Language Analysis - 2010 VCAA

[Paulrus]

so i've neglected lang analysis for a good part of the year and with a week till the exam i feel like i really need to bring it up to scratch
i tried the 2010 lang analysis handwritten under timed conditions (though i did go a bit over an hour), and i'd be really appreciative if anyone could give me some guidance. a mark out of 10 would be cool too, but i know it's hard to really guess vcaa's standards so it's not that important.
thanks heaps in advance!

‘Taking Stock’



The loss of biodiversity has been subject to considerate media discussion, sparking a global movement as attempts to prevent it become more fervent. A speech delivered by Professor Chris Lee in response to the issue at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, entitled ‘Taking Stock’, suggests that the damage being inflicted on the environment is untenable and, without immediate action, will become irreversible. The presentation was complemented by a slideshow, one slide of which depicts the logo of the conference, while another displays the Earth being held in outstretched hands.



Lee aims to impart to his audience the immense damage being caused to the ecosystem. That ’35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands’ have been lost in the ‘last one hundred years’ is directly attributed to ‘thoughtless human actions’. Here the use of statistics, coupled with the reasoned tone he initially employs, paints his intentions as credible, suggesting to his audience that his claims are both substantiated and rational. Listeners are thus encouraged to view him as logical and unbiased, lending credibility to his caveats of loss of biodiversity. This is somewhat subverted as he adopts an urgent tone, referring to the ‘destruction’ of ‘natural habitats’. Here, ‘destruction’ carries highly charged connotations of violent (or even wilful) damage being inflicted on these species, evoking a sense of shock within the audience. That we are held in ‘the grip’ of a species extinction ascribes it a great destructive power, and that the extinction rate sits at up to ‘100 times the natural rate’ suggests to the audience that the damage being caused is having a subversive effect on the natural order of the ecosystem, further augmenting the destructive influence humans are having upon biodiversity.



In doing so, Lee highlights the necessity for immediate action to ensure that biodiversity is not further diminished. He directly places the onus of action upon his audience, suggesting that their lack of ‘unity’ and ‘genuine commitment’ thus far has ‘led us to this grim situation’. The notion that their own lack of agency is contributing to the plight faced by the environment is intended to be both castigating and galvanising for the audience, evoking a sense of guilt. This is compounded in Lee’s depiction of the audience as ‘mouth[ing] platitudes’ in the relative comfort of an ‘air-conditioned and sumptuously catered conference hall’. The notion that their actions are superficial and ultimately fruitless may be particularly affronting for Lee’s audience of biodiversity experts, who likely pride themselves on their activism. They may then be urged to reexamine their actions and alter them to more effectively benefit the ecosystem. Lee’s speech finds more than one target, however, suggesting that the ‘affluent’ are oppressing and subordinating the lower classes through their callous disregard for the ecosystem. The title itself, ‘Taking Stock’, indirectly harangues the commodification of the environment, suggesting the affluent elite’s treatment of these species and ecosystems is akin to that of merchandise. Lee labels this as an ‘epidemic of affluenza’, with this portmanteau of ‘affluent’ and ‘influenza’ connoting that the toxic effects of the upper classes on the environment are akin to a disease. This shocking comparison compounds the sense of guilt felt within the audience. Lee also preemptively attempts to attenuate any resentment that may be felt at these words by including himself as part of ‘we affluent hunters and gatherers’, asserting his own status as a member of the same group and maintaining the focus on the necessity for action rather than any personal derogation. The closing slide of the presentation depicts the Earth held in a pair of outstretched hands. This alludes to the fragility of the ecosystem, its balance intricately maintained. However, more pertinently, it suggests that the future of the Earth lies in human hands, and it is only through human intervention that it can be saved. This notion is compounded in the accompanying caption, which claims that biodiversity must be protected ‘at all costs’. That this phrase is asserted both in the slideshow and in the final line of the speech gives it particular weight in the minds of the audience, forming the crux of Lee’s argument as he aims to persuade his audience to take action against the diminishment of biodiversity.

