Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 09:29:07 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 3  (Read 8911 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 3
« on: March 09, 2016, 06:10:11 pm »
+5
Shakin' things up a bit with our first little comparative task.

Background: Below are two letters to the editor about an issue currently plaguing NSW - specifically, the 'lockout laws' which force various social venues in Sydney's CBD to close by 1:00am in an effort to prevent alcohol-fuelled violence. The public response has been negative at best, with many arguing that the government was overstepping its bounds by regulating businesses in this manner. Others have implied that this proposed solution will be ineffective, and may actually exacerbate the problem by forcing drinking out on to the streets. These two pieces respond to the proposed lockout laws, as well as the debate surrounding them.


Piece 1

We are hearing now that the music industry is suffering due to the lockouts ("Another bar falls victim to lockout", February 13-14). Back in the dim, distant past, the 1970s and '80s, when pubs and clubs closed much earlier, there was a vibrant music scene, so why do these musicians want them to be opened till 3am? Surely these establishments can turn a profit closing at 1am? 
Maybe they should look at a different business model. The hotels and clubs say it is the lockout that is sending them broke, but is it their bad management?

- Robert Pallister


Piece 2

Perhaps those who describe the Kings Cross lockout laws as the nanny state also think we should get rid of the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system, almost all of which are paid for by people who don't go to Kings Cross.

- Victor Bivell

scroll down for some sample responses
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 06:23:27 pm by literally lauren »

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2016, 03:03:02 pm »
0
Awwwww.... y'all too scared to write a comparative piece?

You can do better than that, guys. :P
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

Uni (2021-24): Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash Clayton

Work: PCA in residential aged care

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2016, 05:00:33 pm »
+5
Sample Responses to this week's material

Below, I've written up three excerpts that model what a low-scoring (~3/10) mid-scoring (~6/10) and high-scoring (~10/10) piece would look like. Accompanying each is an explanation of what each piece is doing well or badly, and a couple of tips for improvement if you find yourself making these kinds of mistakes :)

Sample 1: Low-range
Spoiler
Pallister's piece argues that the lockout laws are the business' fault. He uses a variety of persuasive language devices including rhetorical questions and statistics. "Surely these establishments can turn a profit closing at 1am?" which strengthens his argument. Meanwhile, Bivell utilises an attack on the nanny state through repetition. Bivell's letter to the editor is more emotionally driven, whereas Pallister adopts a formal, logical tone. Both of them use inclusive language "we."

Okay, so this one is a mess for a variety of reasons. First, structurally, it makes little sense. If flips between one piece and the next without ever clarifying or establishing the previous point, and the connections between sentences are tenuous at best. The analysis is incredibly surface-level with little to no actual discussion of language. It's pure technique identification with no evidence to back it up aside from some very un-integrated quotes, and there's no discussion of the effect at all. And the devices that have been picked out aren't even that accurate or important; Pallister doesn't use 'statistics' just because there are numbers in the piece, and the use of 'inclusive language' isn't really a big deal in this context. The argument for the first piece (Pallister pinning the business' economic concerns on their own management skills) is pretty clearly defined in the first sentence, albeit a tad abruptly, but the second contention isn't really articulated or fleshed out at all. It mentions an attack on the nanny state, but that's more like a technique than an overarching point. Also, whilst you're not expected to write formal introductions/conclusions for this little task (though you absolutely can if that's what you want to practise) the ending here is really iffy since it's pure evidence and no broader discussion or analysis. There's enough decent effort to prevent this from getting a 1 or a 2, but it probably wouldn't be scoring above a 4 if it kept up this level of quality.

Sample 2: Mid-range
Spoiler
Pallister begins his piece by talking about how the current response to lock out laws differs from the "dim, distant past" when establishments were happy to close early. By using the words "dim, distant past," the author appeals to the audience's sense of nostalgia, which makes them more likely to agree with the author that things were better in the old days. Later, the author says that the establishments could "surely... turn a profit" by closing early, which makes readers view the establishments as greedy and lying about their true motives. Then, the author utilises a rhetorical question "is it their bad management?" which makes readers reevaluate their stance and alter their perception of the establishments. In contrast, Bevill's piece contends that the people who blame the lock out laws on the "nanny state" are foolish because the nanny state also provides important health services. By utilising the technique of listing "the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system. This makes readers associate the lockout laws with those services, and makes them view the laws as equally essential for the wellbeing of society. After that, the author utilises an appeal to the hip pocket nerve by discussing who pays for these essential services, which makes readers contemplate the cost of the proposal and view the "Kings Cross" people as being less deserving of sympathy and support. Therefore, by using a variety of techniques and appeals, both authors are attempting to persuade readers to agree with their point of view."

