2019 AA Club - Week 1

[MissSmiley]

REMINDER: If you do not want your post to be posted anonymously, you MUST check the box before you click Post/Save.

Hello everyone!

Firstly, really very sorry I've posted this really late, please bear with me this first week!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the first week of the 2019 Analysing Argument Club!!

As a reminder of how this will work...

1. Every Monday, I’ll post a new thread with an opinion piece for you to analyse.
2. You’ll write an analysis and post it in that thread.
3. You’ll give & get feedback. Let the analysing begin

Background: Royal Life Saving Australia has reported that in the month up to and including January 1, 48 drownings were reported across the nation, an increase from 31 in the same period a year ago.

Every summer I join the thousands of volunteer surf lifesavers decked out in lurid yellow and red and take part in patrols of what is generally a fairly safe beach to swim at. But even Apollo Bay beach can be dangerous in certain conditions – and adding alcohol into the mix is diabolical. So far we’ve had 12 drownings in Victoria this summer, and 50 nationally. And this is despite the attempts from various organisations to educate people about safe water use.
Naturally many people choose to increase their safety by swimming between the flags, making the most of having trained help on hand if trouble arises. However, I am astounded at how many people use the flags as a free babysitting service, lulled into a false sense of security.
I’ve watched many tourists pop on their bathers and head into the pounding surf at Johanna beach wanting a little swim. I don’t even put my toe in there on certain days, knowing how easily a wave can pop up and sweep you off the shelf – there’s a reason why it’s the perfect surf beach.
No lifeguard wants anyone to drown, least of all on their watch, but the flags are no guarantee: you are your child’s primary lifeguard.

-   Nicola Philp is a regular contributor and a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay.

[Anonymous]

Question: I am unsure on how to end every body paragraph. Should I write a linking sentence? I sort of rehashed the topic sentence of each paragraph.

A rise in the number of deaths caused by drowning in Australia has stirred controversy surrounding the safety of the country’s beaches. In an adamant tone, Nicola Philip contends that beach-goers need to acknowledge the dangers of swimming in some of Australia’s shores and take greater responsibility to keep themselves and their children out of harm's way.

Philip argues that Australian beaches can hold significant dangers. A dogmatic tone is used to assert that “certain conditions” at even a “fairly safe beach” can lead to harm among swimmers and surfers. This matter-of-fact tone is underpinned by Phillip citing that Victoria had “12 drownings this summer” and Australia had “50” “drownings,” with the factual evidence granting her greater credibility among readers. Philip’s anecdotal experience as a “volunteer lifeguard” at “Apollo Bay” further aids in cementing her argument as fact, as she has witnessed firsthand the “dangerous” nature of her beach “every summer,” more so than the audience of casual beachgoers. Alongside this, Philip argues that the dangers of beaches can be so significant and indomitable through the use of the word “lurid” in describing the uniforms of “thousands” of “volunteer surf lifesavers.” This highlights the distinguishable and vivid uniforms of lifesavers and their significant presence at beaches, that, despite all, is unable to give beachgoers a “guarantee” of “security” from the dangers of the sea. This portrayal of the sea as an unstoppable force is reaffirmed by the phrase “pounding surf,” which invokes imagery of the danger and destruction that “surf beach[es]” can inflict, and thus may arouse a sense of fear among Victorian beachgoers about their safety. Essentially, the writer warns readers of the hazards that beaches can hold.

The carelessness and risk-taking behaviour of beachgoers is condemned by the writer. The tone shifts from one of firmness to frustration, with Philip now lamenting the lack of knowledge that leads many beachgoers into “trouble.” The acknowledgement that “many people” do “choose” to “increase their safety” at beaches lessens the annoyed tone of Philip, with Victorian readers that value their safety at beaches been granted appreciation. However, a dichotomy is created between the informed and misinformed, with Philip being “astounded” by other beachgoers who act recklessly. The juxtaposition of Philip not even “put[ting]” her “toe” in the beach “on certain days” due to dangerous conditions to “tourists” who “head into” the surf further exemplifies this contrast, and encourages ‘informed’ readers to look with disdain upon the ‘misinformed’ beachgoers. The exasperated tone of Philip in describing how even “attempts from various organizations” to “educate people” about “safe water use” have not succeeded also intensifies her annoyance at the ignorance of some, and may encourage readers to introspect on their own actions and knowledge of beach safety. Furthermore, the use of the word “diabolical” in describing beachgoers with “alcohol” connotes images of evilness with such actions, and invites an audience of casual beachgoers to realize the weight of such reckless behaviour. To a degree, Philip also positions herself to hold a moral high ground due to her role as a “lifesaver,” with her and other “volunteer surf lifesavers” acting to "help” when “trouble arises” due to the misinformed public. The condescending manner in which she states that “there’s a reason why” the dangerous "Johanna beach” is a “perfect surf beach” reinforces the idea that Philip’s greater knowledge of beach safety outweighs that of many of the public and readers. Ultimately, Philip admonishes the ignorance of some beachgoers towards their own safety.

