Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 06:53:18 am

Author Topic: 2017 AA Club - Week 2  (Read 9195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Thanushjeg

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: 0
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 2
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2017, 05:52:49 pm »
0
Hey everyone, could anyone give me some feedback for this essay?

The city of Melbourne’s initiative of banning smoking in Causeway laneway has sparked a contention debate among fellow Victorians whether a similar ban should be imposed across the entire state. In response to this issue, Rita Panahi within her opinion piece titled, “Victoria lags behind on outdoor smoking bans” contends in a satiric tone that for far too long, smoking in public areas has been portrayed as freedom of choice issue rather issue of ill health and further stresses the dangers associated with second-hand smoking as a result of failing to impose such a ban. Arguing on the same issue but with a different perspective is Pk, in his blog comment within The Herald Sun’s website. In which Pk rants in an infuriated tone that basic civil rights are at risk if such bans are imposed. Similarly, the accompanying image published in The Herald Sun mockingly targets the Victorian government in emphasising how such bans would be carried out if they are amended into the law.

Panahi begins her attack by highlighting how smoking bans are already well supported by the “community” with “87% of us” Victorians being are non-smokers who then are being forced to inhale these “toxins” into our body. Through the use of inclusive language, Panahi elaborates the issue of banning smoking in public areas as prevalent problem facing fellow Victorians, which then positions the readers to be unified for the common good as they may feel their health is at risk hence swaying to the writer’s side. Furthermore, Panahi exaggerates how the continual ignorance on the ban on smoking could cause “open-air spaces” to be “uninhabitable”. By overstating and exaggerating a possibility Panahi positions the readers to be vigilant and fearful that their freedom could be taken away, thus making them further instate their alliance with the writer’s view point. Additionally, the negative connotations associated with “uninhabitable” foreshadows a dark and scarce area to reside in for the readers who maybe petrified and concerned that their future generations will be harmed if something is not done, thus again concreting their support for the writer’s call for the ban on public smoking.

Panahi then turns the attention of the readers to the dangers of second-hand smoke. She quotes Dr Stephen in establishing how “even brief exposure” to second-hand smoke can lead to a variety of health complications such as “cardiovascular disease”. By appealing to expert knowledge, Panahi claims more creditability for her cause as the readers may feel more obliged to believe the words of a credited professional such as Dr Stephen rather than an ill-researched journalist. This newfound creditability portrays to the readers that Panahi can be trusted therefore backing her claim to ban smoking in public areas. Furthermore, Panahi pinpoints the figure of “more than a thousand” deaths take place each month as direct result of smoking and highlights how a recent survey among smokers proved that more people made an attempt to “quit” smoking due to “strict laws” across different cities of Australia. By bringing light to the logic behind the success the ban on smoking within public areas could have, the writer entices the readers into taking her side as it may bring themselves towards a healthier and happier life.

With contrasting view on the ban on smoking in public areas, blog commenter Pk furiously diminishes the idea of the ban by signalling it as “ridiculous” and as an act of “water(ing) done our civil rights”. By appealing to the reader’s sense of justice Pk invites the readers to come to his side as they may feel angry and violated at the prospect of their rights and liberty being ripped out of their hands. Similarly, the complementing image from the Herald Sun also reiterates the diminishing free choice of the citizens as result if such bans are to be imposed. The cartoon depicts am innocent lady having a smoke at peace but then is targeted by a comedic robot as unleashed by the “ciggy disposal squad”. Through this mocking and comedic image the cartoonist portrays to the viewers how childish the plans to impose the tax could be handled and further stresses how the government is viable to control the daily lives of its citizens can hinder the basic rights of mankind. This risk to rights may make the readers vulnerable hence, jumping ship to oppose the smoking ban within public areas. Contrastingly, Panahi pinpoints how this issue is no longer a “freedom issue” as the rights of the majority “supersedes” the right to smoke within public areas. By appealing to the readers sense of reason and injustice, Panahi is rebuking the ideology that this issue is freedom related. This in turn makes the readers jump ship again to Panahi’s claims for the ban.

