Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 06:54:16 am

Author Topic: 2017 AA Club Week 3  (Read 7195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Raven

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Respect: +30
2017 AA Club Week 3
« on: May 29, 2017, 06:23:42 pm »
+7
Background: In the recent government budget, the Liberal party announced a decrease in funding to universities. This would lead to an increase in student fees and decrease the income threshold at which HECs loans would have to be paid back. The funding cuts also means that permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will now have to pay full fee for Australian University degrees without government subsidization. This budget was criticised by university students and all major Australian universities. This letter to the editor piece was published in a local newspaper.


Say ‘No!’ to University defunding!

In the recent federal budget, the Liberal government has shown, once again, that they are after universities. It seems the government has learnt from their last budgetary fiasco after their savage attack on the educational sector led to the removal of Tony Abbott form the Prime Ministership. However, just because their cuts this year aren’t as deep doesn’t mean we can relax. It should be obvious to everyone that as long as the current government is in power, universities will face constant attack. Our Australian university system is one of the best in the world; it has produced renowned scientists, legal experts, and has educated leaders of many countries. The government says they are trying to move Australia forward, but how is reducing investment in the future of our country going to help?

University students are rightfully agitated, but their voices alone cannot save our world-renowned university programs. We should remember that just a few decades ago, university education was free; something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from. We should remember that an accessible tertiary education led to a booming economy and pushed Australia to the forefront of global innovation. If we don’t do something now, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse.

Perhaps the reason these cuts have not garnered as much attention from the public is due to the governments generous spending in other areas. But don’t be fooled! The liberal party has shown they are against the university system, and this new decrease in funding is the start of a dangerous slippery slope to a full-blown USA college payment system where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt! We need to ask ourselves if that is what we want for our children and our children’s children. Our nation’s future is at stake, and around us countries are investing heavily into higher education. If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.

Mr Karl Green


« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 06:26:13 pm by The Raven »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2017, 12:55:51 pm »
+4
Recently, there has been uproar after in a recent government budget, the liberal party announced a decrease in funding to universities. In a chronologically structured letter to the editor “Say ‘No!’ to university defunding” Karl Green urgently and irritably suggests that Australians are at risk of falling behind economically and educationally if Australians don’t take action. Green uses inclusive language and repetition to make apparent that it is up to Australians to reject the budget and generate a change. 

Karl Green makes apparent that due to the decreased funding to universities Australia’s fate is at risk. Green employs the use of inclusive language to highlight that “Our nation’s future is at stake”. This makes evident that Australia’s future is at risk as Australia could lose “our global position as an educational powerhouse” as well as being at risk of “falling behind” economically. This prompts the reader to consider the effects of the budget cut on Australia and Australians. This further positions the reader to feel angered by the government’s decision as well as empowered to help alleviate the issue. This leaves the reader invested to assist in making a change.

Green takes an informal approach using a letter to the editor as his medium. This inclines his connection with the reader. The use of urgent and irritable tones help Green associate his views with the views of the public. By employing inclusive language and repetition he reiterates to the reader the danger such a budget cut will have on Australia. Thus, prompting the reader to reject the budget cut to universities.

In conclusion, the letter to the editor aims to inform Australians on the decrease in funding to universities. The use of inclusive language and repetition allows Green to highlight the affects that the decrease in funding will bring to Australians, making apparent its detrimental nature to Australia.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2017, 03:12:39 pm »
+4
IMPORTANT

This board is to be used exclusively for responses to the fortnightly AA material. If you wish to have any other responses marked, please post them up on the English Work Submission and Marking board (https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?board=406.0) where you'll more likely get the help you need in a timelier fashion. All non-AA Club related responses will be moved to that board promptly.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 03:14:34 pm by Anonymous »

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2017, 07:57:49 pm »
+5
Brief one this week, cos SACs.  :'( :'( :'(

Responding to the recent government budget with decreased university funding, Karl Green’s letter to the editor “Say ‘No!’ to University defunding” criticizes such cuts as regressive for education within Australia. In doing so, he derides the government for making such decision. You've already stated that Green's letter "criticises" the government's actions. Is the final line necessary? Unless you did it to include "derisive", which you could place here instead: "Karl Green's derisive letter to the editor..."