Philips implores parents to take responsibility for their children at beaches. The humorous phrase of some parents using the “flags” as a “free babysitting service” highlights the ridiculousness and laziness of those that do take responsibility for their children at beaches, and thus may cause some parents reading to realize the shame in their actions. The use of the word “lulled” in describing parents that believe their children will be completely “safe” due to the “watch” of a “lifeguard” connotes ideas of naivety and innocence, and may cause an audience of younger parents to realize their ignorance. A serious tone is used by Philips to target the parental fears of readers, with her stating that “the flags” are “no guarantee” that parents’ children will be safe. Alongside this, Philip’s use of an imperative statement in demanding parents to be their “child’s primary lifeguard” further creates a sense of seriousness and directly calls upon readers to protect their children from hazards at beaches. Essentially, Philips urges parents to take greater responsibility for their children’s welfare whilst at the beach.

Ultimately, Nicola Philips ignites fear among readers surrounding the dangerous and unpredictable nature of Australia’s beaches, and thus encourage them to take greater responsibility for their own and others’ safety.

[addict]

Question: I am unsure on how to end every body paragraph. Should I write a linking sentence? I sort of rehashed the topic sentence of each paragraph.

A rise in the number of deaths caused by drowning in Australia has stirred controversy surrounding the safety of the country’s beaches. In an adamant tone, Nicola Philip contends that beach-goers need to acknowledge the dangers of swimming in some of Australia’s shores and take greater responsibility to keep themselves and their children out of harm's way.

Philip argues that Australian beaches can hold significant dangers. A dogmatic tone is used to assert that “certain conditions” at even a “fairly safe beach” can lead to harm among swimmers and surfers. This matter-of-fact tone is underpinned by Phillip citing that Victoria had “12 drownings this summer” and Australia had “50” “drownings,” with the factual evidence granting her greater credibility among readers. Philip’s anecdotal experience as a “volunteer lifeguard” at “Apollo Bay” further aids in cementing her argument as fact, as she has witnessed firsthand the “dangerous” nature of her beach “every summer,” more so than the audience of casual beachgoers. Alongside this, Philip argues that the dangers of beaches can be so significant and indomitable through the use of the word “lurid” in describing the uniforms of “thousands” of “volunteer surf lifesavers.” This highlights the distinguishable and vivid uniforms of lifesavers and their significant presence at beaches, that, despite all, is unable to give beachgoers a “guarantee” of “security” from the dangers of the sea. This portrayal of the sea as an unstoppable force is reaffirmed by the phrase “pounding surf,” which invokes imagery of the danger and destruction that “surf beach[es]” can inflict, and thus may arouse a sense of fear among Victorian beachgoers about their safety. Essentially, the writer warns readers of the hazards that beaches can hold.

The carelessness and risk-taking behaviour of beachgoers is condemned by the writer. The tone shifts from one of firmness to frustration, with Philip now lamenting the lack of knowledge that leads many beachgoers into “trouble.” The acknowledgement that “many people” do “choose” to “increase their safety” at beaches lessens the annoyed tone of Philip, with Victorian readers that value their safety at beaches been granted appreciation. However, a dichotomy is created between the informed and misinformed, with Philip being “astounded” by other beachgoers who act recklessly. The juxtaposition of Philip not even “put[ting]” her “toe” in the beach “on certain days” due to dangerous conditions to “tourists” who “head into” the surf further exemplifies this contrast, and encourages ‘informed’ readers to look with disdain upon the ‘misinformed’ beachgoers. The exasperated tone of Philip in describing how even “attempts from various organizations” to “educate people” about “safe water use” have not succeeded also intensifies her annoyance at the ignorance of some, and may encourage readers to introspect on their own actions and knowledge of beach safety. Furthermore, the use of the word “diabolical” in describing beachgoers with “alcohol” connotes images of evilness with such actions, and invites an audience of casual beachgoers to realize the weight of such reckless behaviour. To a degree, Philip also positions herself to hold a moral high ground due to her role as a “lifesaver,” with her and other “volunteer surf lifesavers” acting to "help” when “trouble arises” due to the misinformed public. The condescending manner in which she states that “there’s a reason why” the dangerous "Johanna beach” is a “perfect surf beach” reinforces the idea that Philip’s greater knowledge of beach safety outweighs that of many of the public and readers. Ultimately, Philip admonishes the ignorance of some beachgoers towards their own safety.