So this is a pretty substantial improvement from the previous example; the quote integration is a little better (though it deteriorates towards the end), but the piece is certainly more cohesive and ordered in terms of the flow of information. However, there are some elements holding it back from upper-range territory. It's quite formulaic in its discussion in that almost every bit of analysis fits into a '>linking word,< the author says >quote< which has >this< effect' or a variation of such. And worse still, there are instances where it's skipping over the logic and jumping to conclusions. For instance, the piece highlights Pallister's assertion that the venues could "surely... turn a profit" and links that to the portrayal of such venues as greedy... but how do we know? There's nothing to back up that statement, and there's not enough close discussion of the language for such conclusions to feel well-supported. The use of evidence is at least matched up to meanings/effects, though the quoting of "the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system" hints at the fact that this student probably doesn't know how to isolate the important language very well and instead just inserts a chunk of the article into their analysis. The piece also isn't very good at linking. Each point just reads like a separate bit of analysis based on the next bit of language the student has found to analyse, and instead of making connections via ideas (eg. using words like 'Furthermore...' and 'This is also reinforced through...') the piece instead employs chronological markers like 'Later...' and 'Then...' which are much less effective. Finally, there is a noticeable repetition with vocabulary in some sections, and quite a few phrases (like 'makes readers feel...' or 'the author utilises...') should probably be swapped out for some better expressions. That said, there is a substantial amount of analysis here, and it's obvious that this student understands not only the contentions of both pieces, but the connection between the language and the argument, meaning that in spite of the flaws in the execution of this example, it'd still get a decent mid-range mark for the skills being demonstrated.


Sample 3: Upper-range
Spoiler
Pallister's piece draws attention to the problems in the arguments of musicians and venues by arguing that it is irrational for such establishments to be open past 1 am anyway. In particular, the author asserts that they should "surely [be able to] turn a profit closing at 1 am" where the high modality of "surely" implies that there should be no doubt in readers' minds as to the tenability of that proposal. This insinuation that the business owners are being disingenuous or are at least mistaken in their beliefs is strengthened through his facetious allusion to the "dim, distant past" of the 70's and 80's where, he explains, establishments closed at such times without complaint. Hence, through forging a link between the venues of the past who the audience can infer to have been flourishing, and the "suffering" businesses of today, the author seeks to elicit readers' derision and contempt for the "bad management" of the latter. Furthermore, by concluding his piece with a juxtaposition of what the hotels and clubs "say" - suggesting that their claims may not be honest or true - with the question of their potentially negligent business sense, Pallister encourages his audience to view the dissatisfaction with lockout laws as being unfounded or as a deflection from the real reason for business failures. Similarly, Bivell's piece also critiques those who oppose lockout laws, but where Pallister endeavours to undermine people's motivations for rejecting the laws, Bivell instead is more concerned with the hypothetical extensions of their opposition. He sarcastically supposes that those who are against the laws on the basis of them being the product of a "nanny state" must also oppose "ambulance[s ]... hospital[s ]... health insurance" and the "justice system" since they are also products of government initiatives. In this sense, Bivell aims to establish a connection between the lock out laws with notions like health insurance that functions to keep citizens safe and healthy. This aids him in propounding the idea of the laws being in the readers' best interests and implies that to oppose them would be the equivalent of rebuking ambulances or hospitals - an act which Bivell suggests to be utterly ridiculous. Moreover, by making a distinction between the people who pay for these services and the people who frequent King's Cross, the author intimates that those affected by the lock out laws are not the law-abiding, tax-paying members of society. Because readers would be more inclined to align themselves with people who do their societal duty by paying for vital services, the author's praise for these "people who don't go to King's Cross" serves to isolate and perhaps even demonise those who frequent such venues. To this end, Bivell's critique of the people opposing the laws functions as a critique of the opposition itself, and thus forms part of his endorsement of the laws as being wise and beneficial initiatives.