Pk then elaborates how other substances like alcohol also is “bad for our health” as he compares smoking and other harmful substances hence he questions why not ban them too. By comparing similar but alternative substances the writer presents that there is injustice among this coalition against smoking. Through such bold statement the writer convinces the readers that smoking alone isn’t the problem as the readers themselves may feel guilty knowing that other substances they have used like alcohol is portrayed in positive manner compared to smoking. This would make the readers less obliged to fully support Panahi’s claims and sway towards to Pk’s. In comparison Panhi elaborates on the fact of cigarettes being the “leading contributor” to the two biggest causes of premature death. By engaging to the readers through facts, the writer tempts the readers to take her side or face certain ill-health. This may make readers be frightened as they may feel if these bans are not imposed the ever-high rates of mortality caused by cigarettes will not fall hence leading “premature” deaths thus enabling them to solidify their support for ban on smoking with public regions.

The issue of banning smoking with public facades has been a hotly debates issue in the recent years. With sides arguing that the ban will impede their freedom as well others arguing that the ban is a necessity if our future generations are to live a healthier life away from “uninhabitable” regions.   

     

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 2
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2017, 11:04:13 am »
+5
Please correct it as harshly as you can!!
And if you could give me some tips, on where I can improve. THAANK YOU!!  ;D ;D

Shiva Neupane’s opinion piece to the government’s announcement of an English proficiency test, “Why the broad-brush approach?” contends that the English proficiency testing is redundant and should not be compulsory. Neupane’s tone is logical and reasonable, making minor detail:
 try and avoid using "make", "making" or some variant of it where possible as it's not technically correct. Making implies that the reader had
no choice but to comply when that's not the case, rather, the reader was persuaded/compelled/positioned to do whatever. Important distinction to make!!
the reader easily comply this is an evaluative statement where you're essentially saying that the writer is successful in persuading their audience. However, this sort of analysis is unnecessary for the purposes of Analysing Argument as you are supposed to assume persuasiveness always and instead focus more on how the writer achieves this persuasion. and understand the argument against the addition of the test. This opinion piece is tailored towards Australian citizens who read replies to political topics.

With the inclusion of the “International English Language Testing System”, it makes the readers believe in Neupane, as the author sounds knowledgeable of the process to enrol in an Australian universityhow does it make the writer seem knowledgeable about the process? You need to clarify how you've gone from the inclusion of the IELTS = knowledgeable about enrolment process. Therefore being able to understand the redundancy of the additional English Proficiency test. That if, the students can pass an English University test, it must definitely implies that these students have the capability to speak, read, listen and write in English.The use of the "That if" throws off your entire sentence and makes it seem clumsy Furthermore, by declaring “no matter how many degrees” the person hasYou need to contextualise this quote more -- in what context does the writer say "no matter how many degrees the person has"? How is this relevant to what you've previously been discussing?, Neupane emphasises the illogical implication What do you mean by this? of the test, and how it generalises the international students with immigrants and refugees with no english speaking background. This implication gives the readers a perspective of the scope of the test What do you mean by this?, and makes it sound completely unnecessary test to international students.

Neupane also argues that the test does not advantage visa holders to accustom to Australian livingWhat do you mean by this? ,  because many young Australians are incompetent eEnglish speakers, readers, writers, whom did not need to sit the test. The reader would feel as though the test is unfair to the applying english competent citizens, because even Australian citizens who have the citizenship and live in Australia, can’t even speak their own mother tongue. Evidence?? What techniques does Neupane use to argue that there's no benefit to the test?He includes anecdotal evidence of Neupane’s own experience with Australian citizens, where theyWho is they? “frequently” Only quote if you're gonna analyse otherwise you're just flagging missed opportunities.asked how to spell simple, everyday words. The inclusion of Neupane’s experience enables the reader to see the very common situations that occur in Australiais much too vague, positioning the reader to feel disappointed why are they feeling disappointed? More elaboration needed. and to agree that a test for english competence is not necessary to fit in and live in the Australian society.




