Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 07:55:19 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 12  (Read 9077 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 12
« on: May 12, 2016, 10:02:27 am »
+1
WHHHOOOOOOOO!!! POLITICS!!!

ECONOMICS!!! BUDGET!!! MONEY!!! INFLATION!!! etc!!!

I'M SO HYPED I'M ACTUALLY POSTING THIS A DAY LATE!!!

No but really, I thought Bill Shorten's budget reply speech deserved some unpacking because there's a whole lot of interesting logic, repetition, and dichotomisation here. Remember, you're not allowed to bring in your own opinions to whatever issue the L.A. material is based on, so just think about what's being expressed here and what the intention may be.

I know not all of you will be as EXCITED!!! as I pretend to be about politics and such, so the background information will explain all you need to know :)

Background: Each year, the Australian government publishes a budget outlining their intentions for the year ahead. This document outlines major cuts and expenditures, and is often used as a means of judging a government's priorities (i.e. if the Liberal Party cut money from transport and spend more on education, it would suggest they care more about the latter.) The main features of this budget are presented by the Prime Minister, and the whole document is published in full for the media. However, tradition dictates that the Federal Opposition Party (currently the Labor Party) are entitled to reply to these propositions in their budget reply speech a few days later, which is given by the Leader of the Opposition (currently Bill Shorten). The budget reply is typically designed to criticise the government's decisions and put forth the opposition's solutions as a preferable alternative.

What follows are excerpts from the 2016 budget reply speech.



The Labor Party's Budget Reply Speech - Bill Shorten

After seven months of waiting, after seven months of ruling in and ruling out, after all that on and on off the table, after apprehension and great expectation, this budget has fallen apart in less than 48 hours.

If there’s one fact that defines this budget, this Prime Minister, and this government, it is this: a working mum on $65,000 with two kids in high school will be over $4,700 a year worse off. But someone on a million dollars, will be almost $17,000 better off every year. Three-quarters of Australian workers will receive no tax relief from this budget, but will disproportionately suffer from cuts to schools, to hospitals, to Medicare, and to family support that people rely upon.

On Tuesday night the Treasurer said he didn’t want to talk about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Now we know why. The more you have, the more you get. The less you earn, the more you lose.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2016, 10:26:59 pm »
0
I kinda just did this, I suppose for the fun of it (Language Analysis... fun?!)

In response to the annual Federal Budget announcement of 2016, Bill Shorten, the leader of the Opposition Party, gave his scathing speech in response to the budget announcement a few days following. Shorten contends that the budget and the recommended tax cuts related to it will benefit those who “have more”, rather than those who “have less”. He intends his audience to be the working and domestic classes of Australia, such as mothers with jobs, and is able to demand their attention through the use of repetition, dichotomy and ethos based evidence.

Shorten’s excerpt opens with the potent use of repetition, reinforcing to the reader that the awaited budget is of utmost priority, giving the document a bold sense of importance to the audience. He is able to do this through the constant use of the word “after” (“After seven months of waiting”, “after apprehension and great expectation”), which carries with it its own connotation of disappointment, an implication that the lack of action from the Federal Government has left the reader unsatisfied and rejected by them. This repetition, due to its primary position in the speech, predispositions the audience and reader to feel resentment towards the Prime Minister and the intended course of action outlined from the budget.

Within the same opening paragraph, Shorten employs the use of dichotomy to contrast the “great expectation” of the people against an implicit sense of frustration at the budget “falling apart in less than 48 hours.” The anticipation Shorten builds using the repetition of similar phrases and words is discriminated against the short, concise displeasure that the final segment implies. This in effect, reinforces the proposed sentiment set up against Shorten’s own opposition, the Prime Minister, making said leader appear as a failure or an embarrassment to the audience.

Finally, Shorten relies on an ethos based evidence argument to gain the support of, and to outline, the audience. Arguments made in reference to the “working mum” being “$4,700 a year worse off” appeals directly to the audience’s ethics, which a mother working hard and laboriously should not be in a position where she is left “worse off”.  The references made to the “three quarters of Australian workers [receiving] no tax relief”, yet will instead “suffer disproportionally from cuts to” the public sector also provokes the audience’s morality by highlighting the potential threat such a budget proposes. By doing this, Shorten undermines the credibility of the Prime Minister to a wider audience, and forces them to reconsider the legitimacy of the both the Budget and Minister.

