2018 AA Club - Week 18

[scout]

Hey guys

I'm back! Hope everyone had a good first semester. Sorry about my sudden disappearance - had a mini crisis but I'm back on my feet now, almost. Thanks to clarke54321 for so gracefully taking over.

The plastic bag ban in retailers is now in effect in QLD. A ban on plastic bags has been an issue for debate across Australia for quite some time. The following are opinions of consumers from QLD and NSW, respectively.

Majority of shoppers see merit in plastic bag ban

As a supermarket worker, I have heard first-hand the opinions from the public about the move away from plastic bags.

Unsurprisingly, some have expressed their confusion and frustration as to the inconvenience it causes, while others feel cheated by the fact they must buy bags for shopping.

In spite of this, I have found that the majority of customers that I encounter seem to acknowledge that getting rid of plastic is part of a positive step to a brighter future.

Throughout the past century, the world has endeavoured to improve, advance and develop. We want life to be made as easy as possible, but only occasionally consider the effect that this attitude has on our environment.

Where the plastic ends up is the most crucial problem; whether it be entangled around a defenceless animal's neck or polluting our beaches.
Every year, 100 million tonnes of plastic are found in our oceans, killing on average 100 million marine creatures.

Action can only start once we realise the effects.

Banning plastic bags is the biggest change that shoppers will see in coming weeks at all stores through Queensland.

As a young member of society, I believe that banning single-use plastic bags is a productive move to a more sustainable future. Whether you agree with the action of banning plastic bags, or completely despise it, it has come the time to start protecting our planet, not just for today, but for future generations to come.

-Hayley Diesing


A plastic bag free world shouldn't be trashed

I’m old enough to remember the brown paper bags used for packing groceries when you went to the supermarket.

They’re long gone in the modern day era of the plastic bag. Woolworths estimates it gives out more than 3.2 billion of them a year. Plastic bags were ranked in the top 10 of rubbish items collected on Clean Up Australia Day last year. So it’s no surprise things are about to change again.

Woolworths and Coles recently announced their stores will stop offering regular plastic bags by June 30 next year. Customers will be able to buy a more durable bag at 15 cents each, or bring their own. Harris Farm will stop all supply of plastic bags from January 1 next year and will bring back free paper bags and cardboard boxes.

So will it be an inconvenience?

Only if you make it out to be. Plastic bag bans are already enforced in South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania. Queensland will follow suit next year. Some cities even have bans, like Fremantle, along with Huskisson and Kangaroo Valley in NSW. Target enforced a plastic bag fee for several years, which didn’t bother me. Often I didn’t need the bag for my purchases but when I did, I didn’t care being charged 10 cents for the privilege.

Australians throw away more than 7000 plastic bags per minute, according to Plastic Bag Free NSW. I always accumulate far more plastic bags than what I reuse them for. There should be an onus on supermarkets to train checkout staff to not be so wasteful with plastic bags. At the checkout of my weekly shop, my groceries always end up in more plastic bags than should have been used. If I buy a 600 millilitre bottle of drink, that usually gets its own bag.

A Omnipoll survey conducted last month shows 64 per cent of NSW residents support a total ban on single use plastic bags at supermarkets and stores. It’s a promising sign it’s not just me who’s ready and willing to change their behaviour.

A plastic bag ban isn’t the end of the world.

It’s a small way towards making a big difference.

-Kylie Stevens

[MissSmiley]

I hope everything's all right, scout!
You're very resilient! Take care!

Diesing contends in a matter-of-fact tone that banning plastic bags whilst may be inconvenient for shoppers, it is an effective way of preserving the environment. Asserting her identity as a “supermarket worker” Diesing concedes that “others feel cheated…[buying] bags for shopping,” – the adjective “cheated” carrying connotations of supermarkets unfairly gaining an advantage by receiving consumer money for reusable bags. By conceding, she reduces the social distance between consumers and herself, so that she can have the freedom to instill a sense of guilt in consumers’ mind of how they contribute to environment damage and “killing of 100 million marine creatures” as a result of plastic bags ending up in oceans. Similarly, Stevens too argues in her forthright tone that consumers like herself, despite being older than Diesing, are ignorant of plastic’s damaging impacts on the environment. Criminalising “Australians who throw away more than 7000 plastic bags per minute” and aiming to appear ashamed of how “[she] didn’t care being charged 10 cents for the priviledge,” Stevens like Diesing demonstrates how easy it is to act in self-interest and think that it is the “end of the world” if consumers cannot use convenient plastic bags.