The government's recent proposition to enforce a English proficiency test for those seeking an Australian citizenship has been placed under the scrutiny of the mediaunnecessarily verbose; could've just said "media scrutiny". . Shiva Neupane's letter to the editor "Why the unfair broad-brush approach?" logically contends that these proposed changes are not only superfluous in nature, but also undermine the morals of Australia.

Neupane commences her argument by establishing that students entering the country are required to "pass the International English Language Testing System", alluding to the notion that this English proficiency test is redundant as many people seeking an Australian citizenship have already completed the adequate testing necessary to establish their proficiency in English this sentence seems unnecessarily verbose. Precision of language is super important here because if you can nail precision then you have more time to talk about other stuff.. This hence positions the reader to view this English proficiency test as a waste of time and resources. Furthermore, through labelling these changes as "illogical", which has connotations of ignorance, Neupane subtly mounts her attack on the government by insinuating that their decision is insensible. Neupane further reinforces her argument, through stressing the fact that those who have been "working and studying" in an English speaking environment are not exempt from this test. Through this, Neupane exposes the faults of the proposed rules, as this system will squander the time of those who have displayed competency in the English language, thereby manouvring the readers to view this proposed test as flawed.

Beware:
  • Avoid super verbose sentences where necessary
  • Your first BP seems a bit formulaic. From the last three sentences of this paragraph alone, I can see a bit of a repetitive sentence structure arising (i.e. "Through X, writer does Y". Variation is super important because it makes your piece seem less repetitive to an assessor.

The writer progresses her argument by underscoring that numerous young Australians are "poor spellers". This emphasises the idea that aspects of a person's English ability which is commonly associated with testswhat do you mean?, such as spelling, may not necessarily be an indication of their ability to live in Australia. This implies that those who may not be deemed as proficient in English according to tests, may in fact be able to live and communicate in English speaking countries, therefore prompting the reader to call into question the validity of these tests.

Neupane highlights that these tests does not serve the "sacred morality"You need to contextualise this quote more., which connotes justicegood, but rather serves "vested political interests", which has implications of greed and selfishness. Through juxtaposing these two diametric concepts, Neupane endeavours to demonise these proposed tests and portray them as the embodiment of egocentric behaviour. This compels the reader to perceive these tests as tools for politicians to further their selfish agendas. Just thought I'd flag this just in case --when you're writing actual full-blown essays, typically, you wouldn't want to be talking about one technique per para because you're being asked to consider how the techniques operate together in order to convey an overarching message/argument.

I'll correct someone else's work later, since I'm feeling lazy right now  :P and it took every bit of motivation I had to write this up after having a bad methods SAC today.




The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test on anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticism. In response, Shira Neupane’s letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” contends in a pragmatic yet disapproving manner that the proposed policy is “illogical” and should only apply to migrants who are not on student visas. Neupane’s letter targets Australian voters and the Australian government itself, primarily appealing to their democratic and national values in an attempt to reveal the policy’s flaws.  good.

Neupane commences by arguing that those who arrive in Australia on student visas have already proven their proficiency in English, making the policy redundant for them. Her blunt, matter-of-fact voice, as she systematically outlines the application process for Australian citizenship, illustrates the repetitiveness of the continual English testsWait, how does it illustrate the repetitiveness of the tests?, implying "implying"
 doesn't seem to *quite* fit in this context; I think something like "alluding" would fit better as I don't think you can imply to something.
to the futility of the policyThere's too much going on in this sentence.. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her title, which encourages readers to evaluate and contest the meaninglessness purpose of the policybe as precise in your language as possible; try and avoid verbosity where possible.. Augmenting her rational stance, Neupane admits that she understands and endorses the government’s current policy, despite being a foreigner herself; this serves to present herself as an impartial observer of the issue. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” Rule of thumb for AA is don't quote unless youre going to analyse it. reaction to the proposed policy belittles the test, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty words which are reduced to mere political rhetoric. So...? Reader effect?

