Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 28, 2024, 07:24:48 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 18  (Read 5109 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 18
« on: July 13, 2016, 06:35:46 pm »
+2
This is a slightly edited version of an opinion piece that appeared in The Guardian about this year's election results and the prospect of potentially shifting to electronic voting in future to bypass the delay involved in counting ballots. It's a bit longer than most of the other texts we've dealt with so far, so try to prioritise whatever it is in this piece that you consider most crucial in conveying the contention.



Let's put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas

With the Australian election count dragging on, both the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, have come out in favour of some form of electronic voting, claiming it would have sped up the count and allow us to get out of caretaker mode and into the “business of government”.

I mean, on the outset it’s sexy: you log into some kind of portal, register your intent and come 9pm in the east, a computer groans and spits out the new makeup of government. Easy as, democracy from the comfort of your own iPhone. Pencils are outdated, writing things on paper is prehistoric (and probably leads to some kind of carpal tunnel); what we need is a new, modern, agile and innovative approach to democracy.

It’s a monumentally fatuous idea.

The primary argument made in support of e-counting and e-voting is speed and efficiency. The crux of it is: we shouldn’t have to wait days to find out who is forming the new government so horse-trading can begin at once.

Honestly though, who does that impact other than some politicians wondering whether they’ll keep their $200,000 a year job and some wonks who frankly get way too excited about elections.

Let’s not trade in the sharp pencils and paper ballots for an unproven, untried and untested thought bubble when we have a system that works pretty damn fine and is the envy of the world. Sure, you might have to wait a few days for the answer but a few more days of caretaker government aren’t worth undermining our entire democratic project.

Heck, even if we did have a result right now, we’d still be waiting for the governor general to get back from France to swear them in, so let’s just kick back and relax and wait for the numbers to roll in.

- Dan Nolan

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2016, 11:08:51 pm »
0
found this piece quite challenge :( wasn't too sure how to structure the piece but gave it shot !

---

Following the delay in counting the 2016 election votes, discussion has sparked regarding the shift from conventional paper voting towards electronic voting. In Dan Nolan’s letter to the edit ‘Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas’ he contends in a condemnatory and satirical tone that e-voting is a ridiculous idea and that we should not risk destabilising our current democratic system.

Nolan establishes the reasons some may favour e-voting in order to demonstrate that he has clearly considered both sides of the discussion. He describes the concept of e-voting as ‘new, modern, agile and innovative’ which all have positive connotations associated with forward-thinking and advancement in order to encourage readers to see that e-voting may be the next step to creating a more democratic nation. In addition, Nolan highlights the ease at which we can use e-voting ‘from the comfort of your own iPhone’ thus positioning readers to take preference to e-voting as it is not only more convenient for them, but also helps them avoid ‘carpal tunnel’. However, Nolan also states that ‘on the outset it’s sexy’ thus implying that appearances are not as all they appear and there may be serious underlying problems associated with e-voting thus making readers feel hesitant regarding any changes towards e-voting.

Despite demonstrating that there may appear to be benefits to e-voting, Nolan shatters and discredits the reasons for implementing the project and pulls down the layers of the ‘outset’ in order to reveal the ‘crux’ of the idea. Arguments in favour of e-voting have stated that it should help move along the “business of government”, however, by enclosing business of government in quotation marks he portrays doubt in what constitutes as government affairs and makes readers become sceptical of what the party will do when they come into office. Compounding this, Nolan describes the ‘horse-trading’ that will occur once the new government is decided thus encouraging readers to see that politicians are more focused on gaining power than working to solve the issues and sufferings of ordinary, everyday citizens.  Furthermore, Nolan illustrates the extravagant ‘$200,000 a year job’ that politicians are concerned with keeping in order to showcase their greed and to position readers to feel outraged that they are being taken advantage of by politicians who are only seeking to line their own pockets. Appearing straightforward and direct, Nolan states ‘honestly though’ in order to urge readers to see through the web of lies manipulated by politicians and to show them that there are very little benefits of converting to e-voting for citizens. Nolan depicts the concept of e-voting as ‘unproven, untried and untested thought bubbles’; the term ‘bubble’ has strong connotations associated with fragility and the imagery of a bubble popping highlights how unstable and risky moving to e-voting may be thus positioning readers to feel that the risks far outweigh benefits. Nolan re-iterates that change is  unnecessary by stating that our democratic system is ‘the envy of the world’ thus positioning readers to see that change is not imminent nor required as the system is currently working perfectly and he also highlights the irony that even if there was a shift to e-voting, nothing would truly change as ‘we’d still be waiting’ further proving that the move to e-voting is merely a ploy to secure power faster.




Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2016, 09:43:25 pm »
0
Following the recent counting of votes for the Australian Federal Election which has proved time inefficient, debate has sparked amongst the Australian public raising the question of e-voting. In his opinion piece, Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas, Dan Nolan condemns in a satirical tone the notion of e-voting, suggesting it is a “fatuous” idea that will prove detrimental and “undermin[e] our entire democratic project.”