However, Stevens appears to be more optimistic about consumers being willing to reduce plastic use, whilst Diesing aggrandises the efforts that need to be taken by consumers to care for the environment. Stevens deals with the plastic bag ban in a smaller state-level scale: “bans are already enforced in…South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory...” unlike Diesing who considers it an endearing journey to come out from using the fact how “the world advancing and developing” as an excuse to keep using convenient plastic bags. Furthermore, Diesing still claims in her conclusion that there may be people “who completely despise” the ban, in turn making her readership of consumers think that there will still be opposition to the plastic ban. However, Stevens starts by claiming that the ban will only be inconvenient if people “make it out to be,” and then ends on an optimistic note that “64% of NSW residents support a total ban.” This light-hearted approach towards achieving the solution of banning plastic, is likely to sway those in oppose of the ban to instead try and embrace the environmental benefits of the ban so they are a part of the majority in favour of the ban.

[Anonymous]

Hey!
I feel like this essay I've just written is not the best   so please be as critical as possible so I know what I need to improve on.

Thanks so much!


A recent ban on plastic bags in supermarkets across Queensland has sparked a controversial debate across the rest of Australia about the inconvenience this may cause to consumers in a bid to save the environment. In an assertive tone, Hayley DIesing has written an opinion piece entitled ‘Majority of shoppers see merit in a plastic bag ban’, which contends that the ban on plastic bags will ultimately save the planet, and create a more sustainable future. Similarly, Kylie Stevens adopts a reasoned tone in her opinion piece entitled ‘A plastic bag free world shouldn’t be trashed’, which contends that people should not be alarmed at the inconvenience of a ban on plastic bags, but rather, should acknowledge that the benefits of this movement to ban plastic bags will outweigh the disadvantages.

Diesing firstly argues that many people are ignorant of the detrimental effect that the pervasive use of plastic bags has on the environment. True to her position as a ‘supermarket worker,  Diesing employs an understanding tone in presenting the contrasting views of some supermarket customers, who are either ‘confused’ and ‘frustrat[ed]” about the the ‘inconvenience that the [plastic bag ban] causes’ or believe that getting rid of the plastic bag is a ‘positive step’ to a ‘brighter future’. In doing so, Diesing highlights that she is aware of the dichotomy that exists within the public regarding the consequences of the plastic bag ban, thus guiding readers to view her as someone who is unbiased and aware of the negativities that also stem from the ban. However, to incline readers to view the ban in a more positive light, Diesing uses the words ‘positive step’ and ‘brighter future’, which have connotations of the plastic bag ban being an innovative solution to an environmental crisis, which is illustrated through Diesing’s use of emotive imagery. As the image of a plastic bag being ‘entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck’, coupled with the use of inclusive language in stating that the plastic is ‘polluting our beaches’, is embedded into the readers’ minds, Diesing intends to harbour readers’ empathy towards the ‘marine creatures’ being affected by the damaging use of plastic bags, while simultaneously positioning them to feel responsible for this damage. Ultimately, through emphasising the profound effects that the ongoing use of plastic bags has on the environment, which is further bolstered through her use of statistics of ‘100 million tonnes of plastics’ being found in oceans killing ‘100 million marine creatures’, Diesing not only alarms readers about the dire repercussions that arise from the use of plastic bags, but also encourages readers to view her stance of supporting the plastic bag ban as practical.

