Argument and Language Analysis is often remarked as the most daunting unit of VCE English. Because the analytical piece is completely unseen, students often struggle with knowing how to prepare for it effectively. This is why familiarising yourself with the conventions and features of the task, particularly what strong analysis actually looks like, is cardinal to doing well in the task.
My name is Kartiya, and I graduated with a perfect 50 study score in VCE English. This post will walk you through one of my perfect-scoring responses to Section C of the 2020 English exam, explaining exactly what makes the essay score well and how you can replicate these techniques in your own writing!
Introduction
In the midst of an era of heightened technological advancement, recent social discourse has prompted public concern in the Shire of Byways regarding the proliferation of recreational drone usage. In light of this, young farmer Warwick Bandle delivers a speech at a public meeting held by the Byways Shire Council, voicing the concerns of local farmers. Through a socio-economic argument, Bandle assertively contends that the council must support local farmers by banning the frivolous use of drones by non-licensed tourists. Targeting both the Byways Shire councillors who possess the authority to implement regulatory change and the broader community of locals and farmers whose collective pressure may influence policy decisions, Bandle seeks to engender alarm and resentment towards irresponsible drone users in order to galvanise support for stricter regulation. Ostensibly an argument about drone usage, Bandle’s speech simultaneously contributes to an underlying tension between local community interests and the economic benefits of tourism.
1. Broader societal context
“In the midst of an era of heightened technological advancement…” situates the issue in a wider social conversation about technology. Look beyond the immediate context of the piece and towards WHY this issue would be posed in the first place.
2. Immediate context
The introduction clearly identifies the event (a public meeting) and location (Byways Shire Council).
3. Identifies the author/speaker
Warwick Bandle is introduced with his role (young farmer), which is important for understanding his stake in the issue.
4. Contention
The essay clearly states the position that ‘recreational drones used by tourists should be banned unless licensed.’
5. Target audience
Many students only identify one audience, and this is usually quite broad (e.g. parents, adults, students, Australians, etc.). High-scoring responses recognise multiple audiences, and are also very specific about the demographic and psychographic profiles of people who are targeted (i.e. what KINDS of people are targeted).
6. Overall purpose
‘Bandle seeks to engender alarm and resentment towards irresponsible drone users in order to galvanise support for stricter regulation.’ This sentence effectively outlines the overall authorial intent behind the piece.
7. Underlying tension
This is the most sophisticated element! The essay recognises that the debate is not only about drones but about community vs tourism/economic development. This level of conceptual understanding often distinguishes top-range responses. Whenever you are asked to analyse a piece, try to identify what the core, underlying tension of the debate is and mention this from the outset.
Students often struggle with distinguishing the contention from the overall purpose. The way I have always thought of it is:
- The contention is what the author believes should happen; and
- The purpose is what they are trying to get the audience to think, do, respond, etc.
Body Paragraph 1
Strategically commencing his address with a foreboding and cautionary tone, Bandle’s succinct declaration that ‘drones are not toys’ immediately dismantles the trivial perception of drones as harmless recreational devices. Continuing with a series of hypophoric questions such as ‘What happens when a drone flies out of range?’ and ‘What happens when the battery runs out?’, Bandle seeks to instil apprehension among his local audience, encouraging them to consider the potentially catastrophic consequences of careless drone usage. The evocative imagery of drones ‘out of control’ and ‘crashing out of the sky’ cultivates a sense of chaos and instability, further reinforced by the lexical choice ‘lethal’, which imbues the machines with associations of danger and death. In doing so, Bandle reframes drones as threatening machinery rather than innocent recreational devices, positioning council members and residents alike to perceive them as a genuine safety hazard. Capitalising on this anxiety, Bandle magnifies the damage caused to farmers’ livelihoods by depicting tourists ‘crashing through crops’ and ‘leaving gates open’, imagery that foregrounds the destructive intrusion of outsiders into a carefully managed agricultural landscape. Such language subliminally cultivates resentment toward careless visitors who, in Bandle’s portrayal, recklessly disrupt the livelihood of ‘hard-working’ local residents. Visually reinforcing this argument, the accompanying photograph of a crashed drone abandoned within a field serves to literalise the threat described in Bandle’s speech. The dominant positioning of the broken drone in the foreground exaggerates its presence within the natural landscape, while the approaching operator in the background appears small and distant, suggesting the irresponsibility and detachment of recreational users. The skewed perspective and stark composition generate a sense of imbalance and unease, implying that drones disrupt the natural order valued by the agricultural community. For farmers who rely upon the stability of their land, such imagery intensifies feelings of alarm and loss of control, prompting them to view recreational drone usage as incompatible with the values and safety of their town.
Rather than simply listing persuasive techniques, the paragraph consistently explains how the language positions the audience and why those choices are persuasive in this particular context. The paragraph also integrates analysis of the accompanying image, showing how the visual element reinforces the argument already being made in the speech. Strong Section C essays often weave visual analysis naturally into the discussion rather than treating the images as separate add-ons.
