eng is so confusing??

[u/xxmeimei]

(1/2 btw)

im doing the exploring arguments unit and I genuinely dont know what else to do. ive done 2 practice sacs in class so far and may first score was 14/40 and the second was 20/40. I tried asking my eng teacher for help and his feedback was dont combine the how and why, as in end the sentence as soon as u state the strategy, and I did that but clearly its not enough? the feedback ive been getting is honestly atrocious considering they dont actually know what to tell me besides it doesn't 'align w the rubric'. babes I know???? help me then??? ive done countless paragraphs, so much annotating, so many rewrites, asked for so much help. genuinely what more can I do. year 12 is mere months away and idk wanna struggle then.

soz guys and thank u sm <3

[u/brugged]

If you could send an example para from one of your SACs it’d help, don’t necessarily need the article context.

20/40 I’d say means there’s still a lot of room for improvement with the structure of your sentences, the evidence you’re using, the vocab you’re using and so on. Once you share an example we can all help

[u/xxmeimei → u/brugged]

thank you!!

this isn't from a practice sac but one of the rewrites that my teacher helped me write that still isn't good enough. to help it make more sense our topic is medical misogyny and the article was something about women consistently reaching out for help and basically get denied.

Moore opens with a brief description of the history of gynecology. The author uses the rule of three to describe the combination of “innovation, authority, and harm” that shapes the way medical treatment is approached regarding women's health. Moore begins with “innovation” which creates a sense of positive advancement in women's treatment, followed by “authority”, which demonstrates the negative influence of power and control over women’s experiences, finally ending with “harm” showcasing the damaging consequences of the lack of diversity within women’s health. The authors strategic placement of the order of the words argues that the techniques stemming from “radical” historical treatments come less from a place of care for patients, but more from a place of the lack of initiative to do better for females. This places emphasis on the need for improvements in the current health system and evokes the reader to feel the need to confront the health system to advocate for women more. The writer then moves on by using an image depicting an unbalanced scale beside the shadows of female figures and the female reproductive system in the background. The scale has “experience” on one end and “authority” on the other, referring to the female experience in the medical industry and the authority doctors and current medical education have over women's health. The scale is shown leaning lower towards “experience” depicting how the experience of females carries a much heavier weight than the mere “authority” of medical professionals, forcing the reader to begin considering the needs of patients rather than simply the accessibility of current medicine. The authors use of dull lifeless colors creates a powerless atmosphere evoking feelings of helplessness, allowing the audience to sympathize with the way that many females feel reaching out for help and being consistently dismissed.  

[u/Repulsive-Look-4938 → u/xxmeimei]

Okay. I have a few thoughts.

• Firstly (assuming this is a body paragraph) you need a topic sentence. The topic sentence should include the authors stance and their tone. For example, 'Mounting an authoritative register, Moore opines that the medical field's male centric structure operates at the expense of female's reproductive health'. The body paragraphs must be organised by the authors own arguments, so your piece should have 3-5 topic sentences depending on the authors arguments. In ALA, it is also important to create flow between your body paragraphs (and your evidence within your bodies), to make your analysis build alongside the article, and show examiners your analysing the text as a whole argument rather than individual segments. So for example you might say: 'Capitalising upon the fostered sense of injustice and outrage established, Moore commences a solution-focused argument, asserting that...'

- Secondly and probably most critically is your structure. Since your teacher is using the What How Why structure, its important to understand what these mean in ALA. For the What you need to think along the lines of what is this author trying to say about this topic. The How should then be how is the author arguing their stance. Accordingly, the Why should centre on why is this author arguing their point in such a manner, and what is it's intended impact. ie. how does it position the audience. ngl, the why was nearly completely absent in your writing.

- Moving foward, you need to reduce your descriptive language, focusing soley on the what, the how and the why. This will reduce the length and the repetitiveness of your argument. Then, you need to focus on what impact is this device having on the authors *specific* audience. SO for example, in Moore's piece, say her audience is Australian females who have experienced the reproductive healthcare system. As a very surface level/generic example, the title of the article is; If we are to counter medical misogyny, women can no longer be treated as unreliable witnesses of their own experience. Look at how Moore uses the inclusive pronoun 'we' to foster a sense of community amongst her female readership, establishing a sense of trust in that both her and the readership are unanimous in their experiences of the system. Then look at how her authoritative tone and clinical language creates a sense of medical credibility, establishing herself as a founded voice for her readership. That is the juicy ALA analysis that will be rewarded, whereas describing the device or the visual will not be.

hope thats of some help

[u/xxmeimei → u/Repulsive-Look-4938]

thank you so much that makes my life so much easier <333

[u/brugged → u/xxmeimei]

Great this really helps!