Green argues that the government’s decision was ignorant to of citizens’ interests. He immediately distances them as from “the government” with “their cuts” to insinuate to audiences that the government does not share similar interests with themselves evidence?. This immediately undermines their credibility amongst audiences, and leads them to deduce that their recent university funding cuts were also with unaligned intentions. Angered at such deceit that is contrary to what they expect of their trusted representatives, audiences are hence positioned to oppose their decisions, including that of the university funding cuts. Green then proceeds to further mar their image by depicting them as a belligerent I feel that this is too strong a word; the govt. isn't exactly antagonistic towards unis, it's just targeting them. entity that “constant[ly] attacks” universities. This again plays to the government’s expected benign, harmless image, that only advocates for the good of citizens, itself being contradicted by the suggestions made here. From this, Green conveys to audiences that not only does the government mislead their citizens, but are also unsatisfactory in fulfilling their role, with this inadequacy and faultiness being translated into their funding cuts. Hence, audiences are maneuvered to oppose such flawed changes.   

Interwoven within these criticisms, however, is praise for Australia’s education system. For example, Green labels the “Australian university system [as] … the best in the world”. By itself, this appeals to national pride in so that audiences are positioned to want to protect such system that warrants such commendation for their country --> But why would readers want to protect such system, in terms of its contribution to Australian society?. However, when paired with Green’s attack of the government, it serves to amplify the already predisposed distrust towards them and their decisions. --> I'd say: stick to the one argument OR explain how the conflicting language devices interact to support this particular argument - e.g. Green has created a positive image of Aus --> hence, his subsequent condemnation of the government reinforces the urgent need to protect Australia's endangered university system.


I like the concision of your analysis :)  At times, though, I feel that you go straight into the intended effects without including or fully fleshing out evidence. But I understand that you're very occupied at the moment. All the best for your SACs remi!
ATAR: 99.70

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2017, 10:12:44 pm »
+2
Response to "Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The Liberal Party's announcement to decrease funding to universities in its recent budget has caused uproar among university students and major Australian universities alike. Karl Green reflects this response in his letter, as he contends in a concerned tone that university "defunding" will be detrimental to Australia's future and therefore, must not come into effect. Through his appeals to readers' fears and ambitions for Australia, Green warns Australian students of the threat that such policy poses to their education.

To emphasise the value and the need for current universities, Green claims that Australia's universities have moulded many generations of successful and influential citizens in its history. Proudly, he attributes the success of "many of today's" politicians to Australia's "world-renowned" universities, which presents Australia's educational institutions as a truly invaluable asset to its society. This instills in readers the idea that to demolish such sacred resource would be a waste and a tragic loss for the Australian community. Also, the fact that the very politicians who were nurtured in such institutions would choose to demolish their driving force exposes their hypocrisy and ingratitude towards those who launched their careers, provoking readers' outrage at their leaders' selfishness which has driven them to make such fiscal decisions. Furthermore, Green conjures a vibrant image of Australia's society brought about by its quality universities, with the words "booming", "forefront" and "powerhouse" painting Australia as a flourishing country and as the epitome of education to which the rest of the world aspired. Such inspiring words intend to appeal to readers' national pride, and positions them to regard the current university system as having been instrumental to their success thus far. This in turn instills in them the desire to maintain that level of success through preserving current universities.

Green subsequently contrasts his positive image of Australia to a more ominous one, arguing that the government's new funding scheme threatens the country's future success. In an agitated voice, Green warns that as long as the current government remains in power, "universities will face constant attack", with the word "constant" especially generating fear in readers for their now insecure future, and encouraging them to be vigilant of the government's brash plans. Green further adds to readers' sense of anxiety and urgency as he foreshadows the start of a "dangerous slippery slope" escalating to a "full-blown" financial crisis for university students, frightening them with the thought that they will eventually become penniless. Indeed, Green reproachfully claims that "around us" countries are heavily" investing in higher education; Green thus appeals to readers' patriotism as before, but this time, to generate disappointment and embarrassment at the country's lack of investment in such an important aspect of Australian society. Ultimately, Green calls upon his readers to act for their "our" children's sake, with his inclusive language uniting his readers and appealing to their common, innate desire to provide the best opportunities for their future children. In this way, Green mobilises his readers to protest against the government's defunding of universities, which he establishes as damaging for Australia's future prosperity.

ringring

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ✞ Philippians 4:13 ✞
  • Respect: 0
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2017, 07:43:31 pm »
+1
"Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The recent decrease in funding to Australian universities as part of the Liberal Government’s federal budget has sparked discussion within students whether more funds should be spent on universities. In the letter to the editor entitled ‘Say ‘No!’ to University Defunding!’, author Karl Green utilises an outraged and indignant tone to contend that if we don’t take action, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse.
 
