ATAR Notes Free English Practice Exams 2016

[literally lauren]

FREE ENGLISH PRACTICE EXAMS

♪ ♫ It's the most wonderful time of the year ♫ ♪

October is upon us!

So you know what that means!?

It's time for another round of Lauren's super-difficult-uber-cruel-oh-dear-god-why-PRACTICE EXAMS FOR VCE ENGLISH!!!

Previous Editions:
- 2014 -          - 2015 -         -2016 -

Just a quick disclaimer for those who aren't familiar with my brand of sadism...

...these are meant to be tough exams!

I'm deliberately constructing these to be between a 9/10 - 11/10 on the difficulty scale whilst still making sure they're VCAA-esque in nature. The chances of you getting anything this tricky in your actual exam is pretty low (and you certainly won't get three Sections that are all this mean) but I'm of the belief that you should plan for the worst and hope for the best, so this is my way of issuing a challenge to any of you who are brave enough to put your knowledge to the test!

I'll be putting these up every Saturday morning between now and the exam!
(except this weekend because my internet was down #fucktheNBN)
I'll try and sort out a PDF version but the file size limit on AN is a thorn in my side... hopefully the formatting of the word doc doesn't screw up for too many people - if it does, let me know and I'll figure out a more forum-friendly option.

So there'll be four exams in total, with each one being difficult for different reasons.

No matter how confident you are with English, I would highly recommend at least looking over this material and thinking about how you might handle it. You don't have to sit this in test conditions if you don't feel up for it, but familiarising yourself with difficult content gives you a huuuuge advantage. And for those of you who do manage to write up a response or two, my hope is that when you flip through your exam booklet at 9:00am on October 26th, you think 'ha! this is nothing, Lauren's exams were way worse - this'll be easy!'

This thread will be left open for you to post any essays, questions, or angry cursing in response to this material. I will do my best to address as many of these as possible, though obviously you're all more than welcome to field one another's concerns, or better yet, mark one another's essays.

Best of luck! 

[Sullivan]

Thanks Lauren!

edit: I think you may have forgotten to put the second Medea prompt in full - thought I'd let you know

[literally lauren]

Thanks Lauren!

edit: I think you may have forgotten to put the second Medea prompt in full - thought I'd let you know

Ah! Though I'd double checked all of them, but alas, I am a potato

Thanks Sullivan! Proper version is now attached above!

[YellowTongue]

Hi Lauren 

Thanks for creating this exam. It has challenged me and allowed to recognise the need for improvement in my writing. My response for Section C is below:

Spoiler

NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. These allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post.

Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers.

Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority.

Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community.

At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of.
 
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes”  as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.

All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family.  She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large.

I have a few questions regarding my response:

• How can I improve the flow of my writing?
• Is my structure acceptable?
• Have I referred to the visual enough?
• Do I over use semicolons?
• How highly would you expect such a response to score on the exam?

Thanks for your help 

[heids]

Lauren, you make me cry with joy and restore my faith in humanity :')

[sweetiepi]

Hey YellowTongue!
I've decided to take a shot and

try to provide some feedback*!

*Disclaimer: this is my first shot at this, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Original Essay:

NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. These allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post.

Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers.

Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority.

Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community.

At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of.
 
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes”  as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.

All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family.  She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large.

Essay with comments

NSB TV recently accused Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club in the Wickfield County, of stealing money from charity matches. TheseThe allegation were later dismissed; generating various responses throughout the Wickfield community. Kylie Jones has expressed her concern in her blog post, The Blind Leading the Blind; asserting that the community which community? involved needs to “take responsibility" for their exacerbation of the media’s “errors”. A mention of tone here would be a good idea Five readers have elected to offer their opinions regarding Jones’ blog post I would also mention the image here, as well.

Jones initiates her piece by highlighting the integrity of the Wickfield community. Particularly, the author intentionally defends the reporting from within the community; striving to garner trust amongst her audience. This act of defence quickly transitions to a portrayal of vulnerability, as Jones attempts to emphasise the threat of the Robert Benson accusations on the community. Thus, the combination of these two strategies endeavours to allow the effected to realise the importance of their community to them. Furthermore, Jones seeks to offer a hope for salvation for the residents of Wickfield by encouraging them to consider “who’s really to blame” for the hazardous “consequences” of the incident. This positions readers to view her as enlightened and calculating; with the best intentions of her community in mind. Hence, Jones strives to further develop a sense of trust amongst her readers. This is a really good paragraph, however I would suggest going more into depth into how it affects the reader and maybe identify another technique to allow for a more in-depth analysis of the argument and I would highly suggest 'weaving' one of the supplementary texts into this paragraph, so that you can draw links towards the different contentions each text has.

