I can't fully see the article properly, just the beginning of it, so I can't offer comments as to what should have been in there etc. so I'll work with the excerpts of the article provided in your quotes. You asked for as much feedback as possible so I'm going to try and fuck this essay. Not to be a dick, just giving it my best effort.In the article ‘Schools’ big cost’ by an editorial of the Herald Sun newspaper on the twenty-fifth of January, 2013,
Never begin and essay by jumping in like this. It's the equivalent to smashing some ice -cold water into your examiner's face to wake them up. You need to ease into it so it's a nice piece to read. We do this by utilising a 'contextualising sentence', offering general information on whatever issue you're writing about. Sometime's it is difficult when you don't have much information - as in this article - but we can sort of fill in the blanks. I might start this analysis with "As the cost of living has gradually increased, so too has the cost of a public school education." and then we can start introducing the other bits of information. Also go back and read your opening line. See how long it is? "by, and, of, the, on, the, of" - it's cumbersome to read and we can make it look really sharp by being concise with our words here. Our following sentence to the contextualising one could be something similar to "Such is the focus of the Herald Sun's editorial "School's big cost", (25/01/2013), which argues in a usally informative, demanding attitude that such inherently valuable things such as education should never be monopolised." --Try to zazz the contention a bit, I know you're a very straightforward/logical thinking kind of guy but "public school is too expensive" just doesn't encapsulate all this article is saying (just from the title and intro that I've read). **Normally (Name of publication, date)*however I switched it around so we could say "Herald Sun's editorial" the editor commences with a stark, informative and demanding
try to keep it down to two tone words - see above - just so the essays flows more. Strongly note the use of the word "usually" in the above sentence - it is imperative we discuss any changes/fluctuations in tones throughout the article and thus we musn't be absolute in any introduction. attitude that the cost of sending a child to a public school is too expensive.
We'd also mention the audience (if you can figure it out, sometimes it is subtle) in our introduction and a useful technique I found so the essay sounds really natural is to discuss the tone and style in conjunction with why it's used to influence the audience/ Eg. "In utilising colloquial language along with the informal style of the piece, the author directly targets an adolescent age group" etc. Usually tone/audience are interconnected. Words such as ‘free’ are typed in inverted commas,
You have literally just told the examiner what they can see. Imagine writing in an essay "whenever the author uses a little case "i", there is a dot there". You need to be saying 'how, why' instead of just saying 'what' lists of expenses are made and evidence is used in the calculation of costs,
This sentence is flawed in that you have: "Words such as" and then "producing" whereas it should be "Words such as xyz produc>ES<".. All the commas also really take away from the sentence. I'll rephrase so it's cleaner... "In order to convince the audience of the reality of public school costs, as opposed to the idealistic notion of entirely free public school, the editor lists expenses, calculates the cost of public school with evidence and places inverted commas around words such as 'free'. ...At the end of an intro I'd generally provide an overview of the core/central/main emotive appeals that work in conjunction with each other throughout the piece, as opposed to surface things such as inverted commas and lists, which -can- be individually analysed throughout your essay but aren't worth mentioning in the intro. If there were a graphic, you'd also mention this now producing a convincing account of the reality of the cost of public schools, in contrast with an idealised world where public education is ‘free’.
Hahaha, man I've been going for a bit and haven't started the body paragraphs xD. For a high scoring essay you'd want your introduction to be longer and smoother. The subtitle
provokes a strong responseNEVER do this! Did you take a survey of every single person that read this article and ask them what the subtitle provoked? No. So we can't say it in the essay. The writer INTENDS to provoke, etc etc etc from the reader by boldly using the phrase ‘officially dead’ to describe a past expectation of the costs that one would incur when sending their children to a public school. The word ‘officially’ metaphorically presents the situation as a very serious one, rather than just a mere belief that was assumed by parents.
Cool!!!!!! GOOD STUFF MAN! This is awesome The use of the word
We have to hide this repetition. See the prior sentence? "The word", and your next sentence? "The use of the word". We have to blend these in so it isn't so "Bang. bang. bang." ‘dead’ assumes a fatal and hopeless result has already been reached with no chance to undo the damage that was inflicted over a long period of time
Awesome, now how is it intended to specifically effect the reader?. When combined, these words produce an emotive wake-up call to those who are ignorant of the severity of the situation.
But how? "The use of these words in such close proximity to each other is intended to instill a sense of mourning at the loss of free schooling, 'officially' providing a grave sense of formality to the audience; this has the potential to make the audience more receptive towards the editorial's future arguements." - the last part of the example is bit shallow. Also notice the use of a semi-colon? I've used the same structure as you do, starting with "this...", but the semi-colon before it makes it flow more. We only use this when the two clauses are closely interrelated The editor utilises the persuasive technique of inverted commas
Signposting techniques is never really worth much. I've been looking for thirty minutes but I can't find what I wanted to quote - it's something from the VCAA that said 'technique identification should be kept to a minimum". Also the very first words of the sentence... Authors don't sit down and go "Hmmmm... which persuasive technique should I use now?" (Actually dilks wrote an awesome post on it, i'll go find it and link it back here) Re: Improving your Language Analysis by drawing a direct line of contrast between the old assumption of many parents and the reality of the contemporary world. It is an indirect way of insulting the choice of words spoken by many citizens. Immediately following from that, the editor presents the reader with figures ‘released this week’, addressing the total costs incurred when sending a child ‘from prep to year 12’. The timeliness of the release of the figures provides a vital source of evidence in favour of the view that times have changed and expenses have worsened.
