VCE English Section C: Exemplar Analysis Essay [Annotated]

In this article, we’ll be sharing with you an exemplar Section C analysis for the VCE 2022 exam, so you can see what you need to produce to receive a top mark.

Written by:
Matrix English Team
red and white background with stationery spread across and question marks running along the middle

Wondering what it takes to achieve a top score for a VCE English Section C analysis? We’ve got you covered.

We’ll break down the process of how to interpret the question, identify relevant evidence in the background information and unseen text, and craft an analysis that responds to the requirements of the marking criteria.

Get an annotated version of this response!

What exactly makes this a high-scoring VCE English Section C response? Download our annotated version to see detailed comments on how this analysis meets the criteria for high marks.

Download your VCE English Section C Annotated Analysis

Learn why VCE markers would score this analysis highly!

VCE English Section C: Past Paper

In Section C, you’ll get an unseen persuasive text and some background information. Your task is to respond to a question by analysing how effectively it uses language, form and structure to persuade the reader to feel a certain way about a given topic.

Section C remains essentially unchanged from the previous Study Design. This means you can use past papers going all the way back to 2017 for your revision and preparation.

For the purposes of demonstration, let’s look at the Section C question that appeared on the 2022 VCE exam.

The question consisted of a transcript from an episode of the podcast Hapsey Happenings, accompanied by the following background information.

Hapsey Happenings is a podcast hosted by lifelong Hapsey resident Janelle Tanley. She discusses local events and issues, and promotes the conservation of the town’s local environment. In the most recent episode of her podcast, Tanley discusses a proposed development plan for the Hapsey Wetlands by Nature+Adventure Group, who run commercial excursions into unspoilt areas. The following text is a transcript of this episode, with images provided by Tanley.

The task was as follows:

Write an analysis of the ways in which argument and written and visual language are used in the material on pages 12 and 13 [of the Task Book] to try to persuade others to share the points of view presented.

How should you approach the question?

It is important to read both the unseen text and the background information before beginning your response. You should take note of the writer’s purpose and the audience she is addressing, and annotate the text to identify persuasive techniques and strategies. Examiners frequently stress the importance of commenting on the multimodal features of persuasive texts, so you should pay attention to the use of images and visual elements in this transcript. You should also note that the text was originally delivered in the oral mode – i.e. spoken and recorded for a podcast. This context is important for interpreting Janelle Tanley’s choice of rhetorical techniques.

student answering an english worksheet with an Oxford dictionary next to him

Exemplar VCE English Section C Analysis

Let’s look at a high-scoring response to the Section C task on the 2022 VCE exam. Note that this response has been written under exam conditions (60 minutes).

Write an analysis of the ways in which argument and written and visual language are used in the material on pages 12 and 13 [of the Task Book] to try to persuade others to share the points of view presented.

In episode 32 of her podcast, Hapsey Happenings, Janelle Tanley seeks to persuade her audience of local residents to oppose the planned development by Nature+Adventure group, which she positions as hostile to the interests of the local area. Despite framing the topic as one about which she is seeking opinions – “I would love to hear from you… how do you feel about this?” – Tanley’s primary aim is to discourage support for, and encourage opposition to, the development.

Tanley builds rapport with listeners by sustained a lively, conversational tone. She introduces herself as “Janelle”, implying a familiar, informal relationship, and adopts the podcasting convention of labelling herself “your host”, evoking the positive experience of hospitality and being treated as a “welcome” guest. These techniques set listeners at ease and are further supported by Tanley’s frequent use of inclusive language to refer to “our wetlands”, which develops the impression that she and her listeners have a shared interest and agenda.

Tanley creates the impression that this topic is important by referring hyperbolically to the newspaper being “flooded” with comments and her social media “overflowing”. Both words are semantically connected with an excess of water, and subliminally suggest the idea that the stability of the wetlands is being disrupted. The high stakes associated with this topic are further emphasised through the use of words like “sanctuaries” and “desecrate”, which have religious connotations and implicitly elevate the importance of the wetlands by comparing them to a shrine or holy site. 