Philips implores parents to take responsibility for their children at beaches. The humorous phrase of some parents using the “flags” as a “free babysitting service” highlights the ridiculousness and laziness of those that do take responsibility for their children at beaches, and thus may cause some parents reading to realize the shame in their actions. The use of the word “lulled” in describing parents that believe their children will be completely “safe” due to the “watch” of a “lifeguard” connotes ideas of naivety and innocence, and may cause an audience of younger parents to realize their ignorance. A serious tone is used by Philips to target the parental fears of readers, with her stating that “the flags” are “no guarantee” that parents’ children will be safe. Alongside this, Philip’s use of an imperative statement in demanding parents to be their “child’s primary lifeguard” further creates a sense of seriousness and directly calls upon readers to protect their children from hazards at beaches. Essentially, Philips urges parents to take greater responsibility for their children’s welfare whilst at the beach.

Ultimately, Nicola Philips ignites fear among readers surrounding the dangerous and unpredictable nature of Australia’s beaches, and thus encourage them to take greater responsibility for their own and others’ safety.

Hi MissSmiley! Good on you for keeping this club going. I'm not sure if I'm qualified to give feedback as an EAL kid, but I rather miss doing language analysis so I'll have a go.

- The intro and conclusion are concise, which is good. It might be worthwhile to include a comment about the target audience (ie. parents, beachgoers) in there.
- Keep in mind that you won't be able to go into this much detail in your SACs and exams. Stick to the main language and argument features. Try to keep your analysis under double the length of the material.
- When using examples, it's not necessary to place quotation marks around basic nouns that don't somehow enrich your analysis. eg. "toe", "alcohol", "flags"
- Linking sentences are not necessary at all. By all means, do them if you're used to doing them, but it might be better to skip them and save more time for analysis.
- You are explaining the writer's intention very well. However, please use conditional phrasing and stay away from strong words. An example from your piece:

The humorous phrase of some parents using the “flags” as a “free babysitting service” highlights the ridiculousness and laziness of those that do take responsibility for their children at beaches, and thus may cause some parents reading to realize the shame in their actions.

While this analysis is good, you are bringing your own opinion into your analysis by insinuating that [parents who place all their trust in the flags are ridiculously lazy and irresponsible]. Remember, the author is presenting opinions, not facts, so keep your analysis neutral. It might also be inaccurate to say that there is "shame" in their actions. Instead, I might say something like:

Philip deploys humour in her description of the flags as a "free babysitter service" in an attempt to ridicule parents who do not actively supervise their children on the beach, inclining parent readers to reconsider the appropriateness of trusting simple inanimate objects with the sophisticated yet important task of ensuring the safety of their children.

Overall, great effort! I think you're well prepared for the year.

[Anonymous]

That's super helpful, thank you so much!!

[Anonymous]

this is only the intro and bp 1

In response to a recent report regarding an increase in drownings across the nation, there has been growing discussion within the community as to the role people should play in the safety of their families and themselves at beaches. One such response comes from Nicola Philp, a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay beach. In her [i have no idea what this text type is called] comment, Philp targets beachgoers, as well as parents, suggesting that the latter be more proactive in keeping their children safe.

Employing a concerned(?) tone, Philp argues that parents should not rely solely on lifeguards to watch their children. She begins by immediately establishing herself as a credible source of information, through the use of the personal 'I'. Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings. In an attempt to further exploit parental inhibitions, she states that they are "no guarantee" of safety; they are only "fairly safe". Reaffirming this notion, Philp places the onus on parents. with the call to action to be their "child's primary lifeguard", thus instilling a sense of responsibility within them. As such, readers may well be inclined to heed Philp's advice, considering her insights as a lifeguard.

[addict]

this is only the intro and bp 1

In response to a recent report regarding an increase in drownings across the nation, there has been growing discussion within the community as to the role people should play in the safety of their families and themselves at beaches. One such response comes from Nicola Philp, a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay beach. In her [i have no idea what this text type is called] comment, Philp targets beachgoers, as well as parents, suggesting that the latter be more proactive in keeping their children safe.

Employing a concerned(?) tone, Philp argues that parents should not rely solely on lifeguards to watch their children. She begins by immediately establishing herself as a credible source of information, through the use of the personal 'I'. Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings. In an attempt to further exploit parental inhibitions, she states that they are "no guarantee" of safety; they are only "fairly safe". Reaffirming this notion, Philp places the onus on parents. with the call to action to be their "child's primary lifeguard", thus instilling a sense of responsibility within them. As such, readers may well be inclined to heed Philp's advice, considering her insights as a lifeguard.

Good to see so many of you starting on English so early! It's one of the subjects people neglect the most.