Not bad, but then what does this do for the reader?! You're giving 'what' but not 'why/how'. You almost got there in the first paragraphThe blame is then
By going through the article so chronologically your essay takes the air of a 'running commentary'. It's like you're commenting on the article from start to finish but not analysing its contents. shifted towards ‘our politicians’ by indirectly claiming that the rise in cost of public school education is their responsibility and that this should be a ‘wake-up call’ for them. This tactic used by the editor is known as inclusive language, since it encourages the reader to side with the editor
how?, a citizen who is also under the influence of the decisions made by politicians, and puts the reader under the impression
big no nothat the problem can be resolved as a community.
You need to be discussing what the techniques could make the reader feel, not the techniques.A list of expenses is made in an appeal to the hip-pocket nerve, ranging from ‘curriculum fees’ to ‘excursions and sports’, all of which the reader will suffer from. This appeal is reinforced by claiming that these fees ‘will continue to grow’,
piling on additional stress to the reader in an urgent attempt to seek an immediate solution to the problem closer to what we want, good.. Empathy is given to those who rely upon ‘working family budgets’ by claiming that they are already being ‘stretched to the limit’, implying that an immediate change is necessary. This implication is a result of an analogy of an object that is in the process of being ‘stretched’. As the object continues to be ‘stretched’, more tension arises, causing undue hardship to the innocent object. Eventually, the object reaches ‘the limit’, meaning that any further stretching will cause the immediate destruction of the object. Just as there is only so far that an object may be stretched until breaking point, there is only so much that may be added to the fees of a parent or adult guardian before they are simply unable to repay the debts, meaning that their expenses will eventually exceed their income. The present tense word ‘already’ implies that this breaking point, or ‘limit’, has already been reached.
Entirely unnecessary discussion of 'stretched'. An excellent attempt, however. You definitely want to discuss the implications of words, but you don't need to explain the meaning to the examiner, just what the meaning is intended to do. If you discussed the way the word 'stretched' made the reader feel in the same level of detail, that would be amazing. You could even use a bit of it like "...reader feels as if any further 'stretching' will cause immediate destruction of the object." - didn't even check if that made sense, just picked a fitting sentence and put 'reader feels' there. I think it's an immediate improvement. Another plea is made to the ‘state and federal governments’ for assistance that is ‘need[ed]’ by the general public. The use of the word ‘need’ maintains consistency within the article, in the sense that it continues on with the previous tone of desperation that the editor used in his attempt to persuade the reader of his point of view. The urgency is exacerbated by following on with the words ‘all they can’, suggesting that this issue must take the highest priority in their lives and their career.
Nice writing, but there's nothing much hereThe editor concludes the article on a lighter note by offering a speck of hope to the reader. With enough persuasion, the government may be able to successfully ‘lower school expense’ and ‘encourage quality education for all Victorian students’. This clarifies the message sent by the editor that there is a problem which cannot be denied or ignored, and that a brighter future is still possible with immediate action and appeals to those in authoritative positions.
Nice enough finisher =]Lots of work to do.
-You need a massive shift in focus away from explaining the theory or logic behind a technique and explaining the potential influence it could hold for the reader. There were a few sentences that were like YES!! GIVE ME MORE!! but then they slipped away.
-I'd drop the chronological style, for reasons stated above.
-Shift more to a holistic style of analysis. Analyse ways in which language really works together in conjunction - the first paragraph could have been golden! It looks really sophisticated when you can discuss interrelationships.
-I just thought of a Math analogy that could help. Picture a graph. Let's say, x = time in years, y = average population weight. You want someone to analyse the graph and tell you the meaning it gives. They say "On the x-axis, it starts at 1900 and moves to 2013 on the right hand side. The y-axis starts at 60kg and moves up to 200kg at he very top. There is a line on the graph. The values on the axes move up in intervals of 5." ... this is a description of the graph, but not an analysis. That's what you're doing to the article you were analysing. You need to go from that to "The relationship between time and average population weight is strong, positive and linear. From this graph we can see there was a large spike in weight gain in the late 1990s. From this graph it can be seen that 86% of the variance in weight gain can be explained by the variance in time" (or some shit like that tbh I don't fucking analyse graphs LOL)
Sorry on the delay.
Any questions (from anyone reading) ofc, feel free to post/ask.
Home
Help
Search
Login