In conclusion, Shorten’s Budget speech effectively persuades his intended audience by fathoming bias against his opposition, which destabilizes the Prime Minister’s awaited 2016 budget.

Elizawei

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Respect: +42
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2016, 07:50:01 pm »
0
In the reply speech in response to the newly published budget proposals put forward by the Australian Liberal Party, Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, contends with a mocking tone that the budget outline is illogical and unjust in the way that the rich will benefit from the proposed tax cuts more so than the poor. Shorten also suggests that the vast majority of Australians will be negatively impacted by this decision and emphasises the inefficient nature of the proposed budget.

Juxtaposing the vast length of time taken for the Liberal Party to compose and refine their budget outline and the two days it took for the budget to “[fall] apart”, Shorten adopts a disappointed tone and highlights the inadequateness of the current government. Not only this underscores the inefficiency of the Liberal Party, it also serves as a denigration, positioning the audience to lose faith in the current party. The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.

With the use of ethos based evidence, Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.
 Using statistical evidence, Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services. Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.

By criticizing the various flaws and underlining the ludicrousness and unfair nature of the budget outline, Shorten seeks to demonstrate to the audience that the Liberal Party lacks the full capacity to successfully organise the national budget to an efficient and just way. Ultimately, this engenders the audience to lose faith in the current government and its budget proposal and sways them towards Shorten’s contention.


{cooked this up in a bit, I feel like my ending is a bit sloppy :| }
ATAR: 99.70
2017-2019: Bachelor of Biomedicine
2020-2023: Melbourne MD

Founder of Folding Our Futures
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Offering  Chemistry/Bio 3/4 tutoring for 2019! [raw 49, 47] PM me if interested :)

TheLlama

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +10
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2016, 09:28:56 pm »
+1
Within the same opening paragraph, Shorten employs the use of dichotomy to contrast the “great expectation” of the people against an implicit sense of frustration at the budget “falling apart in less than 48 hours.” The anticipation Shorten builds using the repetition of similar phrases and words is discriminated against the short, concise displeasure that the final segment implies. This in effect, reinforces the proposed sentiment set up against Shorten’s own opposition, the Prime Minister, making said leader appear as a failure or an embarrassment to the audience.

Hi anonymous person,
I'm going to zoom in on this paragraph of your response to offer a few suggestions.

What I notice is that you've selected a really interesting idea: the way that Shorten is contrasting the weight of expectation with reality. Having picked that up, it might be worth going to into a little bit more detail about how this works, especially coupled with the language around it. Notice how he emphasises the expectation, the apprehension, suggesting there's a sense of fear and enormity, a grave seriousness to the budget? Shorten is reinforcing the significance of the budget and its consequences; in turn, he's emphasising the degree to which the government's budget falls short. This heightens the reader's sense that Turnbull is inadequate as leader: that there exists a vast gulf between appearance and reality.

I suppose what I want to point to is that your ideas are good. What you might want to work on is clarity. Perhaps try simplifying first to ensure that your meaning comes across, then look to make sure that your word choose and phrasing matches that! 😊
English/Lit teacher and tutor. PM me about tutoring or feedback!

TheLlama

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +10
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2016, 09:49:13 pm »
+1
The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.

Hi Eliza
What really strikes me about this is the thoughtfulness of the analysis. As I read your first body paragraph, I can largely follow a train of thought. In other words, I feel that you're connecting what's happening within the speech to its larger purpose. Nice!

Quote
Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.

In terms of an idea like this, it might be worth contemplating the way Shorten is seeking to polarise his listeners. By drawing the sharp divide between 'winners' and 'losers', he's creating (to borrow a phrase) metaphorical battlelines and suggesting that those most vulnerable, like single mothers, will ultimately 'suffer'. So not only is he putting the issue into perspective, but he's positioning himself as the voice of concern, a politician who will stand with and represent the vulnerable. In other words, he is inviting the reader to view him as a trustworthy figure and a source of unity, someone who will not allow the nation to 'fall apart' into a state of disunion and inequality. Taken together, it implies that the ALP is the solution to the problem.

Notice how I'm linking it back to what you wrote earlier and the reason he uses credibility/ethos-based arguments?

Hope that helps. Keep going for it!
English/Lit teacher and tutor. PM me about tutoring or feedback!