Maintaining her reasoned tone, Diesing goes on to argue that not only will a ban on plastic bags protect the environment, but it will also have positive long-term effects for the future generation. Diesing’s use of positive verbs such as ‘improve, advance, and develop’ to describe the objectives proposed during the ‘past century’ mirrors her stance that a ban on plastic bags will fulfill these goals for the world to ‘advance’ or ‘develop’, thus guiding readers to have confidence in her resolution. This is followed by the use of inclusive language, which states that ‘we want life to be made as easy as possible’, where Diesing builds rapport in readers and establishes her understanding that the plastic bag ban will, undoubtedly, be an inconvenience to some. However, she then criticises how ‘[we] only occasionally consider the effect that this attitude has on our environment’, insinuating that the ignorant attitude displayed by the public overshadows their ability to see the the threat that the use of plastic bags poses to future generations. Thus, Diesing urges readers to seriously consider the other side of the debate by positioning them to feel as if they are all negatively affected by the refusal to ban plastic bags. Furthermore, Diesing accentuates the need to foster sustainability for future generations through establishing herself as a ‘young member of society’, voicing her opinion through a first-person perspective, asserting that ‘I believe banning plastic bags is a productive move…” This appeal to readers’ pity for the next generation inclines them to value the opinions of young people, and thus, urges them to consider the long-term negativities that can stem from the continual use of plastic bags.

While mounting a similar viewpoint in a slightly different manner, Stevens argues that there is no purpose in continuing the usage of plastic bags if the public uses it in a wasteful and excessive manner. In contrast to Diesing’s position as a ‘young person’, Stevens presents herself as ‘old enough to remember the brown paper bags’, which implicitly suggests that the eradication of plastic bags should not cause such a large commotion, and endorses the notion that the inconvenience of this ban can be easily solved by going back to old lifestyles. However, both Diesing and Stevens use their first-person stance to establish themselves as arising from experience. Similar to Diesing’s use of statistics to alarm readers about the substantial amount of plastic found in ‘our oceans’, Stevens highlights that ‘7000 plastic bags’ are being thrown away per minute’, which contributes to the ‘100 million tonnes of plastic’ that Diesing states is killing ‘100 million marine species’. While Diesing is more adamant about a ban on plastic bags, Stevens proposes other solutions that can be undertaken to prevent this profound waste without the need for a ban. Through her use of an anecdote outlining her supermarket experience where a ‘600 millitre bottle gets its own bag’ and her ‘groceries end up in more plastic bags than should have been used’, Stevens familiarises the reader with her situation, and thus, draws them to clearly see the roots of the significant waste of plastic bags. In doing so, Stevens encourages readers to be more cautious with their use of plastic bags, which differs to Diesing’s call to action, which fervently suggests the need to ‘protect the planet’ by banning the use of plastic bags overall.

In both pieces, both Diesing and Stevens acknowledge that the use of plastic bags is posing a major threat to the environment and immediate action needs to be taken to combat this issue. While Diesing focuses on the harmful effects that the use of plastic bags has on the people and their surroundings, Stevens criticises the inconsiderate use of plastic bags by the public, proposing that this issue can simply be solved with more cautious usage of plastic bags. While both writers establish their rationality and understanding of the issue through their use of statistics and personal experiences, both ultimately do so to foster similar views on the need to reduce the usage of plastic bags in order to save the planet.

[MissSmiley]

Hey!
I feel like this essay I've just written is not the best   so please be as critical as possible so I know what I need to improve on.

Thanks so much!


A recent ban on plastic bags in supermarkets across Queensland has sparked a controversial debate across the rest of Australia about the inconvenience this may cause to consumers in a bid to save the environment. In an assertive tone, Hayley DIesing has written an opinion piece entitled ‘Majority of shoppers see merit in a plastic bag ban’ which and she contends that the ban on plastic bags will ultimately save the planet, and create a more sustainable future. Similarly, Kylie Stevens adopts a reasoned tone in her opinion piece entitled ‘A plastic bag free world shouldn’t be trashed’, which and contends that people should not be alarmed at the inconvenience of a ban on plastic bags, but rather, should acknowledge that the benefits of this movement to ban plastic bags will outweigh the disadvantages. Good job! Your intro's ticked all the boxes!