In suggesting that the notion of e-voting is “sexy,” Nolan appeals to readers who find the electronic system appealing. Nolan suggests it is “easy as,” and that pencils are “outdated” and “prehistoric” encouraging the audience to view the old system as inefficient and with contempt. By suggesting that what “we” need is a “new, modern, agile, and innovative,” approach to voting, Nolan intends to highlight the appeal of an electronic system – as something desirable in contrast with the old, and confirms the beliefs of his audience who are in favour of this system. However, Nolan’s satirical declaration that it is a “monumentally fatuous” idea diminishes this hope in his audience, replacing with it instead the suggestion that it is nonsensical. Consequently, readers are left to feel foolish for believing in a notion that Nolan has so blatantly condemned.

In demonstrating his understanding of the argument in favour of e-voting – the appeal of its “speed and efficiency,” Nolan appears able of seeing both sides of the argument and is thus regarded as credible amongst his readers, encouraging them to consider his view. By suggesting that the results of the election effect only “some politicians,” and “some wonks… who get way too excited about elections,” Nolan condemns the two groups above and suggests that a speedier system would prove unimportant to the vast majority of Australians. Thus, readers are encouraged to undermine the importance of election outcomes and reconsider their stance of electronic voting.

Furthermore, Nolan notes that a new system of electronic voting is “untried,” and “untested,” appealing to the readers’ sense of fear in the probability that the new system may prove worse than our current one. In further encouraging this doubt, Nolan suggests an electronic system might undermine “our entire democratic project,” and readers are left under no misapprehension to which voting system to prefer: the old.

In a final attempt to urge readers to reconsider their views, Nolan humorously declares that in spite of a speedier outcome in regards to votes, we would “still be waiting for the governor general to get back from France.” Nolan builds rapport with his audience and in his discredit of the government seeks to encourage readers to favour the old system instead of a new electronic one which ultimately proves insignificant.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2016, 03:45:37 pm »
0
Following the delay in this year’s election results, the proposal of whether electronic voting should replace paper ballots has been under consideration. Dan Nolan’s opinion piece, “Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas” scathingly contends  that e-voting is a “fatuous idea” that isn’t worth “undermining our entire democratic project”.

Nolan begins by acknowledging the benefits of electronic voting to present his argument as balanced. This is intended to give his readers the impression that he is a credible source who had clearly considered both sides of the argument. By negatively describing paper ballots as “outdated” or “prehistoric” and then contrasting it to the appealing “new, modern…innovative” aspects of e-voting,  Nolan encourages his audience to favorably view e-voting over the traditional paper ballots. However, Nolan undercuts the benefits of e-voting by  mentioning that “on the outset it’s sexy”. This suggests that e-voting is advantageous and appealing on the surface but its underlying implications could be detrimental and e- voting should therefore not replace paper ballots.

After establishing credibility by clarifying the pros of e-voting, Nolan then moves on to discredit and rebut these benefits.  Nolan shifts his tone to be more conversational and colloquial by using phrases such as, “pretty damn fine”, “heck” and “kick back and relax” in an attempt to relate to his audience to gain their trust as an average, fellow Australian. He implies that the shift to e-voting will not benefit the Australian citizen but only politicians. Additionally, he mentions that politicians earn “$200,000” a year, which is significantly greater than the average Australian pay, to evoke feelings of outrage or injustice in their extravagant salaries.  This encourages the audience to shun the proposal of e-voting as it would only benefit politicians - who already have an excessive salary- rather than themselves. Nolan continues to further undermine e-voting by describing it as, “unproved, untried and untested” which have negative connotations associated with experimentation and being uncertain. These experimentation aspects of e-voting   is used in an attempt to deter the conservative audience from supporting e-voting and thus invites them to stay in support of traditional paper ballots which "works pretty damn fine".


Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!  :) :) :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2016, 09:07:39 pm »
0
In his opinion piece entitled “Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas”, writer Dan Nolan scathingly dismisses bipartisan support for the future use electronic voting. Indicating that bypassing the delay involved in counting ballots would benefit only a minority comprising of mainly parliamentarians, the writer manoeuvres the audience of average voters who may have previously considered electronic voting as a viable alternative to instead embrace the writer’s scorn.

From the outset of his opinion piece, Nolan elucidates his scepticism of electronic voting, thereby encouraging his readers to emulate his cynicism. Acknowledging that the “election count [was] dragging on”, the writer mimics the frustration and exasperation of his reader regarding the delay. Nolan compels his audience to regard him as the average voter because he shares their frustration and displeasure regarding the protracted election count. This is designed to increase the likelihood of the reader embracing his later scepticism through the implication that because he was like the reader, he must share the same priorities and thereby have the best interests for himself and the audience in mind. His portrayal of e-voting as “sexy” is jarring as the term is typically used in reference to people, not politics. Therein, Nolan urges his audience to regard electronic voting as abhorrent as calling politics “sexy”. This is intended to distance the audience from the bipartisan push for electronic voting. The writer enhances this by mocking the premise underpinning the support for a more instantaneous election count – the notion that paper voting was both “outdated” and “prehistoric”. By assuming the voice of supporters for electronic voting in propounding that “a new, modern, agile and innovative approach” was required, Nolan further highlights just how idealistic and delusional such proposals purportedly are. Contrasting this idealism with his brusque assessment electronic voting is “a monumentally fatuous idea”, the writer appeals to the reader’s reason and logic through the implication that the purported impracticality of electronic voting was common knowledge. Instead, Nolan indicates that electronic voting was unnecessary when paper voting still “works pretty damn fine”. His use of the profanity “damn” highlights his adamant stance that the current system was still viable. To this end, Nolan perpetuates the idea that paper voting is still a sustainable and viable means of electing the government.