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2016, 10:49:42 pm »
0
Hi Eliza
What really strikes me about this is the thoughtfulness of the analysis. As I read your first body paragraph, I can largely follow a train of thought. In other words, I feel that you're connecting what's happening within the speech to its larger purpose. Nice!

In terms of an idea like this, it might be worth contemplating the way Shorten is seeking to polarise his listeners. By drawing the sharp divide between 'winners' and 'losers', he's creating (to borrow a phrase) metaphorical battlelines and suggesting that those most vulnerable, like single mothers, will ultimately 'suffer'. So not only is he putting the issue into perspective, but he's positioning himself as the voice of concern, a politician who will stand with and represent the vulnerable. In other words, he is inviting the reader to view him as a trustworthy figure and a source of unity, someone who will not allow the nation to 'fall apart' into a state of disunion and inequality. Taken together, it implies that the ALP is the solution to the problem.

Notice how I'm linking it back to what you wrote earlier and the reason he uses credibility/ethos-based arguments?

Hope that helps. Keep going for it!

Thank you so much for your amazing feedback!!!!! I really like how you related the "losers" to those who are vulnerable and then back to Bill Shorten :)


Elizawei

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Respect: +42
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2016, 10:50:15 pm »
0
Haha forgot to uncheck anonymous box, but really, thanks!
ATAR: 99.70
2017-2019: Bachelor of Biomedicine
2020-2023: Melbourne MD

Founder of Folding Our Futures
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Offering  Chemistry/Bio 3/4 tutoring for 2019! [raw 49, 47] PM me if interested :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2016, 08:44:16 am »
0
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.


From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.

Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.

Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.

--

Thoughts?

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2016, 11:17:38 am »
+1
In the reply speech in response to the newly published budget proposals put forward by the Australian Liberal Party, Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, contends with a mocking tone that the budget outline is illogical and unjust in the way that the rich will benefit from the proposed tax cuts more so than the poor. Shorten also suggests that the vast majority of Australians will be negatively impacted by this decision and emphasises the inefficient nature of the proposed budget.

Juxtaposing the vast length of time taken for the Liberal Party to compose and refine their budget outline and the two days it took for the budget to “[fall] apart”, Shorten adopts a disappointed tone and highlights the inadequateness of the current government. Not only this underscores the inefficiency of the Liberal Party, it also serves as a denigration, positioning the audience to lose faith in the current party. The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.

With the use of ethos based evidence, Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.
 Using statistical evidence, Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services.
Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.

By criticizing the various flaws and underlining the ludicrousness and unfair nature of the budget outline, Shorten seeks to demonstrate to the audience that the Liberal Party lacks the full capacity to successfully organise the national budget to an efficient and just way. Ultimately, this engenders the audience to lose faith in the current government and its budget proposal and sways them towards Shorten’s contention.


{cooked this up in a bit, I feel like my ending is a bit sloppy :| }

One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.

Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.

Overall though, it's a really good piece. There's some solid analysis going on and it looks like you've got a pretty solid understanding of the task at hand. Soooo... good job! :D
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 12:49:40 pm by HopefulLawStudent »

TheLlama

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +10
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2016, 01:00:07 pm »
+2
One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.

Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.

Thank you for the preshistoric allusion to teachers! Me use big words now. :P

There exist no rules about whether you should quote or not, though you should aim to. More important is why you're quoting. For one, paraphrasing can take a look of time and, given time's in short supply on a SAC/exam, you're looking to be efficient. Here, quoting helps to condense.

Even more: it's about showing that you're able to select, connect and comment on telling quotes. In other words you're pointing to specific parts of a text that you wish to discuss and using the quotes as a springboard for that discussion. I've seen a lot of student writing that involves throwing a lot of quotes at the reader but doing very little with them. Merely throwing in a quote and doing nothing with it serves no productive goal. Much more powerful and effective if you're quoting with a purpose!
English/Lit teacher and tutor. PM me about tutoring or feedback!

Elizawei

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Respect: +42
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2016, 02:57:00 pm »
0
One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.

Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.

Overall though, it's a really good piece. There's some solid analysis going on and it looks like you've got a pretty solid understanding of the task at hand. Soooo... good job! :D


Ahhh thanks for the feedback! :D
But my teacher says that if I quote something, I'll then have to add in 2-3 sentences about it's purpose in the text and it's appeals/and how it positions the audience. Do I have to do that?