I've tried to make this as extensive as possible; a really high quality response in timed conditions would probably be a bit more succinct and selective than this, but hopefully you can see why the kind of clarity in the explanations here are worth far more credit than those in the mid-range example. There's a much more step-by-step discussion of how language is used to persuade which is the whole point of this task, and the vocabulary is certainly a step up from that which is used in the mid-range piece. And although this one takes a similar approach in terms of going through each piece (mostly) chronologically, the fact that it's making idea-based connections along the way means that there's a much more linear driving force, which helps the marker see that this student knows how the argument is being built up. Compare this with the more fragmented approaches above where the first two samples simply pick out devices, consider their effects, and then move on to the next device. The transition between the two pieces is simple and effective, and the quote integration is pretty much spot-on. It's not a totally perfect example since I'd argue some of the more elaborate explanations could've been simplified to allow for more discussion of quotes and language, but on the whole, it's fulfilling the task criteria in a very clear way, which is what the assessors will be prioritising when looking to give you credit.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 03:37:13 pm by Anonymous »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2016, 05:17:19 pm »
0
 Is there a structure for a comparative language analysis?

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2016, 05:20:48 pm »
+3
Is there a structure for a comparative language analysis?
There's no official 'do this structure and nothing else' option and the assessors are quite happy for you to do what works best. Since this is just a smaller exercise, we're not really emulating a whole essay structure anyway. But in general, try to analyse one piece, find a point of similarity or difference, and then transition to the next one. There's no need to go back and forth making constant comparisons at the expense of analysis, so keep it brief. The same goes when integrating visual analysis too :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2016, 05:28:18 pm »
0
Thank you so much ;) :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2016, 12:35:28 pm »
0
Hi Lauren,

Can you please post a guide to writing comparative language analysis essays? If there is already a good one, can you please link it somewhere in the LA club (or any other appropriate area). I do feel like that everyone struggles in this area (including me).

Thanks.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2016, 12:53:27 pm »
+1
Hi Lauren,

Can you please post a guide to writing comparative language analysis essays? If there is already a good one, can you please link it somewhere in the LA club (or any other appropriate area). I do feel like that everyone struggles in this area (including me).

Thanks.

Some bits and pieces here and especially here but unfortunately the breadth of potential 'comparative tasks' means it's hard to write a guide that covers all bases. Like, a comparative task could be three huge editorials each with different contentions, or it could be like the 2014/15 exams where it's one main piece and a comment/response, OR it could be like the waking nightmare that was the 2011 exam with one main piece and four comments -.-

I'll probably post a general guide soon so that people have something to refer to, but it may not be 100% relevant for your SACs since I don't know what material your school will be giving you.

There'll definitely be more guides and resources happening on this board though... including one to help you with the Week 4 material :) & requests are more than welcome if people have areas of L.A. that they'd like some help in :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2016, 02:49:23 pm »
+2
Guess I’ll be the first one to tackle this huh? :)

Just wanted to also say I really appreciate all the effort you guys have been putting into this! I lurked a bit in the old Letter to the Editor thread when I found it, but never posted any of my language analysis pieces because it was in that really weird completely inactive period. So when I discovered this page, I got really excited :D

This is the first comparative piece I’ve written, although I feel like I haven't really compared them much at all xD and wow positing on this site is certainly intimidating, especially compared to Lauren’s example up there :O To be honest I’m not very happy with it but figured might as well post it anyway.

