50 in English, available for queries :)

[LFC_Kero]

hey lauren is this a good thing to do?

In my opinion, there are five areas for whose reality prompts
these are:
Illusion
Subjectivity vs Objectivity
Conflict
Memory
Conformity

Im planning to write and perfect a persuasive piece on each of these areas, and just memorise all 5 pieces. and obviously in the exam ill just change them up a bit to suit the prompt we get..

is this a wise thing to do?

[literally lauren]

I've made no secret about my opinions regarding memorisation for Section B. I'm not a fan and I think it's the quickest way to stunt your though processes and relying on what may have worked before.
That said, you can of course have familiar arguments and examples; you'd be stupid not to. But some things to watch out for:
When you see a prompt with one of those trigger words, or something that can be easily categorised, don't go straight for the memorised piece. Brainstorm the prompt like normal; the rote-learned stuff can be adapted effectively, but attempts to simply regurgitate stuff are usually unsuccessful.
Also, what about prompts that don't conform to these groups? eg.  'Our reality is always changing.' or ‘We can evade reality but we cannot avoid the consequences of doing so.' There are countless examples (these were just ones I found online, that's not including the ones I could create) that wouldn't neatly fit your categorisation, and so you should get used to active thought under pressure rather than obsessing over which ideas you're going to reapply.
I'm not saying the piece you write in the exam should be full of totally untested ideas you just came up with on the spot, but, to correct some misconceptions:

hey lauren is this a good thing to do?

In my opinion, there are five areas This is way too reductive, there are plenty more, and you could never come up with a conclusive, number that was anywhere near single-digits for whose reality prompts
these are:
Illusion Self-delusion? Effective/ineffective illusions? Reasons for and consequences of illusions? The forms these illusions can take? What makes illusions different from / better or worse than / more or less stable than reality? How these illusions manifest themselves? The possibility of multiple illusions and the concurrent consequences of this?
The list goes on, and I could do this for all of your categories.
Any and all of these ideas are examinable, and unless your "perfect" piece covers everything, there's no way you could apply the same ideas to suit a vastly different prompt.
Subjectivity vs Objectivity
Conflict
Memory
Conformity
What about combinations of these categories? eg. 'Conforming to other people's realities invariably causes conflict.' Which piece are you going to use then? If you've memorised both and attempt to combine them on the spot, it'll probably get messy and disconnected.

Im planning to write and perfect Okay, here's my biggest issue. Perfecting a context piece is possible. But all your perfecting is that one piece. For one prompt. Just  because an essay you wrote scored a 10, that's no guarantee you'd be able to replicate and appropriate that for another topic. Rather than thinking about things in terms of 'this is an essay about illusions' or 'this paragraph is about consequences' try and organise your ideas in complete sentences that are more like contentions than over-simplified themes, eg. 'this is an essay about why we feel the need to create illusions in order to cope with the difficulties of reality' and 'this is a paragraph explaining the ramifications of these two worlds colliding, and why mutual exclusive realities are so dangerous, both for individuals and those around them.' a persuasive piece on each of these areas, and just memorise all 5 pieces. and obviously in the exam ill just change them up a bit given the amount of time you'll have to spend practicing this, don't you think there's more effective ways of studying? to suit the prompt we get..
Let's just take two random prompts on that one group: illusion...
a) The way we perceive reality is always some form of subjective illusion.
b) Our illusions are more damaging to those around us than ourselves.
Think about how vastly different your approach should be for both of those topics. They've both got the word 'illusion' in them, but they're far from similar, and a 10/10 piece for (a) which contends that, eg. 'our perceptions are always subjective, but that doesn't make them illusions' would be totally invalid and irrelevant for (b.)

is this a wise thing to do?
tl;dr: Nope.

Apologies if this is a little acerbic, but rote-learning is a particular pet peeve of mine and I wouldn't want you to set yourself up for such an obvious pitfall.

[magneto]

Hey Lauren,
this question is about language analysis:
can expert opinion make the writer appear rational in regards to the issue?
for example in the article im analyzing, its about the writers fear that we are losing our skills in handwriting due to the increase in technology (that classical case >.<) but by drawing on an author who shares the same views as her, can she appear rational then cause she researched, and she later says: ' The information age is here and it's essentially a digital computer age with great liberating and democratic potential, But that doesn't mean we can't also keep what's valuable, unique and often beautiful from the past.' Can I link that quote with the expert opinion use as being rational? and not just heated by passion for the art of handwriting?
Overall how does appear rational serve to persuade?