Likewise, Elizabeth C. expresses her concern for Wickfield’s “integrity and reputation”. In describing her first encounter with “utter shame” that she has experienced after “seventy-two years”, the commenter impugns the journalists involved with the incident; attempting to cast opprobrium upon them. However, Beth Z. endeavours to undermine the significance of the incident; conveying that the channel involved is merely “teensy”. Hence, her deliberate vocabulary choice invites readers to mistrust Jones. This is further achieved by portraying the original author as condescending on a “high horse”. Overall, Beth Z. strives to diminish Jones’ authority. I really like this comparison, however as above, weaving it into argument will potentially improve the flow of the analysis, where you can go "in comparison", even if they have completely different contentions!

Furthermore, Jones endeavours to engage sympathy towards the journalists at fault which technique?. In doing this, she incorporates a sanguine tone to present herself as gentle. The author initiates this strategy be describing the policy “breeches” of NSB TV; emphasising that she agrees with the accusations of immorality. Through this, the author seeks to gain the approval of readers but what action are the audience inclined to do? who view NSB TV at fault. However, this is juxtaposed through an appeal to reason; describing the accusation of Robert Benson as “genuine errors” that have been corrected “professional[ly]”. Hence, Jones strives to remove the blame from the journalists at NSB and towards the Wickfield community. Yet again, good analysis, however try to narrow down the audience and give an interpretation of what they would be inclined to do.

At this point, the combination of the title and cartoon are intended to protrude to readers as an open accusation of guilt. Thus, the author accuses her audience of “blind[ly]” electing to follow NSB TV in their allegation of Robert Benson what does this possibly make the readers do?. This is heightened through the portrayal of a person with a foot that resembles a knife being chased by a person yielding a knife. Through this, Jones highlights the harm caused by audiences in responding to the accusation of journalists; linking to the description of the harm caused to Benson and his family. Additionally, the use of weaponry in the cartoon connects to Jones’ description of “reckless vigilantes” in the Wickfield community. Therefore, the author seeks to inflict guilt upon her readers form the Wickfield community; encouraging an attitude of “sceptic[ism]” to protect the integrity of the community. This is further achieved as the author recapitulates her buoyant tone from the opening; striving to inspire the audience to behave in a manner the Wickfield community can be “proud” of. Really good use of analysing the visual language here, however I would highly recommend looking at the tone, colour and positioning of the objects in the image. Also beware of writing just a whole paragraph on the image, as most examiners/teachers recommend that you place it in a paragraph that anaylses both the visual and the blog text.
 
Conversely, the majority of those who respond to Jones’ blog elect to express outright disagreement; directing the blame towards NSB TV. For instance, James T. refers to the journalist as the “real enemies” in a manner that excoriates Jones’ cartoon. He therefore echoes Beth Z. in lambasting Jones for her condescending and “judg[mental]” approach. Similarly, June R. contends that the “vast majority” of Wickfield is innocent; passively criticising the original author for her accusations. She attempts to defend herself by describing Jones’ “vigilantes”  as mere “bad apples” within the community. This strives to associate a sense of innocence for herself. On the other hand, David M. admits that “sheeple” throughout Wickfield County are at fault. His language choices present himself as somewhat helpless and indifferent to the issue. Thus, he endeavours to suggest that responding to the issue is superfluous and will be ineffective.The integration of the quotes here is rather excellent and demonstrates a neat analysis, also mentioning a differing contention to that of the main blog post is great.

All things considered, Kylie Jones strives to enforce a sense of responsibility amongst her readers for the harm inflicted upon Robert Benson and his family.  She strives to achieve this by highlighting the importance of the “integrity” of the community and removing allegations from NSB TV. Her invective tone towards her readers’ attitudes attempts to inspire a change in their responses. Conversely, various members of the audience disagree with Jones, directing blame towards the journalists at large. I like the relationships identified in this conclusion, this is good!

• How can I improve the flow of my writing?

I would suggest trying a basic weave to integrate all areas of the texts given!

• Is my structure acceptable?

