June 2026
The 2025 VCE English exam made one thing clear about Section C: identifying persuasive techniques was not enough.
Students were required to analyse how argument, written and spoken language, and visuals were used to persuade an intended audience. That meant they needed to understand the material as a constructed persuasive text, shaped for a particular context and readership.
The 2025 Section C material centred on Timberoona, a regional town with a long-running New Year’s Eve fireworks tradition. Local resident Jack Adut argued in the community newsletter that the fireworks should be replaced with a projected lightshow.
This was not a simple “for or against fireworks” piece.
It was a carefully staged argument designed to persuade a community attached to tradition that change could be responsible, inclusive and exciting.
That is where high-scoring analysis began.
Context, audience and purpose came first
The report described understanding context, audience and purpose as a necessary pre-skill for Section C.
This is crucial.
Before students analysed individual words or images, they needed to understand the situation. Timberoona’s fireworks display had been an important community tradition for more than 50 years. That history meant Adut could not simply attack the event without alienating readers.
His audience included local residents who valued the fireworks, families who attended the celebration, pet owners, environmentally conscious residents, community-minded readers and people concerned about cost, safety and accessibility.
That context shaped his persuasive strategy.
Adut needed to show that he was not trying to destroy New Year’s Eve. He was trying to preserve its joy while changing the method of celebration.
High-scoring students understood that purpose.
The opening built trust before disagreement
Adut began by affirming the value of the New Year’s Eve celebration.
He described the family picnics, food vans, local musical talent, park setting, collective countdown and anticipation of the fireworks. This opening mattered because it positioned him as someone who appreciates the tradition rather than someone dismissive of it.
This was a strategic move.
By acknowledging what residents love about the event, Adut reduced the chance that readers would see him as hostile to community celebration. He aligned himself with the audience’s values before asking them to reconsider the fireworks.
That is stronger than simply beginning with criticism.
A high-scoring analysis would recognise that Adut’s admiration functions persuasively. It reassures readers that the proposed change is not an attack on communal joy, but an attempt to protect and improve it.
The shift to concern was carefully staged
After establishing shared appreciation, Adut shifted to the need to “re-think” fireworks.
This transition was important.
He did not present himself as someone who had always opposed the display. Instead, he explained that it was only after seeing the impact firsthand that he came to support a projected lightshow.
This positioned his view as reasonable and experience-based.
It also allowed readers to follow a similar movement: from affection for tradition to awareness of harm. Rather than demanding instant agreement, Adut invited readers to reconsider.
This is argument structure at work.
The persuasion lies not only in individual phrases, but in the order in which ideas are presented.
Environmental concerns made the problem larger than preference
Adut’s first major criticism of fireworks focused on environmental harm.
He referred to nine tonnes of fireworks, waste and debris blown into waterways and nature reserves, threats to native flora and fauna, smoke pollution, noise pollution, and fire risk in December.
This argument widened the issue.
Fireworks were no longer just a matter of entertainment. They became a threat to the local environment and community safety.
The reference to nine tonnes gave the criticism scale and concreteness. The accumulation of environmental effects built pressure on readers to see fireworks as excessive and damaging, not merely noisy.
The phrase “a single mistake, a single wayward spark” also intensified the sense of risk. It reduced the possibility of disaster to one small error, making the continuation of fireworks seem irresponsible.
High-scoring students would analyse how Adut makes harm feel local, practical and urgent.
The pet image worked with the written argument
The first visual showed a distressed dog with the message “PLEASE NO FIREWORKS I AM SCARED.”
This visual was not separate from the article. It reinforced Adut’s argument about the impact of fireworks on pets.
The written language described “little Fido or Fluffy”, panicked pets cowering under couches, climbing curtains, roaming streets and owners searching the animal shelter. The image then made that harm immediate and emotionally accessible.
The dog’s plea gave the pet a kind of voice. It encouraged readers to see animals as vulnerable victims of the tradition rather than invisible collateral damage.
This is what visual analysis should do.
It should not merely describe the image. It should explain how the image supports the argument and positions the audience emotionally.
Adut appealed to care without losing practicality
One of the strengths of Adut’s article was that it combined emotional appeal with practical reasoning.