I had sacs the past week so I’ve only been able to write this now, but definitely planning to revisit week one and two as well! And occasionally pop whenever I have some spare time in the future maybe :D

Spoiler
Pallister opens with a rather moderate tone to introduce the issue, however this changes quite rapidly into one of disturbance as he repeatedly questions the actions of bars and hotels which oppose the lockout rules. The use of the word ‘suffering’, is in this case almost mocking, and insinuates that the parties involved are complaining about insignificant problems, leading the readers to view them as foolish or childish. Thus, the party involved may undergo a paradigm shift to avoid doing so. This notion is further extrapolated upon in the following sentence as Pallister points out that in the ‘dim, dark past’, bars were still able to thrive without complaint despite closing earlier, and leads the audience to question the reasons for why bars in the present hold ire against these laws now. Moreover, in order to further deteriorate the credibility of the opposing party in the audience’s point of view, Pallister, almost in an accusatory tone, intimates that the bars which blames the lockouts for ‘sending them broke’ are simply using the them as an excuse instead of addressing more important issues such as ‘bad management’. This cements their image of irresponsibility, and thus may lead to the audience disregarding their opposing arguments against lockout laws, while also urging the party in question to re-evaluate who they should be placing the blame upon.

Juxtaposed against this, Bivell’s arguments are presented in a much more derisive, sardonic tone, however with a similar contention. Firstly, he identifies the people who are against the lockout law as ‘those’, firmly establishing a distinction between himself and the opposing party. This prompts the audience to support his side of arguments in order to avoid being ostracized. Especially as Bivell begins to mock the opposing party’s use of the word ‘nanny state’, emphasizing their foolishness by repeatedly focussing on the image of a nanny as for the people’s safety, rather than overprotective as was initially meant, by suggesting that these laws are needed as much as the ‘hospital, … health insurance and … justice system’ which are obviously essential for society to flourish to readers. This draws the audience’s attention to the benefits of the lockouts because of these comparisons, while simultaneously degrading the reputation of the groups against them.

Marmalade

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: 0
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2016, 03:00:10 pm »
0
The one above was me btw
Sry about that xD It's an issue that plagues us all

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2016, 04:56:33 pm »
+1
Pallister opens with a rather moderate tone to introduce the issue, however this changes quite rapidly into one of disturbance as he repeatedly questions the actions of bars and hotels which oppose the lockout rules. The use of the word ‘suffering’, is in this case almost mocking, and insinuates that the parties involved are complaining about insignificant problems, leading the readers to view them as foolish or childish good work. Thus, the party involved may undergo a paradigm shift to avoid doing so. what are you referring to here? This sentence is way too generic since it's the kind of thing you could say in any essay - be more specific! Are you talking about the audience's perception? This notion is further extrapolated upon in the following sentence don't draw attention to the chronology unless there's something to be said about it. Idea-based connections are more impressive, usually as Pallister points out that in the ‘dim, dark past’, bars were still able to thrive without complaint despite closing earlier, and leads leading (sentence structure here; you can't say 'the author points out that X is Y and leads the audience to think Z') the audience to question the reasons for why bars in the present hold ire against expression - bit of an odd word to use these laws now. Moreover, in order to further deteriorate the credibility of the opposing party in the audience’s point of view, good linking here Pallister, almost in an accusatory tone, intimates that the bars which blames that blame the lockouts for ‘sending them broke’ are simply using the them as an excuse instead of addressing more important issues such as ‘bad management’. This cements their image of irresponsibility, and thus may lead to the audience disregarding their opposing arguments against lockout laws, while also urging the party in question to re-evaluate who they should be placing the blame upon.

Juxtaposed against this expression, Bivell’s arguments are presented in a much more derisive, sardonic tone, however with a similar contention. Firstly, he identifies the people who are against the lockout law as ‘those’, firmly establishing a distinction between himself and the opposing party. This prompts the audience to support his side of arguments in order to avoid being ostracized. This is too generic! Never use a sentence that isn't specifically about this piece and this argument/language. Especially as Bivell begins to mock the opposing party’s use of the word ‘nanny state’, emphasizing their foolishness by repeatedly focussing on the image of a nanny as for the people’s safety, rather than overprotective as was initially meant, by suggesting that these laws are needed as much as the ‘hospital, … health insurance and … justice system’ which are obviously essential for society to flourish to readers. grammar is a bit muddled here, and the length of the sentence is probably making things a bit too complicated. The close analysis is good though. This draws the audience’s attention to the benefits of the lockouts because of these comparisons, while simultaneously degrading the reputation of the groups against them. good; a little bit general, but an improvement over some of those previous sentences.

Couple of issues with your expression and grammar here - nothing really clarity impeding, but some recurrent issues that are worth addressing now. Word choice errors are not a big deal at all (and they're the kind of mistakes that are good to make outside of assessment tasks to help clarify your internal vocab.) so don't be too fussed about those.