I believe it is acceptable, however, examiners tend to prefer the "weave" formats

• Have I referred to the visual enough?

You have provided sufficient amount of analysis, but read my comment above.

• Do I over use semicolons?

No!

• How highly would you expect such a response to score on the exam?

I would say around 6-7 (out of 10)
[/list]
Sorry for the (lack of) feedback! Hope this helps, even a little!

[YellowTongue]

Thanks insanipi, your feedback is really helpful 

I was sort of trying to implement the weave structure, but I definitely need to be more obvious about it, especially with my comparisons of each text. I will work on this for next time 

[jedly]

Here is my attempt at Section C, found it very hard to incorporate the piece, image and all five comments succinctly so any feedback would be awesome. Also a rough score would also be helpful. Thanks heaps!

Spoiler

NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.

Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be.

In accordance with her arguement, Jones has included an image which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have.

Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach.

Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.

Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community.

[sweetiepi]

Hey jedly, here's my feedback for you!

Original Essay

NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.

Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be.

In accordance with her arguement, Jones has included an image which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have.

Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach.

Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.

Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community.

Essay with feedback

NSB TV Shocked the local community of Wickfield with reports of Robert Benson stealing money from his tennis team's charity matches. However it was later debunked and NSB issued an apology. Freelance journalist Kylie Jones published her own opinion piece, The Blind leading the Blind on her blog, in response to the issue and the following uproar it caused. Jones contends that NSB themselves are not to blame for the public's condemning of Benson, instead the public are at fault for their own actions. Jones' piece includes a cartoon demonstrating how the media can misrepresent the truth as it depicts an attack but as seen through a television the victim is shown as the attacker and a number of comments from readers also accompany the piece; which in some cases support Jones' argument while others disapprovingly critique her viewpoint as they believe the public aren't too blame for their thoughts and consequent actions, rather media outlets such as NSB are.This is an great introduction! However, I feel as if you haven't identified the tone of the piece.

Jones proceeds by critically questioning the integrity of the local Wickfield community, as she explains how it took only one story for the "reckless vigilantes" of the town to "wreak havoc" on the life of Benson. The phrases 'reckless vigilantes' and 'wreak havoc' both have negative connotations associated with them such as 'hooligans' and 'destruction' respectively. Jones has employed these phrases and the negative associations that are implied with them to demonstrate the damage that can be done by the public in cases such as this. Therefore, aiming to appeal to the sympathy of her readership in an attempt to position the Wickfield community to feel empathetic avoid using empathy/empathetic, as these are usually classed as generic terms. Try to be more descriptive, by using words such as sensitive, compassionate or generous. towards Benson as he was "afraid" to even send his children to school. Jones appeals to the community's sympathy in an effort to cause them to accept responsibility for their own actions rather than blaming NSB; as they can see how significant the impact of these actions may be. Overall, a great paragraph, however maybe try to draw a comparison to a comment or the image, as it will be extremely beneficial, as it adds to the analysis and compares and contrasts between the contentions of the separate pieces.

In accordance with her arguement, spelling of argument is incorrect here, but I'm assuming a typo. Jones has included an image I would avoid using "in accordance", however, "Jones strengthens her argument by" would make a clearer statement. which pictures a man being attacked however, as it is shown through a television screen the attacker appears to be the victim. This clearly illustrates how media outlets such as NSB can misrepresent the truth I really like this interpretation of the what the image symbolises! and consequently alter the public's perceptions and actions. Jones however, reaffirms that "we need to take responsibility for our own actions" as she utilises the image and a call-to-action to implore the Wickfield community to be skeptical of media content and not just "swallow any old lie they hear." Jones concludes her piece with the call-to-action to empower her readers to be someone "Wickfield county can be proud of", thus attempting to draw on the pride within the community to persuade them to acknowledge that they are accountable for their own actions; despite the impact NSB and other media resources have. Overall, a great analysis paragraph, with a sentence or two that could be improved upon (see above)

Following Jones' piece, David M.'s reply argues that "sheeple" that believe "whatever they see on TV" are at fault for the uproar aimed at Benson in the aftermath of the NSB story. David bluntly asserts that some people are "born idiots with no compassion", in an attempt to belittle those who think NSB are to blame for the public outrage. Another comment from June R. similarly believes that people are to blame for the events, however, she emphasises that the blame should only be placed on the few "bad apples" rather than the whole Wickfield community. June presents a considered and logical approach in an attempt to influence other readers and members of the local community to share a similar viewpoint to Jones that the public are to blame rather than NSB; as her opinion appears to be valid and the common sense approach. This is a great little analysis to the supplementary texts! Maybe try to link this into another paragraph from the main blog post?

