We all know the feeling of staring down at an Argument Analysis practice piece, whether it’s a past exam or an opinion article, and drawing a complete blank on techniques. Or perhaps you have the opposite problem: after a couple of years of doing this unit, you find yourself reaching for the same three or four techniques every time. In this blog, we are breaking down a range of persuasive techniques (including a fair few lesser-known ones) that are well worth adding to your arsenal.

But before we start, it’s important to know that strong analysis moves between two zoom levels. At the big picture level, you are looking at how the piece is built: the shape of the argument, the appeals it relies on, the way it handles opposing views and stakeholders. At the small picture level, you are looking at individual words and specific language devices. Examiners consistently reward students who can move fluidly between these two levels. Hence, we’ve structured this blog to address both ends of that spectrum.

Big picture techniques

Appeals

Let’s start with the basics. At the very least, you need to be familiar with different types of appeals. Most of you already know the big three: pathos, ethos and logos. But these are really just umbrella terms, and simply writing “the author appeals to pathos” is a bit like saying the meal was “flavourful” without saying what it tasted like. The examiner wants the flavour.

So here are some more specific appeals:

Comparisons

When I say ‘comparisons’, I am really talking about two different argumentative moves. The first draws things together (association). The second pushes things apart (contrast). Let’s have a careful look at each kind.

Associations and analogies: these work by linking the subject of the argument to something the audience already views positively or negatively, and borrow that emotional weight. For instance, a politician might compare a new policy to a beloved historical success. Or an advertiser might associate their product with luxury and status to justify higher prices (cough cough, Dubai chocolate…). To spot this technique, you have to ask: what is being linked to what, and why? How does the comparison shift the way the audience views and feels about the subject? Keep an eye out for analogies, metaphors and telltale “just like” phrasing.

Dichotomies: these work in the opposite direction. A dichotomy deliberately sets up a stark divide between two things. For instance, you could have:

A dichotomy that splits the audience: this is when the author pits two stakeholders against each other. For instance, residents versus tourists. Workers versus corporations. Citizens versus government. This is most commonly done through the contrast of exclusive language (e.g. “they,” “them”) and inclusive language (“we”, “ours”). However, authors may also do this through more general, contrasting descriptions.

Sample analysis: By describing the “cashed up city buyers” with the exclusive pronoun “they” and local residents with the inclusive pronoun “us,” the author establishes an us-versus-them dichotomy, positioning residents to perceive newcomers with disdain and suspicion.

A dichotomy that contrasts ideas, images or scenarios: authors will often do this to simplify the issue and promote black and white thinking, framing the author’s desired option as far more appealing than another.

Sample analysis: By contrasting the imagery of the “beautiful wetlands” against the grotesquely connoted “smoke infested streets,” the author establishes a dichotomy between the natural and urban landscape, presenting the former as an idyllic paradise that must be protected before it tragically transforms into the latter.

Modality

I am always surprised at how few students know what modality is, because it is everywhere, and I can guarantee you that most argument analysis pieces you read will have at least one interesting use of modality you can analyse. If you’re currently very confused, modality basically refers to the level of certainty or necessity implied by the language used. Modality sits on a spectrum from high to low. Here are some common examples of each:

As the table describes, high modality tends to project authority, urgency and certainty, closing down space for disagreement or doubt. Low modality, on the other hand, can often soften a claim, making the speaker sound more measured and reasonable. Low modality may also be exploited to intentionally plant seeds of doubt in the audience’s mind.

Sample analysis: The author’s use of high modality verbs such as “must” and “will” enhances a sense of authority and certainty, positioning the audience to feel a strong obligation to act.

Humour

Most students are able to identify humour in texts, but in my experience they often get stuck on the why and how it is being used to persuade the audience. My very simplistic view is that humour can ultimately serve two purposes:

1. Disarm the audience: The use of self-deprecating jokes, light sarcasm, puns and gentle exaggerations can build a more likeable and approachable persona, potentially breaking down any harsh views or criticisms that the audience may be initially inclined to hold. For instance, in the case of controversial views or proposals, humour can soften the tone and disarm the audience by framing the view or proposal in a less serious light.
2. Mock and ridicule (discredit the opposition): Irony, sarcasm and satire in particular are often deployed to ridicule an opposing view, positioning the audience to view it as absurd or unworthy of serious consideration.

Zooming in

Once you have analysed the big picture, it is time to zoom in on how the author’s specific words and language help to develop their argument. This is where a lot of extra marks are sitting, and where a lot of students run out of things to say.

Connotation

I always tell my students that analysing connotation is an absolute must if you want to zoom in more, and virtually any persuasive piece will have a plethora of strongly connoted words to analyse. Let’s begin with the basic definition: connotation is the implied meaning or association attached to a particular word or phrase (distinct from its literal, dictionary definition). For instance, the verbs “killed” and “slaughtered” describe the same action, but “slaughtered” carries connotations of brutality and excess that “killed” does not. Hence, when you analyse connotation, you are asking why the author chose this specific noun, adjective or verb over a more neutral alternative, and what that word subtly implies to the reader.

Sample analysis: Rhetorically questioning his readership on how they would feel if an “algorithm” began “prying into” their purchases and online affairs, he endeavours to unsettle them with the vast capabilities of AI. The invasive connotations behind “prying,” coupled with the anaphora present in the language, aid in amplifying the dread private individuals may feel at the implication of their data being shared.