In addition to this, Nolan propounds the idea that reform is unnecessary because only a small minority consisting of “politicians… and some wonks” would benefit from bypassing the delay associated with counting ballots. The writer undermines both of these parties that would benefit from this reform. He implies that politicians have ulterior and selfish motives as they wish to know “whether they’ll keep their $200,000 a year job”; Nolan also casts any non-politicians who would benefit from such reforms as “wonks who… get way too excited about elections”. To this end, the writer seeks to discredit the motivations of those seeking electronic voting. The audience are therefore more inclined to seek to distance themselves from the “politicians… and some wonks” who support a reform of the voting system as they wish to avoid to scorn and scrutiny Nolan had directed toward electronic voting supporters. Furthermore, Nolan indicates that any benefits associated with electronic voting would be minimal as the elected government would “still be waiting for the governor general to get back… to swear them in.” The implication associated with this comment is that overhauling the paper voting system is unnecessary when it would not even enable the government to assume power faster, suggesting that the only benefit to electronic voting would be to abate the curiosity of parliamentarians and a few interested voters. Therefore, Nolan portrays the push for electronic voting as hasty and ill-thought out. He juxtaposes his calm and reason with the purported hysteria and haste of supporters for electronic voting, indicating that “a few more days of caretaker government aren’t worth undermining our entire democratic project.” This implies that a push toward electronic voting would have a profound effect on Australians with little return for no real reason. In doing so, the writer seeks to reassure his audience that reform of the voting system is unnecessary as very few would benefit from this change.

In closing, Nolan urges his audience to “just kick back and relax and wait for the numbers to roll in”, encouraging them to emulate his serenity. In doing so, he compels them to be assured that paper voting is still a fitting means of electing the government and that it is not yet necessary to seek viable alternatives to this time-honoured method of voting.

Mintk

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Respect: 0
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2016, 01:46:04 am »
0
Societal concern regarding the delay in counting ballots for the recent federal election has sparked debate about implementing e-voting in order to speed up the election count. The opinion piece "Let's put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas" contends that electronic voting is unnecessary because the current Australian voting system is an efficient and a proven method.

By creating a sense of ridicule about the issue, Dan Nolan stresses the politicians' egoistical nature in suggesting a new method of voting and, in turn, implores his audience to support the continuity of the current voting system. Throughout the opinion piece, consistent attacks on the politicians are made on their eagerness to check their eligibility of "200,000 a year job". The author's use of words "200,000 a year job" suggests that the politicians are more worried about retaining their wealth and privilege by keeping their seats, than genuinely wishing to be selected to tend to the needs of Australian citizens. This invites the readers to oppose the suggestions made by "some politicians" because the suggestions are only beneficial for the politicians, not the citizens. Further, the noun "horse-trading" connotes the idea of business and money, which serves to reinforce the author's attempts to convince the readers that politicians are seeking to earn back their privilege quicker by having e-voting and that e-voting is much unneeded in the Australian society.

Moreover, the writer seeks to demonstrate the fallibility and the risks of e-voting. Using a casual and colloquial language such as "sexy", "easy as" and "things", Nolan concedes that the implementation of e-voting has certain benefits, thus establishing himself as a logical and credible writer who is able to see both sides of the issue. However, he uses simplistic language when describing the opinions in favour of e-voting to highlight the unreliability of e-voting, evoking a sense of worry in readers and thus positioning the readers to feel that e-voting, as efficient as it sounds, is risky to implement yet. He then immediately challenges the views of those who are in favour of e-voting by stating that such ideas are "monumentally fatuous", using complex language. Hence, he discredits the idea of e-voting by contrasting the "unproven, untried and untested" e-voting method using simplistic language to our traditional and proven method of voting in a more sophisticated manner, positioning the readers to place more faith in the latter. This notion of comparison is further investigated by Nolan as he uses the imagery of "sharp pencils" and "thought bubbles". The words "sharp pencils" indicates that the traditional method of voting is still a viable option that is ready for use, in comparison to the "thought bubble" which illustrates the fragility of e-voting. Thus, Nolan reinforces the idea that e-voting is not an immediate fix of the problem that traditional voting have and that its risks are undesirable for our society.

Through the use of phrase "the envy of the world", Nolan appeals to patriotism of the Australian voters, in conjunction with the pronoun "we", which places Nolan as one of them. It is designed to convince the readers that our voting system involves a proven method that is successful enough to be "the envy of the world", evoking a sense of pride and thus in turn, positioning the readers to wish not to lose their position as the leading nation.



-----
Hello! I am sort of a newbie here and I saw this awesome board that I wished to join :) You guys write amazingly that I am scared to put my writing up there but I think reading your opinions would be a pleasure hahaha Also, the analysis material given seemed relatively short to me that I wasn't sure how to structure my essay o_O I didn't even write a conclusion, ahahaha.
2017-2019: University of Melbourne, Bachelor of BIomedicine

Flowers ~
Mocha, Cheese cakes, Chocolate brownies, Iced green tea, a latte with one sugar, brunch, waffles, Churros... <3

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2016, 02:17:29 pm »
0
In the Australian government Malcom Turnball and opposition leader Bill Shorten introduced evoting in replacement of 'writing things on paper', sparking opinions from Australians in recent media. In an opinion piece titled 'Let's put evoting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas'  Dan Nolan contends in an assertive yet sarcastic tone that evoting is an unnecessary idea and will only disrupt the current voting system.