Contrastingly, other comments from James T., Elizabeth C., and Beth.C all present differing views to that of Jones, as they all contend similarly tha that (typo ) media outlets such as NSB are to blame for the public's opinion rather than the public themselves. Elizabeth angrily shuns the "outrageous gossip" that NSB "dares" to print, meanwhile James suggests that NSB are a "bunch of liars." Another reply from Beth demands Jones gets off her "high horse" and as Elizabeth and James have done, authoritatively belittle Jones' opinion. The trio of comments all in a similar vein, attempt to mock Jones' point of view aiming to make it appear non-nonsensical and outrageous and thus manipulate readers to oppose her how will they feel inclined to oppose Jones? and agree that NSB and the media are to blame for the public outrage.

Ultimately, Jones' opinion piece utilises words with negative implications and a powerful cartoon to question the integrity of the Wickfield community and attempt to lead them to accepting responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Replies from David and June further Jones' contention through a mocking tone and appeal to common sense and logic respectively. Conversely, comments from James, Elizabeth and Beth denigrate Jones' opinion by attacking and belittling her in an effort to make readers question her argument's validity and therefore coerce them to blaming NSB and the media for the actions of the public rather than their own community. Excellent conclusion, sums the analysis up neatly!

All in all, a great analysis, I would think it would get around a 7-8 out of 10.

[jedly]

Thanks for the feedback insanipi! Very helpful! Been trying to work hard on the language analysis and feel as though I'm getting there. Really appreciate taking your time out to give me some feedback.

For you, Lauren or anyone who is familiar with Burial Rites and has the time to give feedback I've also got a text response that I whipped up that any feedback would be awesome for. Send a lot of practices to my teacher but it's really good to get some different perspectives on pieces and new ideas and feedback.

Prompt: ' "They see I've got a head on my shoulders, and believe a thinking woman cannot be trusted" To what extent does prejudice influence the behaviour of men in Burial Rites? '

Spoiler

Set in 19th century Iceland, Hannah Kent's Burial Rites presents a patriarchal society rife with prejudice and double standards; which significantly impact on the actions of the majority of men within the society. District Commissioner Bjorn Blondal's contradictory treatment of the rebellious Agnes compared to the docile Sigga demonstrates the significant inequalities within the novel. However, Toti's compassion for the condemned Agnes and Natan's lust for Agnes despite lowly social status indicate that although prejudice influences some men's actions, others such as Toti and Natan are able to transcend the unfair nature of their society, and see people a they truly are.

Kent's protagonist within Burial Rites Agnes is presumed guilty of murdering Natan and Petur by Blondal; who uses his unrivaled authority to "set an example of her via her execution. However, Sigga who is thought to remind Blondal of his wife, and her docility are rewarded as she is pardoned for her part in the crimes. The juxtaposition of Blondal's prosecution of Sigga who is "too young and sweet to die" compared to "bloody knowing" Agnes highlights how the inherently judgmental nature of the Icelandic society can alter the way people are treated by men.

Although discrimination and bias is an unquestionable part of the Burial Rites society that is presented by Kent, Toti's actions in his role of preparing Agnes for death reveal how care and affection can overshadow the unfairness of the society. Blondal questions Toti's performance in preparing Agnes for her execution to which he defends his methods as he believes he "provide her with a final audience to her life's lonely narrative." Despite Blondal's chastisement, Toti continues to listen to Agnes rather than preach to her and even risks his own health, and ultimately, his life, to ride to Kornsa and be there for her in her final days. Toti's compassion towards Agnes who is seen only by most as "the whore, the madwoman and the murderess", indicates that prejudice influences the behaviour of many men within the novel however, not all men are influence by it.

Throughout her life Agnes has been shuned constantly due to her lowly status and ambitious nature. The men within Burial Rites value a woman who is obedient over a woman with "a head on her shoulders" such as Agnes. However, Natan strongly lusts for Agnes despite the preconceived ideas held towards illegitimate paupers such as her by the vast majority of others. Natan and Agnes' relationship suggest that despite the large influence prejudice has in the society that Kent presents, not all men allow it to change their actions.

