Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 07:30:34 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 2  (Read 13588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
[2016 LA Club] Week 2
« on: March 02, 2016, 03:30:58 pm »
+4
This week, we've got another Letter to the Editor but with a more American twist.

Background: Donald Trump is a millionaire/businessman currently in the running to become the Republican candidate for the US Presidential Election which will take place in November 2016. The American electoral system involves a series of pre-election votes (known as primaries or caucuses) that are held in each state in order to narrow down the candidates. Essentially, citizens nominate which candidate from the two major parties they wish to represent their party prior to the official election where the two candidates go head to head. Thus far, Trump has won a majority of these primaries and caucuses leading many to assume he will be the official Republican front-runner. He has also become infamous on a global stage for his incendiary remarks and no-nonsense rhetoric regarding world issues.

The following was published in an American newspaper following Trump's victories in multiple states.



Trouble with Trump

Similar to many citizens, I dislike contemporary political campaigns. But this year one candidate has dragged the debates through a gutter.

The world about us is already burning with terrorists, mass murders, drug abuse, groups that lie in wait to invade other nations, entertainment that promotes anger, hatred, destruction of society, including dialogues with such limited language that one wonders how it could be considered a story.

Candidates were always educated and appeared to research issues impacting domestic and foreign events, and an unspoken respect for each other was evident. Donald Trump has degraded the campaign and I pray the public will wake up and ignore him.

Don't vote for him.

Instead of discussing political situations, laws, finance and domestic/foreign situations that impact our daily lives, he only offers ridicule and insults. He has yet to discuss current events, and at this time has only convinced me he seeks the office of POTUS* to satisfy his narcissistic personality. All elections are important, we need a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead, and not waste precious time with adolescent pettiness.

- Eileen Corrigan-Smith, North Carolina

*Note: POTUS = President of the United States


Pieces welcome below! There's quite a bit of good language to unpack in this letter, and I might stop by later in the week to point out a few of those opportunities.

Happy writing!
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 06:21:35 pm by Anonymous »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2016, 10:31:18 pm »
0
This week, we've got another Letter to the Editor but with a more American twist.

Background: Donald Trump is a billionaire/businessman currently in the running to become the Republican candidate for the US Presidential Election which will take place in November 2016. The American electoral system involves a series of pre-election votes (known as primaries or caucuses) that are held in each state in order to narrow down the candidates. Essentially, citizens nominate which candidate from the two major parties they wish to represent their party prior to the official election where the two candidates go head to head. Thus far, Trump has won a majority of these primaries and caucuses leading many to assume he will be the official Republican front-runner. He has also become infamous on a global stage for his incendiary remarks and no-nonsense rhetoric regarding world issues.

The following was published in an American newspaper following Trump's victories in multiple states.



Trouble with Trump

Similar to many citizens, I dislike contemporary political campaigns. But this year one candidate has dragged the debates through a gutter.

The world about us is already burning with terrorists, mass murders, drug abuse, groups that lie in wait to invade other nations, entertainment that promotes anger, hatred, destruction of society, including dialogues with such limited language that one wonders how it could be considered a story.

Candidates were always educated and appeared to research issues impacting domestic and foreign events, and an unspoken respect for each other was evident. Donald Trump has degraded the campaign and I pray the public will wake up and ignore him.

Don't vote for him.

Instead of discussing political situations, laws, finance and domestic/foreign situations that impact our daily lives, he only offers ridicule and insults. He has yet to discuss current events, and at this time has only convinced me he seeks the office of POTUS* to satisfy his narcissistic personality. All elections are important, we need a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead, and not waste precious time with adolescent pettiness.

Eileen Corrigan-Smith, North Carolina

*Note: POTUS = President of the United States


Pieces welcome below! There's quite a bit of good language to unpack in this letter, and I might stop by later in the week to point out a few of those opportunities.

Happy writing!