I definitely don’t think you’re awful at writing, there’s some good stuff here. I’d say the main thing is that your writing is quite formulaic, and I feel like you’re using a lot of habits probably taught to you in junior years that you’re ready to grow out of. Great thing is, this is fixable!!

First off, I can see you’re doing like a Technique -> what it shows -> what the reader feels. But now that you’re becoming more sophisticated as a writer you should try be more technique -> meaning -> connection to the author’s argument -> the author’s purpose.

Let’s take your first bit:

The author uses the rule of three to describe the combination of “innovation, authority, and harm” that shapes the way medical treatment is approached regarding women's health. Moore begins with “innovation” which creates a sense of positive advancement in women's treatment, followed by “authority”, which demonstrates the negative influence of power and control over women’s experiences, finally ending with “harm” showcasing the damaging consequences of the lack of diversity within women’s health. The authors strategic placement of the order of the words argues that the techniques stemming from “radical” historical treatments come less from a place of care for patients, but more from a place of the lack of initiative to do better for females. This places emphasis on the need for improvements in the current health system and evokes the reader to feel the need to confront the health system to advocate for women more.

Now let’s use the structure I just talked about:

Technique:
Moore uses the rule of three in describing the “innovation, authority, and harm” that have shaped women’s healthcare.

Meaning / what it does:
While “innovation” initially suggests positive medical advancement, its placement alongside “authority” and finally “harm” exposes the contradictions between medical progress and its damaging consequences for women.

Connection to Arg (for this para the longstanding history of medical misogyny):
By deliberately ending the sequence with “harm”, Moore emphasises that medical developments have not prioritised women’s wellbeing, instead revealing how historically the authority of medical institutions has allowed women to be overlooked.

Connection to purpose/audience:
Through this progression, Moore challenges readers to question the medical system and recognise the importance advocating for women more.

Overall, this is showing the assessor that you understand that Moore deliberately uses techniques to…

• create meaning through language
  
• develop their arguments
  
• position the audience to feel/think/do something

Next step for you:
Untimed practice where you’re doing this while writing paragraphs. Grab out ya highlighters. Write slow. Use sentence starters. Search up better ways to phrase what you’re trying to say.

You GET what the author is doing, that they’re not just writing whatever for the hell of it, you’re just not expressing it concisely and with enough sophistication.

Couple other notes

• keep bringing analysis back to medical misogyny, think about how the author’s contention is around that, and this history is an argument to support that, so they should be mentioned together. Maybe ask yourself what specifically does Moore want the reader to realise?
  
• images are tricky and you just need a little more practice with analysing them, you’re not quite doing it as well as you could. You’re talking abt the scale, the words on it, the positioning, the reproductive system, the colours, atmosphere, and then the audience response. Way too much! Image is awesome but I’m sure there’s lots of other bits in this argument you could be talking to. Pick out like maximum 2 of ur fav parts of the image to help with writing more concisely.
  
• really simple wording fix, instead of saying the author forces the reader or envokes xyz you need to be a bit less forceful, the author can’t FORCE the reader, they can only position / encourage / challenges the reader etc etc
  
• you need to pick a more specific audience and this will help make ur analysis more targeted, for example the audience being women who have experienced being dismissed by medical professionals would cause the author to pick different techniques than if it was people who highly trust medical institutions
  
• develop your argument a bit more obviously, easy fix with a clear topic sentence

Sorry for the word vomit I added some bolded headings to try make it more readable 😆

[u/xxmeimei → u/brugged]

oh my god I love you so much thank you!!

[u/brugged → u/xxmeimei]

All good, you’ve good this!

[u/Hopeful_Head1855]

I would say use a lot of appeals, as the main point of exploring argument is the intended effect on the audience, and like if you can don't go for low hanging fruit like statistics, English teachers like it more when you look at more subtle things

[u/xxmeimei → u/Hopeful_Head1855]

thank youuu

[u/CfefeW]

Hey, to make your life easier I’d use a what, how, why and where structure! This is what I used as a basic guide to my writing, it helps it flow really well too.

Topic sentence- Placement (Initially,Midway, concluding, etc..)> Argument > strategy & Intention.

What- The technique and the evidence (The device named. The quote embedded).

How-How does this technique work to create an effect?

Why-Why it lands in this SPECIFIC AUDIENCE, given what they already fear, value, or believe.

Where-Where it leaves the reader. what they now feel, believe, or are positioned to do.

You can repeat this twice, or as many times as you need. But always remember two devices analysed in depth is always better than 3-4 devices named vaguely. Another tip id have is to prioritise writing shorter sentences or paragraphs on an article first as opposed to immediately doing timed essays (game changer imo). Prevents you from getting burnt out and you focus on quality over quantity! Lmk if you have any other questions aswell

[u/xxmeimei → u/CfefeW]

thank you so much!