[LFC_Kero]

I've made no secret about my opinions regarding memorisation for Section B. I'm not a fan and I think it's the quickest way to stunt your though processes and relying on what may have worked before.
That said, you can of course have familiar arguments and examples; you'd be stupid not to. But some things to watch out for:
When you see a prompt with one of those trigger words, or something that can be easily categorised, don't go straight for the memorised piece. Brainstorm the prompt like normal; the rote-learned stuff can be adapted effectively, but attempts to simply regurgitate stuff are usually unsuccessful.
Also, what about prompts that don't conform to these groups? eg.  'Our reality is always changing.' or ‘We can evade reality but we cannot avoid the consequences of doing so.' There are countless examples (these were just ones I found online, that's not including the ones I could create) that wouldn't neatly fit your categorisation, and so you should get used to active thought under pressure rather than obsessing over which ideas you're going to reapply.
I'm not saying the piece you write in the exam should be full of totally untested ideas you just came up with on the spot, but, to correct some misconceptions:

Apologies if this is a little acerbic, but rote-learning is a particular pet peeve of mine and I wouldn't want you to set yourself up for such an obvious pitfall.

ok cheers for that!

[Jono_CP]

How many sentences approx. should be devoted towards analysing the effect on the reader for the language analysis?

Also, just any general tips would be good. I am aiming high for the English exam.

[LFC_Kero]

I dont get this prompt
reality is too intangible for us to ever really embrace it
could you help me come up with ideas to talk about

[literally lauren]

magneto:
Ah yes, I know that article. Yes, expert opinion (or self-aggrandisement in that author's case :p) can be worth analysing. It's not a very 'meaty' device though; you couldn't talk about it for more than a few lines, so perhaps try and combine it with some other techniques (eg. glorification of handwriting as an art form)

Zeitgeist:
Depends on the article, and what you're analysing. If you've picked up on one instance of inclusive language, then explaining the effect will take less than a sentence. However, if you're commenting on a broader, more general appeal then you may need one or two whole sentences just teasing out this idea and linking it to the contention.
Go with the flow when analysing, but for most body paragraphs, try to quote, or otherwise closely analyse, at least every 3 lines. Any less than that and you're probably getting to far away from the issue.
Re: general tips: see everything I've written in this thread. Or just everything on the forums. If you want more specific advice, then as a more specific question
edit: actually I do have more specific advice: don't aim high, aim smart. Thinking 'I really want a 40+' isn't helping you study. It might motivate you, but it won't help you actually learn. Instead think: 'I really want to write awesome T.R. conclusions' or 'I really want to get the hang of connotative analysis.' That way you have a tangible goal that is purely within your control.

LFC_Kero:
What is it about the prompt that's tripping you up? If it's the word 'intangible' then look it up, come up with some synonyms, and try to reword it so there's an implication or two you can explore.
Could the reason you're getting stumped be that your 5 persuasive pieces don't apply here? Don't worry, it's better that this happens now and not in the exam.
If you understand the prompt, but just don't have the ideas to deal with it, then you need to expand your example-bank. The Conflict Example Guide in my sig should help get you started, otherwise go back to the ones you're using and try to unpack them more, or link them into other ideas.
Check the first post in this thread; there are some previous examples regarding questioning/unpacking the prompt. It feels kinda pointless for me to just suggest random ideas at this stage of the year when it should be about you refining your approach.

[M_BONG]

Hi Lauren

In your prac exam LA piece  (the city vs country one), do you think it would be too far of a stretch to say Bates is ultimately biased and slanted but tries to disguise or dissemble this by sort of, tricking the reader into seeing she is actually moderate because she provides advantages of life in both country and city but puts more weight on the city side.
 
Or would you argue that she makes it no secret that she is biased and one-sided, although she *genuinely* feels some qualities about country life? Because she starts off with "would you rather be a city slicker or a country bumpkin?" and that to me, sounded like you has already made up her mind..

Thanks!

[LiquidPaperz]

In general for context, what are some good ideas to discuss, in response to the prompt "conflict reveals our inner strength" / "the experience of conflict reveals our inner strength".

Im thinking of doing mine in a speech form (as i find this the most powerful way and usually gets better marks, do you agree?)

Thanks!

[Jesse C]

I have been having some trouble with Section C and was hoping you could give me some advice on how to improve.
I got full marks on my language analysis SAC, but managed to lose the SAC itself and all of my practice essays so I have had to try and reconstruct the style I had originally used. The result isn’t pretty:

(for a practice exam - article isn’t really necessary)
Lee proceeds to condemn the previous speakers through ironically suggesting they ‘inhabit’ a ‘region’ of the ‘real world’, thus suggesting previous speakers’ alienation from the current reality of diverse workplaces. However, Lee reverts to a polite usage of ‘respect’ and the personal pronoun ‘I’ to diffuse any anger from supporters of previous speakers and disassociate it from the idea that the current education system doesn’t require reform. Lee reverts to a sardonic tone, attributing the waywardness of previous arguments to ‘pre-conceived notions’ and moves to contrast this with supporters of ‘positive initiatives’.