Nolan outlines sarcastically the pros of evoting, illustrating 'a computer spits out new make up of government' telling readers that evoting in the perspective of Turnball and Shorten is an 'innovative approach to democracy'. However, Nolan asserts 'it's a monumentally fatuous idea', inviting readers to recognise that evoting is foolish and unnecessary for Australians. Furthermore, Nolan continues to reject the idea by emphasising readers the current system 'works pretty damn fine and is the envy of the world'. Nolan specifies voting is envied to reinforce the idea that Australians are seen as lucky being given a choice in politics, with this idea readers become self aware that as Australians, voting has become a norm. However, voting is uncommon in many other countries, therefore, the act of voting itself Nolan compels readers to acknowledge is already enough and is not needed to be sped up for efficiency. Throughout the article Nolan frequently uses the words 'we' and 'us' to persuade readers to understand that this affects everyone and should be viewed as a collective responsibility, hence readers can take action and voice their opinions. Nolan accentuates that waiting a few days will do no one harm and the roll of evoting although efficient, it is not needed. 

This is a first for me clearly English is my weak point so this paragraph will most likely be very choppy...unfortunately this is all I could fish out atm  :-\

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 18
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2016, 07:30:22 pm »
0
Following the delay in counting the 2016 election votes, discussion has sparked bit of an odd passive construction; using the passive voice is fine in moderation, but sometimes the phrasing can get a bit clunky - might be better to just say 'there has been much debate...' or something like that regarding the shift from conventional paper voting towards electronic voting. In Dan Nolan’s letter to the editor ‘Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas’ he contends in a condemnatory and satirical tone that e-voting is a ridiculous idea and that we should not risk destabilising our current democratic system. Good summary of the contention :)

Nolan establishes the reasons some may favour e-voting in order to demonstrate that he has clearly considered both sides of the discussion. He describes the concept of e-voting as ‘new, modern, agile and innovative’ which all have positive connotations associated with forward-thinking and advancement <-- GOOOOOD!! I was worried you were just going to say '...which all have positive connotations' and leave it at that, but you've added this clarification here which is excellent! in order to encourage readers to see that e-voting may be the next step to creating a more democratic nation. In addition, Nolan highlights the ease at with which we can use e-voting ‘from the comfort of your own iPhone’ thus positioning readers to take preference to e-voting expression is a bit clunky as it is not only more convenient for them, but also helps them avoid ‘carpal tunnel’ this is quite summative, is there anything you can say about this language, or why the author might bring this up? However, Nolan also states that ‘on the outset it’s sexy’ thus implying that appearances are not as all they appear what do you mean by this? and there may be serious underlying problems associated with e-voting thus making readers feel hesitant regarding any changes towards e-voting.

Despite demonstrating that there may appear to be benefits to e-voting, Nolan shatters and discredits the reasons for implementing the project and pulls down the layers of the ‘outset’ in order to reveal the ‘crux’ of the idea. Arguments in favour of e-voting have stated saying 'the arguments have stated' sounds a bit odd - try and use active sentences or just reword these bits that it should help move along the “business of government”, however, by enclosing business of government in quotation marks he portrays doubt in what constitutes as government affairs again, word choice/order here is a bit strange; saying 'he expresses doubt' or 'he conveys a sense of doubt' would sound more natural. It's kind of like saying that 'she shows greediness in her love of money' - I get what you're saying, but the expression distracts from it somewhat and makes readers become sceptical of what the party will do when they come into office. Compounding this, Nolan describes the ‘horse-trading’ that will occur once the new government is decided thus encouraging readers to see that politicians are more focused on gaining power than working to solve the issues and sufferings of ordinary, everyday citizens good, though you could go into more detail about how the phrase 'horse-trading' creates this sense.  Furthermore, Nolan illustrates the extravagant ‘$200,000 a year job’ that politicians are concerned with keeping in order to showcase their greed and to position readers to feel outraged that they are being taken advantage of by politicians who are only seeking to line their own pockets. Appearing straightforward and direct, Nolan states ‘honestly though’ are you unpacking his use of the word 'honestly,' or something else? Not sure about the integration of this quote in this context in order to urge readers to see through the web of lies manipulated by politicians' lies and to show them that there are very little benefits of converting to e-voting for citizens. Nolan depicts the concept of e-voting as ‘unproven, untried and untested thought bubbles’; the term ‘bubble’ has strong connotations associated with fragility and the imagery of a bubble popping highlights how unstable and risky moving to e-voting may be thus positioning readers to feel that the risks far outweigh benefits v good :) Nolan re-iterates that change is unnecessary by stating that our democratic system is ‘the envy of the world’ thus positioning readers to see that change is not imminent nor required as the system is currently working perfectly and break up this sentence here so it's not too long he also highlights the irony that even if there was a shift to e-voting, nothing would truly change as ‘we’d still be waiting’ further proving always avoid really definitive words like 'prove' in your essays - go for something like 'suggests' instead that the move to e-voting is merely a ploy to secure power faster.