Green opens his piece by claiming that the Liberal government is ‘after universities’ immediately provoking feelings of hostility within the audience towards the Liberal party. Negative connotations such as ‘savage attack’ are aimed to further portray the Liberal government in a bad light. The authors use of inclusive language familiarises the issue and places a sense of responsibility on the readers to take action. Green mentions that the ‘Australian university system is one of the best in the world’ thus appealing to the audience’s national pride and encouraging them to act to maintain this status.
 
The writer continues to highlight the injustice faced by university students prompting readers to sympathise with them. He portrays the hypocrisy of the Liberal party by mentioning that a few decades ago, university education was free; ‘something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from’. Green appeals to the audience’s fear when he claims that we could lose our ‘global position as an educational powerhouse’. The author likens the current situation to America's college payment system ‘where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt’ to emphasise that ‘our nation’s future is at stake’.
 
After positioning his readers to be outraged at the funding cuts, Green urges that ‘If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.’ This is intended to alarm the audience and spur them to actively oppose the changes to university funding.
 
 
2016: Further Maths

2017: English, Methods, Chemistry, Biology, HHD

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2017, 08:56:15 pm »
+1
Only a small response this week  :'(

With the intent of casting the Liberal Government’s recent budget as ruthless and ultimately injudicious, Karl Green appeals to reader’s sense of frustration. By declaring that the Government is ‘after universities’ and has already pursued ‘a savage attack,’ Green introduces the idea that a kind of antagonistic relationship exists between the bodies. Given that Green has established the Government to be the hostile and aggravating 'predator' to universities, readers are urged to recognise that universities are vulnerable victims to the Government’s actions. To confirm this belief in readers, Green progresses to warn that, even though recent budgetary cuts to university fees ‘aren’t as deep,’ Australian’s should not ‘relax.’ By intimating that the appearance of the newly released budget is thereby disingenuous and worthy of reader’s constant attention, Green strives to incite a further degree of exigency in readers, who are consequently invited to condemn the motives of the Government. This sense of condemnation is fortified by Green, who questions how the Government’s disregard for university funding will benefit ‘the future of our country.’ The use of the inclusive, ‘our,’ seeks to remind readers that the future of not only Australia, but themselves, is reliant on the seemingly deceitful and unfair federal budget. By creating this immediacy, Green endeavours to ignite a deeper sense of motivation in readers to protect their financial rights, and ultimately adopt the belief that the Government be reprimanded for it's recent behaviour.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 02:28:20 pm by clarke54321 »
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

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

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2017, 09:21:04 pm »
+2
"Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The recent decrease in funding to Australian universities as part of the Liberal Government’s federal budget has sparked discussion within amongstudents It's quite specific to just say students. This issue is likely to affect multiple bodies. I'm not sure whether you need the last part of the sentence-----> it disrupts the fluencywhether more funds should be spent on universities . In the letter to the editor entitled ‘Say ‘No!’ to University Defunding!’, author Karl Green utilises an outraged and indignant tone to contend that if we Too informal to use 'we'. Just leave it at: If action is not pursued. don’t take action, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse. Nice intro. You've covered all the main components of the piece well  :)
 
Green opens his piece by claiming that the Liberal government is ‘after universities’which immediately provoking provokesfeelings of hostility within the audience towards the Liberal party. Negative connotations such as ‘savage attack’ This phrase in itself is not a connotation. It carries connotations with it. For example, the word 'attack' evokes ideas of viciousness and cunningare aimed to further portray the Liberal government in a bad lightHow does this make readers feel in turn?. The authors use of inclusive language Evidence of this? familiarises the issue and places a sense of responsibility on the readers to take action. Green mentions that the ‘Australian university system is one of the best in the world’ thus appealing to the audience’s national pride and encouraging them to act to maintain this status This is true, but you could make this stronger by fleshing out the piece of evidence.
 
