[2016 LA Club] Week 8

[literally lauren]

In a sardonic, cynical tone, Liebrich ridicules the stance of inactivity and avoidance the government has taken towards important issues in our society such as ‘corals bleaching,... bush burning,... droughts or floods,... and so on’. probably no need to quote this; this is one of those cases where paraphrasing the author's argument instead of directly quoting would probably be easier and more efficient. The feigned disinterested and flippant tone he assumes while listing these disasters implies a lack of care that the government holds towards them expression. you don't really 'hold care towards' something. This is exacerbated by the author’s mock pleads for somebody else to ‘please shut off the alarm’, revealing the government’s hesitancy in deal with the issues themselves. These examples serve to evoke emotions of outrage and incredulity in the audience towards the attitude the government has taken in regards to these problems which readers know as critically important this is a bit clunky; I know you mentioned the climate change connection wasn't too obvious to you, but this is the place in your analysis where it would be useful to tie it in, suggesting that they are unfit to lead the country due to this shirking of responsibility. The author reinforces these notions by including an image depicting a man in a business suit - the symbol of formality and importance- with his head buried ‘in the sand’ as he suggests the government to do themselves. This plays off the preconception of children or ostriches ostriches I get, but children? Are they renowned for sticking their heads in the sand? Overall, really good visual analysis though - you've spelled out the connections really clearly instead of just saying 'the visual depicts X which suggests Y' so this is an obvious strength for you with little self- awareness conducting similar behaviour, and thus reveals the illogicality to the government’s actions; as if they believe that the problems will disappear, simply because they are not facing them. However to the audience, the foolishness of this image and conduct is obvious, and only further dislodges the credibility of the government in the public’s opinion. v good Liebrich additionally extrapolates upon this by insinuating that they are attempting to this is okay in moderation, but try not to make your linking phrases too lengthy ‘prohibit the media from reporting on it all’ - hiding their shortcomings and metaphorically burying their heads in the sand- by concentrating on ‘useless coal mining’ and ‘[dismantling] scientific evidence’. To this degree end, the author portrays them as dishonest, and subsequently garners further anger from readers, as the government is wasting time and resources on meaningless problems, rather than focussing on important issues such as highlighted previously. again, this is a little bit too vague.

Your 'zooming out'/ 'why is this helping the author's argument?' statements are excellent; you just have to be a bit more specific when dealing with the issue. On the exam, you'll be given a little paragraph of background information which should give you everything you need, but just keep in mind that using the words 'the issue' in your piece should be avoided, just like saying 'the argument' or 'the author's main point' - don't use those phrases because they're missed opportunities to be more specific and thus get more marks! Quality of analysis is solid; just watch out for vocab usage and the specificity of your statements about the author's overall intent

[FallingStar]

Hi. I haven't posted here for a while, but I can you please mark this. I have a LA SAC coming up on Tuesday. Thanks

Liebrich argues in a sarcastic tone that people are being ignorant about climate change and its consequences. This tone is shown through the statements such as "approve more useless coal mining," mocking the climate change deniers. This is intended to evoke undermine the credibility of the opponent, generating distrust of the climate change deniers. The accompanying photo, which  Furthermore, he uses the phrases "can somebody please shut off the alarm," implying that the people who do not believe in climate change are ignoring the problems, appealing to the reader's desires to have a problem to be seen as resolved. Reader, who are likely to believe in climate change, are likely to critical about the climate sceptics who are not doing anything to resolve the issue at hand. The image refers to the phrase "let's stick our heads deeper in the sand," a statement that implies people hiding from the truth rather than facing it. Readers of this letter are likely to believe that climate change is real and needs to be resolved. An implication as such would therefore mean that the issue is left unresolved, frustrating the readers. Readers may act upon that frustration to demand action for climate change.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Liebrich argues in a sarcastic tone that people are being ignorant about climate change and its consequences. This tone is shown through the statements such as "approve more useless coal mining," mocking the climate change deniers. This is intended to evoke undermine the credibility of the opponentBe more specific. What opponent? Who/What group?, generating Consider an alternate verb. "Generate" doesn't seem to fit here and has connotations with electrical production/creating stuff rather than feelings imo distrust of the climate change deniers. The accompanying photo, which... missing stuff here...  Furthermore, he uses the phrases "can somebody please shut off the alarm," implying that the people who do not believe in climate change are ignoring the problems, appealing to the reader's desires to have a problem to be seen as resolved Don't quite get what you mean here. You're saying that the writer's implying climate change is being ignored, appealing to the reader's desire to see the problem resolved. How are these two ideas interlinked? sounds like two separate ideas mashed into one sentence. Also: so? What's the effect on the reader?. Reader, Do you mean something like "The reader who is likely to..."who are likely to believe in climate change, are likely to critical about the climate sceptics who are not doing anything to resolve the issue at hand. So? What's your point. How does their being critical of climate change skeptics link to  the writer appealing to their desire to see the problem resolved? You need to make your thinking obvious cuz the ideas are there, you just need to ensure that the assessor can follow your logic from A to B so that they can give you marks for it.The image refers to the phrase "let's stick our heads deeper in the sand," good.a statement that implies people hiding from the truth rather than facing it. Readers of this letter are likely to believe that climate change is real and needs to be resolved. You are reiterating something that you've already previously mentioned. How does this add to your analysis though? An implication as such I have no idea what you mean by "An implication as such"... would therefore mean that the issue is left unresolved, frustrating the readers. Readers may act upon that frustration to demand action for climate change.

Overall v. good.

You clearly have the right ideas and there's some solid analysis going on, you just need to be clearer sometimes about what you mean. Otherwise, I'm sure you'll smash your SAC. Good luck!!!!

PS: If anything I've said contradicts what your teacher tells you to do, disregard whatever it was that I said and listen to your teacher. I have no credentials and am only offering feedback from my pov.