Ultimately, within the patriarchal Burial Rites society judgement and bias often influence the behaviour of men within it, such as Blondal and the vast majority of the public. However, as exemplified by Toti and Natan, prejudice does not always prevail as some men are able to prevent it from changing their behaviour.

[drehara]

For anyone who knows Burial Rites, I wrote on the topic "Kent's Novel is about what it means to be guilty Discuss."
Looking for feedback as my teacher gives me A- to A+ on pretty much everything I write and I think I need a second opinion.
Thanks!

Spoiler

Agnes Magnusdottir is found to be guilty, and although there were other factors in the murder of Natan Ketilsson, she is still guilty. But what does it mean to be guilty? Agnes quickly has the little power she did possess stripped away from her as she is taken prisoner. Even at Kornsa, she is shown no respect and is forced to keep her feelings locked away inside her until Margret and herself become friends, as no one else will be associated with her. Ultimately, all of the truly guilty people in Burial Rites end up executed in one way or another, showing that to be guilty is to die.

Agnes never really had much power in her life, but after being found guilty of Natan’s murder, she had what was left swiftly taken away from her. Locked away at Stora-Borg with “no way to mark the day from night”, she was left without the most basic form of power- simple knowledge. This was a far cry from the early days of her life at Illugastadir, where Natan had not yet revealed his true self and she seemed to have equal power in their relationship. Her lack of power becomes more evident on the trip to Kornsa, as she thinks to herself that she is “strapped to the saddle like a corpse being taken to the burial ground”. This shows that Agnes sees Kornsa as the “burial ground”, due to Inga’s death which she had a hand in, letting “the spirit” of death into the house as she opened the door during the storm. In a way, Agnes is partly guilty for Inga’s death, as she let “the cold air in with Inga in such a delicate state”. This was a precursor for a life of guilt as she lost her home as a ‘punishment’ for it, and was once again thrust into the arms of strangers, working up and down the valley for a place to live. Due to her guiltiness, Agnes lost the power to live a basic life when she was a child, and as an adult she lost her freedom. Furthermore, after killing Natan, she became ostracized from everyone but the family she was forced upon.

While Agnes waited out her final months until her execution, she was completely isolated by everyone except those she was forced to be with. When Roslin visited, she spoke of Agnes’ “hideous face” and the “fiendish things” that the “whore” had done. This shows that the hatred for Agnes was widespread, and she was quite right when she thought “they will see the whore, the madwoman, the murderess”. However, all throughout Roslin’s tirade, Margret seems to sympathise with Agnes, for they are “two dying women” and she doesn’t believe that the crime could have just been Agnes’ wickedness because “nothing is simple”. Margret is the only person who considers Agnes to not be a “spider” at this point, but even her trust can be lost in an instant for a guilty woman. When Agnes inspects Lauga’s confirmation gift, Margret grows “furious” and the “blood drains from her face”. Agnes is hit with a “neat crack” and Margret is going to punish her by “working like a dog”, which is similar to the way she was treated by the guards, “another dull-eyed animal”. Even in her younger days, Agnes was guilty of always being “fixed on bettering herself”, which doesn’t sound like a negative, but at the time when a “thinking woman cannot be trusted” it made her seem like a “fjandi”. Agnes lost all hope of having more than Margret as a friend after her guilty verdict, showing that guilt for her meant powerlessness and loneliness. But even more than that, guilt meant death.

The guilty in Burial Rites are dealt with cruelly, and effectively all end up dead. Natan was the first to go, guilty of “toying with people” and manipulating Agnes, Natan “Satan” viewed her as more of a challenge than a real person, after he “could not read” her. But after he actually got to know Agnes and got used to her, he grew tired of her and began his “games”. Sleeping with Sigga while Agnes was lying awake, he openly dismisses her forgiveness, and reveals he doesn’t “wait until you’re [Agnes] asleep”. Natan reveals his true self, one who does not love anyone. In a way, Natan “got what was coming to him”, he had ruined Agnes’ life for his own amusement and was not remorseful in any way. Her undying love for Natan was also her downfall. Even when murdering him, being the executioner of the guiltiest person she had ever met, she viewed her knife thrust as an “ill practiced kiss” rather than a fatal incision. Natan died for his guilt, and Agnes would too. At the execution site, Agnes didn’t want to die, not thinking she was “ready” for it. But in the end, she was forced to die for her crimes, her guilt, just as Natan had earlier.