The specificity of some of your statements is definitely something to take note of; the assessors care a lot about how closely you're analysing, and broad, sweeping statements like 'This technique engenders support for the author's contention' or 'Thus the audience are compelled to concur with the author and view his appraisal of the situation in a positive light' are way too general to be worth any marks. Your work isn't quite that far along the line of generalised statements, but there were one or two instances where getting more specific might've pushed you from saying something that the assessor could justify, and actually justifying it yourself. The latter is, of course, way more helpful if you're looking for a high score, since you're given credit based on the skills you've demonstrated, not the ones the assessor can assume you have.

Mostly little fixes here though, and with a little more practice, you should easily have L.A. under control :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2016, 07:10:34 pm »
0
Contrasting today with the “1970’s and ‘80’s”, Pallister gently suggests a 1am lockout was more than generous and would not truly affect business. Instead, he conveys extending business times would not have a significant impact on the businesses affected by the laws. By drawing this analogy between the two time periods and how business once flourished despite closing “much earlier”, the writer conveys an inability to attain a substantial profit cannot be attributed to these laws. His reference to the “dim, distant past” insinuates modern business owners had distanced themselves from what had been and the facts, refusing to acknowledge the lockout laws may not have been responsible for their ailing businesses and thereby accept responsibility for “sending them[selves] broke”. Thus, Pallister implies these laws have merely become a scapegoat for the frustrations of these business owners. The writer’s rhetorical question which closes his letter to the editor directs the audience of Sydneysiders to cast the blame for failing businesses, not at the controversial lockout laws which impose a 1am curfew, but rather, at the “bad management” of these venues. To this end, Pallister scathingly establishes any arguments to the contrary are unfound and thus encourages the businesses affected to direct their scrutiny at their own business models instead if they wished to see an increased profit margin.

Though Bivell articulates a similar view that the lockout laws should be maintained, he instead primarily appeals to the readership’s reason and logic, suggesting these curfews are in the best interests of the audience. His veiled attack against those opposed to these laws insinuates it would be illogical to abolish this curfew. The writer’s anaphora of the term “nanny state” forms an association between these laws and other institutions such as health services and the “justice system” which ensure the security and wellbeing of the reader. Thus, Bivell intimates the advantages of the lockout laws are as apparent as the advantages of the other services bluntly enumerated by the author. He thereby appeals to his audience’s reason and logic to manoeuvre them to deduce it is in their best interests to ensure these laws are maintained.

Done.

I put it off for several weeks under the pretext that I was too busy. This was entirely false, if I was being honest. I just did not wish to tackle the behemoth that was comparative language analysis until now. I seriously feel so relieved to have removed this burden from my shoulders. On top of feedback, would it be possible for you to give a mark out of 10? I'm hoping to be able to track some sort of improvement between now and just before the exam which will be good for morale when I'm days away from October 26 and buried in practice exams.

PS: Technology sucks.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2016, 08:30:51 am »
0
Contrasting today with the “1970’s and ‘80’s”, Pallister gently suggests a 1am lockout was more than generous and would not truly affect business. Instead, why 'instead?' That would imply some difference between these two sentences, but they seem to be backing one another up (eg. it's like saying 'I had eggs for breakfast. Instead, I had toast too' ???) he conveys extending business times would not have a significant impact on the businesses affected by the laws. By drawing this analogy between the two time periods and how business once flourished despite closing “much earlier”, the writer conveys that an inability to attain a substantial profit cannot be attributed expression is a bit clunky here; if you need to simplify something, try to turn it into an active sentence instead of a passive one (ie. 'the laws are not to blame for their inability to turn a profit,' as opposed to 'their inability cannot be attributed to the laws...') to these laws. His reference to the “dim, distant past” insinuates modern business owners had distanced themselves from what had been and the facts, could you be more specific here? refusing to acknowledge the lockout laws may not have been responsible for their ailing businesses and thereby accept responsibility for “sending them[selves] broke”. Thus, Pallister implies these laws have merely become a scapegoat careful with plurality. 'The laws have become a scapegoat' sounds a bit odd for the frustrations of these business owners. The writer’s rhetorical question which closes his letter to the editor directs the audience of Sydneysiders to cast the blame for failing businesses, no comma here not at the controversial lockout laws which impose a 1am curfew, but rather, at the “bad management” of these venues. To this end, Pallister scathingly establishes any arguments to the contrary are unfounded exp. 'He establishes arguments are unfounded' should be either 'establishes them to be unfounded' or, preferably, 'establishes that they are unfounded' and thus encourages the businesses affected to direct their scrutiny at their own business models instead if they wished to see an increased profit margin.

