Language Analysis - please mark

[Dem16]

This is an analysis of the article, 'Is One Too Many' regarding women-only carriages on the Victorian Railway....

The dominance of men in society has recently increased the fear and paranoia that women experience as a result of potential threats. Olivia Oakley, writer of social issues, addresses this matter, suggesting the solution to one aspect of the danger, that is, to establish women-only carriages on the Victorian rail network. Through a concerned tone, Oakley argues that this will eliminate the risk of unwanted attention, hoping to gain support from her audience of women to assist in decreasing the inferiority of women amongst society. In response to her opinion piece, ‘Is one too many?’ Dan disagrees with Oakley’s perspective contending in a realistic tenor, that her solution will only arouse more fear.
The desire for safety of women is considered by both authors. However, Oakley commences with a typical scenario of boarding public transport, appealing to the familiarity of the readers, prompting them to imagine their own experiences. This assists the reader in forming their stance as to their position before Oakley clearly states her own contention. She then provides an explanation to that scenario that women feel unsafe when entering the transport, thus, it is here that she states her position through an experienced manner, intending to enhance the believability of her arguments, hoping to get the ear of her audience. Oakley then confirms her opinion with a pithy and emotional statement, “We all want to feel safe”, including the readers in her appeal to safety. Following this up, she offers a resolution to some of the fear that women experience, suggesting the introduction of women-only carriages on the railway network, aiming to obtain the support of the women by helping to reduce the likelihood of their negative experiences. In contrast, Dan argues that Oakley’s solution will only ‘magnify’ the fear and worsen women’s confidence, attempting to bring the readers’ imaginations back to reality. Nevertheless, Oakley delivers a proactive rebuttal, stating that her suggestion roots from the actions of other countries such as India and Brazil. This purposes to highlight the reality of her solution. Furthermore, before allowing any doubts to enter the readers mind with the fact that these countries have higher crime rates, she reiterates her headline, emphasising the need for a pre-emptive action to be taken before one is ‘too many’. This attempts to scare the reader that waiting any longer might be too late before tragedy occurs.
In addition, endeavouring to acquire the support of men also, Oakley includes an emotional plea that men are ‘gentle, kind and considerate law-abiding people’. Through this, she eradicates any adversaries to her article who believe she is advancing into a gender war. In response, Dan agrees with this statement, however he manipulates it to convince the reader that men are needed in society to prevent these disasters from taking place. He also mentions that it is only minority of the male race who present this threat. This intends to replace the superiority of men that Oakley has quickly destroyed through her earlier contentions. On the other hand, Oakley has already addressed this issue, contending that ‘it only takes one exception to the rule’, supporting it with the fact that ‘more people are assaulted on public transport each year” than any other perceived common crimes. She reinforces the fear she hopes to appeal to by asking a rhetorical question as to how many have had their car stolen. This not only appeals to familiarity but also encourages the reader to imagine assaults happening to them more often that car theft. As a result, the reader is expected to be instilled with fear which is mentioned by Oakley before the reader has a chance to define the emotions they are personally experiencing while reading the article. Furthermore, a table and its source is included outlining the statistics of different crimes, proving her facts to be true. This purposes to enhance the credibility of the author while shocking the readers with the truth, once again imparting fear.
Finally, both authors embrace the idea of intimidation of women as a result of their inferiority to men. Oakley, again, aims to reveal the readers’ familiarity through illustrating a stereotypical journey, describing the tendency of men to dominate space with their legs as the ‘manspread’. Through diagnosing and naming the idiosyncrasy, it is intended to leave an impression in the readers mind, reminding them each time they experience this. Furthermore, this supports Oakley’s perspective that it is one example of men’s dominance in society and women’s inferiority. Through his counter-argument, Dan considers this and subtly agrees, however, again he manipulates it to suggest that he will happily oblige if asked to move his legs. He uses this to prove the kindness of men. Nonetheless, Oakley’s argument of the inferiority of women is supported by an accompanying visual, depicting the figures of men and women. Through the enlargement of the woman compared to the man which is embedded in a negative symbol, Oakley aims to convey the future for women if women-only carriages were pursued, suggesting that women would no longer be intimidated by men, encouraging the support of the readers in the fulfillment of Oakley’s solution as they are intended to be reassured of a safer future.
The conclusion of both opinions differ as Oakley closes with a rhetorical question, while Dan finishes with a personal statement. Oakley ends, reflecting her ultimate ideal of a women-only carriage through repetition that it is only ‘one extra carriage’. This hopes to portray the meagerness of her expectations, aiming for the readers to see it as a realistic demand. She then questions ‘if it is too much to ask’, attempting to belittle any opposing excuses for the failure to carry out her suggestion. Contrastly, Dan mocks the attack of men in Oakley’s article, claiming he is, after all, ‘lovely’. Through the employment quotation marks, he is sarcastically imitating Oakley’s tone used to flatter the men while intending to reiterate the harmlessness of men in society.

