|
Focus this your part of the answer on the first part of the source from line 3 to line 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"CSP - your ego has grown too big for your own good and it is time to make an example out of you. Now put your money where your mouth is:
We war until one of us surrenders.
The battlefield is Varcia.
No negotiations.
No excuses.
No more doubts about the truly superior clan."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A student, having read this section of the text said: “The writer manages to successfully use language to persuade CSP to go to war.”
To what extent do you agree?
In your response, you could:
write about your own interpretation of the speech
evaluate how the writer has created this interpretation through language and structure
support your opinions with references to the text.
[20 marks] |
|
5ancuJoin Date: 2015-12-31
Post Count: 6771 |
i think he's mad tbh.
how many marks do i get for that response? |
|
SheoborocJoin Date: 2009-02-11
Post Count: 1386 |
clearly didnt use language SUCCESSFULLY
that dash after 'CSP' is an em dash, and is meant to be twice the length of a hyphen. golly darn
makes no sense otherwise; cant analyse
|
|
|
you get 1 mark for that response @5ancu
nice answer :-) |
|
5ancuJoin Date: 2015-12-31
Post Count: 6771 |
shaddap i get 20 at least |
|
|
Level 4
Perceptive,
detailed
evaluation
16-20 marks
Shows perceptive and
detailed evaluation:
Evaluates critically and
in detail the effect(s) on
the reader
Shows perceptive
understanding of writer’s
methods
Selects a judicious range
of textual detail
Develops a convincing
and critical response to
the focus of the |
|
5ancuJoin Date: 2015-12-31
Post Count: 6771 |
glad we agree |
|
|
is the : after 'now put your money where your mouth is' necessary to transition to the list |
|
lessorsJoin Date: 2017-04-14
Post Count: 45 |
i support gay
|
|
|
why you setting this out like a gcse english language paper 2 section b exam??
omg
The citizen speaks of opportunity, the bureaucrat speaks of authority, and the diplomat speaks of policy. The soldier does not speak, the soldier acts, and that is why it is the soldier who wins the war. |
|
LionehhJoin Date: 2012-02-04
Post Count: 2531 |
pointless english gcse bant
i like it
Bro have you heard the news? This zebra called Jack tried to run me over! I know right! I was only hunting him and stuff... |
|
|
I find how this language (short, concise, and not flamboyant at all) is nonetheless effective in instigating a powerclan like CSP to retaliate if not instigate them to war, yet may have easily been brushed off if CSP had claims of superiority over Vaktovia that they alone can claim. |
|
DestronoJoin Date: 2008-10-06
Post Count: 2981 |
language paper 1 LOL
|
|
DestronoJoin Date: 2008-10-06
Post Count: 2981 |
The word 'superior' can show the shear dominance of each clan which then shows that when the writer speaks about 'Until one of us surrenders' can show the focus each clan has to win and shows that they won't stop til one of them lose hope or dies. The main purpose of this piece is to create a war based on skill and morale rather then wins and loses.
|
|
|
|
analysis is getting better |
|
|
Its direct reference to the "ego" of the opposing clan is obviously an attempt to anger the HR members reading it into a situation for them that they do not desire.
The battlefield part is an attempt to achieve "Home field advantage" by knowing the field and the fortress.
The no negotiations part I see to be useless as negotiation is an important part of war, but it seems as if VAK is trying to shift this war in their favor as much as they possibly can which is very common in wars.
The excuses part makes full sense, as it would be extremely annoying to war with the other side constantly making excuses for everything and asking to re-do.
The superior clan part is yet another obvious attempt to anger the other clan into a rushed a decision that is not desired on the war.
Overall, I personally agree with the student in his opinion. The writer uses language that would anger the other side into a decision that they may not make if passive. |
|
|
I agree with the student's analysis wholeheartedly. The use of language is employed in a pivotal role in order to persuade the audience of the message's purpose. In addition, the tone set by the writer further contributes to the result aforementioned by the student.
