Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 30, 2024, 03:02:19 am

Author Topic: 2018 AA Club - Week 9  (Read 1555 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
2018 AA Club - Week 9
« on: February 26, 2018, 09:23:20 am »
+1
Quote
Background: a series of mass school shootings has reignited the gun law debate in the United States of America, and Americans now grapple with the possibility of school teachers becoming armed by law.

Let's consider for a moment the imbecility of the suggestion that teachers be armed and ready to return fire in the event of another school shooting. If the perpetrator is a student at the school, the teachers would be firing a child; how many teachers do you know who would actually do this?

In the event of a firefight, there is the possibility of friendly-fire casualties; how many teachers would be willing to take that risk?

We already ask too much of teachers: We ask them to work for little pay in underfunded, overflowing classrooms, and they do. They do because they are committed to their mission to educate, nurture and help the next generations succeed.

To our president and members of Congress: Go ahead and ask that same person to take on the responsibility of potentially killing a student, friendly-fire or otherwise, and see what response you get.

- Brooke Jones, Honolulu
ATAR: 99.70

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 9
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2018, 12:11:49 pm »
+1
In response to the constant and growing concern surrounding school shootings in America, the idea of teachers possibly being armed by law has surfaced from fierce gun law debates. In a recently published letter to the editor, Brooke Jones adopts a passionate and critical tone to comment on the "imbecility of the suggestion".

Jones begins her argument by drawing attention to the fact that the perpetrator could possibly be a student. This is followed by the use of a rhetorical question, which influences the readers to challenge the notion that armed teachers will readily be able to fire at a "child". The lexical word choice "child" alludes to innocence, further heightening the difficult situation the government is trying to place teachers in. Jones highlights the possibility of a "friendly-fire casualty" as an appeal to the safety and security of the children, the reader is prompted to consider the dangers associated with armed teachers if a "firefight" occurred. Jones depicts teachers as selfless educators who are "committed to their mission" amplifying that this "same person" would oppose the idea.

It is so hard to analyse such a short article. Anyway, this is all I have for now, any feedback will be appreciated :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 9
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2018, 10:22:46 pm »
0
I've made something out of nothing (or very little). That something is rubbish...

The sensitive topic that is gun laws has resurfaced in America after a series of mass school shootings. At the forehead of the debate is the proposed solution to arm teachers with guns, to which Brooke Jones vehemently disagrees and thus calls for the "president and members of Congress' to think again.

Jones uses logic as her weapon of choice to assert that the responsibility of keeping children safe shouldn't be handed to teachers, via them being armed. By suggesting a series of realistic hypothetical situations, and phrasing them as rhetorical questions, American readers are challenged to reconsider their previous preconceived notions. The repetition of questions also puts emphasis on what Jones is trying to convey, by getting the readers to think on it. The incredulous tone that she uses, and her choice words such as "imbecility" would also make readers feel ashamed, and obliged to agree by default.

Switching to a more passionate tone, Jones urges the audience to consider the burden that's already placed on a teacher's shoulders. The repetition of the word we acts to make the audience feel included, thereby also urging them to sympathise with her. She also juxtaposes the idea of a "committed", "[nurturing]" and "[helpful]" teacher to support the previous idea that no teacher would risk "killing a student, friendly fire or otherwise", in order to make the proposed law seem even more farfetched.

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 9
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2018, 11:40:44 pm »
+2
In response to the constant and growing concern surrounding school shootings in America, the idea of teachers possibly being armed by law has surfaced from fierce gun law debates. In a recently published letter to the editor, Brooke Jones adopts a passionate and critical tone to comment on the "imbecility of the suggestion" state the contention in your own words. Also who is the audience?.

Jones begins her argument by drawing attention to the fact that the perpetrator could possibly be a student and so...? What is Jones' argument here?. This is followed by the use of a rhetorical question quote, which influences the readers to challenge the notion that armed teachers will readily be able to fire at a "child". The lexical word choice "child" alludes to innocence, further heightening the difficult situation the government is trying to place teachers in. Jones highlights the possibility of a "friendly-fire casualty" as an appeal to the safety and security of the children, <-- use semicolon here the reader is prompted to consider the dangers associated with armed teachers if a "firefight" occurred this is too general, but understandably so since your choice of evidence was too limited. Try adding more segments of quotation to analyse. Jones depicts teachers as selfless educators who are "committed to their mission" amplifying that this "same person" would oppose the idea. Good choice of quote, but I'm a bit confused with the analysis here. I would look at this as an argument that guns simply don't belong in the world of teachers as educators and role models for children.

It is so hard to analyse such a short article. Anyway, this is all I have for now, any feedback will be appreciated :)

I totally understand that it's hard to analyse a short piece. It is possible to get something like this, though, since you'll likely be doing a comparative analysis of multiple pieces in your assessments!
My advice to you is take a step back from all the word-level, close analysis, and try to consolidate your understanding of the arguments first. Once you've got a really good hold of the arguments, your analysis will be fuller and more meaningful because it'll be framed in the context of the arguments.
Ideas --> then analysis :)
ATAR: 99.70

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 9
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2018, 11:55:51 pm »
+1
I've made something out of nothing (or very little). That something is rubbish...

The sensitive topic that is gun laws has resurfaced in America after a series of mass school shootings. At the forehead forefront would fit better of the debate is the proposed solution to arm teachers with guns, to which Brooke Jones vehemently disagrees and thus calls for the "president and members of Congress' to think again - so what is the contention she puts forward? Also, who is the target audience?.

Jones uses logic as her weapon of choice to assert that the responsibility of keeping children safe shouldn't be handed to teachers, via them being armed. By suggesting presentinga series of realistic hypothetical situations, and phrasing them as rhetorical questions, American readers are challenged to reconsider their previous preconceived notions too general.
 What situations phrased as rhetorical questions - quote. Spoon-feed me with information!
. The repetition of questions also puts emphasis on what Jones is trying to convey, by getting the readers to think on it too general. The incredulous tone that she uses, and her choice words such as "imbecility" would also make readers feel ashamed, and obliged to agree by default the word alone would indeed make readers feel ashamed, however, remember your analysis has to be specific to the arguments of the piece. But I can completely understand there isn't much more to say about this quote other than what you've said. So I'd probably go for another chunkier quote.

Switching to a more passionate tone, Jones urges the audience to consider the burden that's already placed on a teacher's shoulders. The repetition of the word we acts to make the audience feel included, thereby also urging them to sympathise with her again, . She also juxtaposes the idea of a "committed", "[nurturing]" and "[helpful]" don't cite this as evidence, but you could use it for your own analysis! teacher juxtapose against...? to support the previous idea that no teacher would risk "killing a student, friendly fire or otherwise", in order to make the proposed law seem even more farfetched this is getting closer to the analysis I'm looking for.. keep going! How are words like 'nurturing' and 'succeed' at odds with the idea of murderous teachers?.

Your choice of evidence is limiting your potential for really insightful analysis, which is good news because it's easy to rectify! Rather than choosing to analyse single, general words or techniques that can only lead to empty analysis (like 'we' = inclusive language or repetition = emphasis), choose pieces of evidence that contain ideas in them - the writer's ideas, like in your last line.
ATAR: 99.70