Being guilty is death sentence in itself- one becomes powerless, losing their basic ability to live a normal life. They are then almost completely ostracised, seen as a figure of evil by those around them, although there may be a chance for companionship with whoever is kept close, it is not likely. But ultimately, to be guilty is to die, and Agnes and Natan both suffer the same fate. Burial Rites explores what it really means to be guilty, and explicitly shows the consequences of such guilt and how a life changes throughout.

[laksjdlakj]

This is my attempt at Section C It was a bit of a struggle trying to incorporate all the comments! I was wondering if you think this structure is alright?? Often I am told that my paragraphs are not distinct enough and there is usually a fair bit of overlap but I am not sure how to make them more distinct? Any feedback would be really helpful and if possible could I also get a rough score?? Thanks in advance !

Spoiler

Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.

Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality information. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case.

However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as ‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them.

Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. In response, June R. contends that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past.

Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones asserts that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.
 

[laksjdlakj]

hey @drehara

Burial Rites isn't the text that I'm focusing on in prep for the exam and I struggle a lot with TR but perhaps some ideas to consider
-is Agnes truly guilty?? How have others (eg. Blondal) twisted her words?
-even though she did kill a man, it was supposedly out of love therefore does that make her deserving of redemption??
-does she find redemption through Margret/Toti (ie staying with the family?)
-does one night/one crime ultimately define Agne's entire life/negate all the good deeds/kind heartedness that Agnes exemplified? maybe think about idk how one of the daughters can't forget how Agnes gave her the eggs?

Idk just some ideas to consider b/c I felt like you explored the concept of guilt and death in all 3 paras but perhaps there are also other ideas to explore and I'm not too familiar with BR so perhaps just take what I have to say with a grain of salt

[sweetiepi]

A shout-out to jedly and drehara- as I personally don't know anything about Burial Rites myself, I don't want to give feedback that isn't relative to that text.

Hey, laksjdlakj, I can give you some feedback on the section C!

original essay

Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.

Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality information. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case.

However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as ‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them.

Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. In response, June R. contends that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past.

Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones asserts that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.

Essay with feedback

Following the debunking of NSB TV’s false report regarding Robert Benson, head coach of a major tennis club, stating that he had been stealing money from the club’s weekly children charity fund, Kylie Jones published an opinion piece on her blog entitled 'The Blind leading the Blind'. In her blog, she contends try to avoid using "contend", instead use words like asserts, affirm, protest or insists. in a condemnatory and critical tone that although NSB has a responsibility in their inaccurate reporting, the public must also take responsibility for their quick judgement and willingness to believe anything printed and instead she urges the citizens of Wickfield County who are the stakeholders in this issue? to employ logic and reasoning before rashly agreeing with anything that is printed in the media. Included in her post is a cartoon depicting someone filming one man chasing another with a knife. In response to this blog post, there has been a variety of comments posted online.

Employing a scathing tone, Jones draws attention to NSB’s failure to conduct proper reporting etiquette. She describes NSB’s reporting as a ‘catastrophe’, ‘sloppy’ and ‘flawed’ which has negative connotations associated with disaster and laziness thus positioning readers to see that NSB did not hold their work up to a high standard of practice hence they failed their jobs as reports to relay accurate, high quality informationwhat other reactions could the reader have to the negative connotations?. Moreover, Jones uses an allegory describing this incident as a ‘witch hunt’ thus encouraging readers to see that NSB was not impartial when collecting evidence or facts but rather had an agenda and moulded the facts to suit their interpretation of the story hence positioning try to avoid using "positioning", instead use words like notions, allows readers to perceive; or increases the readers' awareness of.readers to see NSB’s irresponsibility. Similiarly, commentator Elizabeth C agrees with Jones’ perspective but uses a different approach asserting in a virulent tone that NSB’s false reporting is diminishing the integrity of the community. Elizabeth describes the news reporting as ‘petty slander’ and ‘outrageous gossip’ hence encouraging readers try to link to the particular parts of the audience, not just "readers" in general. to see NSB not as a formal, credible reporting station but more like a tabloid magazine who is unreliable and often makes fictious statements and assumptions in order to sell more copies of the magazine. Overall, by undermining the credibility of NSB both Jones and Elizabeth position readers to see that NBS’s poor reporting practice and ethics played a role in the misreporting of Benson’s case. Brilliant integration of the main and one of the supplementary texts.

