One of the first questions I missed was the very first question which asked about what the passage could best be described as. I originally thought it was more of a dramatic monologue. Once I checked my answers and reviewed the passage once more I realized that it was an objective historical commentary. I also got question #40 incorrect because I failed to see those terms as euphemisms. I thought they were nicknames used by the locals. The questions structure was slightly hard to follow, but it wasn’t as hard this time around.
My experience with this practice multiple choice section was a more pleasant one. Although I missed a few questions, I can see that it was my own lack of comprehension that led me to incorrectness. This passage and set of questions was a lot easier to me than some of the other ones. I understood most of what was given. There were only a few aspects that were tossed at me that were lost upon me.
1. What elements of satire did you notice upon your first read of the article? Some elements that I picked up are the excessive way the author poked fun at special products that claim to heal you with the power of science.
2. What rhetorical strategies contribute to the satire? How are they effectively used? One rhetorical strategy used is ad populum fallacy. More specifically the use of bandwagoning, making sure that other important people let you know they like the product in order to gain the appeal or the common people. Another is the use of jargon. It uses many real and imaginary scientific terms such as biomagnetic and vibrational biofeedback.
3. What are the key differences between student response 2A and student response 2B? How do you account for the three point difference in scores? One of the key differences between the student’s responses is that student 1A used more precise details and quotes as opposed to student 1B who didn’t use as much details and that’s what caused the difference between their scored.
4. Explain the score received by the writer of 2C. Where do you think this writer might have missed an opportunity to craft a much stronger essay? Where are the opportunities for improvement? Student 2C received the score of 3 because of his complete lack of detail. He focused way too much on the fictional facts instead of the element of satire presented. When discussing the personal interviews the student could have used direct quotes and elaboration to further explain the content of the satirical article.
5. Based on your evaluation of the question, responses, and scoring commentary, what advice would you give to your classmates for approaching a question which requires an insightful analysis of satire? The advice I would give would be to make sure you pay attention to detail and to not be so broad when discussing the article. Be sure to use quotes and explanations. Also, be sure to give plenty of examples without straying from the context.