The pet argument invited empathy. The environmental argument invited responsibility. The financial argument invited pragmatism. The accessibility argument invited inclusivity.
This made the case difficult to dismiss.
A reader who was not persuaded by pet distress might be persuaded by cost. A reader less concerned about cost might respond to children with sound sensitivity. A reader attached to tradition might be reassured by the lightshow’s promise of spectacle.
High-scoring analysis recognises this range.
Adut did not rely on one argument. He layered arguments to reach different parts of the Timberoona readership.
The financial argument reframed the lightshow as sensible
Adut argued that a projected lightshow would reduce the cost of New Year’s celebrations from $1.6 million to $750,000.
This was a powerful pragmatic appeal.
The savings were then linked to community programs, including meals for the homeless and breakfast club programs. This meant the issue became not only “fireworks versus lightshow”, but “brief spectacle versus ongoing community support”.
That comparison positioned fireworks as financially excessive and socially misdirected.
Adut’s phrase about a single event lasting 10 minutes sharpened this contrast. The short duration of the fireworks was placed against the enduring value of essential community programs.
This is how argument analysis should work.
The student should not simply say Adut uses statistics. They should explain how the figures make the existing event appear wasteful and the alternative appear smarter.
Accessibility expanded the idea of community
Adut also argued that a lightshow would allow some residents to attend the New Year’s Eve celebration for the first time.
This was an important shift.
The fireworks tradition may be beloved by many, but Adut suggested that it excludes people sensitive to loud sounds, including some children who become distressed by the noise.
This reframed the issue as one of inclusion.
A community celebration should be accessible to the community. If the noise prevents some residents from attending, the tradition is not as communal as it appears.
This argument worked especially well because it did not reject celebration. It asked readers to imagine a celebration more people could enjoy.
That is persuasive because it turns change into an expansion of community, rather than a loss.
Tradition was acknowledged and then redefined
Adut anticipated criticism that fireworks have traditional appeal.
This was one of the most important strategic moves in the article.
He acknowledged the nostalgia of singing “Auld Lang Syne”, the illuminated sky, the thunderous backing music and the romantic midnight kiss. In doing so, he showed that he understood the emotional attachment to the event.
Then he questioned whether those traditions actually depend on fireworks.
This allowed him to separate the value of the celebration from the specific technology used to create it.
The audience could keep the ambience, colour, music, romance and communal countdown without retaining the explosions, smoke and noise.
That distinction was central to the persuasive strategy.
Adut was not asking Timberoona to give up tradition.
He was asking it to update the form of tradition.
The lightshow was made exciting, not merely safer
Adut did not present the lightshow only as the less harmful option.
He presented it as spectacular in its own right.
He referred to actual music choreographed to the movement of lights, the earlier Timberoona Park lightshow during Community Week, local musicians and DJs, mind-bending illusions, projections, and magic in the night sky without explosions.
This mattered because an argument for change must often overcome fear of disappointment.
If residents imagine the lightshow as a weak substitute, they may resist it. Adut therefore made the alternative feel vivid, modern and communal.
The second visual, showing the earlier lightshow, supported this by giving readers evidence that the alternative could be visually impressive and locally successful.
High-scoring students would analyse how Adut makes the replacement feel not only responsible, but desirable.
The final appeal brought the argument back to balance
Adut concluded by framing the decision as one of balance.
He argued for keeping the wonder of New Year’s Eve alive while also being mindful of community members, the environment and the future. The final phrase “spectacular, safe and sustainable” condensed his whole argument into a neat triad.
This conclusion mattered because it reduced the sense of sacrifice.
The audience was not being asked to choose between celebration and responsibility. They were being offered a way to have both.
The repeated inclusive language also mattered. Words such as “we”, “our” and “together” positioned the change as a shared community opportunity rather than one resident’s complaint.
Adut’s conclusion therefore returned to the communal values established at the beginning.
The argument came full circle.
High-scoring responses integrated argument, language and visuals
The report noted that high-level responses did not separate argument, language and visual analysis into isolated blocks.
Instead, they integrated them.
This is one of the most important Section C lessons.
A student should not write one paragraph on argument, one on language and one on visuals as if these are separate categories. In the material, they work together.
