Argument analysis feedback

[VanessaS]

Could someone please give me feedback on my argument analysis essay? Thank you.

Link to article: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/will-we-never-learn-urban-sprawl-is-not-the-answer-20190215-p50y1d.html

On the outskirts of Melbourne, land is being used to build houses for new settlers which has instigated an issue about whether or not urban sprawl should be continued. In her opinion piece ‘Will we never learn? Urban sprawl is not the answer’, published in The Age on 17th February 2019, Nicola Philip contends that urban sprawl should be stopped as it is detrimental to the community. The accompanying photograph of the houses in the outer Melbourne suburbs supports Philip’s stance. In response to Philip’s opinion piece, Rob Stephenson wrote a letter to the editor, published on 19th February 2019 in which he agrees with Philip that the urban sprawl should be stopped but also provides an alternative solution of building more cities.

Philip asserts that these new houses would be hard for people to access as there are poor transportation services provided to reach them. She begins by comparing the urban sprawl in the 1880s with the one today. Using an accusing tone, Philip informs those who are unaware of the urban sprawl issue that in the 1880s, people inspected the land by ‘taking a free train trip’ because ‘railway lines… were already installed’. In doing this, she attempts to educate the audience about how easy it was earlier to reach destinations as compared to today, thus generating a sense of sympathy in the audience for those buying a house today as they ‘will have a hard time’ trying to find the location. Stephenson similarly argues that the transportation in Melbourne is poor resulting in ‘traffic jams’ and ‘crowded train carriages’. However, unlike Philip, Stephenson employs an enthusiastic tone, seeking to establish a friendly relationship with his audience and lead into the argument in a light-hearted manner. He does this through the use of anaphora of the phrase ‘We love Melbourne’ and by reminding the audience that Melbourne is the ‘World’s Most Liveable City’ which also appeals to the audience’s sense of patriotism, thus portraying himself as someone who is a patriot and loyal to Melbourne. This enables Stephenson to gain the trust of the audience who are people that are also patriots of Melbourne.

Philip accentuates that there is a lack of amenities present in the new land sites resulting in the destruction of people’s dreams. Philip highlights that there are few trees, no schools, no station and no school’ in these suburbs. The repetition of the word ‘no’, places emphasis upon the severe shortage of amenities available in the outer Melbourne suburbs. By doing this, Philip aims to educate those living in inner suburbs about the conditions that people living in the outer Melbourne suburbs have to endure, thus instilling a sense of sympathy in them towards outer Melbourne residents. Similarly, Stephenson appeals to inner Melbourne residents as he outlines that Melbourne’s outer suburbs are facing a ‘loss of green environments’ and have ‘poor housing’. Furthermore, Philip illustrates the difficult circumstances that people living in the outer suburbs have to face by describing the ‘silence’ and ‘deserted streets’. This portrays to the audience that these people are lonely and living in solitude in contrast to the ‘beautiful new life’ that they had dreamed of. Philip uses juxtaposition of the outer suburb residents’ dream life to their real life to compel the audience to agree with Philip that urban sprawl has serious negative repercussions for individuals. This is further emphasised by the accompanying photograph depicting an outer Melbourne suburb with houses squashed next to each other. All the houses look the same thus representing the lack of freedom present in the suburbs as people don’t have access to any services or amenities. This may elicit a horrific image in the reader’s minds of the negative outcomes that the urban sprawl is having on people, thus persuading them that urban sprawl should be stopped.

Stephenson then provides the alternate solution of building more cities for the people who live in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. Stephenson describes the megacities as ‘soulless’ and ‘suffocating’ which carries connotations of misery and pain in order to portray the life that people living in the outer Melbourne suburbs lead. Stephenson does this in order to elicit a sense of urgency in those living in the inner Melbourne suburbs to stop the urban sprawl. Stephenson also uses an encouraging tone to describe Australia as a ‘lucky country’ because of the ‘abundance of space’ that it has. By using words which carry positive connotations such as ‘lucky’ and ‘abundance’, Stephenson seeks to motivate those who are Australian nationalists to agree with him that new cities should be built. He further motivates the audience by using the call to action ‘Do it again!’ which is designed to instill a sense of duty in the reader that they have control over the issue. By prompting readers to ‘Let the government know’ that new cities must be built in order to improve Australia, Stephenson positions readers to place blame upon the government for the urban sprawl and therefore urges them to question the government about why a new city is not being formed. Unlike Stephenson, Philip takes a less forceful approach as he invites readers to reflect upon whether a new city should be formed by inquiring about whether these outer Melbourne suburbs which are ’60 kilometres’ away from the city should even be considered a part of the capital.

In her opinion piece, Philip argues that urban sprawl should be stopped for the betterment of people living in Australia. On the other hand, Stephenson in his letter to the editor outlines that the solution to the issues facing Australia lies in building more cities.