Hi there, I really hope I'm not too late, but I did an analysis of the first article. Any feedback will be welcomed. Thank you in advance
In her letter to the editor, Margaret Callinan frankly conveys: that although the Adami Mine will bring forth future employment it will bring further damaging consequences for the environment hence it should not be accepted. Likening the coal mine to the ‘bird in the hand’ proverb in the title and stating it’s not ‘worth it’, the writer strives to highlight the questionable aspect of the mine project prompting readers to doubt the benefit of the project from the outset. Callinan attempts to builds upon the negative view by using emotional- loaded language such as ‘struggling’ and ‘survive,’ to portray a dystopian future in which the readership will be left vulnerable and weak. This foreboding imagery is designed to instil panic and anxiety into the Australian laymen as their future’s safety is threatened by the Adami Mine project. To further augment her imagery, Callinan repeats clean whilst describing the planet’s water and air to emphasise on the value of these features. Repetition of ‘clean’ forebodes that Adami Mine will disturb Earth’s natural sources and amplifies these sources’ worth thus depicts them as element worth protecting. Designed to appeal to the readers’ defensive instincts, the audience is manipulates to reject the coal mine as it vilified as the cause of the degradation .
In order to widen her audience from environment carers, the writer aims to appeal to parents. She criticises the future miner workers endangering their children, positioning readers to question the workers parenthood and logic. By alienating the future workers’ for their lack of parenting skills, the future workers are too positioned to view their employment as a detrimental effect on their children and the environment.