I have since tried to expand on my discussion of the overarching arguments rather than the individual techniques, but am unsure of how to do so. This is an excerpt from a newer analysis I did for your first practice exam.

Eli’s humorous use of the ironic alliteration; ‘reading, riting and rithmatic’ portrays the early educational system as simplistic, hypocritical and therefore worthy of derision. Thus the amplification of ‘bigger and better things’ into the metaphors ‘wonderful worlds of art, music and languages’ encourages support for the expansive and sophisticated arts over a ‘basic’ education.  This is exemplified in parents, whose limited knowledge of the curriculum and minimal contact with teachers may render a student’s opinion more pertinent than that of educational bureaucracy. This serves to paint the ‘new’ ‘confusing’ system as an unnecessarily inefficient nuisance, whose faceless creators’ refusal to ‘trust’ students and overbearing dislike of educational ‘mistakes’ illicit admonishment among parents who desire positive, independent futures for their children.

Eli’s condemnatory accusations of the school’s ‘commanding’ nature likens it to an oligarchy and Eli’s rhetorical questioning of the suitability of education in a ‘shed’ immediately calls to mind hobbies of experienced, middle aged men. Thus the humorous catachresis of ‘getting our fingers sawn off’ by equipment elicits fear of a tangible risk to children’s health directly resultant of reckless, ignorant or more sinister sociopathic school leaders. This certainly warrants condemnation from parents, children and subservient teachers alike and establishes the enlightened author as more trustworthy and worthy of respect than the school itself.

It took ages to write as it is a completely new style for me, but is that what I should be going for? I would proceed to draw from the second image and perhaps one of the commenters and continue this throughout the rest of the analysis.
In terms of specific questions, I’m struggling to break free of the formulaic pattern for section C. For example, for connotations:
The emotive term ‘toxic’ connotes sports parents’ corroding effect on the sports club and thus creates an aversion towards them among sports club users.

‘toxic’ sports parents appear equivocal to a force corroding the sports club, thus encouraging aversion among sports club users towards such dangerous and demonstrable people.

The second one seems to flow better and make a better point, but it doesn’t specify that toxic’s connotations are the cause. Is this ok or should I signpost the technique?
Also, I have noticed that high scoring responses tend to signpost or even question the authors argument, using language such as ‘this forms part of xxx’s attack on…’ and ‘contributes to this attempt to vilify…’ to break up the listing of techniques. Should I try to incorporate this kind of context in favour of extra phrases such as ‘xxx builds upon this using x technique to elicit x response’?

Also, in a few of your practice essay’s Lauren, you seem to use the contention as the crux of your argument with thing such as:
‘Fellow commenter Georgina also contends that cycling is an advantageous pursuit for individuals and the wider community, and challenges the mindset of parents who believe “they can only keep their school-aged children safe from cars by putting them in cars.” This encourages parents and other readers to question their preconceptions about transport alternatives, and appeals to their desire to do what is best for children. ‘

I showed my teacher this and he said it would get full marks, despite no specific mention of a technique with the evidence, just the allusion to an appeal. Would this kind of vague or at least prolonged analysis be suitable or should I aim to use more specific examples such as the alliteration of car? I know that the scary mean markers (VCAA) aren’t stupid, but will a lack of signposting cause them to ignore some analysis?

Finally, do you advocate an argument based structure or a procedural structure? I plan on referencing images and other content throughout but am at a loss as to whether I should roughly follow the authors procedural argument(usually co-insides with the building of the overall contention) or sample tones and evidence supporting specific arguments throughout.
The first of those seems to advocate the use of terms such as ‘contrasts with his earlier assertion that’, which seems clunky and limiting, but will assessors mind unreferenced comparisons between strenuously relevant ideas/techniques from the beginning and ends of articles (which the audience would likely forget)?   

Sorry this is so incredibly long, I have just heard a lot of conflicting things and have no idea what to believe! If you have time, any answers to these questions, or criticism of my example would be greatly appreciated!

[Yacoubb]

Hi Lauren,

If we were given a main article with accompanying comments, are we expected to address all of them? If so, what do you believe is the best way of doing this?

[Valyria]

Hey Lauren,

How did you format your response to a discuss and do you agree question? So did you have 4 paragraphs for a discuss styled question on your stance or 3 on your stance and 1 exploring the opposite view?

Thanks

[AmericanBeauty]

Hi Lauren,

Can you quote a limerick (its like 8 lines long in my handwriting) in your whose reality essay? There is one by Ronald Dox about if a tree falls over and if nobody hears it, does it make a sound. It's about the reality of the event having an inextricable link with the reality of the observer ... or is this plagiarism?

[yang_dong]

Hey Lauren,
For David Malouf's ransom, how is it that stories can be changed in the telling, make the notion of storytelling seem significant?

Thank you

[magneto]

Hello Lauren,
Whats another way of saying that 'family is of upmost importance?'