Lee additionally attempts to highlight the importance of biodiversity for society as a whole, suggesting that it is in society’s best interests that it be maintained. He describes a ‘continual pattern of inequitable […] growth’ caused by the loss of biodiversity, implying that this pattern is cyclical. The audience is thus urged to believe this pattern must be broken for society to progress rather than stagnate. Lee also outlines the role of biodiversity in ensuring the ‘health and nutrition, […] crop development, and […] safety’ of rural communities, evoking sympathy towards those who have their needs ‘subordinated’ to the interests of the ‘powerful’. Lee draws a dichotomy here in order to amplify this sympathy, portraying the rural communities as powerless, manipulated by those in the affluent elite. The visual attached to the first slide further exemplifies the importance of biodiversity, depicting elements of nature (namely a tree, fish, a flamingo and two humans) constituting the year ‘2010’. These elements, representative of biodiversity as a whole, imply that it forms the cornerstone of modern society, further highlighting the need for biodiversity.



Professor Chris Lee’s speech ‘Taking Stock’, delivered at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, contends that immediate action must be taken to prevent the diminishment of biodiversity. He highlights the imminent dangers posed by humans to the ecosystem, outlining the benefits of biodiversity to society while placing the onus of action on his audience, which forms the crux of his argument.

[24bauer12]

Hi Paulrus,

so i've neglected lang analysis for a good part of the year and with a week till the exam i feel like i really need to bring it up to scratch
i tried the 2010 lang analysis handwritten under timed conditions (though i did go a bit over an hour), and i'd be really appreciative if anyone could give me some guidance. a mark out of 10 would be cool too, but i know it's hard to really guess vcaa's standards so it's not that important.
thanks heaps in advance!

‘Taking Stock’



The loss of biodiversity has been subject to considerate media discussion, sparking a global movement as attempts to prevent it become more fervent. A speech delivered by Professor Chris Lee in response to the issue at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, entitled ‘Taking Stock’, suggestsThis is slightly weak; try laments, contends or castigates that the damage being inflicted on the environment is untenable and, without immediate action, will become irreversible. The presentation was complemented by a slideshow, one slide of which depicts the logo of the conference, while another displays the Earth being held in outstretched hands.It is good that your introduction is relatively concise as the marks come from your analysis.The laconic nature of your introduction is also good for exam strategy. However, you may want to mention the predominant tone of the speech in the introduction as certain examiners prefer this. An adverb for the tone utilised is all that is required.



Lee aims to impart to his audience the immense damage being caused to the ecosystem. That ’35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands’Enumerating these statistics is probably unnecessary. have been lost in the ‘last one hundred yearsCould this be considered hyperbolic?’ is directly attributed to ‘thoughtless human actionsAnalyse the connotations of such language; does it imply duplicity and or malevolence or a serious dereliction of duty? ’. Here the use of statistics, coupled with the reasoned tone he initially employs, paints his intentions as credible, suggesting to his audience that his claims are both substantiated and rationalI would argue a dichotomy is created here. It may be useful to mention this polarisation and how a distinction is made between different audiences.  . Listeners are thus encouraged to view him as logical and unbiased, lending credibility to his caveats of loss of biodiversity.You could also mention how erudite the audience may view the speaker. This is somewhat subverted as he adopts an urgent tone, referring to the ‘destruction’ of ‘natural habitats’. Here, ‘destruction’ carries highly charged connotations of violent (or even wilful) damage being inflicted on these species, evoking a sense of shock within the audience. That we are held in ‘the grip’ of a species extinction ascribes it a great destructive power, and that the extinction rate sits at up to ‘100 times the natural rate’ suggests to the audience that the damage being caused is having a subversive effect on the natural order of the ecosystem, further augmenting the destructive influence humans are having upon biodiversity.