Shifting her tone from pragmatic to sarcastic, Neupane proceeds to argue that many Australians themselves are far from the standard of English proficiency expected of foreign students. Her anecdotal reference to hospitality workers being unable to spell even work-related words – such as “cucumber” and “zucchini” – paints a satirical image of unprofessional Australian service. This, juxtaposed against the image of highly qualified and motivated migrant students, prompts readers to realise the injustice of the policy, as it thwarts the potential migrant students have to contribute to Australian societyGood!. This line of argument is substantiated by Neupane’s hyperbolic statement – that she has “donkeys’ years”’ worth of experience in this country – as it places her on the same level as her Australian readers HOw does it place her on the same level? More explanation needed here! and thus, portrays her view as truly reflective of the Australian community. Her connection to her Australian readers is strengthened by references to fairness and to the “sacred morality” of multiculturalism, which carry connotations of purity and integrity, and which present her as a woman truly aligned with Australian moralsMore explanation needed imo - how have you gone from "references to fairness and sacred morality" to "truly aligned with Aus morals". Missing that intermediary step where you explain your thinking. . In contrast, the government’s “vested political-interests” suggests that Australia’s leaders are driven by an egoistic, unAustralian mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion with readers’ minds towards their new policy.



In recent news, the government has announced that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone who is seeking an Australian citizenship. In a letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brushed approach?”, Shiva Neupane logically contends that the English proficiency test should not be mandatory due to its unfair and unnecessary nature.

Shiva Neupane makes apparent that the majority of foreigners have to pass numerous English language tests prior to the English proficiency test, making it redundant. In a reasonable tone, Neupane employs an anecdote of their process as she states that “They have to pass the international English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application.” This quote is much too long --
 you need to be more selective re what you're quoting. Only quote what you're going to analyse specifically.
Through this, Neupane highlights the extensive testing regime too vague. to diminish the credibility that the English proficiency test should offer. This positions the reader to consider that the amount of testing is vigorous and consequently the English proficiency test should be deemed unnecessaryThis is essentially a repetition of what you had previously said in the earlier sentence. Avoid unnecessary repetition where possible.. This notion could make the audience feel outraged on behalf of newcomers as the process is unfair and pointlessHow is it unfair? You haven't really explained/talked about this previously.. These thoughts and feelingstoo vague may then also encourage the audience to reject their support for the English proficiency test.



This is just my introduction! Please critique.

The issue about whether the government intends to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone seeking Australian citizenship has gained ongoing coverage in the Australian media. By acknowledging the views of the general public, Shiva’s opinion piece titled “why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” clearlyThis is too evaluative. advocates in a forthright and rational tone, that international students should not need the English proficiency test in order to gain citizenship to Australia.is good. You could also include discussion of the audience here.



In his letter to the editor, Shiva Neupane emphatically contends that Australian proficiency tests be made obligatory only for those who settle in Australia without a student visa.