Though Bivell articulates a similar view that the lockout laws should be maintained, he instead primarily appeals to the readership’s reason and logic, suggesting these curfews are in the best interests of the audience v. good link between paras :). His veiled attack against those opposed to these laws insinuates* see end comments it would be illogical to abolish this curfew. The writer’s anaphora of the term “nanny state” forms an association between these laws and other institutions such as health services and the “justice system” which ensure the security and wellbeing of the reader. Thus, Bivell intimates the advantages of the lockout laws are as apparent as the advantages of the other services bluntly enumerated by the author which he bluntly enumerates. He thereby appeals to his audience’s reason and logic to manoeuvre them to deduce it is in their best interests to ensure these laws are maintained. good discussion of the intention/effect
Overall, you've done a good job of handling the comparative elements, and you've got a good variation of techniques and persuasive language.

Minor grammatical thing: you also seem to use verbs like 'insinuates' and 'establishes' in the context of 'The author verbs this idea is true' as opposed to 'The author verbs that this idea is true' which sounds a bit more natural. For the most part, that first variant isn't 'wrong,' but it's a bit unconventional and there are instances where it becomes genuinely ungrammatical, so perhaps get used to using 'that' more often after these kinds of verbs.

Hope that makes sense, but let me know if you want a more detailed explanation of the syntax behind all that^

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2016, 08:40:35 am »
0
Thanks for the feedback, Lauren!

Question(s)
1. What do you mean re: scapegoat and plurality? Would that sentence need to be changed to: "The law had become a scapegoat..."?
2. Is scapegoat informal? Can I actually use in an LA essay?

Good old "that". Didn't even realise I needed it. It sorta sounds funny with the that to me but that's just my internal grammar screwing up (as it does sometimes). So in general for sentences like "'The author verbs that this idea is true", should I always include a "that" after the verb irrespective of what the verb is?

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2016, 09:22:33 am »
+1
Thanks for the feedback, Lauren!

Question(s)
1. What do you mean re: scapegoat and plurality? Would that sentence need to be changed to: "The law had become a scapegoat..."?
Yes, or else you could say 'the existence of these laws is a scapegoat' or 'the proposal to introduce these laws is a scapegoat' since you need to match the plurality of the subject and the verb.

eg. The reporter argues that we should...
vs.
The reporters argue that we should...

NOT: The reporter argue that we should...
or
The reporters argues that we should...

^That's probably stuff you already intuitively know, but there's no shame in needing to consciously check your writing to make sure it matches - I have to do it a lot of the time in uni essays, esp. for very long/complex sentences.

2. Is scapegoat informal? Can I actually use in an LA essay?
Nope, it's not informal, though it may at times be more beneficial to spell out in what way something is a scapegoat rather than just using that word and moving on. The accompanying explanation you've got here is fine though :)

Good old "that". Didn't even realise I needed it. It sorta sounds funny with the that to me but that's just my internal grammar screwing up (as it does sometimes). So in general for sentences like "'The author verbs that this idea is true", should I always include a "that" after the verb irrespective of what the verb is?
It depends. Which is a very frustrating answer, but it's true :-\

For some verbs, it's more necessary
eg.
The author believes that there should be more money invested in this project.

because without the 'that,' there, it sounds a bit more informal. It's fine aloud, but in written form, it can seem 'wrong' to some people:
eg.
The author believes there should be more money invested in this project.

For others, you can't have a 'that' without it being really weird:
eg.
The author undermines that the project was a success ???
The author magnifies that the importance of the project ???

For some, it's a bit more optional, though most people would prefer the 'that' being there
eg.
'The author suggests (that) the project was a failure.'
'The author implies (that) it was doomed from the start.'