Feedback would be much appreciated.....
And a mark out of 10.....

[literally lauren]

This is an analysis of the article, 'Is One Too Many' regarding women-only carriages on the Victorian Railway....

The dominance of men in society has recently increased the fear and paranoia that women experience as a result of potential threats. no need to talk about the issue in general terms; you can just skip to the contention if you want to be efficient, or cover this in half a sentence like 'Following the recent...' Olivia Oakley, writer of social issues, addresses this matter, suggesting the solution to one aspect of the danger, that is, to establish women-only carriages on the Victorian rail network. Through a concerned tone, Oakley argues that this will eliminate the risk of unwanted attention, hoping to gain support from her audience of women to assist in decreasing the inferiority of women expression is a bit clunky here amongst society. In response to her opinion piece, ‘Is one too many?’ Dan disagrees with Oakley’s perspective contending in a realistic tenor, that her solution will only arouse more fear. good intro overall; nice overview of the contentions
The desire for safety of women is considered by both authors I'd say your T.S. could be stronger if you just focused on what Oakley was saying about safety, and then pivot to what Dan says afterwards (e.g. Oakley positions safety as important... *analysis* --> Contrarily, Dan instead suggests that... *analysis* --> end of paragraph) rather than having to do a super generic 'here is a concept that is in both pieces' sentence to kick off . However, Oakley commences with a typical scenario of boarding public transport, appealing to the familiarity of the readers, prompting them to imagine their own experiences. This assists the reader in forming their stance as to their position before Oakley clearly states her own contention but why is this persuasive? Why would the author do this? I'm not sure this is worth mentioning. She then provides an explanation to that scenario that women feel unsafe when entering the transport, thus, it is here that she states her position through an experienced manner, intending to enhance the believability of her arguments, hoping to get the ear too colloquial; avoid this! of her audience. Oakley then confirms her opinion ?? with a pithy and emotional WHICH EMOTIONS? Never use this word unless you're clarifying WHICH EMOTIONS! Otherwise you're just saying 'the author uses language that makes us feel stuff' statement, “We all want to feel safe”, including the readers in her appeal to safety. Following this up, aim for a smoother linking phrase here she offers a resolution to some of the fear that women experience, suggesting the introduction of women-only carriages on the railway network, aiming to obtain the support of the women by helping to reduce the likelihood of their negative experiences. In contrast, Dan argues that Oakley’s solution will only ‘magnify’ the fear and worsen women’s confidence, attempting to bring the readers’ imaginations back to reality what do you mean by this?. Nevertheless, Oakley delivers a proactive rebuttal, stating that her suggestion roots from the actions of other countries such as India and Brazil. This purposes to highlights the reality of her solution <-- bit of a short sentence here; can you be more specific? What is her solution? Why is it highlighted by this?. Furthermore, before allowing any doubts to enter the readers mind with the fact that these countries have higher crime rates, she reiterates her headline, emphasising the need for a pre-emptive action to be taken before one is ‘too many’. This attempts to scare the reader that waiting any longer might be too late before tragedy occurs.