Diesing firstly argues that many people are ignorant of the detrimental effect that the pervasive use of plastic bags has on the environment. nice outline of argument! True to her position as a ‘supermarket worker,  Diesing employs an understanding tone in presenting the contrasting views of some supermarket customers, who are either ‘confused’ and ‘frustrat[ed]” about the the ‘inconvenience that the [plastic bag ban] causes’ or believe that getting rid of the plastic bag is a ‘positive step’ to a ‘brighter future’. In doing so, Diesing highlights that she is aware of the dichotomy nice! that exists within the public regarding the consequences of the plastic bag ban, thus guiding readers to view her as someone who is unbiased and aware of the negativities maybe 'disadvantages' that also stem from the ban. However, to incline readers to view the ban in a more positive light, Diesing uses the words ‘positive step’ and ‘brighter future’, which have connotations of the plastic bag ban being an innovative solution to an environmental crisis, which is illustrated through Diesing’s use of emotive imagery. As the image of a plastic bag being ‘entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck’, coupled with the use of inclusive language in stating that the plastic is ‘polluting our beaches’, is embedded into the readers’ minds, Diesing intends to harbour readers’ empathy I really like your vocab choices! towards the ‘marine creatures’ being affected by the damaging use of plastic bags, while simultaneously positioning them to feel responsible for this damage. Ultimately, through emphasising the profound effects that the ongoing use of plastic bags has on the environment, which is further bolstered through her use of statistics of ‘100 million tonnes of plastics’ being found in oceans killing ‘100 million marine creatures’, Diesing not only alarms readers about the dire repercussions that arise from the use of plastic bags, but also encourages readers to view her stance of supporting the plastic bag ban as practical. practical in terms of we need to save the planet or practical in what way? Maybe 'sustainable' ?

Maintaining her reasoned tone, Diesing goes on to argue that not only will a ban on plastic bags protect the environment, but it will also have positive long-term effects for the future generation. Diesing’s use of positive verbs such as ‘improve, advance, and develop’ to describe the objectives proposed during the ‘past century’ mirrors her stance that a ban on plastic bags will fulfill these goals for the world to ‘advance’ or ‘develop’, thus guiding readers to have confidence in her resolution. I actually interepreted this in terms of 'convenience v caring for environment' idea. So Diesing's claiming how we focus so much on convenience at the expense of the environment. So I didn't necessarily think about how the ban could come in this. Just my opinion though! If you want, you could even say Diesing 'implies that the ban will help 'advance' and ..., rather than 'mirrors her stance.' This is followed by the use of inclusive language, which states that ‘we want life to be made as easy as possible’, where Diesing builds rapport in readers and establishes her understanding that the plastic bag ban will, undoubtedly, be an inconvenience to some. However, she then criticises how ‘[we] only occasionally consider the effect that this attitude has on our environment’, insinuating that the ignorant attitude displayed by the public overshadows their ability to see the the threat that the use of plastic bags poses to future generations. Thus, Diesing urges readers to seriously consider the other side of the debate by positioning them maybe find a few synonyms for this to feel as if they are all negatively affected by the refusal to ban plastic bags. Furthermore, Diesing accentuates the need to foster sustainability for future generations through establishing herself as a ‘young member of society’, voicing her opinion through a first-person perspective, asserting that ‘I believe banning plastic bags is a productive move…” This appeal to readers’ pitydo you think so? for the next generation inclines them to value the opinions of young people, and thus, urges them to consider the long-term negativities that can stem from the continual use of plastic bags. I like how you've looked into how she says she's a young member of society

While mounting a similar viewpoint in a slightly different manner, Stevens argues that there is no purpose in continuing the usage of plastic bags if the public uses it in a wasteful and excessive manner. In contrast to Diesing’s position as a ‘young person’, Stevens presents herself as ‘old enough to remember the brown paper bags’, which implicitly suggests that the eradication of plastic bags should not cause such a large commotion, and endorses the notion that the inconvenience of this ban can be easily solved by going back to old lifestyles.do you think so? this may be a bit unclear However, both Diesing and Stevens use their first-person stance to establish themselves as arising from experience. Similar to Diesing’s use of statistics to alarm readers about the substantial amount of plastic found in ‘our oceans’, Stevens highlights that ‘7000 plastic bags’ are being thrown away per minute’, which contributes to the ‘100 million tonnes of plastic’ that Diesing states is killing ‘100 million marine species’.just a long sentence. While Diesing is more adamant about a ban on plastic bags, Stevens proposes other solutions that can be undertaken to prevent this profound waste without the need for a ban. Through her use of an anecdote outlining her supermarket experience where a ‘600 millitre bottle gets its own bag’ and her ‘groceries end up in more plastic bags than should have been used’, Stevens familiarises the reader with her situation, and thus, draws them to clearly see the roots of the significant waste of plastic bags. In doing so, Stevens encourages readers to be more cautious with their use of plastic bags, which differs to Diesing’s call to action, which fervently suggests the need to ‘protect the planet’ by banning the use of plastic bags overall. You said 'Stevens proposes other solutions...,' could you clear up what those suggestions are? Is it just that consumers need 'to be cautious'? But that'll mean that the ban doesn't exist. What do mean by suggestions?