Intro:
- I'm pretty sure this is a letter to the editor, but it's usually in the background information in a formal assessment.
- The only statement you made about the author's aim is suggesting parents be "more proactive in keeping their children safe". Please state the contention, ie. something along the lines of [everyone should be vigilant around beaches]. If you wish to mention the main points you will focus on in your body paragraph, either mention all of them or none, not just one.
- While this is not necessary, you could mention that the author is using an authoritative tone to target the stakeholders you mentioned. That last sentence seems to lack a bit of detail.

Body:
- Only present evidence that somehow supports your analysis. Don't quote just to paraphrase the article. Summarise what the author is trying to say in your own words to show understanding, then move onto your original analysis, focusing on the specific affect on the reader. An example from you:

Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings.

Try to summarise one of the author's arguments succinctly, then provide a detailed analysis of it:
Philip then proceeds to argue that beaches are dangerous in spite of the safety measures in place, (the author's argument) as evident from her acknowledgement of the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". She deploys humour in her description of the flags as a "free babysitter service" in an attempt to ridicule parents who do not actively supervise their children on the beach, inclining parent readers to reconsider the appropriateness of trusting simple inanimate objects with the sophisticated yet important task of ensuring the safety of their children.(evidence presented along with my/your analysis)

Again, good work guys! Do keep it up!

[Anonymous]

Disclaimer: all my feedback is just personal experience with feedback I've gotten from teachers/tutor. If anyone thinks my interpretation isn't correct, please feel free to correct.

this is only the intro and bp 1

In response to a recent report regarding an increase in drownings across the nation, there has been growing discussion within the community as to the role people should play in the safety of their families and themselves at beaches. One such response comes from Nicola Philp, a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay beach. In her [i have no idea what this text type is called] comment, Philp targets beachgoers, as well as parents, suggesting that the latter be more proactive in keeping their children safe.

Concise which is always nice!  However, I want you to focus more on your contention....--> see end of feedback

Employing a concerned(?) tone (I'm not that great with tonal words but I wouldn't say concerned, more along the lines of condeming), Philp argues that parents should not rely solely on lifeguards to watch their children. She begins by immediately establishing herself as a credible source of information, through the use of the personal 'I'. *1*.Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings. *2* In an attempt to further exploit parental inhibitions, she states that they are "no guarantee" of safety; they are only "fairly safe". *3* Reaffirming this notion, Philp places the onus on parents. with the call to action to be their "child's primary lifeguard", thus instilling a sense of responsibility within them . As such, readers may well be inclined to heed Philp's advice, considering her insights as a lifeguard. *4*

*1*
Okay, you are absolutely right! But when you bring something up, you want to always explain the intended effect.

*2*
Okay, so we have these two lines that you are analysing
-"So far we’ve had 12 drownings in Victoria this summer, and 50 nationally. And this is despite the attempts from various organisations to educate people about safe water use."
From this first line, she's kind of saying ...how the heck do we have so many people drowning even tho we have heaps of organisations promoting safe water use?? From this, she's kind of criticising people for being ignorant. Again, this condemnation is reinforced thru the second line, especially through the phrase "free babysitting service". How are parents portrayed through that phrase? Hint: She's saying parents have to be their child's "primary lifeguard" but babysitting is when the parent isn't really around...
-"astounded at how many people use the flags as a free babysitting service...false sense of security"


*3*
Doesn't make sense.

*4**
Yep but also put yourself in these parent shoes. Notice how she strategically places this call of action after describing the waves as something that can "pop up and sweep you off the shelf". As a result, parents may feel a sense of fear/concern for their children's safety. OR parents may take on responsibilities because they don't want to be labelled as an ignorant parent.
Overall:
This is definitely a good effort, even for posting on the holidays! Here's some things I want you to tackle:
- Introduction/ Contention: Try to be more specific with your contention rather than broad. Depending on the piece, I like to sometimes write her intended effect. Basically, what is the author trying to get her/his readers to do. In this piece, you might touch on how she critiques the general public for being ignorant, trying to get the public to be more informed, parents to be parents.
-Worthy-quotes:You picked out these quotes which is very good! but in the next piece, do the same but this time, analyse the connotations and effect of these phrases. This will allow for deeper analysis --> more quality piece.
- Write more about effect on specific reader.
Good job! Keep at it and you will see tremendous improvements over the year. 

[vceme]

Ah of course I forget to click the not anonymous button but guys, get on this! Practice is key to improving in English!

[Anonymous]

(Only an introduction and the first body paragraph):

An increase of fatalities on Australian beaches raises concern and awareness for the safety of the nation’s beach-goers. Whilst employing an authoritative tone, a volunteer lifeguard Nicola Philp attempts to convey their contention in their letter to the editor that beach-goers should be more vigilant and attentive when being active on beaches.

Philps argues that parents need to take the initiative to secure the safety of their children amongst the shores. Mentioning that the flags only have a use of being a “free babysitting service” attempts to emphasise that parents are too careless when it comes to supervising their children on beaches, which is seen as a major factor that contributes into the rise of deaths due to drownings. This helps to strike guilt and a sense of responsibility into parents, particularly to frequent beach-goers, and thus make readers take corrective actions to ensuring the safety of their children. Additionally, this is further complimented using direct language from the phrase “you are your child’s primary lifeguard.” The words “you” and “your” continuously reiterates the lack of awareness in parents among beaches, which ultimately seeks readers to feel more involved when it comes to preventing dangers arising to their children.



Also I would like to ask what is the key to easily finding 3 main argument points in a piece that is short as this weeks one. I always having trouble to find what to write my body paragraphs about in a short amount of time.

[peachxmh]

A/N: MissSmiley, just wanted to alert you that the article appears cut off from the original article online (unless it was intentional to make it shorter or something in which case I apologise!) Also wondering whether it's possible to put the title and source of the article, as well as when it was published so we can include these details in our essays? Thanks

Also to anyone reading this, only wrote two body paragraphs, because of the size of the article, wondering if that's okay? And any detailed feedback on my piece is appreciated, thank you very much for taking time out of your day to read and correct this.

---

In an opinion piece written by Nicola Philp, the issue of an increase in drownings across Australia has been raised. Philp, herself a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay, and therefore, personally affiliated with the issue, contends that beachgoers should take greater responsibility for themselves, rather than completely relying on others to ensure their safety. Targeting parents who bring their children to beaches as well as other general beachgoers, she employs a frustrated tone to convey her concern.

The author argues that beachgoers need to be increase their awareness of the correct ways to use beaches safely. Her use of the phrase "volunteer surf lifesavers" highlights her contention by drawing readers'  attention to the fact that lifeguards are doing their job out of their own goodwill. This causes readers to question why parents can't take on their own responsibilities while others can. By establishing herself as one of these " volunteer surf lifesavers", Philp also shows readers that she is a credible source of information, since she has witnessed the conditions at Australian beaches firsthand. She then attacks those who go to the beach whilst intoxicated, labelling them " diabolical"  and citing the dangers that can happen to even those sober. Through her inclusion of logos and statistical evidence, "12 drownings in Victoria" and "50 nationally", she backs up her assertions and gains credibility. That she suggests "various organisations" have tried to educate beachgoers about "safe water use" implies that those still not following these guidelines are simply refusing to listen. As a result, Philp alleges that people going to the beach should not only make themselves more knowledgeable on water safety issues, but also follow these rules as from the many public campaigns previously circulated, most beachgoers should be aware of safety guidelines surrounding their use of water.

Philp then goes on to criticize parents who take advantage of lifeguards and safety measures at beaches, without thinking of their own actions. She specifically targets those that put their children in "between the flags" to use them as a "free babysitting service", and shows her disapproval by saying she is "astounded" by such people. Through her description of Johanna beach's water as "pounding surf", she alerts them that the flags can give a "false sense of security", as the contrast between the domineering nature of "pounding" and the littleness of a child is significantly different. The author again uses contrasting of this nature in her anecdote of avoiding putting her toe into the surf, when she references the power of the waves to "pop up and sweep" it away. Again, the powerfulness of the waves is shown to be starkly
different from her toe's power to withstand them, due to its small size. By claiming that even a toe could not withstand such waves, readers are led to question why anyone would leave their child unsupervised in the water. Philp's insinuation that children are extremely vulnerable in the waters at beaches is a means of discouraging parents from being overly reliant on lifeguards and flags, and not additionally supervising their children themselves.

The opinion piece is concluded with the statement that whilst "no lifeguard wants anyone to drown", they cannot be solely liable for a child's safety as parents are their "child's primary lifeguard". Her concluding statement "you are your child's primary lifeguard" is a call to arms for parents to heed her advice, which she achieves through appearing to aim her remarks at individual readers, via the personal pronouns "you" and "your". Ultimately, Philp contends that ensuring their own safety in water through adjusting their behaviour should be at the forefront of beachgoers' minds.

[peachxmh]

(Only an introduction and the first body paragraph):

An increase of fatalities on Australian beaches raises concern and awareness for the safety of the nation’s beach-goers. Whilst employing an authoritative tone, a volunteer lifeguard Nicola Philp attempts to convey their contention in their letter to the editor that beach-goers should be more vigilant and attentive when being active on beaches.

Philps argues that parents need to take the initiative to secure the safety of their children amongst the shores. Mentioning that the flags only have a use of being a “free babysitting service” attempts to emphasise that parents are too careless when it comes to supervising their children on beaches, which is seen as a major factor that contributes into the rise of deaths due to drownings. This helps to strike guilt and a sense of responsibility into parents, particularly to frequent beach-goers, and thus make readers take corrective actions to ensuring the safety of their children. Additionally, this is further complimented using direct language from the phrase “you are your child’s primary lifeguard.” The words “you” and “your” continuously reiterates the lack of awareness in parents among beaches, which ultimately seeks readers to feel more involved when it comes to preventing dangers arising to their children.



Also I would like to ask what is the key to easily finding 3 main argument points in a piece that is short as this weeks one. I always having trouble to find what to write my body paragraphs about in a short amount of time.

Intro:
I think "has raised" would be a better way of putting it rather than "raises", as the issue was already previously brought up Royal Life Saving Australia (as mentioned in the background info). Not sure if it's a letter to the editor, I think it's actually an opinion piece, but it's not really clear, so don't worry too much about this. Great contention! Wondering if you could flesh out your intro a bit more by talking about the target audience.

1st paragraph:
Topic sentence is good! I don't think she's saying that parents need to be more aware of their children on the shores but rather when they're in water. Also, she's not saying that the flags are solely used for babysitting, but rather parents are using them to babysit their children in addition to how other people at the beach use them (i.e. other people may choose to swim within the flags as it's safer for them), if that makes sense. "Is an attempt to emphasise" would be a better way to phrase "attempts to emphasise" which sounds a little awkward. I don't think she explicitly mentions that unsupervised children are a major factor of drownings, although she does imply this - I would be a bit careful with how you phrase this. Rest of the paragraph is fine

As for your question, usually arguments are separated into distinct paragraphs, or under subheadings so I'd look out for these if they're present in the text. Otherwise, I think constantly exposing yourself to articles and asking yourself, "What are the author's main arguments here?" would allow you to get better at recognizing these arguments, and to get quicker at it.

Pretty good start overall, and kudos to you for taking initiative by participating in this club!

[MissSmiley]

---

In an opinion piece written by Nicola Philp, the issue of an increase in drownings across Australia has been raised. Technically, Nicola's piece hasn't raised the issue, she's only making a stance on the issue. These are the fine things assessors really want you to consider! Philp, herself a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay, and therefore, personally affiliated with the issue, really great to mention this! However, this is great for the first body para -- on how the author 'constructs' or 'sets up' their argument. So this doesn't need to go into the intro contends that beachgoers should take greater responsibility for themselves, rather than completely relying on others beach lifesaversto ensure their safety. Targeting parents I used to say 'targeting' at the start of the year as well, but later my teacher told me it just felt really harsh haha! as if a gun or bullet targeting and shooting someone haha! So just 'She addresses parents...' would do the job just fine!  who bring their children to beaches as well as other general beachgoers, she employs a frustrated really? how about earnest or authoritative? tone to convey her concern.

The author argues that beachgoers need to be increase their awareness of the correct ways to use beaches safely. Her use of the phrase "volunteer surf lifesavers" highlights her contention you've said on the previous line what the author's contention is, so this next line about goodwill doesn't really link to the first line of your para.by drawing readers'  attention to the fact that lifeguards are doing their job out of their own goodwill. This causes readers to question why parents can't take on their own responsibilities while others can. Be careful to not deviate from proving the first line of your para. how is this linked to her contention? By establishing herself as one of these " volunteer surf lifesavers", Philp also shows readers that she is a credible source of information, since she has witnessed the conditions at Australian beaches firsthand...something like 'In turn, readers are likely to take her incredulity and earnest tone seriously'...or something. Just felt a bit unfinished. She then attacks This is really strong and speculative. Don't worry, everyone does this at the start of the year! But let's aim to write things like 'she aims to condemns' or 'she aims to suggests' or other synonyms for 'aims' those who she's not attacking or criticising the people, but she's critiquing the action - drinking alcohol and swimming. I know what you mean, but this is where reading the article again comes handy! go to the beach whilst intoxicated, labelling them not the people, but the action " diabolical"  and citing the dangers that can happen to even those sober. Through her inclusion of logos and statistical evidence, "12 drownings in Victoria" and "50 nationally", she backs up her assertions and gains credibility.When you see authors using numbers, a way to stand out with your analyses is look at if the numbers increase or decrease. In this case, it's a 'numerical increase.' Therefore, she's widening the intensity of the deaths - firstly from a state level then on a national level. What's the effect? Makes us feel even scared and worried! So whilst your analysis about 'backs up her assertions and credibility' is correct to some extent, make sure you think out of box and don't analyse just generally! That Awkward way to start a sentence. Could you go like 'By suggesting that...she aims to imply..." she suggests "various organisations" have tried to educate beachgoers about "safe water use" implies that those still not following these guidelines are simply refusing to listen. As a result, Philp alleges that people going to the beach should not only make themselves more knowledgeable on water safety issues, but also follow these rules. I like the next point here, but it would be really great if you break this sentence and then use the next point as your 'intended effect and action' sentence. So, something like: 'Beachgoers, after being reminded of a potential sense of responsibility, are likely to then take the many previously circulated public campaigns about water safety seriously.' Now you've got the intended action sentence as well, which I've mentioned later on in this feedback. But you've done a good linking sentence! (often it's forgotten by many at the end of their paras!) as from the many public campaigns previously circulated, most beachgoers should be aware of safety guidelines surrounding their use of water.