"Loaded language" in this speech is used as emotional appeal; specifically, it is used as appeal that looks to evoke a response through insult. In the passage's excerpt from lines 3-4, the audience is accused of developing an all-too-big "ego" for their own good, and is pointedly challenged to "put [their] money where their mouth is". In these lines the writer explicitly calls out CSP for an excess accumulation of pride, and uses an idiom to call to attention the following demands found in the next lines.
To complement the earlier usage of emotional appeal, the writer adopts a straightforward, authoritative tone to further induce CSP into acknowledging the declaration. The proposals that the author put forth are simple, a deviation from the complex war terms typically discussed by majority of clans within the general war-clans genre. Instead, the writer offers a neutral battlefield of Varcia, and goes on to state that there will be no "negotiations...excuses...[or] doubts about the truly superior clan." (l. 7-9) Because these demands to CSP are done by the writer himself, the writer is put into a position of command because he is the one that will judge the audience's response. The plaintive speech is used for the audience to easily comprehend the meaning sent, which is also partially reason to why no complex terminology was used. This declaration was meant to attract CSP's attention and force their hand, not to act as a grounds of debate over the finer rules of the war itself.
|
|
|
highest level analysis so far rogue! |
|
|
you got some competition @5ancu |
|
|
Questions 2-5 are based on the following passage. Read through the passage first before answering the accompanying questions. Answer based on what is stated or implied within the text provided.
The excerpt below is taken from a document written by Mohxy, the Commissioner of CSP, after the Varcia Warzone in the VAK-CSP war was closed off.
-
"A few days ago, even though I explicitly stated CSP was not declaring a victory, there are still several of my members and C&G'ers saying CSP won the war. I'm here to clarify that we did not, I agreed to specific terms and none of them included that 113 raid wins were needed to win the war.
I will admit there were maybe one or two CSP members that cheated in the war. However, as soon I found out, they were quickly exiled. As a whole, we did not cheat and it was never encouraged by any officer. I don't think a clan should ever be represented by a couple of low ranks.
Anyways, I write this to officially declare and recognize VAK as the winner of the VAK v CSP war.
I know this decision will probably upset a lot of people. Considering we won over four times the amount of battles VAK did, I don't necessarily believe we deserve to lose but at the same time I don't think it matters who wins or loses. After all, this is a game which is meant to be played for fun. As a community, we've built all this unnecessary stress just to say that we won a virtual war. Most of us play this game for entertainment purposes and that's all we should really strive for.
Again, contrary to what you may believe, CSP is not shutting down after this. We will be making a lot of changes to the clan including changing the theme. We're also most likely staying away from clan wars too, unless it was war that would have no winner (we'd just fight for fun). If you're a developer and can help develop some stuff, add me on discord (Mohxy#4231).
My final request to VAK is to apologize to both, briz/chalst, for scamming both of them. I understand we all make mistakes but it's important to own up these mistakes and accept responsibility.
#113-11
s/o to BodyRipped, he played me like a game of solitaire"
-
2) The central idea expressed in the above passage is
A. The war has essentially resulted in a stalemate for both sides
B. The war has again exemplified the recurring problems of wars between clans
C. VAK should be the unconditional victor of the war
D. Wars on ROBLOX.com should be fun and in good-nature for all parties involved
3) According to the author, VAK is the winner of the VAK-CSP war because
A. CSP cheated their way through to obtain 113 wins
B. VAK held out longer in the endurance war whereas CSP "dropped out"
C. CSP does not care about being the winners of the war
D. VAK was on the verge of a comeback
4) Which of the following pieces of evidence best supports the answer in the previous question?
A. Lines 2-3 ("I'm here to...win the war")
B. Lines 5-6 ("As a whole...of low ranks")
C. Lines 8-10 ("Considering we won...played for fun")
D. Line 17 ("My final request...both of them")
5) "...he played me like a game of solitaire"
The author's intentions for including this simile is
A. Humor
B. Insult
C. Additional support to thesis
D. Detractor
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's fine rogue somebody will answer your question soon :-) |
|