Note how the student didn’t say ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ connotation — when analysing connotation, we always want to use precise, specific words to describe what exactly the word is suggesting.

We recommend analysing connotations approximately once per paragraph. It is one of the most reliable ways to zoom in and unpack the implicit meaning sitting underneath an author’s word choices, which is essential if you want to reach the higher bands of the VCAA criteria.

Metaphors and figurative language

Metaphors often work hand in hand with connotation to build an implied meaning that runs deeper than a literal reading of the text. For instance:

• The metaphor of the town turning into a “backwater” uses stagnant water to imply the region’s economic and cultural isolation.
• The author’s metaphorical comparison of the cinema to a “beating heart” strives to elicit sympathy for the cinema, positioning readers to see it as a living, breathing thing that may die without their support.

Other figurative language could include personification, idiomatic expressions and hyperboles (I could eat a horse!). The goal is fairly identical to connotation and association: exploit the implied associations of existing words and things to evoke a specific emotional reaction from the audience.

Syntactic devices

If you thought pathos, ethos and logos was enough Ancient Greek to memorise, wait until you get to syntactic analysis. Syntactic analysis means analysing the structure of sentences, and (fortunately or unfortunately for us) the Ancient Greeks came up with a plethora of different names for rhetorical techniques that manipulate syntax for persuasive effect.

Repetition: most students know how to identify and analyse repetition, but did you know there are specific types of repetition? Here are a couple of common ones:

Rhetorical questions: yes, we all know what a rhetorical question is, but here are two adjacent techniques that are a lot more niche (and interesting) to analyse if you can identify them.

Phonetic analysis

Alright, enough with the Ancient Greek. If you really want to impress the examiners, it is worth familiarising yourself with phonetic analysis. Phonetics (phon meaning sound, like a phone) looks at how authors choose words for the sounds they create. These sounds can be pleasing, harsh or unsettling depending on what the author is after. Most students are already fairly confident identifying some phonetic devices like alliteration, onomatopoeia and rhyme. But here is how you can go a little deeper:

A quick note on fallacies

We get a lot of questions about whether fallacies are fair game for analysis. It’s a good question, because “fallacy” implies a flaw, and what we absolutely do not want to do is critique the effectiveness or integrity of the author’s argument. However, it is important to understand that authors can often use fallacies intentionally to persuade their audiences.

The catch is to maintain an objective, analytical tone in your response: it is best to avoid the word ‘fallacy’ itself. Instead, name the specific technique. For instance, instead of saying “ad-hominem fallacy” you should say “ad-hominem attack.” Instead of “bandwagon fallacy,” you can say “bandwagon appeal.” With that out of the way, here are two very common ‘fallacies’ that are worth knowing well, with examples from past VCAA papers.

The slippery slope argument (2022 VCAA): a slippery slope argument suggests that one small action will inevitably trigger a chain of increasingly extreme consequences. In the 2022 VCAA exam, Janelle Tanley uses this technique to build a sense of dread around the proposed development:

First, Nature and Adventure Group will send in digging machinery and desecrate the home of fragile species, which will be damaged beyond repair. Then, they’ll build footpaths and bike paths. Inevitably, one careless tourist will go stomping on a delicate fern to look at a frog and will take out an entire species that is unique to our wetlands.

The slippery slope here escalates from a fairly mundane starting point (machinery, footpaths) to a dramatic, almost catastrophic conclusion (extinction), positioning nature lovers and longtime community residents to see even minor development as the first domino in an irreversible chain of destruction.

The bandwagon appeal (2025 VCAA): this appeal invites audiences to align themselves with the majority, exploiting the discomfort of feeling left out (basically FOMO). In the 2025 VCAA exam, Jack Adut praises the current success of the lightshow to spur curiosity:

Many of you attended the lightshow held in Timberoona Park earlier this year […] crowds came from far and wide to listen to local musicians and DJs, and interact with the mind-bending illusions that were created with lights and projections.

By emphasising the size and enthusiasm of the crowd, Adut’s bandwagon appeal positions readers who did not attend to feel as though they missed out, and readers who did attend to feel a sense of belonging worth defending. Adut’s hedging comment “I think you’ll agree” reinforces this further, presuming a consensus before the reader has actually had the chance to form their own opinion.

Important words of advice

Before you run away with all of these techniques, there are a couple of important things to note if you want to deploy them effectively in your writing:

1. Knowing a wide range of techniques matters, but only if you analyse the HOW and WHY. There is little value in listing five techniques in a single sentence if you cannot explain HOW they position the audience and WHY they help to develop the argument.
2. Ergo, analysis needs to take context into account. While we have given some suggestions on what these techniques can do, their specific effect will always be dependent on the context, so don’t memorise generalising definitions.
3. Balance zooming in with zooming out. Like we said at the start, examiners reward students who can fluidly transition between these two levels.
4. Don’t forget about the visual. Although we didn’t have enough time to cover visual analysis this time, we will cover it in a separate blog, so keep an eye out.

We recommend creating your own argument analysis vocab bank, which you can fill throughout the year and use as a ‘cheat sheet’ during your practice. In our Exam Preparation Workshops, we provide a vocab bank template for all our students, and dive into these techniques (and many more) in a lot more detail, so if you are seeking stronger guidance, we’d love to see you there.

Finally, who doesn’t love a quiz? Take the argument analysis techniques quiz below to test how well this has stuck.