An explanation is required... (1 Viewer)

[Source]

How does a person integrate random points and techniques to a new question? It seems inane to be talking about "dramatic irony" and "metafiction" when the question asks for "an argument on whether journeys can be learning experiences". Well, the answer the HSC marker gave was that it was introducing a thesis statement different to that of the question and answering that, instead of directly answering the question.

Which is weird because "imaginative journeys can lead to worlds of inspiration, speculation and rejuvination" has no relation to "journeys can be learning experiences".

Somebody, please explain.

 

[Source]

It's all part of the challenge. You have to break in.

What? Break in?

What is with the pseudo-intellectual crytpic rhetoric that's been going around?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The question doesn't change much anyway, it'll be something boring and predictable.

 

[Source]

The question doesn't change much anyway, it'll be something boring and predictable.

An explanation is still required to the original point.

 

[ujuphleg]

"an argument on whether journeys can be learning experiences"

"imaginative journeys can lead to worlds of inspiration, speculation and rejuvination"

"journeys can be learning experiences".

In those three sentences you have the perfect combination to link them. State something along the lines of

"Imaginative Journeys can lead to worlds of inspritation, speculation and rejeuvenation. This catharsis epitomises the way in which journeys can be learning experiences as it is through imaginative journeys that a manifestation of learning can be sought after in the real world. The nature of this journeys can be seen in the following texts ...."

(or something like that)