The writer continues to highlight the injustice faced by university students prompting readers to sympathise with themYou must include evidence before making sweeping statements such as this. He portrays the hypocrisy of the Liberal party by mentioning that a few decades ago, university education was free; ‘something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from’Great point. How would this make readers feel? Is Green encouraging readers to acknowledge that a double standard exists? If so, readers are likely to feel aggrieved.. Green appeals to the audience’s fear This is a quick switch from your last sentence. Ensure that you are finishing your points entirely. when he claims that we could lose our ‘global position as an educational powerhouse’. The author likens the current situation to America's college payment system ‘where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt’ to emphasise that ‘our nation’s future is at stake’. Again, need to bring it back to the reader.
 
After positioning his readers to be outraged at the funding cuts, Green urges that ‘If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.’ This is intended to alarm the audience and spur them to actively oppose the changes to university funding. Good understanding of Green's intention.


Well done  :) Your understanding of the piece is good. If you can just focus more heavily on intended reader reaction and analyse your evidence to a greater extent, your writing will move to a new level. Keep it up!

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2017, 09:22:37 pm »
+1
Sorry, I'm battling with the anonymity button again  >:( The above correction is mine.
If you have any questions, please ask me!  :)
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

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

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2017, 09:02:01 am »
+3
Response to "Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The Liberal Party's announcement to decrease funding to universities in its recent budget has caused uproar among university students and major Australian universities alike. Karl Green reflectsI don't think reflects is the right word here. Perhaps echoes this sentiment in his letter to the editor. this response in his letter, as he contends in a concerned tone that university "defunding" will be detrimental to Australia's future and therefore, must not come into effectGood!. Through his appeals to readers' fears and ambitions for Australia, Green warns Australian students of the threat that such policy poses to their education.

To emphasise the value and the need for current universitiesGood identification of argument. But is the the value and need for current universities? Or is it for the funding of universities?, Green claims that Australia's universities have moulded many generations of successful and influential citizens in its history. Proudly, he attributes the success of "many of today's" politicians to Australia's "world-renowned" universities, which presents Australia's educational institutions as a truly invaluable asset to its society. This instills in readers<---- Bit of a clunky expression the idea that to demolish such sacred resource would be a waste and a tragic loss for the Australian communityGreat! How does this make them think in turn?. Also, the fact that the very politicians who were nurtured in such institutions would choose to demolish their driving force exposes their hypocrisy and ingratitude towards those who launched their careersYou need evidence from the piece to support this belief. Also, to make sure that it doesn't sound like your own opinion, include Green's name. For example, Green exposes the double standard prevalent amongst politicians by......, provoking readers' outrage at their leaders' selfishness which has driven them to make such fiscal decisionsAll good ideas here. Maybe split this sentence into two so that expression doesn't become clumsy. Furthermore, Green conjures a vibrant image of Australia's society brought about by its quality universities, with the words "booming", "forefront" and "powerhouse" painting Australia as a flourishing country and as the epitome of educationTo take this a step further, you could talk about the connotations of these words and then reach the conclusion that they therefore depict a flourishing, inspiring education system, etc. to which the rest of the world aspiredaspires. Such inspiring words intend to appeal to readers' national pride, and positions them to regard the current university system as having been instrumental to their success thus far. This in turn instills in them Look, this is accurate, but it just breaks up the expression of your sentence. I'm probably just being too picky.the desire to maintain that level of success through preserving current universitiesGood.

Green subsequently contrasts his positive image of Australia to a more ominous one, arguing that the government's new funding scheme threatens the country's future success Great. In an agitated voiceBetter to keep to tone. We don't know how their voice sounds, Green warns that as long as the current government remains in power, "universities will face constant attack"Stop your sentence here. It's getting too long,]with the word "constant" especially generating fear in readers for their now insecure future, and encouraging them to be vigilant of the government's brash plansGood points, just re-work sentence. Green further adds to readers' sense of anxiety and urgency as he foreshadows the start of a "dangerous slippery slope" escalating to a "full-blown" financial crisis for university students, Sentence getting too long. But if you wanted to make it a really big sentence, you'd need a conjunction of some kind. That is, you can't just start a new clause with ,frightening  . Instead you might say ,thereby frightening frightening them with the thought that they will eventually become penniless. Indeed, Green reproachfully claims that "around us" countries are heavily" investing in higher education;bit of a weird link between sentences going on here Green thus appeals to readers' patriotism as before, but this time, to generate disappointment and embarrassment at the country's lack of investment in such an important aspect of Australian societyGreat. Ultimately, Green calls upon his readers to act for their "our" children's sake, with his inclusive language uniting his readers and appealing to their common, innate desire to provide the best opportunities for their future children Is there evidence in the piece relating directly to the future of children? Or is it just to the future of the nation?. In this way, Green mobilises his readers to protest against the government's defunding of universities, which he establishes as damaging for Australia's future prosperity. Great