In both pieces, both Diesing and Stevens acknowledge that the use of plastic bags is posing a major threat to the environment and immediate action needs to be taken to combat this issue. While Diesing focuses on the harmful effects that the use of plastic bags has on the people and their surroundings, Stevens criticises the inconsiderate use of plastic bags by the public, proposing that this issue can simply be solved with more cautious usage of plastic bags. While both writers establish their rationality and understanding of the issue through their use of statistics and personal experiences, both ultimately do so to foster similar views on the need to reduce the usage of plastic bags in order to save the planet. if you start of with 'while' then it means you have a different or contrasting idea in the next part of your sentence. But you're giving a similarity in the next part too. 'both ultimately' So delete the 'while'

Hi!
No no you've done really well!
I really like some of your vocab choices and your outlining of the main arguments!
Maybe to improve you can focus on specific and correct intended impact on audience, also making sure you don't 'overanalyse' this! Haha! 

But you're doing really great!
And please only take my feedback as small suggestions because I'm in Year 12 myself, so nowhere near perfect!!
Thanks!

[clarke54321]

I hope everything's all right, scout!
You're very resilient! Take care!

Diesing contends in a matter-of-fact toneabsolutely nothing wrong with this, but it could be more effective if you started in the passive (ie. In a matter of fact tone, Diesing....) that while banning plastic bags whilst may be inconvenient for shoppers, it is an effective way of preserving the environment. Asserting her identity as a “supermarket worker” Diesing concedes that “others feel cheated…[buying] bags for shopping,” – watch out for this type of punctuation. Keep your prose clean. I'd suggest that you start another sentence for analysis.the adjective “cheated” carrying connotations of supermarkets unfairly gaining an advantage by receiving consumer money for reusable bags excellent. By conceding, she reduces the social distance between consumers and herself, so that she can have the freedomrevise this phrase (be explicit here- she seeks to establish a type of rationality) to instill a sense of guilt in consumers’ mind of how they contribute to environment damage and the “killing of 100 million marine creatures” as a result of plastic bags ending up in oceans <--see if you can expand on this. Analyse how this relates to her previous character establishment. You want to show the examiner that you are aware of argument construction.  Similarly, Stevens too argues in her forthright tone that consumers like herself, despite being older than Diesing, are ignorant of plastic’s damaging impacts on the environment. Criminalising “Australians who throw away more than 7000 plastic bags per minute” and aiming to appear ashamed of how “[she] didn’t care being charged 10 cents for the priviledge,” Stevens like Diesing demonstrates how easy it is to act in self-interest and think that it is the “end of the world” if consumers cannot use convenient plastic bags make sure that you are not replacing analysis with extractions from the text. I'd encourage you to stick to one of these points of evidence, and analyse it well..

However, Stevens appears to be more optimistic about consumers being willingand their willingness to reduce plastic use, whilst Diesing aggrandises the efforts that need to be taken by consumers to care for the environment. Stevens deals with the plastic bag ban in a smaller state-level scale:again, be careful with the way you are integrating quotes. “bans are already enforced in…South Australia, ACT, Northern Territory...” unlike Diesing who considers it an endearingI'm not sure that this is the right adjective. journey to come out from using the fact how “the world advancing and developing” as an excuse to keep using convenient plastic bags<--- analysis is required ---> Furthermore, Diesing still claims in her conclusion that there may be people “who completely despise” the ban, in turn makingremember the peril of subjectivity  (is likely to, seeks to, endeavours to, aims to....) her readership of consumers think that there will still be opposition to the plastic ban. However, Stevens starts by claiming that the ban will only be inconvenient if people “make it out to be,” and then ends on an optimistic note that “64% of NSW residents support a total ban.” This light-hearted approach you must elaborate on this further. How is it light-hearted? towards achieving the solution of banning plastic, is likely to sway those in oppose of the ban to instead try and embrace the environmental benefits of the ban so they are a part of the majority in favour of the ban.

