Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 07:45:30 pm

Author Topic: Analysing Argument help!  (Read 1091 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vaish.s

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Analysing Argument help!
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:42:50 am »
0
Hi can someone please give me feedback on this AA essay. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
This is the link to the article:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/chan-and-sukumaran-should-not-have-to-beg-to-avoid-barbaric-death-penalty-20150202-133xg3.html

Essay:
In light of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran death penalty sentence, a survey was conducted where half of the participants were in favour of the decision to execute them. In response to this, Tim Dick published an opinion piece titled “Chan and Sukumaran should not have to Beg to Avoid Barbaric death penalty” in the Sydney Morning Herald Sun (2/2/2015). Dick addresses his predominant audience of conservative Australians mainly in a critical tone. He contends that the death penalty is never a suitable punishment. In conjunction with the text is a visual depicting Chan and Sukumaran. In response to the text is a comment which contradicts Dick’s stance. 

Dick postulates that the death penalty is too harsh. He mocks the societal notion “do the crime, do the time” by expressing death penalty as being “for eternity”. The use of the word eternity connotes the punishment as being dragged on, thus suggesting it to define the individual. Through this, Dick indicates the jarring of a soul by them being sentenced to death; provoking a sense of sorrow and grief within conservative and religious readers. Accentuating the illogical justification for the death penalty by suggesting “eye-for-eye retribution has...been rejected as civilised punishment”, Dick implies those who refute are regressive. Thus, Dick strives to associate the death penalty with a lack of modernity, prompting progressive Australian to recognise it’s cruel and thus harsh nature. Furthermore, Dick paint a horrific image through his description of the way the Indonesian government “kills...with bullets [and] a finial one to the head if the volley towards the heart doesn’t do the job” to highlight barbarity. By adopting a newfound sarcastic tone, Dick reinforces sympathy within readers towards those receiving the death penalty. Additionally, anger is ignited within conservative Australian towards the Indonesian government for their careless and inhuman punishment technique. To juxtapose Dick’s perspective, is Sally’s comment. Appealing to logic, she justifies the execution sentenced to Chan and Sukumaran, since “they were caught, [and] found guilty”, inclining readers to believe they received the justice they deserved. As a result, Sally challenges Dick’s view that the Indonesian government’s decision is too harsh, by advocating it was reasonable.

Dick shifts from a critical to a logical tone as he posits the notion of the death penalty not being the deterrent it was legislated. Dick employs statistics to emphasis the lack of deterrence caused by the death penalty, since in America states without capital punishment experience “5.3 murders per 100,000” contrasting states with the death penalty who have 6.7.  This aims to highlights the redundancy of executions. Hence, Dick generates a sense of anger within readers for the needlessness of the death penalty. Moreover, Dick implies that the death penalty is ineffective since it withdraws the chance for rehabilitation because “the dead can do no further harm”. As a result, the conservative readers are motivated to feel a sense of anger toward the Indonesian government for stripping individuals of the opportunity to display and show actions of remorse. To contradict Dick, Sally’s comment insinuates “You reap what you sow”. Sally thus highlights that criminals who deliberately commit crimes “deserve no opportunity for rehabilitation”, suggesting capital punishment is effective since everyone will be well aware of the consequences, helping deterrence. Hence Sally contrasts Dick’s stance of the death penalty not being sufficient as a deterrent.

Moreover, Dick adopts a concerned tone to highlight the urgent need for Australia to unite and stop its citizens from being executed. Through the repetition of “should not”, Dick proclaims the needlessness of anyone to beg for life due to everyone’s entitlement to life. He endeavours to ignite rage within readers by suggesting individuals are being dehumanised. Furthermore, Dick protests the need to “make a fuss about the execution of two of our own”, appealing to readers sense of patriotism. This creates urgency within readers and provokes feeling of responsibility to stop the execution of Chan and Sukumaran because they are “our own”. Additionally, the photograph accompanying the text depicts half of a camera. The positioning of the camera on the left hand corner of the image and its opaque nature in comparison to the rest of the photo, reflects Australian’s current involvement with the sentenced execution of Chan and Sukumaran; Australia is merely watching on. Hence, the image reinforces Dick’s intention to generate action to stop the execution and since they are “fellow citizens”. In response to the text, the comment by Sally attacks Dick’s notion by asserting Chan and Sukumaran “were Australian [by their]... citizenship” and nothing else, since they wanted to “fill our streets with deadly heroin”. By appealing to the reader’s sense of safety, Sally seeks to kindle rage within patriotic Australians. As a consequence she endeavours for readers to question Dick’s nationalistic pride, since he advocates Chan and Sukumaran despite their attempted treason. Thus Sally disputes Dick’s ideology and call for unity within Australian to refuse the imposed acceptance of the death penalty on its citizens. 

In response to a survey where half the participants were in favour of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran execution, Tim Dick critically contends the inappropriateness of the Indonesian government’s decision to conservative Australians. A visual of the ‘Bail nine’ ring leaders and a comment refuting Dick’s opinion are presented alongside the text.


Thank you in advance.

TSEtuition

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +2
Re: Analysing Argument help!
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2019, 09:51:59 am »
+1
Hi Vaish.s

I've got a video critique of your AA essay here: https://youtu.be/KwRzFVl2pg8

I don't know when your SAC is but hopefully you find this helpful! :)

~Shirlaine from TSEtuition
We are a 1-to-1 tutoring service, offering personalised and tailored to best support YOU in your English studies. Visit our socials for FREE materials or SHOP our range of vocabulary products!

http://www.TSEpublications.com

http://www.TSEtuition.com
http://www.facebook.com/TSEtuition
http://www.youtube.com/TSEtuition
http://www.instagram.com/tse_tuition