In doing so, Lee highlights the necessity for immediate action to ensure that biodiversity is not further diminished. He directly places the onus of action upon his audience, suggesting that their lack of ‘unity’ and ‘genuine commitment’ thus far has ‘led us to this grim situation’. The notion that their own lack of agency is contributing to the plight faced by the environment is intended to be both castigating and galvanising for the audience, evoking a sense of guilt. This is compounded in Lee’s depiction of the audience as ‘mouth[ing] platitudes’ in the relative comfort of an ‘air-conditioned and sumptuously catered conference hall’Mention the hedonism which Lee accuses certain elements of the audience of having; make a distinction between different readers/listeners.. The notion that their actions are superficial and ultimately fruitless may be particularly affronting for Lee’s audience of biodiversity experts, who likely pride themselves on their activism. They may then be urged to reexamine their actions and alter them to more effectively benefit the ecosystem. Lee’s speech finds more than one target, however, suggesting that the ‘affluent’ are oppressing and subordinating the lower classes through their callous disregard for the ecosystem. The title itself, ‘Taking Stock’, indirectly harangues the commodification of the environment, suggesting the affluent elite’s treatment of these species and ecosystems is akin to that of merchandise. Lee labels this as an ‘epidemic of affluenza’, with this portmanteau of ‘affluent’ and ‘influenza’ connoting that the toxic effects of the upper classes on the environment are akin to a disease. This shocking comparison compoundsConsider synonyms as this word is already used in this paragraph. the sense of guilt felt within the audience. Lee also preemptively attempts to attenuate any resentment that may be felt at these words by including himself as part of ‘we affluent hunters and gatherers’, asserting his own status as a member of the same group and maintaining the focus on the necessity for action rather than any personal derogation. The closing slide of the presentation depicts the Earth held in a pair of outstretched hands. This alludes to the fragility of the ecosystem, its balance intricately maintained. However, more pertinently, it suggests that the future of the Earth lies in human hands, and it is only through human intervention that it can be saved. This notion is compounded in the accompanying caption, which claims that biodiversity must be protected ‘at all costs’. That this phrase is asserted both in the slideshow and in the final line of the speech gives it particular weight in the minds of the audience, forming the crux of Lee’s argument as he aims to persuade his audience to take action against the diminishment of biodiversity.This is definitely your best paragraph as more specificity in the effect on the reader is provided.

Lee additionally attempts to highlight the importance of biodiversity for society as a whole, suggesting that it is in society’s best interests that it be maintained. He describes a ‘continual pattern of inequitable […] growth’ caused by the loss of biodiversity, implying that this pattern is cyclical. The audience is thus urged to believe this pattern must be broken for society to progress rather than stagnate. Lee also outlines the role of biodiversity in ensuring the ‘health and nutrition, […] crop development, and […] safety’ of rural communities, evoking sympathy towards those who have their needs ‘subordinated’ to the interests of the ‘powerful’. Lee draws a dichotomy here in order to amplify this sympathy, portraying the rural communities as powerless, manipulated by those in the affluent elite. The visual attached to the first slide further exemplifies the importance of biodiversity, depicting elements of nature (namely a tree, fish, a flamingo and two humans) constituting the year ‘2010’. These elements, representative of biodiversity as a whole, imply that it forms the cornerstone of modern society, further highlighting the need for biodiversity.



Professor Chris Lee’s speech ‘Taking Stock’, delivered at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, contends that immediate action must be taken to prevent the diminishment of biodiversity.There is no need to summarise the contention.He highlights the imminent dangers posed by humans to the ecosystem, outlining the benefits of biodiversity to society while placing the onus of action on his audience, which forms the crux of his argument.
This is a comprehensive and fluent response. However, you need to mention the different reactions of listeners. You can always identify three groups of readers: those with a tendency to espouse the views of the writer/editor/speaker, those who are vehemently opposed to the speaker's contention and those who simply don't care about the issue and consider it frivolous or quotidian.  You may want to mention this throughout your essay. Even making the distinction between progressive attitudes with the more laiseez-faire  ones. The absence of this may make your analysis seem reductive.Does the speaker depict the latter as Epicureans with no care for the environment. Additionally, your discussion of tones could be more insightful. This is where vocab is really important; this piece has a plethora of tone shifts. You could argue that the tone is, at times: nostalgic,sentimental, acerbic, denunciatory  and even demotic. There is no need to mention all of them; however, the tone's you mentioned are rather simplistic. In order to acquire 9 and 10's it may be better to mention more rare techniques and ideas. For example, the writer adopts a taut and laconic syntactical construction in "It is too late for them." You could also comment on the lack of care for the environment in Australia.
Overall, this is at least an 8 and possibly a 9 out of ten. However, the acknowledgments of different types of listeners coupled with deeper analysis will increase your mark. 

[Paulrus]

wow thank you heaps for your feedback! to be honest i haven't really put much thought into how different aspects would affect different groups, so thank you for pointing that out. exploring that could hopefully drag my marks up.

(also no pressure, but if you've already got this good of a grasp on english in year 11, you've probably got a good chance at a 50 )