Body Paragraph 2
Progressing to a more emphatic register, Bandle’s insistence that ‘it is time our council’ began to ‘defend the farmers’ escalates the urgency of the issue. Through this accusatory phrasing, Bandle implicitly criticises the council for prioritising tourists over the needs of the community’s agricultural ‘backbone.’ By characterising farmers as the ‘backbone of this community’, many of whom have lived in the area ‘for generations’, Bandle invokes a strong sense of parochial pride and communal identity among locals. This deliberate construction of an ‘us versus them’ dichotomy between farmers and ‘havoc’-causing tourists encourages listeners to view the issue not merely as a technical problem but as a threat to their community’s heritage and stability. His exclamatory proclamation ‘Enough!’ functions as an emotional climax to this argument, channelling the frustration of local residents and inviting them to share his indignation toward irresponsible drone users.
Body Paragraph 3
However, recognising that such vehement condemnation may risk portraying him as reactionary or resistant to progress, Bandle deliberately moderates his tone by acknowledging the benefits of drone technology. Asserting that ‘I’m not just another technophobe’, Bandle distances himself from individuals opposed to technological advancement, instead presenting himself as a pragmatic and forward-thinking farmer who is ‘introducing new technology on a daily basis’. By emphasising his identity as a ‘young farmer’, Bandle leverages his credibility as both a technological adopter and a community member, reassuring councillors that his argument is measured rather than reactionary. In doing so, he subverts any perception that he is advocating a blanket ban on drones, clarifying instead that his concern lies specifically with irresponsible recreational use. Expanding upon this balanced stance, Bandle reminds the audience of a recent incident in which drones ‘flew tirelessly’ in the search for a missing bushwalker, ultimately leading to the ‘speedy and happy conclusion’ of the search. By invoking a shared community memory that listeners are likely to recall vividly, Bandle appeals to collective solidarity while simultaneously highlighting the constructive potential of professional drone technology. This strategic concession enhances the persuasiveness of his argument: having acknowledged the benefits of drones, his subsequent criticism of recreational users appears more balanced and credible. The second projected image reinforces this contrast. Entirely antithetical to the first photograph’s chaotic and ominous composition, the image of a drone carrying a medical kit is orderly, bright and purposeful. The drone appears suspended mid-flight, actively fulfilling a humanitarian function rather than lying abandoned and destructive. Through this visual juxtaposition, Bandle symbolically distinguishes between beneficial, professionally operated drones and the careless recreational devices that plague the community. Consequently, viewers are encouraged to perceive licensed drone usage as productive and reliable while associating recreational drones with disorder and irresponsibility.
Body Paragraph 4
Having established this balanced framework, Bandle abruptly returns to his vehement denunciation of recreational drone usage. By describing drone flying as ‘the latest 21st-century fad’, he diminishes the practice as a careless trend pursued without regard for its consequences. This sudden tonal shift allows Bandle to re-establish the urgency of the issue while ensuring that his earlier acknowledgement of drones’ benefits does not dilute his central contention that stricter licensing is required. Employing anaphoric syntax, Bandle repeatedly begins sentences with ‘Drones’, constructing a relentless catalogue of incidents: ‘Drones out of control. Drones lost in trees. Drones causing power cuts. Drones hitting and hurting people.’ The cumulative rhythm of this list amplifies the ubiquity of the problem, encouraging listeners to perceive drone misuse as an escalating threat affecting multiple facets of the community. Bandle then directs his argument toward legislative inconsistency, castigating the ‘startling incongruity’ between the regulations governing commercial and recreational drone users. By juxtaposing the rigorous licensing required for professional operators with the minimal requirement that recreational users merely watch a ‘short video’ and complete a ‘multiple-choice test’, Bandle trivialises existing regulations and portrays them as dangerously inadequate. His sardonic description of recreational users printing a ‘certificate’ before heading out to launch their ‘new toy’ infantilises these operators, prompting listeners to equate them with irresponsible children incapable of handling potentially dangerous machinery. To further expose this inconsistency, Bandle poses a rhetorical analogy between flying drones and ‘driving cars’, asking why inexperienced drone users are permitted to operate machinery without training when learner drivers would never be allowed onto the roads unsupervised. Through this comparison, Bandle appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and fairness, encouraging them to perceive current drone regulations as irrational and unjust.
Body Paragraph 5
Approaching the culmination of his speech, Bandle frames the issue as one of fundamental community values, declaring that allowing recreational users to bypass the same ‘rigorous licensing process’ as professionals is ‘not fair’ and ‘not safe’. The repetition of these blunt negatives invokes two pillars of rural community identity, fairness and safety, encouraging listeners to view regulatory reform not merely as a practical measure but as a moral necessity.
Conclusion
In his closing appeal, Bandle adopts inclusive language, urging the council to consider the needs of ‘farmers and tourists’ alike ‘as a community’. By broadening his appeal to encompass both groups, he softens his earlier antagonism toward visitors and presents his proposal as a balanced compromise that protects local livelihoods while preserving tourism. Ultimately, Bandle concludes with a decisive call to action, urging the council to ‘ban drone flying for non-licensed users’. By ending his speech with this unequivocal directive, Bandle ensures that his argument resonates with urgency and clarity, compelling listeners to support his vision for a safer and more responsibly regulated community.