Philp then goes on to criticize parents who take advantage of lifeguards and safety measures at beaches, without thinking of their own actions. this is a bit harsh. So could you write Philp's second argument something like: 'Philp then proceeds to coax beachgoers to stay alive to dangers in the water, rather than solely relying on lifeguards.' She specifically targets those that put their children in "between the flags" to use them as a "free babysitting service" you need to continue to analyse the intended effect of this in a new sentence. Don't end with just quoting, make sure you really pull apart the effect. 'Free babysitting service' is a great quote to analyse because you can talk about connotations! Perhaps you could say that calling it this is aimed to spur anger amongst lifeguards because they're dedicating their time and efforts to ensure safety, but this is only taking place one-sided! Remember, lifeguards are also a group in Nicola's audience! You've gotta think about all the stakeholders! On the other hand, calling the flags 'free babysitting service' connotes the idea that parents are negligent and so self-absorbed that they fail to take care of their child on beach. Thus, parents are made to feel guilty. See how I've continued this thread? What --> how ----> why   and shows her disapproval by saying she is "astounded" by such people. Through her description of Johanna beach's water as "pounding surf", she alerts them that the flags can give a "false sense of security", as the contrast between the domineering nature of "pounding" and the littleness of a child is significantly different. I get what you mean, however, you're jumping too quickly!!  Just slow down and think, is there really a connection  the pounding surf and children? She's saying that the surfs are dangerous for everyone! Not just children! So let's read the article really carefully and try not to make long connections from one thing to something else! Gets confusing for your teacher and assessor! The author again uses contrasting of this nature in her anecdote of avoiding putting her toe into the surf, when she references the power of the waves to "pop up and sweep" it away. Again, the powerfulness of the waves is shown to be starkly different from her toe's power to withstand them, due to its small size. By claiming that even a toe could not withstand such waves, readers are led to question why anyone would leave their child unsupervised in the water. I feel like you're over analysing things haha! Don't worry, this happens with everyone in the beginning! Don't really complicate things, and prioritise what evidence you'll quote. I've tried to write a comment about this below in blue as well. Philp's insinuation that children are extremely vulnerable in the waters at beaches is a means of discouraging parents from being overly reliant on lifeguards and flags, and not additionally supervising their children themselves. this is excellent! Wanted to see this right at the start though!! And then when you signpost this in the beginning, you'll automatically see evidence to only prove this point! That'll make sure you pick only relevant evidence! This last line is excellent, because you pinpointed one of Philp's argument! However, just like this is a linking sentence, it should also have been in your first few sentences!

The opinion piece is Not needed. Philp concluds with the statement that whilst "no lifeguard wants anyone to drown", they cannot be solely liable for a child's safety as parents are their "child's primary lifeguard". Her concluding statement "you are your child's primary lifeguard" this is repetitive and notice how you're not analysing, but just summarising. I've written about this later. is a call to arms for parents to heed her advice, which she aims to achieves through appearing to aim her remarks at individual readers, via the personal pronouns "you" and "your" Ultimately, Philp contends that ensuring their own safety in water through adjusting their behaviour What do you mean? through being cautious? should be at the forefront of beachgoers' minds.

Hi peachxmh!

Great effort! I really like how you focus on argument construction at times - by this, I mean how Nicola presents herself, how she makes use of the credentials and how her flabbergasted style contributes to the overall mood. I could definitely see a few of these things in your analysis, which is great!

With your structure though, I do feel you jump around, in that you do a good job in pinpointing the argument in your first sentence of a para, and then you sort of move to talk about other evidence that doesn't necessarily prove the argument of the writer. That's why when you insert things about author's writer's credibility as well, it just feels a bit loose because things don't somehow link together. So, let's see how we can work on having a strong structure that could potentially be used for any pieces of articles:
1. Your first para --> could dedicate to argument construction - for example, analysing how the writer sets up their credibility, do they concede? have they employed a prebuttal? what's the intended effect?
2. Your second para --> first sentence should always signpost one of the arguments.
3. Within each para, select 3 pieces of evidence. Let's do this! Just stick to using 3 or 4 at the most for now. For each piece of evidence, get a point, quote comment cycle going.
What ---> how --> why
A description of the chickens as being "slaughtered", "butchered" and "maimed" is likely to provoke a strong sense of sympathy and injustice, particularly amongst readers who are sensitive to animal rights and are therefore more likely to empathise with the chickens or feel an aversion towards such acts of cruelty.