Nice effort, MissSmiley. Your use of language and construction of topic sentences have improved greatly since the start of the year. However, you must continue to ensure that you are analysing the text, and not bringing pieces of the piece together for an annotated explanation. Keep up the AA practice 

[MissSmiley]

Nice effort, MissSmiley. Your use of language and construction of topic sentences have improved greatly since the start of the year. However, you must continue to ensure that you are analysing the text, and not bringing pieces of the piece together for an annotated explanation. Keep up the AA practice 

Thanks so much Clarke!! 
I'll definitely work on your feedback, espeically not trying to quote so much and instead analysing more!
Thank you so much!!

[addict]

Hi,
Sorry for being late to the club! If I can still get some feedback on this that'd be great

The recently introduced plastic ban has returned to the centre of media attention. In response to public attention to the issue, consumers Hayley Diesing and Kylie Stevens wrote letters to the editors contending their support for the ban as a positive movement for environment conservation. While Diesing uses emotional appeals in an attempt to conjure a sense of social responsibility in readers, Stevens adopts a matter-of-factly tone to appeal to trivialise the inconvenience brought about by the ban.

Diesing argues that the public has the responsibility to support the plastic bag ban as it is a move to create a more sustainable future for all. She opens by asserting her authority in the subject “as a supermarket worker” with access to public opinion “first-hand”, before presenting a seemingly ambivalent overview of both those expressing “confusion and frustration” and those “acknowledge[ing]” the “positive step”, positioning readers to view her as not only informed, but also unbiased. She also deploys statistical evidence depicting the detrimental environmental damage caused by plastic bags, repeating the words “100 million” to alert readers to the significance of damage. The vivid imagery of plastic bags “entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck” is calculated to evoke a sense of guilt in the reader as well as to appeal to the average Australian’s protectiveness towards wildlife, leading readers to associate plastic bags with cruelty. Moreover, she employs inclusive language as she asserts that “we want life to be made… easy… but only occasionally consider the effect… on our environment”, attempting to achieve a resonance with readers using by presenting a widely held attitude so that they feel justified, yet obliged to have more environmental awareness. She closes her letter with a call of support for the ban, associating her status “as a young member of society” with her opinion to not only appeal to younger readers’ desire for social acceptance, but also to present herself as a sensible and empowered person to older readers, before she evokes their protective instincts for the “future generation” as an extra incentive to use less plastic.

Similarly, Stevens contends that the inconvenience induced by the plastic bag ban is insubstantial in comparison to the environmental benefits. Just as Diesing uses her profession to her advantage, Stevens lends herself credibility by claiming she is “old enough to remember” a time before plastic bags and lists factual information regarding major retailers’ timelines for the plastic bag ban, positioning readers to view her case as thoroughly researched. While Diesing cites a statistic in passing to use in conjunction with emotive appeals, Stevens relies heavily on statistical evidence from various sources while maintaining a balanced tone. She states nonchalantly that the ban will be an inconvenience “only if you make it out to be” and claims she “didn’t care being charged 10 cents” for a bag, insinuating that the reasonable reader is not entitled to find the ban unjust. Furthermore, she appeals to readers’ respect for frugality by claiming to “accumulate far more plastic bags than what [she] reuse” and that a plastic bottle “gets its own bag”, inclining readers to view free plastic bags as wasteful and unnecessary. She also repeatedly attempts to represent plastic bags as a significance source of clutter at various points in the letter, citing numbers from reputable sources such as Woolworths, Clean Up Australia Day organisers and Plastic Bag Free NSW, not only shocking readers with large numbers such as “7000 plastic bags per minute”, but also presenting various interest groups as holders of the same view to reinforce plastic bags as being a universal problem. Both authors also assert the popularity of the plastic bag ban, Diesing by speaking for “the majority of customers that [she] encounter” and Stevens using an “Omnipoll survey” showing “64 per cent” support as a “promising sign”, reassuring those readers who already show support while appealing to the others’ fear of alienation.