The text positions Tanley as someone with intimate knowledge of the wetlands, implying that she has good standing to make the case against the development application. She speaks of “frequently” visiting them and speaking “softly” while there, to preserve the “tranquil” sense of “peace”. Once again, this quasi-religious or spiritual language reinforces the level of personal attachment she has to this environment. She supports her concerns by making reference to a “lifetime” of experiencing similar development projects which she regards as detrimental to the local area. In the third paragraph, she juxtaposes the “natural beauty” of the “precious” wetlands with the repeated word “destruction”, symbolising her negative view of the development plan. She refers to such plans being “disguised” as environmentally sensitive, a choice of word which connotes betrayal and deceit, thus framing the developer as untrustworthy.

The transcript uses punctuation, including inverted commas, to convey Tanley’s sarcastic tone when she describes the “proposed ‘revitalisation’” associated with the development. This tone implicitly undermines an otherwise positive claim, suggesting that the developer is using the word “revitalisation” as a form of jargon to “placate” councils and residents, rather than as an accurate indication of their business philosophy. She uses high modality and a declarative tone to assert that the consequences of this development will “inevitably” lead to the wetlands being “damaged beyond repair”. She appeals to her listeners by poising rhetorical questions: “How are we going to protect these plants, flowers, insects and other animals…?” Here, Tanley frames the debate as one in which she assumes her audience will support her view that this is an important and desirable outcome. This reflects her awareness that her listeners likely share her interest in the local environment – hence their decision to engage with the thirty-second episode of a podcast on this topic.

While the images which accompany this transcript would not have been available to listeners, the fact that Tanley herself has supplied them mean they likely have a persuasive function. The opening illustration depicts a superficially positive scene of families walking, cycling and playing sports against a background of natural foliage. This appears to suggest that there is no inherent contradiction between enjoying nature and enjoying activities of this kind, however the sheer busyness of the image contrasts strikingly with the photograph of a bird in the wetlands, taken at a slight angle to emphasise the drama of the moment. The bird is caught in the act of plucking food from the running water, and is in sharp focus, in contrast to the vague and imprecisely drawn figures in the opening illustration. Comparing the two images, the reader may infer that the photograph represents the certainty of what presently exists – the wetlands, with all their life, drama and beauty – whereas the illustration represents the developer’s ambition, which is superficially attractive, but makes no room for birds and other animals. The contrast between busy people and a dramatic image taken from nature reinforces Tanley’s concern that it may be difficult for the latter to survive if the former is encouraged.

Tanley prevails on her listeners to assume the role of “guardians of this area”, simultaneously empowering them to act and compelling them to take her side of the argument. Using high modality to stress her certainty that the development plan is a bad one, she speaks of these plans being “only… the start.” The fifth paragraph repeats the modal verb “will”, implying the inevitability of the negative changes she foresees: “will only give impetus… will build… will set in motion… will erode…” She increases the sense of urgency in her remarks by adopting an exclamatory tone to assert, “the Hapsey wetlands will have become… the Hapsey Amusement Park!” This alarmism plays on the negative contrast between an amusement park, associated with noise and activity, and the “tranquil” impression of the wetlands she has previously provided.

The second half of the podcast identifies and attempts to rebut imagined counterarguments from the developer. Tanley frames Nature+Adventure Group as untrustworthy by first citing their proposal and then exclaiming “Believe that if you like!” Her sarcasm contributes to an overall negative characterisation of the developer as someone who does not act in good faith. This is designed to evoke doubt and mistrust among listeners already sceptical about this proposal. The barrage of questions in the penultimate paragraph further encourages this scepticism, implying by the sheer volume of questions that Tanley believes this proposal is ill-conceived and has not given serious thought to the likely consequences of developing this land. 

In a final attempt to build momentum against the plan and mobilise her listeners, Tanley invites them to “Leave your comments… follow the podcast”. These imperatives serve a dual purpose – to increase the impact and success of Tanley’s podcast and to motivate listeners to be active in opposing the development, rather than simply silently agreeing with Tanley’s critique. The podcast thus has several persuasive purposes: primarily, it aims to convince residents that the development proposal will be bad for the local area, and secondarily it aims to persuade them to take active steps to oppose its implementation.

Want to know why this VCE English Section B response scored highly?

Download your VCE English Section C Annotated Analysis

Learn why VCE markers would score this analysis highly!

Written by Matrix English Team

The Matrix English Team are tutors and teachers with a passion for English and a dedication to seeing Matrix Students achieving their academic goals.

© Matrix Education and www.matrix.edu.au, 2023. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Matrix Education and www.matrix.edu.au with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Related courses

Related articles

Loading