The student’s oral presentation does not meet several key subcriteria for effective analysis. The oral lacks sufficient depth, with only brief descriptions present instead of focused analysis, which detracts from the overall argument. While the student does engage in analytical discussions regarding authorial choices in both *Nosedive* and *Metamorphosis*, there is a need for more specific examples and a clearer connection to the global issue of social conformity. Additionally, the evaluation of authorial choices is insufficient, lacking an assessment of their effectiveness in conveying themes and evoking emotional responses. Finally, the analysis of formal features in the extracts is minimal, which limits the understanding of the authorial intent and broader themes.