For example, Adut’s pet argument is built through language and visual material together. His references to panicked pets create emotional detail, while the dog image intensifies that emotional appeal. His financial argument uses figures and contrast. His tradition argument uses nostalgic imagery, rhetorical questioning and redefinition. His lightshow argument uses descriptive language and the visual of the successful earlier event.
The strongest responses analysed the interplay.
They explained how each element helped the argument progress.
Technique names were not enough
The report’s examples showed that lower-level responses often identified elements without explaining their strategic purpose.
This is a common Section C problem.
A student might write:
Adut uses inclusive language.
That is not enough.
A stronger analysis would explain that Adut’s repeated use of inclusive pronouns positions readers as part of a shared community decision, softening resistance to change by making the lightshow proposal feel collective rather than imposed.
A student might write:
Adut uses statistics.
A stronger analysis would explain that the contrast between $1.6 million and $750,000 makes fireworks appear financially irresponsible, especially when the savings are linked to essential community programs.
A student might write:
There is a picture of a dog.
A stronger analysis would explain that the visual gives emotional immediacy to the harm caused by fireworks, positioning pets as vulnerable and encouraging owners to support a quieter alternative.
The technique is only the starting point.
The effect is the analysis.
Audience response had to be plausible
Strong Section C analysis explains how readers are positioned.
But it must do so plausibly.
It is not enough to claim that “this makes everyone agree” or “this forces the audience to change their mind”. Persuasion is more subtle than that.
A better approach is to consider the likely audience:
Residents who love fireworks may feel reassured by Adut’s opening admiration.
Pet owners may feel recognised by the description of distressed animals.
Parents may feel protective when children with sound sensitivity are mentioned.
Environmentally conscious readers may feel alarmed by waste, smoke and fire risk.
Practical readers may respond to the financial savings.
Community-minded readers may approve of redirecting funds to meals and breakfast programs.
This is more precise.
It connects the persuasive effect to the audience’s values.
Structure mattered as much as individual language choices
The report’s annotations on Section C emphasised argument sequencing.
Adut’s article did not present points randomly.
It moved through a persuasive progression:
- establish shared love for New Year’s Eve
- introduce the need to rethink fireworks
- outline environmental and safety harms
- appeal to pet owners and families
- argue for accessibility
- present the financial case
- address tradition and nostalgia
- promote the lightshow as exciting and proven
- end with balance, community and shared opportunity
This sequence is persuasive because it begins with common ground, builds the case for change, addresses likely resistance and finishes with a positive vision.
Students who analyse only isolated phrases miss this structure.
High-scoring responses explain how the argument develops.
Section C rewarded explanation of strategy
The report compared lower-level and higher-level responses by showing that stronger responses explained the strategy behind the stages of the argument.
This is the heart of Section C.
Students needed to ask:
Why does the writer begin this way?
Why is this concern introduced before that one?
Why does the writer acknowledge the opposing view?
Why is the alternative presented after the harms?
Why does the conclusion return to community values?
These questions produce analysis of argument.
They move beyond feature spotting into explanation of persuasion.
In 2025, the strongest students understood Adut’s article as a designed sequence of influence.
What future English students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE English exam shows that Section C preparation needs to focus on argument, audience and strategy.
Students should practise:
- identifying contention without reducing the text to one sentence
- understanding context before analysing language
- identifying the intended audience and their likely values
- explaining how the argument is sequenced
- analysing how writers establish trust
- showing how language and visuals work together
- explaining persuasive effects plausibly
- linking examples to overall purpose
- avoiding isolated technique spotting
- integrating discussion of argument, language and visuals
- analysing why a writer addresses resistance or counterarguments
- explaining how conclusions consolidate persuasion
These skills produce responses that feel analytical rather than descriptive.
The strongest Section C responses do not simply name what the writer uses.
They explain how the text persuades.
How ATAR STAR approaches Section C
At ATAR STAR, Section C is taught as strategic argument analysis.
Students learn to identify the writer’s purpose, audience and context before analysing the sequence of argument. They practise explaining how language and visuals work together to position readers, and how persuasive choices are shaped by the values of the audience.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring responses did not merely identify persuasive techniques.
They analysed the construction of persuasion.
That is what Section C rewards.