After reading the past papers, I am seriously not looking forward to language analysis. Seriously, these must be the most boring and least passionate pieces I have ever seen.
In a nutshell:
"We need to make gardens and eat vegetables" - 2013
"We need to read books" - 2012
"We need to preserve trees" - 2010
"We need to use technology" - 2009
You forgot:
"We need to all get tattoos with real meaning, but also not get tattoos because they've lost their meaning, but I'm the only one whose tattoo has any real value because I'm a feminist, but also your tattoos make my tattoos worthless so I hate you, but you should really get a tattoos because tattoos are awesome, but they're not awesome anymore because people keep getting tattoos" - 2011
Actually the pattern I came up with was that every article had something to do with change:
"Changing this area into a garden is a good idea" - 2013
"The change from books to ebooks might not be such a good idea" - 2012
"Tattoos have changed" - and let's just leave it at that - 2011
"Climate change, and how we need to change our mindset/ reach goals" - 2010
"Changes in technology are a good thing" - 2009
"Sports clubs are being changed by abusive parents and we should change back" - 2008
Seems like there's an even distribution of 'here's a great idea for a change we should embrace' and 'change is awful and why can't we go back to the good old days?'
Also, rest assured, it won't have anything to do with a media story or real event. Since there are interstate, and even international kids who sit the VCE exams, giving you a story on the Essendon saga would give you an advantage, especially for anyone who was following the case. More likely they'll construct a scenario, probably a speech this year, and either comment on general trends within society (eg. 2010, 2009) or a highly specific case (2013, 2008)
There's a reason they don't go for highly opinionated/ passionate/ real articles; supposedly it's easier to analyse if you don't care
Home
Help
Search
Login