By casting the proposed legislation as an ‘unfair, broad-brushed approach,’ Neupane immediately alerts readers to the overly-generalised and consequently unfair nature of the proposition. Endeavouring for these sentiments to be met with confidence by readersVerbose. Be more concise. , Neupane is quick to dispel questions of bias, dont need that comma thereby declaring that he ‘supports the current policy’ despite English not being his ‘mother tongue.’Only quote if you're going to analyse. In affiliating himself with those subject to the visa application HOW does he establish this affiliation?and intimating that there is merit and justification within these policieshow does he establish this intimation?, Neupane strives for readers tobe more concise. recognise that his views are not tarnished by bigotry. In turn, readers are coaxed to adopt Neupane’s sceptical tone and are thereby encouraged to actively scrutinise how the Government will ‘enshrine its proposed illogical rules.’Haven't analysed this quote. Only quote if you're going to analyse. Otherwise you're flagging missed opportunities to your assessor. In conjunction with this scrutinising, Neupane’s use of the adjective, ‘illogical,’ which connotes ideas of irrationality and unfoundedness, assists readers in reaching the ultimate conclusion that the Government’s proposals are flawed and thereby inequitable. Upon re-reading this, I've come to the realisation that you were *probably* unpacking the stuff you quoted in the second sentence but the problem is because each of those quotes weren't immediately followed up with analysis, it's almost like you've given your assessor all the dots and then told them to connect it themselves (which isn't their job -- it's your job to spoonfeed them with all the information they need so as to prevent them from asking pesky questions like "how does the writer do this???"

Through the use of an anecdote, Neupane progresses to expose be more concise. the double-standards evident in Australian society. By recalling his colleagues’ inability to accurately spell words such as ‘cucumber’ and ‘zucchini,’ Neupane urges readers to reflect on the ‘extremely poor’ language proficiency of those Australians whose mother tongue is English. To bolster the notion that this fact is not rare, but indeed common, Neupane adopts the hyperbolic idiom,don't need that comma ‘for donkey’s years.’ Consequently, Neupane attempts to kindle a sense of shame and disappointment in readers, who are prompted to recognise that, when contrasted to the years of ‘working and studying’ of international students, the abilities of some Australians are even lower than those who are compelled to sit English proficiency tests. To this end, readers are inclined to perceive the Government’s new changes as one predicated on ‘vested political-interests’ and one that will flush too informal a verb for AA?Australia of its ‘sacred morality,' given that the abilities of international persons are treated with seeming ignorance.   Very good! ... But beware quoting without analysis. While your assessor can't penalise you for what you don't discuss, if you're constantly flagging what you couldve talked about but didn't through quoting without analysis, inevitably, that's what they're going to be focussing on as opposed to how gr8 your analysis was for the things that you did analyse.

Please note that my introduction would never be this short in a regular argument analysis  :)

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 2
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2017, 11:55:01 am »
0
Thanks for the correction! I really appreciate it.  :D

So in the future, should I aim to have my analysis in the same sentence of my evidence? Like you said, I tend to go into my explanation/analysis of the evidence in the next sentence. I suppose I do this because I want my sentences to be concise. Ie. If I follow up with analysis immediately, I'm worried that my sentence will become way too long and clunky. How can I overcome this?

BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 2
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2017, 12:02:06 pm »
+1
Thanks for the correction! I really appreciate it.  :D

So in the future, should I aim to have my analysis in the same sentence of my evidence? Like you said, I tend to go into my explanation/analysis of the evidence in the next sentence. I suppose I do this because I want my sentences to be concise. Ie. If I follow up with analysis immediately, I'm worried that my sentence will become way too long and clunky. How can I overcome this?


My concern isn't that it wasn't in the same sentence per se but rather because you quoted two things "support the current policy" and "mother tongue" before launching into analysis. Typically it's safer to be like "support the current policy" analysis "mother tongue" analysis. Generally, the only time you'd be like "evidence" "evidence" analysis would be if those two pieces of evidence operate together to achieve one effect (e.g. evidence + evidence = effect). Does that make sense?

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 2
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2017, 12:16:42 pm »
+1
My concern isn't that it wasn't in the same sentence per se but rather because you quoted two things "support the current policy" and "mother tongue" before launching into analysis. Typically it's safer to be like "support the current policy" analysis "mother tongue" analysis. Generally, the only time you'd be like "evidence" "evidence" analysis would be if those two pieces of evidence operate together to achieve one effect (e.g. evidence + evidence = effect). Does that make sense?

Sure, that makes sense. Thanks!  :)
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale