50 in English, available for queries :)

[Bestie]

um... yes

[Dahello]

Great!
I wanted to ask. These quotes dont really make sense.
'We're banking on it'
'Lets make this calculus finally explicit'
'Whatever these people are fleeing, whatever circumstance makes them think they'd be better off chancing death on boats hardly worthy of that description, we must offer them something worse' - what did they mean when they said hardly worthy of that description.?

Thanks

[Bestie]

um...
'we're banking on it' - banking to me seems like investments... so investing in it for profit in the future (profit being no more asylum seekers?) I'm not sure I was only told to analyse the start and finish of article...
'let's make this calculus finally explicit' - the key word here I think is calculus, its related to maths so this 'intentionally making detention centres as a place of horror' is methodically calculated and assessed? implications being that we planned this through without considering the asylum seekers?
the hardly worthy description - maybe cause there is a higher probability of dying in the detention centres that on the boats? I'm not sure

Maybe that helps?

[Dahello]

Thanks.
Please Lauren, what do you think?

Thanks

[literally lauren]

Dahello & Bestie, I'll address your concerns together:
To clarify: this contention isn't just that detention centres are horrible places, it's a commentary on the reaction of the general public to deaths in custody as opposed to deaths at sea in boat accidents. He questions the imbalance of outrage over one death compared to another, and regards this as an almost sadistic catharsis.


Bestie: with regards to your analysis, those are some good starting points, but you need to clarify the contention^ before you launch into discussion. Focus on his critique of the masses; Aly isn't talking so much about asylum seekers as he is talking about the asylum seeker debate. Or, more specifically: the public's acknowledgement of horror (link to the title.)
The start and end may be important (and if that's your task then focus on them) but you shouldn't ignore the rest of the article, as it provides much needed context to help work out what the contention and general appeals are. Have another look at those phrases with this in mind and tell me if you need more help.


Dahello: those phrases:

• we're banking on it

is a phrase that means the same thing as 'we're counting on it' or 'we're relying on it.' In this case, we're relying on the conditions at Manus island to be atrociously inhumane to deter refugees from seeking asylum.

• Let's make this calculus finally explicit

Dont know why he calls it calculus...maybe because he was talking about Greek tragedy...? Anyway, he's saying let's bring this discussion to the forefront of media discourse, rather than ignore the issue. You could comment on this mathematical terminology as a critique of the government;s view of people as numbers rather than individual humans I suppose, beyond that I'm not sure.

• boats hardly worthy of that description

ie. boats that aren't even worth calling boats. This refers to the poor/dangerous standard of transport used by asylum seekers.


Let me know if you need clarification on any of that

[literally lauren]

How do you suggest someone improve from a 16/20 text response to a 20/20 by the end of year 12?? Thanks

I can't really comment without having read your work. Look at your teacher's comments, first and foremost. There are many different reasons why you aren't getting full marks. Are your ideas lacking sufficient development? Is your structure a bit messy? Simplistic vocab? For Text Response you might not be 'engaging' with the text as much as they want. This might be more of a 'how to move from 19/20 to 20/20 question' but to earn full marks you need to argue for a sustained interpretation of the text. The extent to which you are able to do this will be dependent on the prompt, and it's the sort of thing that's developed throughout the year, not instantaneously.
What sort of feedback have you gotten on your SACs/practice pieces? I'd recommend you start there

[cute]

I can't really comment without having read your work. Look at your teacher's comments, first and foremost. There are many different reasons why you aren't getting full marks. Are your ideas lacking sufficient development? Is your structure a bit messy? Simplistic vocab? For Text Response you might not be 'engaging' with the text as much as they want. This might be more of a 'how to move from 19/20 to 20/20 question' but to earn full marks you need to argue for a sustained interpretation of the text. The extent to which you are able to do this will be dependent on the prompt, and it's the sort of thing that's developed throughout the year, not instantaneously.
What sort of feedback have you gotten on your SACs/practice pieces? I'd recommend you start there

Thank you so much
I've gotten feedback mainly concerning my inability to quote comprehensively and that I need to improve my clarity of expression.

[Dahello]

thank thanks thank you thank you so much

Can i ask just two more quotes i didn't get:
- 'this tragedy is not any kind of evidence of policy failure. It is, in fact, the very best form of deterrence. This is what it looks like when the
policy works.'
is this quote used to mock the government policies as inhumane and unjust, that these policies we form are made intentionally to act as what many should consider as a failure. The impact of this on readers is to elicit disaproval and encourages them to be outraged. used to reinforce that idea that we are taking pride in it, that we think there is nothing wrong with it and in fact it is where we want to be.

-'Through it all we maintain the heroic ability to exonerate ourselves through the fiction that we played no part in their misery, or that those who riot are immorally cynical. But the cynicism is ours.'
'heroic ability' doesn't seem like a 'heroic' thing to do.. so mockery? sarcastic? to encourage readers to see the filmsy logic in the situation.
'fiction' we don't see the reality, to us its all just like a story that we can't take seriously. We are the villians yet we don't know it?
the last bit just reinforce everything.

i'm a little lost at the heroic bit? sometimes it feels like the writer is trying to relate to us by using everyday terms like 'calculus' and 'heroic' that aren't related to what he is trying to convey....

Thanks so much...

[yang_dong]

Hi,
This may sound a little weird but what are the connotations associated with emotional FART???

as in 'emotional flatulence and sanctimonious hypocrisy' - i'm still doing the same topic as the first post - about the Left being full of emotional flatulence and sanctimonious hypocrisy after the death of Berati, who came to australia after the Left 'dismantled the border protection policies and giving false promises to these aslyum seekers.

It's seems funny

and lastly, i wrote a paragraph and sent it to the teacher, she gave it back to me with feedback, but she said in the sentence: 'This criticism is continued as readers are informed that the Left have 'dismantled the Howard Governments hard won border protection' policies, in effect 'turbocharged the people smuggling racket and lured asylum seekers with the promise of open borders' - she says i have to consider the impact of words such as 'people smuggling RACKET' and 'lured' suggesting the effect of the choice of these words rather than pinpointing the obvious and restating, cause that i wrote later in the paragraph: 'Hence the audience are positioned to view the outcome as a step backwards for refugee policy, and as a sinister trap to 'lure' asylum seekers to our shores.' apparently that aint enough -
racket is like an out break of a problem that we can't control?
lure? makes the aylum seekers appear vulnerable and guilible - putting al this trust on us?

I read your helen day one, damn that was good

Thank you in advance

[haha_]

hello,
do you happen to have any sample comparative language analysis? I'm having difficulty of how to structure it.

Thanks

[literally lauren]

Thank you so much
I've gotten feedback mainly concerning my inability to quote comprehensively and that I need to improve my clarity of expression.

When quoting, if you remove the quotation marks from the sentence, it should still read properly
eg:
This is best illustrated by Rodger's condemnation of the government as "rude and deceitful"  : correct
Rodger is dismissive of the government's new plan: "they're rude and decietful"  : incorrect

Though technically that second example isn't grammatically wrong, doing this more than once or twice in an essay makes it seem like you don't know how to integrate quotes fluently.

In terms of clarity of expression, start building up your vocab now (I'm a big advocate of this, though don't force words into essays if they don't fit.) Also, you might find it helpful to practice self-editing. Reread your work and see if you pick up on the mistakes you make. If you do, then great! Work out how best to fix them, and keep doing this until it becomes automatic as you write. If you don't notice them, however, go see your teacher and ask him/her to explain why exactly your expression was unclear. Are your sentences too long/run ons? Are you using a word or two incorrectly? Maybe your idea just isn't coming across very well? Don't worry, it's good that you know what you're doing wrong, and you've got ages to improve

[literally lauren]

Dahello,
Yes on both counts, I think you've got the hang of it. Don't second guess yourself so much: if you can justify your analysis then it's probably right (though of course, there is no 'right' answer in English )
Both of your explanations were relevant and plausible; that's all you need. It's not as though assessors will mark you down for interpreting a text slightly differently either. So long as you can discuss why readers could realistically be persuaded by such techniques and/or language you should be fine.

I'm still not sure about calculus, but I think 'heroic' is easier to understand. We are naturally inclined to make ourselves out to be the heroes in any given circumstance, thus robbing us of the ability to  see our own flaws and wrongdoings. In this instance the Australian govt. is doing something incredibly inhumane, so 'heroic' is laced with irony.

This seems like a pretty hard article to work with, I can see why there's so much confusion 

[literally lauren]

yang_dong:

Emotional flatulence: there's a phrase I didn't think I'd be using today. Definitely comical, although given the circumstances I'd say it's more mocking than anything else. I guess the implication here is that the govt. aren't genuinely compassionate, it's more of a cathartic expulsion from their system.
Racket: usually connotes noise, but in this instance it's used to describe a group of people in a way that suggests them to be unorganised and unofficial; that their operation is far less coordinated than the govt's policies, and yet they're being 'turbocharged' by Aus' ineptitude...
Lure: fishing terminology, therefore asylum seekers are like animals entrapped by the bait of open borders. To continue the metaphor, fish still get to eat the bait, but there's a great big hook hidden behind it, and ultimately this leads to a lot of suffering for them ie. being eaten. So in this case, our borders are "open" in that refugees can technically be on Australian soil, but they're in what is essentially a prison for an indefinite amount of time in squalid living conditions, etc.
^Obviously you wouldn't write all this in an essay, but you're teacher is right: you should be looking to analyse at word-level at least once in every essay

[literally lauren]

hello,
do you happen to have any sample comparative language analysis? I'm having difficulty of how to structure it.

Thanks

haha_:
Check the first page of this thread. I've put a general guide for structure in the very first post, and there's also a few practices towards the start (not sure where exactly but they should be marked in bold (or at least a massive text dump which should stand out)

[yang_dong]

thanks lauren,
you're the best