See how this is such a disciplined method which won't go wrong at all? You're ticking off absolutely everything, when you follow these three golden things!!
You can change the order to mix things up as well! So for example how ---> what ---> why.
If you notice your sentences getting long, just break these these things into two first and then the why later for example. Although I do like that you're varying the length of your sentences!

In terms of picking relevant evidence, try and pick evidence that directly links to proving an argument. For example, one argument in this week's piece was how the waters can be really dangerous for example. This can go into the first body para. A great way to set up the scene for your analysis!
So I'd pick these three evidences to prove this point:
1. adding alcohol into the mix is diabolical.
2. 12 drownings in Victoria this summer, and 50 nationally.
3.  a wave can pop up and sweep you off the shelf
Doing the what, how, why cycle for each of the three pieces of evidence will form such a strong para that includes very little summarising but really great connotative analysis!
So, do you see how one or two word quotes like "safe water use" "various organisations" and "between the flags" doesn't really provide any opportunities to analyse? Best to not quote things if you're not gonna flesh them out! And vice versa, if you quote something, make sure to talk about it! 

But, you're already making sure to include so many great things!! Definitely a great shot for the first week!
Following this cycle and strengthening your structure will really make your analysis shine through, peachxmh!

I'm really looking forward to reading your writing and seeing you progress!!   
I hope this helps!

[MissSmiley]

Hello AAnalysers!!

Firstly, I'd like to say a huge Well done to all those who are getting involved with AA -- whether it be by writing or giving feedback!!
It's so so great to see lots of writing happening and this is only the first week! Definitely shows how the Class of 2019 is so dedicated towards their English studies! Everyone deserves a pat on the back, I reckon!! 

Just a few replies, a few suggestions and my thoughts in this post:

@addict:
 I'm not sure if I'm qualified to give feedback as an EAL kid, but I rather miss doing language analysis so I'll have a go.
Hey addict!
Firstly, a massive congratulations on your 50 and your incredible ATAR!! You should be really proud of yourself!
Of course you can give feedback!! Every piece of feedback is so so useful for the person whose work is on here and also for others who want to read feedback!
You're immensely talented and you've got a fantastic experience from doing AA in EAL as well!
Also, this applies to everyone reading this!! Everyone is very very welcome to practice writing and/or give feedback here!

Also I would like to ask what is the key to easily finding 3 main argument points in a piece that is short as this weeks one. I always having trouble to find what to write my body paragraphs about in a short amount of time.
Hi!
Because this is the first week, I've kept the piece this short. I was just wanting people to get in the zone, get used to doing AA once again for their final year, that's why I didn't want to go too hard in the first week.
You're right though, finding arguments in a piece this short is hard, but make sure you know that VCAA could very well give you a second piece that is this short! Things like a short comment or a set of very short comments is common, so it's good to get used to different lengths of pieces!
You do not need to find 3 arguments for every single piece you're given! For an article this short, 1 or at the most 2 arguments is all you need to track and then analyse how they have been developed.
As with time, I always stuck to finding 2 or 3 good pieces of evidence to quote from the piece, obviously the first piece, which is usually longer, you'd need more, but stick to max 4 pieces of evidence per para. Your focus should be on analysing argument, therefore, your analysis should be devoted time. And if you follow the what --> how ---> why intended effect cycle, you'll find you'll be ok with time management!

@peachxmh
A/N: MissSmiley, just wanted to alert you that the article appears cut off from the original article online (unless it was intentional to make it shorter or something in which case I apologise!) Also wondering whether it's possible to put the title and source of the article, as well as when it was published so we can include these details in our essays? Thanks   
Great pickup peachxmh!
Same as above, I wanted to start off the first week with a short sweet 2 argument piece, therefore I had to take small paras and put them together into a small comment-like size article!
Don't worry though! They'll get bigger as the weeks progress! 
I'll start adding in visuals as well, as embedding visual analysis is very important!
And yes, I'll put the title, source + the date every week as well, for those who want to practice writing their intros as well.

One last note to everyone, please don't feel obliged to write a full fledged AA essay every time! Judging how much you should write is very very important, depending on the length of the article you're given!
Writing heaps for only a small article is going to take up valuable time which you'll need for analysing the longer article in your exam book!

Also, I'd like to end this post with a link to a fantastic page on our lovely, magnificent, highly incredible ATARNOTES forums:

https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=164755.0

This is an incredibly useful page and I highly recommend everyone to explore the links and to really sink in the knowledge that so many generous AN users have put together for this community to learn and progress!

Thanks a lot to everyone who contributed, it's amazing how talented and dedicated you are to your English studies!! 

Feel free to ask any questions about the club or just anything about AA!