However, Jones also urges readers to consider their own role and responsibility in receiving the recent events. The uses of inclusive language such as ‘we’ and ‘our’ is employed as Jones seeks to position try not to over use position, as it tends to be the go-to word for explaining how a technique persuades. readers to see that although NSB falsely reported and misconstrued the facts, there is also blame within the community for believing the words as the media cannot force us to believe anything, we have the power to decide what we do and do not believe. In addition, Jones asserts that ‘we may not be getting the whole truth’. The adjective ‘whole’ is italicised thus suggesting that we are only given fragments of the facts. This is further compounded by the cartoon which depicts a man chasing another man with a knife. However, on the screen the event has been altered and changed so that the victim has now become the perpetrator – now holding the knife instead of running away. Through this, Jones highlights how the media can change facts and that as informed citizens we should eb eb should be be- a typo, I assume. aware that newspaper and their media outlets often distort the truth hence we Don't use first person (such as I and we and us). should remain sceptical and question the validity of information rather than being naïve and trusting everything present to us. Contrarily, try to avoid using "contrarily", instead use words like conversly, in opposition to, or alternatively. David M and James T has written comments in response disagreeing with Joes Jones. Typo. but taking different approaches. Commentator David M suggests in a rude and haughty tone that those who believed the NSB should bear the responsibility for gullibly believing anything they read. Many members of the audience are likely to have fallen for NSB’s false reporting and David M labels them as You should insert being either an... or here..‘idiot’ and ‘dumb’. Through this, the audience may feel outraged that they are being labelled as such but in the future, may also reconsider the merits of the reporter and facts before trusting it again in fear of being called derogatory names. Contrastingly, try to avoid using "contrastingly", instead use words or phrases like on the other hand, conversly or alternatively. James T contends that the Wickfield Community should not be forced to bear the burden of responsibility, rather the blame lies solely on NSB. By juxtaposing NSB as ‘liars’ and the Wickfield Community as ‘kind, trusting’, James encourages try to avoid using "encourages" a lot, iI suggest using words such as guide, manoeuver or convert.readers to see that it is the people of Wickfield who are the victims and have been manipulated and taken advantage of by NSB and hence it is inappropriate to ‘pin’ the blame on them. Overall a good paragraph, however, try to use some other words instead of staying with the 'stock standard' words.

Moreover, Jones highlights the detrimental consequences and the power of the media to destroy a person’s life. She utilises an anecdote describing Robert Benson’s fear and asserting that the ‘damage had been’. The qualifier ‘had’ suggests try to avoid using "suggests", instead use words like implies, conveys, hints at or connotes. that the power of the media is extremely potent and its effects are not easily reversible but rather can leave a permanent scar on someone therefore encouraging readers to see that vilifying a person can have dangerous consequences and one must be careful what they believe and how they behave. This sentence is quite long-winded, how can you condense it? Also, how does it affect the readers?In response, June R. contends try not to use contend for each different comment. that not everyone in the community trusted NSB’s words and acted out offensively against Benson. June dissociates herself with those that ‘egged’ Benson’s car by describing them as ‘vigilantes’ and ‘a few bad apples’. The use of the metaphor ‘a few bad apples’ encourages Perhaps use inspire or stimulate here to vary the vocabulary.readers to see that ‘persecuting and bull[ing]’ someone rashly is not acceptable behaviour and is frowned upon by society. In contrast Beth Z. contends in a disapproving and cynical tone that it is a minor issue that the it is time to leave the issue in the past. It's a good analysis, however try focusing on multiple ways in which readers will react.

Jones and the commentators have employed a wide variety of techniques to assert Are the techniques appealing to emotions or more towards logic and reasoning?their view regarding the issue of NSB’s misreporting. Whilst Jones assertsTry to not use "asserts" a lot, try using insists or claim instead. that both NSB and the public have responsibility regarding the issue. Elizabeth agrees with Jones whereas James, David, Beth and June disagree however all adopt slightly different stances and techniques. The spectrum of opinions and responses regarding this issue demonstrate the contentious nature of the debate.

All in all, it is a good analysis, however, try and vary the vocab and go into more depth of how certain techniques captivate the readers.
Rough score: I would say that it'd score 6-7.

[laksjdlakj]

Thanks so much for the feedback insanipi ! Really appreciate it and I'll be sure to try to improve my vocab and go into more depth of how readers react