This is a great analysis. Your points are really insightful and you have the vocab. to back this up! Just make sure that your sentences don't get too long and that you are concise when making points. If you can work on this, your expression will improve greatly. If you have any questions, please ask. Keep it up!  :D
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 03:37:23 pm by clarke54321 »
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

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

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2017, 11:58:33 am »
+4
Recently, there has been uproar after in a recent government budget, the liberal party announced a decrease in funding to universities. In a chronologically structured letter to the editor “Say ‘No!’ to university defunding” Karl Green urgently and irritably suggests that Australians are at risk of falling behind economically and educationally if Australians don’t take action. Green uses inclusive language and repetition to make apparent that it is up to Australians to reject the budget and generate a change. 

Karl GreenThe only time you bring up his first name is when you're introducing him, after that, you just refer to him by his surname. makes apparent that due to the decreased funding to universities Australia’s fate is at risk. Green employs the use of inclusive language to highlight that “Our nation’s future is at stake”So?. This makes evident that Australia’s future is at risk as Australia could lose “our global position as an educational powerhouse” So? Effect on reader?as well as being at risk of “falling behind” So...?economically. A lot of quoting without analysis going on here.This prompts the reader to consider the effects of the budget cut on Australia and Australians. This further positions the reader to feel angered by the government’s decision as well as empowered to help alleviate the issuetoo vague - try and be more specific.. This leaves the reader invested to assist clumsy. in making a change.

Green takes an informal approach using a letter to the editor as his mediumit's probably beyond the scope of the task to analyse the writer's decision to write a letter to the editor specifically.. This inclines his connection with the reader.What do you mean by this? The use of urgent and irritable tones help Green associate his views with the views of the publictoo vague. What are you trying to say here?. By employing inclusive language and repetition evidence? examples?he reiterates to the reader the danger such a budget cut will have on AustraliaWhat danger? You need to explain how you've jumped from inclusive language and repetition to danger.. Thus, prompting the reader to reject the budget cut to universities.

In conclusion, the letter to the editor aims to inform No. It aims to persuade not inform. Important distinction to make!!!Australians on the decrease in funding to universities. The use of inclusive language and repetition allows Green to highlight the affects that the decrease in funding will bring to Australians, making apparent its detrimental nature to Australia.

More to come.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2017, 12:49:34 pm »
+1
Hey guys! I'm not sure if anyone's still checking this edition of the Analysing Club, but I'm just starting AA again to get ready for exams so i thought I'd give it a go. If someone could give me some feedback it'd be awesome!!


The Liberal government recently released plans to end the subsidization of university fees. In response, Mr Karl Green’s letter to the editor contends that university funding is vital to a “booming” economy, and that its removal would be detrimental to all members of society. Green employs an indignant and inflammatory tone, and specifically targets politically minded members of the Australian community. Green has three main arguments supporting his contention.

Green’s first main argument is that Australia has a “world famous” university system and has produced “renowned scientists”. He uses the connotations of these words to create a utopic representation of the current university environment. In doing so, he positions the reader to feel as if the system is something to be proud of. This is also an appeal to patriotism: by linking the prowess of our universities to Australia achievement, the reader feels as if universities are an integral part of Australian history. Additionally, he mentions that the previous Prime Minister’s attack on university funding led to his downfall, showing the reader that the universities have been defended before, demonstrating that the vast majority of voters supports university funding, and suggests that they, the reader, should too. Green also begins his use of inclusive language, which is prevalent throughout his piece; he repeatedly uses the pronoun “we” instead of “I” to prompt the reader into feeling that this is an issue that will affect everyone. While presenting this argument, Green’s tone is somewhat indignant, as if wondering how anyone could attack the illustrious university system. Here, his tone servers to make the government’s proposed plan seem outlandish and unfavorable.

