Could someone please help, i'm stuck on deciding whether to use my existing thesis ‘When man is taken too far away from the natural rhythms of life, he loses touch with his humanity’. Or go for a new one saying that 'As man is a part of nature, he can't do anything without it being considered natural, therefore, the environments in the text's are as natural as any other' or something to that effect. I think that this view could be more interesting but i'm not sure if i should risk challenging the usual view in case I'm marked down. What do you think i should do?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Should I challenged the usual BNW/BR arguements (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter piper11
- Start date
agreed.
my english teacher marks this section in the hsc.
for all modules, units, etc though he says the markers enjoy reading something different from what every other kid is saying - as long as you have a sustained sophisticated argument, with lots of evidence, blah blah it should be fine.
remember the markers are sitting marking essay after essay...
being different isn't always a bad thing,
my english teacher marks this section in the hsc.
for all modules, units, etc though he says the markers enjoy reading something different from what every other kid is saying - as long as you have a sustained sophisticated argument, with lots of evidence, blah blah it should be fine.
remember the markers are sitting marking essay after essay...
being different isn't always a bad thing,
N
Nicola1616
Guest
A significant concern for humanity is its relationship with the natural world and nature’s influence on human behaviour and human interaction. The quality and importance of humanity’s relationship with the natural world, or its response to the absence of the natural world can vary across different times and cultures. Students should explore definitions of the wild as appropriate to their texts.
In this elective students select a pair of texts and consider the ways in which human understanding of and relationship with the wild is shaped and reflected.
I agree that markers want to read a well sustained, well supported argument that is not the same old stuff that everyone writes but I think you need to be really careful. If the question in the exam is a thesis statement I'd be wary about arguing against it totally - unless it contradicts the rubric entirely (I remember one year the drama question was something about 'contemporary aust. theatre is boring' and heaps of kids argued for that premise cause they had this set notion that's that what you do).
I'd start with what you really do think and develop an arguement around that. Your first thesis sounds great but I don't really get the second one. Is it possible you are confusing 'nature' (natural world/of nature) and 'natural' (ie. accepted, innate, legitimate). It comes accross a little like you're saying 'anything man does is natural so it doesn't really matter what the context is' - i'm not sure if I've got it right but it just doesn't seem to have much 'punch'. The statement in bold (from BOS) says that man's relationship with nature is 'a significant concern' it sounds like you're saying 'no, not really'.
Sorry - maybe I just don't get it. I think it's great that you are looking for different points of veiw cause they can really add depth to your argument.
In this elective students select a pair of texts and consider the ways in which human understanding of and relationship with the wild is shaped and reflected.
I agree that markers want to read a well sustained, well supported argument that is not the same old stuff that everyone writes but I think you need to be really careful. If the question in the exam is a thesis statement I'd be wary about arguing against it totally - unless it contradicts the rubric entirely (I remember one year the drama question was something about 'contemporary aust. theatre is boring' and heaps of kids argued for that premise cause they had this set notion that's that what you do).
I'd start with what you really do think and develop an arguement around that. Your first thesis sounds great but I don't really get the second one. Is it possible you are confusing 'nature' (natural world/of nature) and 'natural' (ie. accepted, innate, legitimate). It comes accross a little like you're saying 'anything man does is natural so it doesn't really matter what the context is' - i'm not sure if I've got it right but it just doesn't seem to have much 'punch'. The statement in bold (from BOS) says that man's relationship with nature is 'a significant concern' it sounds like you're saying 'no, not really'.
Sorry - maybe I just don't get it. I think it's great that you are looking for different points of veiw cause they can really add depth to your argument.