Since no one else is marking this, I hope my very substandard attempts will be somewhat helpful... having never marked people's stuff and not being great at English (and LA being the only thing I'd ever attempt to mark anyway!)
The recent drastic shift from the once modest contents of children’s lunch boxes towards something as extravagant as culinary art has sparked much debate in the media.
Has it really? Think twice before starting this way. In the opinion piece titled "Parents need to butt out of children's lunchboxes", published in the Herald Sun on 6 February 2013, writer Susie O'Brien contends that many overly-loving parents now are spoiling the lunch boxes of their "mollycoddled" children with unnecessary and pretentious food creations.
Mention the tone/overall approach of her argument in the intro. Also audience - it's targeted mainly at ('busy') parents. Throughout this piece, O'Brien makes it clear to the audience that her stance on these vain parents is one of scorn and antagonism. From the introduction, she mocks these "2XU" parents, claiming that their narcissism is a cause for this issue. By linking these parents to this fashionable and posh exercise clothing brand, O’Brien ridicules them as valuing sheer appearance over sensible practicality.
Good! This is evidenced by their conceited overindulgence in making these lunches, with the writer commenting that they rather make “muffins with Artisan grains” than “whole uncut apples”. The use of "Artisan", a term describing traditionally made, high-quality food, connotes a sense of elitist sophistication and perceived superiority, which juxtaposes
to juxtapose means to 'put alongside' - not quite used correctly here with the simplicity of “regular” food like "whole uncut apples". This elicits concern in those
who happen to be in the audience who are ordinary parents, and believe that lunch is should simply be for consumption and not for exhibiting their pride. O'Brien then declares that the lunch boxes have turned into a "test of a parent's commitment...", and that the parents’ "devotion is right there for everyone to assess". The puns in the form of "test" and "assess" imply that these lunches are not just for feeding children, but have become the subject of an unnecessary competition. This "assessment" of parents, rather than the students (themselves) reinforces this worry in readers and makes them more likely to lean towards the writer's establishing opinion that lunches have gone out of control.
This puns thing is a nice point showing you're looking closely at the language usage but probably stretched too far – I doubt it was the author's intention and your final sentence, linking it to how it helps persuade, is a little precarious.Continuing in a rather sarcastic and contemptuous tone,
perfect tone words, great start to a para she then presents the audience with a different perspective- one that is of her own children she then shifts to her personal experience as a parent to enhance her credibility and gain sympathy with the parental component of the audience. O'Brien reveals that her children are exposed to this lunch box nonsense first-hand, commenting that their friends receive "homemade frittata slices shaped like love hearts", which starkly contrasts with her kids’ lunches containing "a vegemite sandwich".
When just describing rather than analysing, try to be more concise: O'Brien starkly contrasts her children's friends' 'homemade frittata slices shaped like love hearts' with her own plain 'vegemite sandwich'. The complexity of “frittata slices” emphasises that these pampered children are being “seduced” by their parents to eat lunch, whereas the plainness of “vegemite” signifies the fall of O’Brien’s own “plain good food”. This shocks readers, since they might not live up to these ridiculous standards at feeding their children.
Perhaps describe this as an appeal to tradition/common sense/simplicity etc. (can't think of the right word) – she's portraying a basic, simple lunch as good/solid/wholesome/traditional. Moreover, the writer strengthens her resolve by asserting that the day her kids "get even a tiny bit excited" about lunch, she will "quit" her job and try to impress those egotistical mums. The resolute utilisation of “quit” indicates that even O’Brien might have to abandon her current busy life to become a “stay-at-home” mum to feed her children “lovingly crafted” meals. This evokes a strong sense of empathy from readers, leading them to agree that no ordinary parent has "got the time" to create culinary art and fulfil these unreasonable expectations.
The first sentence (after 'moreover') just describes, doesn't analyse, so try to cut it shorter; discuss how the 'resolute utilisation of “quit”' suggests to parental readers that the personal sacrifice needed is ridiculous and unreasonable.Complementing her personal evidence, she utilises attacks on the government, shifting the blame towards the overbearing central power. In this, O'Brien comments on the outraging revelation that her "new preppy son" brought home a "State Government-issued Crumpler bag" from school. The peculiar use of "Crumpler" indicates that the government is acting out of vanity and self-interest, as it associates them with left-leaning "Fitzroy hipsters", who (like the government) express their egotism by indulging in the latest trends and making it known by others. Through this, the writer is able to manipulate the reader's initial standpoint, reminding them that the government is also supportive of these ridiculous actions, and thus inciting a critical response from the audience. Following on, she questions if the people suggesting these crazed lunches "actually have kids?" By assuming that many of the readers would understand the troubles of parenting, and the lack of time to put in effort for these lunches, O'Brien dismisses the absurd suggestions
excellent phrase, gaining sympathy from readers in similar conditions.
Good reference to audience! O'Brien is buttering them up, saying that they know so much more than the people suggesting these weird lunch boxes. Similarly, the writer expresses that the government “would butt their noses out of kid's lunch boxes." This aggressive statement conveys O’Brien’s irritation about how the government is trying to control her actions and aspects of her life, which provokes the reader to question about their sense of privacy and freedom, and as such prompts them to criticise the nanny-state.
Feels to me this paragraph goes off a bit on a tangent – the govt's mention has some importance, but doesn't deserve a whole paragraph. The final sentence's conclusion especially misses the point of the reference – and doesn't link to the argument about lunch boxes.All in all, O'Brien's opinion piece attempts to position the reader to grapple with the ludicrous lunch box craze through a multitude of persuasive strategies. By explaining the seriousness of this issue, she is able to convince the audience that parents need to stop excessively sugar-coating children’s lunches, and keep it the way they were meant to be - for feeding children.
Conclusion is quite broad and vague - a couple of brief impacting statements on her overall methods would be better. Ask your teacher/English Q&A or check out the language analysis resources section of the English board for hints on effective conclusions. I never had any difficulties this way because I never reached the conclusions of my essays 
Your strongest point throughout was vocabulary and expression – you are using very appropriate, varied and analytic words and phrases. Great job!
A couple of things that could have been discussed more as they're integral to the piece:
- perhaps the most important thing throughout is her sarcastic /mocking /ridiculing /contemptuous /dismissive tone, 'mollycoddle', 'totally ridiculous', insulting rhetorical questions etc. You covered this at the start but could come back to it with different examples later, as it's the core of her argument.
- she's constantly getting the support of parents through appeals to
their needs – 'who's got the time', 'I don't know about you, but in our house we're flat out...', 'the parents are to blame' – she's trying to make parents see that it will only hurt them, an appeal to selfishness/self-interest really
-
must discuss visual! even if it doesn't feel relevant
Try to avoid spending a whole sentence or two just
describing what the author has done; try to focus on analysing impact rather than describing.
Excellent effort for this early in the year
Arggh, I feel like I haven't been very helpful! Sorry but I did my best
Home
Help
Search
Login