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2016, 01:42:22 pm »
+3
billionaire
pfft, what's he gonna do? Build a wall around me and make the Mexicans pay for it?

Come at me, Donald -.-

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2016, 04:02:11 pm »
+2
He'd make you build the wall yourself and save himself from paying the Mexicans.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2016, 07:21:24 pm »
0
Will do one tomorrow night or so, when i finish editing my LA from Week 1

qazser

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +23
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2016, 07:21:43 pm »
0
Will do one tomorrow night or so, when i finish editing my LA from Week 1

Forgot the tick again
AN Chat: Hop On!

2016:Methods[   ]

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2016, 08:23:53 pm »
+1
I whipped up this in about 5 min as an intro, is it alright if I can get some feedback on it? For an introduction, is this adequate enough?  ???


In a newspaper response to the largely successful political campaign of the president candidate Donald Trump, Eileen Corrigan-Smith contends with a critical and indignant tone that Donald Trump is not an appropriate candidate for the running of president of the Unites States and if elected, may bring about negative outcomes for the future. Corrigan-Smith also advocates that the future president of the Unites States should have the capability to meet the challenges of leading a country, and not to waste time and resources.



Thank you so much!!! I have a language analysis SAC next week, kinda nervous :{

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2016, 09:13:48 pm »
+2
In a newspaper response to the largely successful political campaign of the president candidate Donald Trump, Eileen Corrigan-Smith contends with a critical and indignant tone that Donald Trump is not an appropriate candidate for the running of president of the Unites States and if elected, may bring about negative outcomes for the future. Corrigan-Smith also advocates that the future president of the Unites States should have the capability to meet the challenges of leading a country, and not to waste time and resources.

There isn't really a connection between the first and second sentence. Language analysis essays have to be a cohesive essay, right? This lacks a sense of cohesion. Could probably have condensed the entire thing into a sentence... Still, this is really good. You mention tone, the author and summarise the article's contention pretty; that was all pretty much on point (admittedly I only skimmed the article so I may have failed to pick up nuancy stuff about the contention).

Good luck for your LA SAC!

PS: Someone correct me if I screwed up.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:00:34 pm by HopefulLawStudent »

FallingStar

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Be yourself and be your best self.
  • Respect: +19
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2016, 05:24:37 pm »
+2
To convince the readers that Donald Trump they should not vote for Donald Trump as the president of the United states, Corrigan-Smith portray Trump as having a "narcissistic personality."  The word narcissistic has a strong negative connotation as a selfish person, encouraging the readers to disapprove of Trumps personality, hence positioning them to feel as though Trump should not be the president of their country. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith states that he only offers "ridicule and insults" instead of discussing "current events." These words are often connoted with "adolescent pettiness", presenting Trump as not sufficiently mature enough to be the president. Voters generally want someone who is a strong leader to be the head of state in the country. With Donald Trump being reduced by the writer into a selfish, uneducated bully, the readers can only be encouraged to view him as a weak political leader, thereby they will view him as being unsuitable for being the president. Corrigan-Smith also mentions that America needs a president is "prepared to meet the challenges ahead." Readers, after being convinced that Donald Trump as being an immature bully, they are likely to view that Trump will not meet the challenges of solving issues in a variety of situations. This viewpoint highlights that Donald Trump is likely to be an incompetent person given that he is in the position of president, convincing them that Trump does not deserve to be the president of the United States. Also, the readers of this letter are likely to be voters in the presidential elections, so they probably would be convinced that they should not vote for Trump as the president of the United states.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2016, 02:12:40 pm »
0
Only just got wind of this. Am typing this on my phone, right now. So, I hope it's good enough. It's just an introduction, but if possible I'll try to make a body paragraph as soon as I get home.