In addition, endeavouring to acquire the support of men also, Oakley includes an emotional plea that men are ‘gentle, kind and considerate law-abiding people’ not sure this qualifies as a 'plea'. Through this, she eradicates any adversaries to her article who believe she is advancing into a gender war. In response, Dan agrees with this statement, however he manipulates it to convince the reader that men are needed in society to prevent these disasters from taking place. He also mentions that it is only minority of the male race who present this threat QUOTE?. This intends to replace the superiority of men that Oakley has quickly destroyed through her earlier contentions. On the other hand, Oakley has already addressed this issue, contending that ‘it only takes one exception to the rule’, supporting it with the fact that ‘more people are assaulted on public transport each year” than any other perceived common crimes. She reinforces the fear she hopes to appeal to by asking a rhetorical question as to how many have had their car stolen. This not only appeals to familiarity but also encourages the reader to imagine assaults happening to them more often that car theft. As a result, the reader is expected to be instilled with fear which is mentioned by Oakley before the reader has a chance to define the emotions they are personally experiencing while reading the article. Furthermore, a table and its source is included outlining the statistics of different crimes, proving her facts to be true. This purposes to enhance the credibility of the author while shocking the readers with the truth, once again imparting fear. could do more with the visual here; though from memory the table included in this material was really straightforward, so this is probably all you can wring out of it The VCAA material should be a bit deeper though, so maybe spend some more time fleshing out those connections if you can; it's a great way to stand out!
Finally, both authors embrace the idea of intimidation of women as a result of their inferiority to men ??. Oakley, again, aims to reveal the readers’ familiarity through illustrating a stereotypical journey, describing the tendency of men to dominate space with their legs as the ‘manspread’. Through diagnosing and naming the idiosyncrasy, it is intended to leave an impression what sort of impresssion? Many of your statements about the effect are quite generic - try and be as specific as possible to ensure you're getting credit for your analysis! in the readers mind, reminding them each time they experience this. Furthermore, this supports Oakley’s perspective that it is one example of men’s dominance in society and women’s inferiority. Through his counter-argument, Dan considers this and subtly agrees, however, again he manipulates it this phrasing is a bit odd; the author doesn't really 'manipulate' the argument of someone else to suggest that he will happily oblige if asked to move his legs. He uses this to prove the kindness of men. Nonetheless, Oakley’s argument of the inferiority don't think this is the right word here of women is supported by an accompanying visual, depicting the figures of men and women. Through the enlargement of the woman compared to the man which is embedded in a negative symbol, Oakley aims to convey the future for women if women-only carriages were pursued, suggesting that women would no longer be intimidated by men, encouraging the support of the readers in the fulfillment of Oakley’s solution as they are intended to be reassured of a safer future.
The conclusion of both opinions differ as Oakley closes with a rhetorical question, while Dan finishes with a personal statement. don't have to end your analysis with the ends of the pieces if you don't want to; often comparing them isn't that useful - best to return to the overall contentions for the concl. Oakley ends, reflecting her ultimate ideal of a women-only carriage through repetition that it is only ‘one extra carriage’. This hopes to portray the meagerness of her expectations, aiming for the readers to see it as a realistic demand. She then questions ‘if it is too much to ask’, attempting to belittle any opposing excuses for the failure to carry out her suggestion. Contrastly, Dan mocks the attack of men in Oakley’s article, claiming he is, after all, ‘lovely’. Through the employment quotation marks, he is sarcastically imitating Oakley’s tone used to flatter the men while intending to reiterate the harmlessness of men in society. this ending is a bit abrupt; is this a conclusion or another body paragraph? If it's the conclusion, try to refrain from analysis here and just focus on the overall argument and intention.

Some moments of slightly odd expression and analysis, so this is probably sitting at around a 6-7/10 at the moment, but you could easily bump this to a high range piece by tidying up these little things!

[Dem16]

Thanks...very helpful!