We've never done individual orals in our school, even for year 11. Everyone speaks for 3-4 minutes on a different aspect of the issue, discussing the different viewpoints as a group. As everyone’s doing the same issue, it will probably be difficult to separate people arguments-wise. It’s the first part of a two-part SAC, the second part being a language analysis on the same issue.
In that case, your approach won't be too different from normal English orals, but you will have to work closely with your group to ensure your arguments work well together as well as individually. It's worth chatting to your teacher as well, since I'm not sure whether they'd expect it to all flow like one 15 minute long speech from different people, or you hand over to one another (eg. 'And now Jacob will talk to you about the wider ramifications of this issue on a global scale...') or whether everything should be self-contained. But it sounds like you'll be able to do your own thing within a designated area (eg. just looking at the financial side of things, or the ethical/moral components of the issue) and so long as your contention is in harmony with the rest of the group, you should be fine.
I find current political issues difficult to write about because they usually don’t provide me with much depth for discussion compared to philosophical theories and interesting stories. I was also unsure how to tie in current political issues with abstract discussion about reality (but you explained it pretty much).
Also how can I avoid my essay from becoming too philosophically dense? I plan of writing hybrid-feature article style. Most of my examples are philosophy based-Descartes, Schopenhauer/Buddhism, Iris Murdoch, Plato, surreal art-Salvador Dali, North Korea etc. Should I contextualise the philosophical theories with real world examples?
Yes, exactly. You can only talk about theories for so long without it becoming dense and detached. Almost all good philosophical concepts will have links to real world examples, even if they're only hypothetical, but what you've listed here should be fine. The trick is to 'abstractify' things, so that you're not just talking about Salvador Dali's life, you're talking about how escapism can be more productive than mere avoidance, for instance. Not everything has to have a wealth of context and evidence, but it all has to be connected in a satisfying way. If you're doing a whole lot of theorisation with not a lot to back it up, that might be problematic.
Another note about examples, should they strictly complement the book (Death of a Salesman), because I’m wary that my examples may be introduced in an awkward way and not blend in?
If you're clever enough with your transitions then not all of them have to be. Remember, the priority is always the ideas here, so you need to find some common thread between DoaS and whatever else you want to discuss. It doesn't have to be very detail-oriented (eg. this character in the text was born in Ireland - Iris Murdoch was also born in Ireland!) Relate stuff back to the context and just weave your way around.
Having said that, it might pay to have some very closely related examples as your starting point so the transition isn't too severe. Most texts will either have real world comparisons to draw from, or an interesting backstory behind the author, or both, so maybe start there.
I wasn't challenging the prompt. It’s just that the word ‘sometimes’ suggests that ‘living in an illusion is easier than reality’ may not always be the case. [/quote] What you've described there is a challenge; you don't have to outright disagree with the entire prompt in order to challenge it. Challenging is more like complicating the discussion and making it more sophisticated, rather than denying some truth in the text or anything.
I’m unsure of scenarios where facing reality is easier than living in an illusion because it may be better, but not necessarily easier.
Sorry, this sentence has lost me... are you arguing that facing reality
is easier, or isn't??
Hey everyone
I have my first english sac on a text response on a play we read in class. What should i do right now to prepare please i feel like im lost 
Unfortunately there is no 'do the activity an instantly get full marks' secret for English. I know it's frustrating when you don't have a textbook or a list of questions to work off of sometimes, but that's because
you need to direct your study!Let's take this SAC for example; what's your absolute worst case scenario? What's the worst thing that could possibly come up on the SAC that would just make you weep and wail?
Maybe your answer is 'that I won't know enough quotes.' --> Go learn quotes then.
Maybe it's 'I can't say anything about this major character' --> Go read and write about that character.
Maybe it's 'I'm scared I won't know where to start' --> Practice some essay plans and introductions for unseen material.
Maybe it's all of those things, maybe you'll have a list of 29 different areas that you feel really weak and unconfident in, but a list of 29 definitive things to work on is better than just sitting there asking 'what do I do?'
Hi,
for an expository essay, and if the prompt was : the powerful changes reality,
Would you structure your essay like this:
1st paragraph: generalisation
Body paragraph1 - contention: powerful does change reality + evidence
Body paragraph 2- contention: powerful can only change exterior reality of someone but cannot change one's personal, interior reality +evidence
Body paragraph 3- contention: Sometimes it is not even clear who is more powerful +evidence
Long story short, would you have a contention you are trying to make for each paragraph and put evidence in for each?
Or would you have 1 main contention that you are trying to make and use the paragraphs to put in your evidence?
The second and third B.P.s are looking good, but the first one seems a bit weak. These paragraphs will be a few hundred words long each, and do you really want to devote a third of your discussion to a point as simple as 'power changes reality?' Your other points have more depth , but this one is essentially just saying 'yes' to the prompt, so you want it to be a bit more impactful.
In my experience, the first paragraph is an excellent place to clarify the definitions in the words/phrases you're using, especially for context where words like 'conflict' and 'reality' and 'power' get tossed around in essays so much that no one knows what they mean any more. Waaaaay too many essays at the end of the year will simply take a key word and run with it, never explaining what it means.
I'm NOT saying you should have an atrocious sentence like 'Webster's dictionary defines power as...' because that would be awful. But clarifying yourself can be done really effectively with synonyms. For example: 'The way we exert power
and influence over other people can have a tremendous influence...' By adding that extra word 'influence,' I've clarified that I'm talking about
social power and control over other people, and doing this once a paragraph or so will make things a lot clearer than branding everything as 'power' with no distinctions or complexity.
E.g
Main contention: powerful can only change exterior reality of someone but cannot change one's personal, interior reality
1st body paragraph: George Orwell's 1984 (example only, no separate contention)
2nd paragraph: Shark Net
3rd paragraph: something else
Now this is a slightly different problem. I'd say your first plan looks stronger because it's driven by ideas. This outline (and I know it's only a brief skeleton) is too limited by its evidence. From a Context perspective, it's much easier to go into a paragraph knowing what you're trying to say, than knowing what examples you'll draw from. Think about how much direction 'the powerful can only change exterior reality of someone but cannot change one's personal, interior reality' gives you as opposed to 'I'm going to write about Shark Net.'
Also, and this is a matter of personal preference, but I'd argue the stronger expository pieces will draw from more than one example per paragraph. It's not compulsory, and there are definitely examples that deserve their own independent paragraph of exploration, but your ability to compare, contrast, and draw parallels between different kinds of conflict gives you a lot more opportunities for an overall sophisticated contention.
Also how would you do a conclusion for expository?
To not lose credit: summarise your contention and main arguments, and end on a satisfying note.
To
gain credit, try and make a bigger point. The main question a conclusion has to answer is 'so what?' What is the significance of the fact that power is important for changing reality? What does this mean about the nature of reality? It can take a lot of practice, but essentially you want to be zooming out as much as possible and say something impactful about your Context. It doesn't have to massively alter the way the reader thinks about reality, but it should be a concise summation of what you've explored, and the overall significance of the implications of your argument.
If that sounds vague, that's because it is. You can do anything you want in a conclusion, because a Context piece doesn't necessarily have to be an essay. It's convention to summarise at the end, but you could do this in many ways: with a creative example, a full-on imaginative POV from a character, narrative reflection, book-ending with a cool metaphor, whatever works! Maybe gauge what your teacher is a fan of and then experiment a little bit
Home
Help
Search
Login