Both authors seek to persuade readers to support the plastic bag ban. While Diesing focuses on the environmental impacts and social responsibility related to the issue, Stevens promotes a more practical standpoint. Both authors write a short sentence near the end of their pieces as they call readers to action, with Diesing stating that “actions can only start once we realise the effects” and Stevens claiming that “it’s a small way towards making a big difference”. While the statements are cliche and somewhat general, it invites readers to draw on their own experiences of meaningful change, and thus support the plastic bag ban as a sensible action for the wider society.

[scout]

The recently introduced plastic ban has returned to the centre of media attention. In response to public attention to the issue, consumers Hayley Diesing and Kylie Stevens wrote letters to the editors contending their support for the ban as a positive movement for environment conservation check expression - 'contend [that]...' . While Diesing uses emotional appeals in an attempt to conjure a sense of social responsibility in readers, Stevens adopts a matter-of-factly tone to appeal to trivialise the inconvenience brought about by the ban good contrast

Diesing argues that the public has the responsibility to support the plastic bag ban as it is a move to create a more sustainable future for all yes. She opens by asserting her authority in the subject “as a supermarket worker” with access to public opinion “first-hand”, before presenting a seemingly ambivalent overview of both those expressing “confusion and frustration” and those “acknowledge[ing]” the “positive step”, positioning readers to view her as not only informed, but also unbiased this kind of analysis of writer credibility is all well and good, but it's quite common among AAs. So, I would shorten this and tack it on at the end of another, more important, piece of analysis - kill 2 birds with 1 stone . . She also deploys statistical evidence depicting the detrimental environmental damage caused by plastic bags, repeating the words “100 million” to alert readers to the significance of damage. The vivid imagery of plastic bags “entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck” is calculated to evoke a sense of guilt in the reader as well as to appeal to the average Australian’s protectiveness towards wildlife yes, but that effect could also be achieved if the writer had spoken of plastic bags killing Australia's native animals. What is particularly disturbing about this imagery? , leading readers to associate plastic bags with cruelty. Moreover, she employs inclusive language as she asserts that “we want life to be made… easy… but only occasionally consider the effect… on our environment”, attempting to achieve a resonance with readers using by presenting a widely held attitude so that they feel justified, yet obliged to have more environmental awareness this is an explanation of the quote. You were on the right track with the achieving resonance comment. What is she trying to get readers to feel by reading their minds? Does she want them to feel proud of their attitude? Or perhaps more ashamed than proud? . She closes her letter with a call of support for the ban, associating her status “as a young member of society” with her opinion move to here (split infinitives)to not only appeal to younger readers’ desire for social acceptance make this connection clearer, but also to present herself as a sensible and empowered person to older readers, before she evokes their protective instincts for the “future generation” as an extra incentive to use less plastic.

Similarly, Stevens contends that the inconvenience induced by the plastic bag ban is insubstantial in comparison to the environmental benefits good. Just as Diesing uses her profession to her advantage, Stevens lends herself credibility by claiming she is “old enough to remember” a time before plastic bags and lists factual information regarding major retailers’ timelines for the plastic bag ban, positioning readers to view her case as thoroughly researched too general. How does this specifically contribute to Stevens' contention? e.g. does that sense of nostalgia evoked by Stevens allude to the feasibility of living without plastic bags, and even reverting to paper bags? . While Diesing cites a statistic in passing to use in conjunction with emotive appeals, Stevens relies heavily on statistical evidence from various sources while maintaining a balanced tone how does this change the effect of his arguments vs Diesing?. She states nonchalantly that the ban will be an inconvenience “only if you make it out to be” and claims she “didn’t care being charged 10 cents” for a bag, insinuating that the reasonable reader is not entitled this means the reader doesn't have the right to find the ban unjust. Not sure how you came to this conclusion - try reading the quotes and thinking about their meanings again to find the ban unjust. Furthermore, she appeals to readers’ respect for frugality by claiming to “accumulate far more plastic bags than what [she] reuse” and that a plastic bottle “gets its own bag”, inclining readers to view free plastic bags as wasteful and unnecessary. She also repeatedly attempts to represent depict/portray/present plastic bags as a significant source of clutter at various points in the letter, citing numbers from reputable sources such as Woolworths, Clean Up Australia Day organisers and Plastic Bag Free NSW, not only shocking readers with large numbers such as “7000 plastic bags per minute”, but also presenting various interest groups as holders of the same view to reinforce plastic bags as being a universal problem. Both authors also assert the popularity of the plastic bag ban, Diesing by speaking for “the majority of customers that [she] encounter” and Stevens by using how about 'invoking'? an “Omnipoll survey” showing “64 per cent” support as a “promising sign”, reassuring those readers who already show support while appealing to the others’ fear of alienation.