Some excellent close discussion here; it's mainly just little slip-ups in wording that occasionally distract from your focus. Fixing these can be frustrating (since it's kind of like needing to do 100 little tiny things rather than having one simple, quick, or holistic solution). A good place to start is questioning whether these are 'automatic' issues (as in, are these the kinds of things you write without thinking - in which case there's an issue with your internal grammar or your understanding of certain words' meaning/usage) or are these 'overthinking' issues (as in, you spend ages trying to put an idea into words, and the final product comes out sounding a bit strange.) It isn't a huge issue, but I'm focusing on this because elsewhere the quality of your analysis was really solid, so just watch out for these little expression issues, and you should be fine :)

(also, don't stress about structure for these mini-analysis tasks. If you want, you can practise breaking up the contention into three sub-contentions and write a few sentences on each, or you can just do things chronologically like you have here).

Following the recent counting of votes for the Australian Federal Election which has proved time inefficient, debate has sparked as above, this sounds a bit odd in the passive voice amongst the Australian public raising the question of e-voting. In his opinion piece, Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas, Dan Nolan condemns in a satirical tone the notion of e-voting, suggesting it is a “fatuous” idea that will prove detrimental and “undermin[e] our entire democratic project.” be careful with using quotes to outline the author's contention in your intro; some assessors prefer you to put this into your own words - occasional quoting is fine, but if you're citing a whole sentence from the piece in leiu of explaining the argument yourself, they might get annoyed. What you've got here is probably right on the line, so just be sure you don't tip the balance.

In suggesting that the notion of e-voting is “sexy,” Nolan appeals to readers who find the electronic system appealing. Nolan suggests it is “easy as,” and that pencils are “outdated” and “prehistoric” encouraging the audience to view the old system as inefficient and with contempt. By suggesting that what “we” need is a “new, modern, agile, and innovative,” approach to voting, Nolan intends to highlight the appeal of an electronic system – as something desirable in contrast with the old, and confirms the beliefs of his audience who are in favour of this system. However, Nolan’s satirical declaration that it is a “monumentally fatuous” idea diminishes this hope in his audience, replacing with it instead the suggestion that it is nonsensical. Consequently, readers are left to feel foolish for believing in a notion that Nolan has so blatantly condemned. Okay, word choice and flow is great here, but this paragraph goes on quite a journey :P At the start you seem to be saying Nolan is praising e-voting, but by the end you say he condemns it. I'm going to analyse this part in more depth below, but you should always be wary of stating that the author changes his argument, or that he includes points that he doesn't agree with. More often than not, there'll be some kind of sarcasm going on instead {see end comments!}

In demonstrating his understanding of the argument in favour of e-voting – the appeal of its “speed and efficiency,” Nolan appears able of seeing both sides of the argument and is thus regarded focus on the author's intention rather than how he is 'thus regarded' by the audience - the latter can seem a bit definitive. Instead, saying something about how the author 'aims to elicit' certain feelings or 'positions' an idea makes for stronger sentence types as credible amongst his readers, encouraging them to consider his view what view?? Be more specific here! By suggesting that the results of the election effect only “some politicians,” and “some wonks… who get way too excited about elections,” Nolan condemns the two groups above and suggests that a speedier system would prove unimportant to the vast majority of Australians. Thus, readers are encouraged to undermine word choice. Again, focus on how the author is manipulating ideas in readers' minds, rather than how he wants them to act or what he wants them to do. the importance of election outcomes and reconsider their stance this is also a bit generic - what does the author want them to think/feel about electronic voting, exactly? of electronic voting.

Furthermore, Nolan notes that a new system of electronic voting is “untried,” and “untested,” appealing to the readers’ sense of fear in the probability that the new system may prove worse than our current one. In further encouraging this doubt, Nolan suggests an electronic system might undermine “our entire democratic project,” and readers are left under no misapprehension to which voting system to prefer: the old. Why? How does this language ("undermine democracy") lead to this effect? You're right, but show me you're right by taking me through your workings.

In a final attempt to urge readers to reconsider their views, avoid these filler sentences; almost everything the author does will be geared towards manipulating readers' views somehow, so just focus on HOW and WHY this occurs Nolan humorously declares that in spite of a speedier outcome in regards to votes, we would “still be waiting for the governor general to get back from France.<-- analysis? Nolan builds rapport with his audience and in his discredit of the government seeks to encourage readers to favour the old system instead of a new electronic one which ultimately proves insignificant. what do you mean by this? It sounds like your saying his argument proves insignificant...?

Really great job breaking down some of this material, though there were a few issues with your understanding of why the author brought up certain points (or rather, you just need to make this understanding more apparent). The main thing I want to talk about, though, is your discussion of this paragraph:

I mean, on the outset it’s sexy: you log into some kind of portal, register your intent and come 9pm in the east, a computer groans and spits out the new makeup of government. Easy as, democracy from the comfort of your own iPhone. Pencils are outdated, writing things on paper is prehistoric (and probably leads to some kind of carpal tunnel); what we need is a new, modern, agile and innovative approach to democracy.

This excerpt isn't meant to be arguing that e-voting is a good thing. For starters, there's the idea of a computer groaning and spitting out the governmental makeup, which is not meant to seem like a very dignified process. Then there's the slightly sardonic tone of "democracy from the comfort of your own iPhone," which is presented as a cheapening of the value of democracy. Saying "pencils are outdated" and that writing is "prehistoric" is also meant to be a sarcastic comment seeing as both of those things are still very present in society, so his call for a modern, agile, innovative approach is designed to mock those who think that e-voting is in any way a necessity.

Make sense?