There has been much attention drawn by the controversial presidential candidate, Donald Trump, as his candidacy has split U.S voters, who hold polarising views on his legitimacy in running for presidency. Corrigan-Smith condemns in a scathing commentary of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump's candidacy as a disgraceful development, yet also deeply reflective of contemporary politics. That it has devolved into a commodified franchise exempts the presidential seat as having any true objective duty, which Corrigan-Smith coerces her readers to reject. Corrigan-Smith urges the American public to ignore and put aside their votes for Donald Trump lest his presidency degrades the American public image further, as evident from the public's consideration of him as president.

michael leahcim

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2016, 02:13:56 pm »
0
Oops accidentally posted as anonymous...  ::)

FallingStar

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Be yourself and be your best self.
  • Respect: +19
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2016, 06:05:05 pm »
+1
Only just got wind of this. Am typing this on my phone, right now. So, I hope it's good enough. It's just an introduction, but if possible I'll try to make a body paragraph as soon as I get home.

There has been much attention drawn by the controversial presidential candidate, Donald Trump, as his candidacy has split U.S voters, who hold polarising views on his legitimacy in running for presidency. Corrigan-Smith condemns in a scathing commentary of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump's candidacy as a disgraceful development, yet also deeply reflective of contemporary politics. That it has devolved into a commodified franchise exempts the presidential seat as having any true objective duty, which Corrigan-Smith coerces her readers to reject. Corrigan-Smith urges the American public to ignore and put aside their votes for Donald Trump lest his presidency degrades the American public image further, as evident from the public's consideration of him as president.

I understand you may have only done this in very little time, but there a few key information that's missing from your introduction:
Title: Trouble with Trump
Source: An American Newspaper
Technique: One has been stated, but it needs to be named.

Quote
Corrigan-Smith condemns in a scathing commentary of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump's candidacy as a disgraceful development, yet also deeply reflective of contemporary politics.

Correction for clarity:
Spoiler
In Corrigan-Smith's scathing commentary of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump's candidacy is not only condemned as a disgraceful development, it is also deeply reflective of contemporary politics.

But given you've whipped that up in five minutes, probably with no plan, you have done quite a good job.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2016, 04:52:53 pm »
+3
To convince the readers that Donald Trump they should not vote for Donald Trump as the president of the United states, Corrigan-Smith portrays Trump as having a "narcissistic personality."  The word narcissistic has a strong negative connotation as a selfish person, of selfishness, encouraging the readers to disapprove of Trump's personality, hence positioning them to feel as though Trump should not be the president of their country. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith states that he only offers "ridicule and insults" instead of discussing "current events." These words are often connoted associated with "adolescent pettiness", sentence structure is a bit confusing here. Are you trying to say that the quotes: "ridicule and insults" are associated with "adolescent pettiness?" Because that second one is an actual quote, that should be the language you're explaining rather than being part of your explanation, if that makes sense. Basically rather than saying "the author says X which has connotations of "quote from the article," making readers feel..." <-- that "quote from the article" should be the focus of your discussion, not a way to supplement it presenting Trump as not sufficiently mature enough to be the president. Voters generally want someone who is a strong leader to be the head of state in the country. With Donald Trump being reduced by the writer into (because you reduce someone TO something, not INTO something - just a minor expression thing) a selfish, uneducated bully, the readers can only be are encouraged to view him as a weak political leader, thereby they will view him as being unsuitable for being the president. sentence is getting a bit long, and your point about him being a weak politician should suffice; you won't have to zoom all the way out to the overall contention each time - talking about the portrayal of Trump is enough in this case. Corrigan-Smith also mentions that America needs a president who is "prepared to meet the challenges ahead." Readers, after being convinced might come across as a bit too definitive - perhaps use 'assured' or just make the author your focus by saying 'Thus the author, having established that Trump is a bully, attempts to persuade readers that...' that Donald Trump as being an immature bully, they are likely to view that Trump will not meet the challenges of solving issues in a variety of situations. This viewpoint highlights that Donald Trump is likely to be an incompetent person given that he is in the position of president, this is more of a hypothetical at the moment since he's just one of several candidates convincing them that Trump does not deserve to be the president of the United States. Also, the readers of this letter are likely to be voters in the presidential elections, so they probably would be convinced that try and swap out these kinds of expressions for ones with 'the author' as the focus. For instance 'the author is therefore able to engender their support for...' or 'hence the author evokes feelings of...' as this will stop you from sounding too definitive they should not vote for Trump as the president of the United states.