Both authors seek to persuade readers to support the plastic bag ban. While Diesing focuses on the environmental impacts and social responsibility related to the issue, Stevens promotes a more practical standpoint again, nailed it. Both authors write a short sentence near the end of their pieces as they can you reduce that to a couple of words? e.g. call readers to action, with Diesing stating that “actions can only start once we realise the effects” and Stevens claiming that “it’s a small way towards making a big difference”. While the statements are cliche and somewhat general, it invites readers to draw on their own experiences of meaningful change how exactly? Also this kind of line would fit better in your BPs where you're actually analysing the opinion pieces, and thus support the plastic bag ban as a sensible action for the wider society.

Hi! You got the contention of each writer right, but consider structuring your piece around the arguments of each contention. Also, insightful analysis is the key so don't worry too much about labelling every persuasive technique if that will help you focus more on dissecting each quote you analyse. When dissecting each quote, ask yourself why the writer chose the particular expression they used.

[Anonymous]

Reading people's replies on here is so intimidating.. anyway I haven't done LA in a long time and suck at it so any feedback is appreciated!

The ban of plastic bags has recently been a policy implemented by many supermarket stores across Australia; a policy endeavoured to improve the sustainability of the natural environment. Deising provides her opinion on the matter in the form of an opinion piece entitled “Majority of shoppers see merit in plastic bag ban”, whereby she firmly contends that this policy is a favourable one among many, as its benefits are feasible and many consumers see the advantageous notion behind this policy. Using logic and practicality, Deising uses a logical and zealous tone to display her perspective.

 Deising uses her position as an employer in this field to validate her argument, as readers will be more inclined to consider her perspective as “a shop worker”. Deising uses her profession to further extrapolate her knowledge on the opinions of consumers as she deals with them “first-hand”. She asserts that “unsurprisingly” (as with everything in the world, there will be proponents and oppositions) some consumers dislike the plastic bans due to their “confusion” and “frustration”. By using words such as “confusion”, Deising highlights the consumers opposing plastic bag bans as people who are confused and thus unaware of the merits of this newly implemented policy. She then juxtaposes these “frustrate [ed]” consumers with the “majority” of customers who “acknowledge” the merit of plastic bags bans, as signposted by her title. Deising concludes that although oppositions exist, the majority of people see the advantages of banning plastic bags, thus inclining readers to want to align their viewers with the “majority”.
 
Furthermore, Deising brings attention to the fact the life must not simply be based on comfort and made to be “as easy as possible”, and that we should be aware of the repercussions more than just “occasionally”. She asserts that people against this policy are against something greater, which involves the overall preservation of our planet. This shows readers that the ban of plastic bags is more significant than simply the comfort and the feelings of being “cheated” into buying plastic bags, as it is a step towards a sustainable planet for the coming generations. Deising employs the use of imagery to showcase the adverse effects of plastic bags such as the “etangle[ment] around a defenseless animal’s neck” or the pollution of “our beaches”. These images depict the fact that the “100 million marine animals” being affected as a result of humans are “defenceless”,inclining readers who are conscious, to act, thus mentioning that this awareness can only bring about action once “we realise the effects”. Finally, Deising states her role as a “young member of society” to highlight the importance of sustaining our planet, as a responsibility of all members of society regardless of age for a more sustainable future. This alerts readers to the fact that a young individual seems to be greatly conscious about the preservation of our environments, thus compelling readers to take great care as well.