Spotting sarcasm is actually one of the hardest things to do in L.A. especially when there's a slightly complex context for the article like this one. But if you come across a part of the material that seems a bit contradictory or takes a seemingly alternate viewpoint, consider whether it might actually still be supporting the author's main point somehow.

This mid-year practice exam also had a similar 'seemingly contradictory' part of the Section C task, so maybe take a look at that if you want some more practice in this area :)

Following the delay in this year’s election results, the proposal of whether electronic voting should replace paper ballots has been under consideration. Dan Nolan’s opinion piece, “Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas” scathingly contends  that e-voting is a “fatuous idea” that isn’t worth “undermining our entire democratic project”. as above, avoid using quotes as a replacement of your own articulation of the contention. It's often better to paraphrase here, and then save quotes for your body paragraphs where you can analyse them properly.

Nolan begins by acknowledging the benefits of electronic voting to present his argument as balanced. This is intended to give his readers the impression that he is a credible source who had clearly considered both sides of the argument. By negatively describing paper ballots as “outdated” or “prehistoric” and then contrasting it to the appealing “new, modern…innovative” aspects of e-voting,  Nolan encourages his audience to favorably view e-voting over the traditional paper ballots. However, Nolan undercuts the benefits of e-voting by  mentioning that “on the outset it’s sexy”. This suggests that e-voting is advantageous and appealing on the surface but its underlying implications could be detrimental and e- voting should therefore not replace paper ballots. Good; also see above comments re: the slightly sarcastic tone. But I like that you're examining this as the author's attempt to seem balanced, rather than saying that his argument actually is balanced :)

After establishing credibility by clarifying the pros of e-voting, Nolan then moves on to discredit and rebut these benefits.  Nolan shifts his tone to be more conversational and colloquial by using phrases such as, “pretty damn fine”, “heck” and “kick back and relax” in an attempt to relate to his audience to gain their trust as an average, fellow Australian. He implies that the shift to e-voting will not benefit the Australian citizen but only politicians. Additionally, he mentions that politicians earn “$200,000” a year, which is significantly greater than the average Australian pay, to evoke feelings of outrage or injustice in their extravagant salaries.  This encourages the audience to shun the proposal of e-voting as it would only benefit politicians - who already have an excessive salary- rather than themselves good step-by-step analysis here; you could maybe condense this down, but clarity is most important and you're doing that really well here! Nolan continues to further undermine e-voting by describing it as, “unproved, untried and untested” which have negative connotations associated with experimentation and being uncertainty. These experimentation aspects of e-voting is <--expression used in an attempt to deter the conservative ?? if the audience isn't mentioned in the background info, don't superimpose your assumptions onto them. This is one of those pieces where you can't say much more than 'the audience' since the author wasn't targeting liberals or conservatives in particular audience from supporting e-voting and thus invites them to stay in support of expression is a bit odd here; try and use single/simpler verbs so you can make your analysis extra efficient (i,e, you won't need to say 'the author emphatically communicates the notion that...' when you can just say 'the author suggests...') traditional paper ballots which "works pretty damn fine" when you're making these statements about the overall intention or suggestion being created, try to use your own words as much as possible. What you're doing here is using a 'blended quote' (i.e. one that fits the flow of your sentence) and though this is extremely useful in Text Response essays, it's not as good in L.A. because it means you're probably not analysing..
Few bits and pieces that could be cut down or modified for the sake of efficiency and clarity here, but other than that, there's a great foundation for analysis here. Make sure you're as specific as possible when spelling out how language is contributing to a persuasive effect, and that you're delving into quotes where possible :)

In his opinion piece entitled “Let’s put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas”, writer Dan Nolan scathingly dismisses bipartisan support for the future use electronic voting. Indicating that bypassing the delay involved in counting ballots would benefit only a minority comprising of mainly parliamentarians, the writer manoeuvres the audience of average as opposed to abnormal ones? Just 'voters' is enough here voters who may have previously considered electronic voting as a viable alternative to instead embrace the writer’s scorn.

From the outset of his opinion piece, Nolan elucidates his scepticism of electronic voting good, thereby encouraging his readers to emulate his cynicism. Acknowledging that the “election count [was] dragging on”, the writer mimics the frustration and exasperation of his reader regarding the delay. Nolan compels his audience to regard him as the average voter because he shares their frustration and displeasure regarding the protracted election count. This is designed to increase the likelihood of the reader embracing his later scepticism through the implication that because he was like the reader, he must share the same priorities and thereby have the best interests for himself and the audience in mind v good. His portrayal of e-voting as “sexy” is jarring as the term is typically used in reference to people, not politics. Therein, Nolan urges his audience to regard electronic voting as abhorrent as calling politics “sexy” I like where you've taken this, but since he was using this word to refer to e-voting, not politics as a whole, this seems like a bit of a misstep. This is intended to distance the audience from the bipartisan push for electronic voting. The writer enhances this by mocking the premise underpinning the support for a more instantaneous election count – the notion that paper voting was both “outdated” and “prehistoric”. By assuming the voice of supporters for electronic voting in propounding that “a new, modern, agile and innovative approach” was required, Nolan further highlights just how idealistic and delusional such proposals purportedly are. Contrasting this idealism with his brusque assessment electronic voting is “a monumentally fatuous idea”, the writer appeals to the reader’s reason and logic through the implication that the purported impracticality of electronic voting was common knowledge excellent expression and analysis here :). Instead, Nolan indicates that electronic voting was is unnecessary when paper voting still “works pretty damn fine”. His use of the profanity “damn” highlights his adamant stance that the current system was still viable. To this end, Nolan perpetuates the idea that paper voting is still a sustainable and viable means of electing the government.

In addition to this, Nolan propounds the idea that reform is unnecessary because only a small minority consisting of “politicians… and some wonks” would benefit from bypassing the delay associated with counting ballots. The writer undermines both of these parties that would benefit from this reform. even though there are some analytical words here, this seems a bit summative since there's not analysis of techniques/language, and it could easily be cut without impeding flow. He implies that politicians have ulterior and selfish motives as they wish to know “whether they’ll keep their $200,000 a year job”; Nolan also casts any non-politicians who would benefit from such reforms as “wonks who… get way too excited about elections”. To this end, the writer seeks to discredit the motivations of those seeking electronic voting. The audience are therefore more inclined to seek to distance themselves from the “politicians… and some wonks” who support a reform of the voting system as they wish to avoid to scorn and scrutiny Nolan had directed toward electronic voting supporters. This is true, but I think could afford to be cut given that the discrediting of their motives is sufficient as a 'how' statement. What you've got in this sentence is by no means wrong, but it's optional, which means you can afford to focus on other language at this point. Furthermore, Nolan indicates that any benefits associated with electronic voting would be minimal as the elected government would “still be waiting for the governor general to get back… to swear them in.” The implication associated with this comment is implying that overhauling the paper voting system is unnecessary when it would not even enable the government to assume power faster, suggesting that the only benefit to electronic voting would be to abate the curiosity of parliamentarians and a few interested voters. Therefore, Nolan portrays the push for electronic voting as hasty and ill-thought out. He juxtaposes his calm and reason with the purported hysteria and haste of supporters for electronic voting, indicating that “a few more days of caretaker government aren’t worth undermining our entire democratic project.” This implies that a push toward electronic voting would have a profound effect on Australians with little return for no real reason. In doing so, the writer seeks to reassure his audience that reform of the voting system is unnecessary as very few would benefit from this change. <-- good analysis here, though be careful that you don't have long(-ish) quotes all the time. In moderation, it's fine, but you don't want to get in the habit of citing 10+ words from the article in summary and then explaining what is suggested/implied - mix it up with other kinds of analysis too.

In closing, Nolan urges his audience to “just kick back and relax and wait for the numbers to roll in”, encouraging them to emulate his serenity. In doing so, he compels them to be assured that paper voting is still a fitting means of electing the government and that it is not yet necessary to seek viable alternatives to this time-honoured method of voting.

Great grasp on the nuances of the argument here; a few instances where the expression could be more efficient, but that's a fairly easy shift to make - keep up the awesome analysis! :)

Societal concern regarding the delay in counting ballots for the recent federal election has sparked debate about implementing e-voting in order to speed up the election count. The opinion piece "Let's put e-voting where it belongs: on the trash-heap of bad ideas" contends that electronic voting is unnecessary because the current Australian voting system is an efficient and a proven method nice sharp intro :).

By creating a sense of ridicule about the issue, Dan Nolan stresses the politicians' egoistical nature like that you're making this focus clear from the outset of your paragraph in suggesting a new method of voting and, in turn, implores his audience to support the continuity of the current voting system. Throughout the opinion piece, he issues repeated consistent attacks on the politicians' are made on their eagerness to check their eligibility word choice of "200,000 a year job". The author's use of words "200,000 a year job" suggests in order to suggest that the politicians are more worried about retaining their wealth and privilege by keeping their seats, than genuinely wishing to be selected to tend to the needs of Australian citizens careful not to go off on a tangent here - this is semi-relevant, but you should focus on the core issue wherever possible (i.e. talking about how the audience views politicians isn't really the same as the way they view the prospect of e-voting). This invites the readers to oppose the suggestions made by "some politicians" because the suggestions are only beneficial for the politicians, not the citizens. Further, the noun "horse-trading" connotes the idea of business and money true, but what's the point of these connotations in this context? Why would the author use this term or invoke these ideas? which serves to reinforce the author's attempts to convince the readers that politicians are seeking to earn back their privilege quicker by having e-voting and that e-voting is much unneeded unnecessary in the Australian society.

Moreover, the writer seeks to demonstrate the fallibility and the risks of e-voting. Using a casual and colloquial language such as "sexy", "easy as" and "things", Nolan concedes that the implementation of e-voting has certain benefits, thus establishing himself as a logical and credible writer who is able to see both sides of the issue. However, he uses simplistic language like what, exactly? when describing the opinions in favour of e-voting to highlight the unreliability of e-voting, evoking a sense of worry in readers and thus positioning the readers to feel that e-voting, as efficient as it sounds, is risky to implement yet where are you getting this sense of unreliability/riskiness from? He then immediately challenges the views of those who are in favour of e-voting by stating that such ideas are "monumentally fatuous", using complex language this distinction between 'simplistic' and 'complex' language isn't really fleshed out here, and it probably isn't as worthwhile as other techniques/language features. Hence, he discredits the idea of e-voting by contrasting the "unproven, untried and untested" e-voting method using simplistic language again, unless you're going to clarify what about this language is 'simplistic' or why that's important, I'd just leave this out - your analysis is fine without it to our traditional and proven method of voting how do you know? What evidence is there of this in the material? in a more sophisticated manner, positioning the readers to place more faith in the latter. This notion of comparison is further investigated by Nolan as he uses shown in the imagery of "sharp pencils" and "thought bubbles". The words "sharp pencils" indicates that the traditional method of voting is still a viable option that is ready for use, in comparison to the "thought bubble" which illustrates the fragility of e-voting **see end comments! Thus, Nolan reinforces the idea that e-voting is not an immediate fix of the problem that traditional voting has and that its risks are undesirable for our society.

Through the use of phrase "the envy of the world", Nolan appeals to patriotism of the Australian voters, in conjunction with the pronoun "we", which places Nolan as one of them. It is designed to convince the readers that our voting system involves a proven method that is successful enough to be "the envy of the world", evoking a sense of pride and thus in turn, positioning the readers to wish not to lose their position as the leading nation this is a bit confusing - why have you brought up the inclusive language here? I like that you're mentioning multiple techniques and stringing things together, but the connections are a bit tenuous here..

Also, the analysis material given seemed relatively short to me that I wasn't sure how to structure my essay o_O I didn't even write a conclusion, ahahaha. don't worry about structure! :) Quality of analysis is what matters most here, so no need to stress about conclusions or anything. You can try and write one if you want to, but the way you conduct your analysis is the biggest priority :)

Awesome job so far - you're definitely on the right track with your explanations. There were a few moments where your references to 'simplistic' or 'complex/sophisticated' language confused me a bit - is this something your teacher encourages you to point out? If you think it's relevant and can back it up, then go for it, but just know that it's not a formal requirement and you can definitely get away with not pointing it out. Plus, there are plenty of other kinds of language that are more descriptive and analysis-worthy (e.g. superlative language, hyperbolic language, connotative language, etc.)

The main thing I wanted to address was this:
The words "sharp pencils" indicates that the traditional method of voting is still a viable option that is ready for use, in comparison to the "thought bubble" which illustrates the fragility of e-voting.
The bulk of your analysis was fine, but moments like this stick out a bit because the connection between the words and the meaning isn't clear! How does the use of the words "sharp pencils" lead you to conclude that the author's saying paper voting is still viable? And how does the "thought bubble" imply fragility? What's the comparison here? You might be right, but show me you're right by taking me through your logic. This can seem needlessly tedious at first, but it's where most of the marks are in L.A. so it's worth paying attention to that skill. You're already doing it right in a few sections here, so keep up the good work! :)

In the Australian government Malcom Turnball and opposition leader Bill Shorten introduced evoting my bad for not giving you more info on this, but this is just a proposal - it hasn't happened yet! in replacement of 'writing things on paper', sparking opinions from Australians in recent media. In an opinion piece titled 'Let's put evoting where it belongs: on the trash heap of bad ideas'  Dan Nolan contends in an assertive yet sarcastic tone that evoting is an unnecessary idea and will only disrupt the current voting system.

Nolan outlines sarcastically the pros this is a bit colloquial. 'Benefits' or 'advantages' would be more fitting here of evoting, illustrating 'a computer spits out new make up of government' this quote doesn't really fit the sentence telling readers that evoting in the perspective of Turnball and Shorten this wasn't really something the author was focusing on. He certainly criticises politicians in general, but he doesn't really single out these two, which means you probably shouldn't either is an 'innovative approach to democracy'. However, Nolan asserts 'it's a monumentally fatuous idea', inviting readers to recognise that evoting is foolish and unnecessary for Australians good! Furthermore, Nolan continues to reject the idea by emphasising readers that the current system 'works pretty damn fine and is the envy of the world'. Nolan specifies voting is envied to reinforce the idea that Australians are seen as lucky being given a choice in politics, with this idea readers become self aware that as Australians, voting has become a norm. However, voting is uncommon in many other countries this is a bit too tangential from the author's point. I get why you're bringing this up, but if the author hasn't mentioned this directly, it means it's probably not worth including it. Instead, focus on what's definitely in the material and spend as much time on that as possible, therefore, the act of voting itself Nolan compels readers to acknowledge is already enough and is not needed to be sped up for efficiency sentence structure is a bit confusing here. Throughout the article Nolan frequently uses the words 'we' and 'us' to persuade readers to understand that this affects everyone and should be viewed as a collective responsibility, hence readers can take action and voice their opinions bit too generic. You could say this about any piece, or any bit of language ever! It's like saying 'the author attempts to persuade readers of his point of view' - that might be true, but the assessor already knows that part :P Your job is to focus on how and why this works (e.g. what kind of 'action' does the author want readers to take, and what 'opinions' are being conveyed here?) Nolan accentuates that waiting a few days will do no one harm and the role of evoting although efficient, it is not needed. 

This is a first for me clearly English is my weak point so this paragraph will most likely be very choppy...unfortunately this is all I could fish out atm  :-\
Not choppy at all! :) You've got some great patterns of analysis here - you just need to refine the direction you take this in. As a general rule, if something isn't mentioned in the material, steer away from it. Other essays (like Text Response and Context) give you more leeway when it comes to integrating other evidence, but in Language Analysis, you'll want to just concentrate on stuff the author's doing. Pretty much any time you spend talking about external stuff (e.g. common societal beliefs, background knowledge, related events) is time you could better spend dissecting language, and that should always be your priority.
Keep it up! :)