Green’s second argument refers to the fact that Australia has always had subsidized education and that, a few decades ago, they were completely free. He employs a subtle ad hominem attack by mentioning that most of the politicians trying to defund universities would have benefitted from the very thing they are attempting to take away. By doing so, he attacks the integrity of the Liberals and insinuates that they are not worthy of the reader’s trust and vote. This reference to university systems of years gone past also appeals to a reader’s sense of equality; if everyone used to have free education, then why shouldn’t we? Green uses cause and effect to link accessible tertiary education to Australia’s “booming” economy, highlighting its importance. Green also has an appeal to fear by stating “we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse”. This appeal also has a financial aspect due to the fact that Green has already linked an educated society to Australia’s wealth, intimating that the wealth of the reader is connected directly to the level of education in the population. This supports the contention, since Green has declared that a cut in funding will lead to a decrease in education levels.

Finally, Green contends that if the Liberal pass their proposed law, Australia will end up with an education system like that found in America. He uses the phrase “dangerous slippery-slope,” with its connotations of a lack of control, and events happening quickly and irreversibly, to reinforce the author’s attempt to establish a sense of dread when the reader thinks about the American system. Here, Green employs his only numeric statistic: $200,000. Such a colossal number conveys an obvious message to the reader: if the Liberals pass their law, nobody, other then a privileged few, will be able to afford a tertiary education. This goes against the Australian sentiment of everybody getting a go, that “if you try hard enough, you can get wherever you want in life”. Therefore, the reader will be instilled with a strong opposition to the law just before Green’s final plea for support: he invokes an appeal to family by asking the reader to think of his/her children and grandchildren. The author presents a trend of decreased university funding and increased cost as fact, therefore the reader is lead to believe that by the time their grandchildren want to go to university, it will be out of their reach. Therefore the reader finishes the piece with a sour taste in the mouth, as they believe the Liberal law will lead to members of his/her family not having access to proper education.

Mr Karl Green’s letter reflects the overall community opinion that the government is unjustly stripping its citizens of the right to an education. Green employs a diverse range of persuasive techniques that combine to effectively support his contention. The reader is left with feelings of animosity towards the Liberal government and is perhaps less likely to vote for the Liberals than they would have been before reading the piece.

Willba99

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • sunshine, lollipops and
  • Respect: +40
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2017, 12:50:35 pm »
+1
forgot to tick the anonymous box whoops
2016: Biology, Physics
2017: English, Methods, Specialist, German, Chemistry

Feel free to give me a message if you need help in these subjects!!

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2017, 09:58:16 pm »
+4
Hey guys! I'm not sure if anyone's still checking this edition of the Analysing Club, but I'm just starting AA again to get ready for exams so i thought I'd give it a go. If someone could give me some feedback it'd be awesome!!


The Liberal government recently released plans to end the subsidization of university fees. In response, Mr Karl Green’s letter to the editor contends that university funding is vital to a “booming” economy, and that its removal would be detrimental to all members of society. Green employs an indignant and inflammatory tone, and specifically targets politically minded members of the Australian community. Green has three main arguments supporting his contention. this part isn't necessary. Good introduction, which covers all prime areas. If you can, try and introduce some passive voice to add variety/zest to your writing  :)

Green’s first main argumentthis gives off a 'listy' feel. Try and jump straight into the argument. Ie. To open, Green argues that.... is that Australia has a “world famous” university system and has produced “renowned scientists”. He uses the connotations of these words be specific. What connotations? to create a utopic representation of the current university environment. In doing so, he positions the reader to feel as if the system is something to be proud of good.. This is also an appeal to patriotism: by linking the prowess of our universities to Australia achievement, the reader feels as if universities are an integral part of Australian history I think this point would be more strong if you brought the appeal and connotations together. The connotations of 'world famous' and 'renowned scientists' build to the appeal; thus fortifying reader pride. AdditionallyTo further galvanise his readers to.... (Additionally is a bit jolting/disconnected), he mentions that the previous Prime Minister’s attack on university funding led to his downfalluse direct evidence from the article, showing the reader that the universities have been defended before, demonstrating that the vast majority of voters supports university funding, and suggests that they, the reader, should toothis is weak because of the lack of evidence. Also too long.. Green also begins his use of inclusive language, which is prevalent throughout his piece; he repeatedly uses the pronoun “we” instead of “I” to prompt the reader into feeling that this is an issue that will affect everyonethis is very generalised. Provide context of where these examples are. In turn, you can link the persuasive device (inclusive language) to the argument. This adds much more strength.. While presenting this argument, Green’s tone is somewhat indignant, as if wondering how anyone could attack the illustrious university system. Here, his tone servers to make the government’s proposed plan seem outlandish and unfavorableyes, but where can we see this in the text. Evidence needed!!.