- statements about the effect on the audience and the author's intent were spot-on :) It's clear you understand the contention, and there's a good amount of solid interpretative statements here. Most of my comments are only little fine-tune-y details.

- your use of 'connotes' was a little wonky; it should either be:
The word "whatever" connotes carelessness and frivolity, and elicits a sense of...
The author's use of the word "whatever," with its connotations of carelessness and frivolity, elicits a sense of...
The connotative language used by the author - specifically the word "whatever" which is associated with carelessness and frivolity, elicits a sense of...

or something like that.

- the stuff you've chosen to analyse was awesome, and aside from that minor grammatical thing with the word 'connotes,' the way you unpacked connotations was excellent. If possible, aim for a bit more super obvious metalanguage - like, 'the author's use of ___.' For this piece, you could've discussed the listing in the second paragraph, or the short, imperative sentence structure of "Don't vote for him." You could even say something about the use of past tense in "Candidates were always educated..." which kind of creates this sense of loss and nostalgia for the glory days when politicians weren't idiots :P No technique is compulsory, but if you haven't overtly mentioned a couple, some assessors will erroneously think you're not closely analysing language. Obviously for a short bit of analysis like this, it's not a huge deal, but just know that somewhere in your body paragraphs, you should be doing some clear technique identification alongside all this other good stuff.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2016, 09:58:53 pm »
0
Scathingly, the North Carolina denizen seeks to form an association between the billionaire and sinister and reprehensible aspects of the world; including “terrorists, mass murders [and] drug abuse.” Her enumerations have the effect of overwhelming the audience of American constituents whose natural inclination would have been to support Trump with just how perilous the world was. By frankly pronouncing Trump had “degraded” the political campaign and put it “through a gutter”, the writer thus intimates that to vote the presidential hopeful into the White House would be akin to exacerbating the world’s present situation. Corrigan-Smith thus forms an association between Trump and unappealing aspects of humanity in order to make the reader less inclined to want to vote him into the position of president because their patriotism precludes them from wanting a man like Trump who purportedly represents such atrocious aspects of life in a position of authority in which he would effectively become the epitome of American civilisation; to this end, they infer that Trump’s presidency would imply America was a place where “mass murders, drug abuse… anger, hatred” and the like were rife.

Corrigan-Smith seeks to vilify president hopeful Donald Trump, positioning the audience to perceive the billionaire as the antithesis of the ideal leader. She juxtaposes what characteristics an ideal leader would purportedly possess with the characteristics displayed by Trump. By contrasting the two, the North Carolina resident accentuates the extreme disparity between these two. To this end, she intimates Trump would be a horrible choice for president because he displays no qualities commonly associated with a leader. Establishing he lacked these leadership qualities, the writer thus suggests Trump lacked the substance or credentials that would have given the impression he could be a competent leader of the American public. That the writer should seek to depict the presidential hopeful as the antithesis of the ideal leader is supposed to manoeuvre the viewer to opt against voting for him because he purportedly lacks the qualities voters would typically expect in a presidential candidate.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2016, 10:04:27 pm »
0
Points for trying, right? I actually intended to do this ages ago but I got swamped in SACs and I got a little lazy/busy. Admittedly, it's not my best piece of work. I was sort of trying Lauren's subargument approach but having written it, I now feel as though I should have just condensed the entire thing into a "the writer wanted to vilify Trump" paragraph considering how short the piece was but oh well.

PS: What sort of tone does the writer adopt? I'm particularly interesting in shifting tonality; I NEVER see them. "Scathing" and "Blunt" are like my go-to tones when I have no idea what I'm doing. LOL.