hence we can conclude that it is ultimately our freewill that determines our response in spite of the actions of others.' <-- you'd be more specific and prompt-oriented in both instances, of course.
It can feel redundant if you start and end in the same place, though depending on the form of your arguments and writing style, this can be done well.
Valyria:
Yes, I would highly advise comparing traits if the prompt mentions more than one. The simplistic, middle band responses will go for the obvious patter, eg.
"Elaine is a character who experiences more internal conflict than self-unawareness"
P1: Elaine's experiences
P2: Elaine's internal conflict
P3: Elaine's self-awareness
Even the most proficient of these approaches often struggles to deal with the prompt in its entirety, whereas paragraphs with conceptual focuses rather than theme-based ones are usually more 'meat-y.'
In this case, I wouldn't have more than one paragraph dealing solely with internal conflict. If you were tying things back at the end then this might be okay, but never stray too far from the prompt, there should be enough in the topic for you without having to rely on external arguments.
Paulrus:
Yes, the assessors have advised students to be selective in their analyses and that you can potentially score well with about 800 words. The ones published in the Reports aren't always 10s, so don't use them as standards for everything, but in terms of timing, you definitely shouldn't need a whole hour for L.A. unless they throw you a curveball.
Valyria:
Certainly not if it was just those few sentences, everyone makes dumb mistakes in the exam, and the assessors are quite forgiving of a few sentences here and there not making sense. However, if it's an endemic problem then it's worth fixing. If you know your point gets lost when your mind wanders, then treat that as your 'trigger' in the exam. Stop, take a breath and a drink, carefully read your last sentence and rewrite it if you have to. Practice this now, and it will become more natural in the exam. It might also be helpful to mark where this is happening, eg. in the middle of connotation analysis, or usually at the ends of paragraphs when linking back to the contention? etc. This may also be something to watch out for as part of your exam strategy.
mnewin:
Across the board, yes, so long as clarity isn't impacted.
For L.A: definitely, the quality of your analysis is the main thing, and vocab is really justs an auxiliary aid that helps if you use it well.
For T.R: possibly, although the way you write does play some part in the marks, if you've made a proper attempt to answer the question, you'll score better than someone churning out "sophisticated," but irrelevant garbage.
For Context: this is trickier. Writing style dictates the mark here a lot more than the other sections. However, sophistication in writing is not a necessity, you can chose a form that suits your style, and your essay doesn't have to be an academic discourse on complex philosophical ideas. The Assessor's Reports publish all sorts of examples that are expressing things effectively without being bogged down in trying to sound complex.
Of course, don't mistake sophistication and good writing for expansive vocab and fancy phrasing; plenty of people I know well scored incredibly highly, and don't consider themselves 'English-minded.' They simply had a good understanding of the task and were able to complete it with efficient and concise language.
If clarity isn't an issue, then you should be fine
Home
Help
Search
Login