Green’s second argument'listy' issue again refers to the fact bit of an odd expressionthat Australia has always had subsidized education and that, a few decades ago, they were completely freeIs this really an argument? Or is it just fact?. He employs a subtle ad hominem attack by mentioning that most of the politicians trying to defund universities would have benefitted from the very thing they are attempting to take awayyes, but evidence needed! Where can we see this. When you work closer with the text, your analysis will become more nuanced/sophisticated. By doing so, he attacks the integrity of the Liberals and insinuates that they are not worthy of the reader’s trust and vote. This reference to university systems of years gone past also appeals to a reader’s sense of equality; if everyone used to have free education, then why shouldn’t we? too informal! Rather--->Prompts readers to question why......Green uses cause and effect to link accessible tertiary education to Australia’s “booming” economy, highlighting its importance There is no substance here. Closer analysis needed---> Jumping too quick to next line. Green also has an appeal to fear by stating “we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse”good use of evidence, but reduce it to shorter quotations.. This appeal also has a financial aspect due to the fact that Green has already linked an educated society to Australia’s wealth, intimating that the wealth of the reader is connected directly to the level of education in the population. This supports the contention, since Green has declared that a cut in funding will lead to a decrease in education levels. How are readers thus positioned?

Finally, Green contends that if the Liberal pass their proposed law, Australia will end up with an education system like that found in Americatry and be more specific. Why is that something detrimental?. He uses the phrase “dangerous slippery-slope,” with its connotations of a lack of control, and events happening quickly and irreversibly, to reinforce the author’s wait, the writer is the author?attempt to establish a sense of dread when the reader thinks about the American systemgood! To make the point even stronger, try and separate into two sentences.
. Here, Green employs his only what relevance does it hold that it is his 'only' statistic?numeric statistic: $200,000. Such a colossal number conveys an obvioustoo subjective. message to the reader: if the Liberals pass their law, nobody, other then a privileged few, will be able to afford a tertiary educationtry and smoothly integrate this message into your analysis.. This goes against the Australian sentiment of everybody getting a goinformal, that “if you try hard enough, you can get wherever you want in life”. Therefore, the reader will be instillednot the right verb here. Maybe...Readers are coaxed to oppose the actions.... with a strong opposition to the law just before Green’s final plea for support: he invokes an appeal to family by asking the reader to think of his/her children and grandchildreneivdence needed. The author presents a trend of decreased university funding and increased cost as fact, therefore the reader is lead to believe that by the time their grandchildren want to go to university, it will be out of their reach. Therefore the reader finishes the piece with a sour taste in the mouthtoo informal. Perhaps leaves them embittered/frustrated/vexed, as they believe the Liberal law will lead to members of his/her family not having access to proper education.

Mr Karl Green’s letter reflects the overall community opinion try and refrain from making subjective comments. While this may be true,
you can never be sure
that the government is unjustly stripping its citizens of the right to an education. Green employs a diverse range of persuasive techniques that combine to effectively support his contentionbit general. The reader is left with feelings of animosity towards the Liberal government and is perhaps less likely to vote for the Liberals than they would have been before reading the piece.


Well done on the analysis! Although there are quite a few corrections, they are done with the intent of being constructive. You are very good at identifying techniques and intended effects on readers (something that quite a few struggle with). To improve, I suggest that you weave more evidence into your piece. This will allow for greater close analysis and thus greater depth. If you can work on this, your writing will improve greatly; given that you already have a strong understanding of author intent. Keep up the good work!  :D
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

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

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club Week 3
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2017, 06:53:38 pm »
+1
Well done on the analysis! Although there are quite a few corrections, they are done with the intent of being constructive. You are very good at identifying techniques and intended effects on readers (something that quite a few struggle with). To improve, I suggest that you weave more evidence into your piece. This will allow for greater close analysis and thus greater depth. If you can work on this, your writing will improve greatly; given that you already have a strong understanding of author intent. Keep up the good work!  :D

Thanks so much for the feedback! i agree with all of it