Another strength of this essay is that it often refers to specific groups within the audience, rather than just saying “the audience.” Many students repeatedly write phrases like “this persuades the audience” or “this makes the audience feel worried.” While this isn’t wrong, it can be too general. In reality, persuasive texts often try to influence different people in different ways.
In this speech, Bandle is speaking to several groups at once, including local farmers, council members, and other residents of the town. Each of these groups has different concerns. For example, farmers may be most worried about damage to crops, while councillors may be more concerned about safety and regulation. By linking certain persuasive techniques to the specific group that would be most affected, the analysis shows a clearer understanding of how the argument works.
Finally, another thing this essay does well is the way it describes the effect on the audience. Instead of saying the speaker “makes the audience think” or “makes the audience feel”, the analysis uses more neutral and accurate verbs such as encourages, urges, invites, coaxes, impels, and drives. This is important because persuasive texts rarely force audiences to think or feel something. Instead, speakers use language to guide or influence how audiences respond!
Check out more of our VCE English guides below!
Manoj Arachige
Manoj Arachige
Manoj Arachige
FAQs
How should I structure my VCE English Section C essay?
Many students believe that every VCE English essay must follow a rigid three-body-paragraph structure. However, in Section C this is not necessarily the case and can actually inhibit the quality of your analysis. Instead of forcing your ideas into a predetermined structure, your paragraphs should follow the natural progression of the author’s argument. In other words, each paragraph should correspond to a shift in tone, argument, or persuasive strategy within the piece. In my essay above, you may notice that the paragraphs vary in length and focus. This is intentional! Each paragraph analyses a distinct stage of Bandle’s argument, from the initial fear appeal, to the appeal to community identity, to the concession about the benefits of drones, and finally to his call for reform. Structuring your essay around the sequencing of the argument allows you to demonstrate a much deeper understanding of how persuasion actually works!
Do I need to analyse every persuasive technique in the article?
A common misconception about Section C is that students must identify and analyse every persuasive device they can find. In reality, strong responses are highly selective! Examiners are not looking for a checklist of techniques, they are looking for students who understand how arguments develop and how language positions an audience. Rather than attempting to comment on everything, it is far more effective to focus on the most significant moments in the argument and analyse them in depth. This means explaining not only what technique is used, but also why the author has used it and how it shapes the audience’s response. For example, instead of simply identifying rhetorical questions or imagery, a stronger analysis explains how these features create alarm, build resentment, establish credibility, or reinforce the speaker’s authority. Quality of analysis is always more important than quantity of techniques!
How do I avoid summarising the article instead of analysing it?
One of the most common pitfalls in Section C is drifting into summary. This happens when students simply describe what the author says without explaining its persuasive function. A useful way to avoid this is to constantly ask yourself: “Why is the author doing this?” Every time you quote a word or phrase, your next step should be to explain how it positions the audience and how it advances the overall argument. For instance, rather than writing that the speaker “talks about drones crashing,” a stronger response would explain that the imagery of drones “crashing out of the sky” evokes danger and chaos, encouraging the audience to perceive recreational drone usage as a serious safety threat. By consistently linking language to audience impact and argumentative purpose, you ensure that your essay remains analytical rather than descriptive!
How can I best prepare for writing a response to an unseen text in VCE English?
The most effective way to prepare for an unseen text is, quite simply, to practice, practice, and more PRACTICE! Section C is largely a skill-based task, and the more you expose yourself to different persuasive pieces, the faster you will become at identifying arguments, tone shifts and persuasive strategies. Over time, you will get better at what I call “issue-spotting”, which is quickly recognising the main arguments, key techniques, and structural shifts within a piece. This skill is especially important under exam conditions, where time pressure can make it difficult to analyse the material carefully if you have not practised doing so beforehand.
Once you feel confident in your written expression and essay structure, you do not always need to write full essays when preparing. A very efficient way to practise is to annotate articles and speeches, identifying the key stages of the argument and noting how the language positions the audience. After annotating, you can write a short plan, including an introduction and several topic sentences. This helps you practise organising your ideas and recognising the structure of an argument, without spending the time required to write a full essay. Developing this ability to quickly identify the argument structure will make planning your response in the exam much easier.
Another area that students often overlook when preparing for Section C is vocabulary. Having a strong bank of tone words and analytical verbs can significantly improve the clarity and sophistication of your analysis. For example, being able to describe tone precisely, such as foreboding, conciliatory, accusatory, emphatic, or measured, helps you capture subtle shifts in the argument. Similarly, using varied analytical verbs like encourages, urges, invites, positions, or impels allows you to explain audience impact more precisely than simply saying the author “makes the audience think or feel something.”
Want more personalised guidance to help support you through your studies? Find your perfect tutor match today!
What Our Students & Parents Say
600+ Five-Star reviews across all our tutoring programs — hear why below !👇
Written by KIS Academics Tutor for VCE English, Kartiya Gunarathna. Kartiya is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Laws/Commerce at Monash University and has been tutoring VCE English for 2+ years. You can view Kartiya’s profile here and request her as a tutor.