Hehe "no quote me no happy" is great :D I'll remember that for next time :) 

Thanks again HLS!
Sorry I suck at giving feedback to other people but I think your piece was great  ;D you have really sophisticated language  8)
ATAR: 99.70
2017-2019: Bachelor of Biomedicine
2020-2023: Melbourne MD

Founder of Folding Our Futures
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Offering  Chemistry/Bio 3/4 tutoring for 2019! [raw 49, 47] PM me if interested :)

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2016, 10:17:45 am »
0
But my teacher says that if I quote something, I'll then have to add in 2-3 sentences about it's purpose in the text and it's appeals/and how it positions the audience. Do I have to do that?
You're definitely right in that your essay can't solely consist of quotes from the text, otherwise there'd be little room for analysis. But it's all about striking a balance - if you only have, say, two quotes in a paragraph and you spend the rest of that time going through the purpose/appeals/positioning, then you won't be covering enough of the material. And if you don't mention anything about purpose/appeals/positioning, then you're not analysing :P

I'm in favour of erring on the side of deep rather than broad analysis, and if you're able to showcase a really intricate understanding of how a few techniques/language devices are being used to persuade, you'll probably do better than someone who's crammed in references to a dozen devices at the expense of analysis.

HOWEVER, it's not like quoting and analysing are that far apart. You can write sentences that combine the two very easily, and for the majority of your paragraph, you can use evidence to back up your assertions about the author's purpose/appeals/positioning.

To take your example:
Quote
With the use of ethos based evidence, quote? Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget quote? and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, quote? Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.
Using statistical evidence quote? Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, quote? Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services.
The reason why quotes would help in some of these cases is that your assertions don't seem to be coming directly from the article. If you say something like "[the author suggests] that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems," it'd help to have at least a word or phrase from the piece to back yourself up. That's not true of every sentence, but it's true of most of them here.

Don't lose sight of the importance of the purpose/appeals/positioning stuff; just make sure you use quotes to substantiate that analysis :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2016, 11:41:11 pm »
0
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.


From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.

Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.

Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.

--

Thoughts?

Bump. Could I pretty please have some feedback, if possible?

FallingStar

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Be yourself and be your best self.
  • Respect: +19
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2016, 11:56:50 am »
0
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.


From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverges from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishesing his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.

Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.

Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.

--

Thoughts?

To be honest, I actually think your piece should be left to the moderators (either Lauren or Heidi) to mark. This is actually beyond the level that I'm at in English.

A few minor grammatical mistakes. Hopefully shouldn't be too much of an issue.

You were very clear in you what, how and whys of the techniques. Perhaps you could add in how readers may react to his depiction of the budget as being unfair. Also, you may add in the appeals in his speech, though this may not be as necessary given the exceptional quality of your work.
I'd use the appeal to fairness, and perhaps hip pocket nerves. If you were to use these however, you will need to explain the effects of them on the readers.

As Lauren probably mentioned, no technique is compulsory, and you will only have time to mention a limited number of techniques in the exam, so I do suggest you (and other English students on AN including myself ;)) to pick the techniques that they can analyse most effectively. It does depend, as some students would find it easier to analyse easier than others.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 12
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2016, 06:10:19 pm »
0
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes try and incorporate background info into a sentence about the contention, ofr efficiency's sake (i.e. rather than having to say (1)This piece was a response to this event. + (2)The author contended that... you can just say 'The piece in response to this event contended...' or 'In his piece responding to this event, author Whateverhisnameis contends that...'). Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners. nice summation of his overall point

From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he and delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all of the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair v.good cumulative analysis :) Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment thatthis government is lacking final point is a bit muted; it seems like you were going to build out to the idea that by positioning the budget as a failure and associating it with the party & Turnbull, the author's also eliciting contempt and dissatisfaction with the Libs and their leader. That might be a stronger point than to simply say that the govt. is "lacking," which could be seen as a bit general.

Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured careful with tense the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” how so? You wouldn't necessarily have to spell that out here, since your other analysis is sufficient, but it's worth thinking about the ways in which the author encourages or establishes such things to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. watch out for repeated sentence structures (His... His... His...) To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, ditto here with 'To this end...' the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party. concluding sentences are a bit prolific here (i.e. this zooming out seems to take four or five sentences where two or three should suffice), but clarity matters more and the content of your how/why statements is excellent.

Thus, try not to begin a paragraph with this. 'Thus' is a great closer; not such a great opener Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters. v. good link to the overall intent