[2016 LA Club] Week 6

[literally lauren]

In a melancholy and solemn manner, Essendon resident Peter Rechner comically eulogises the removal of a pine in his area. Describing it as a “valued neighbour”, the writer personifies the tree and thereby accentuates its significance to the surrounding area. To this end, he insinuates that the loss suffered by the community following this removal was akin to the loss of a much-loved neighbour. The profundity of this loss, Rechner further highlights by juxtaposing is further highlighted by Rechner's juxtaposing his enumerations of all the contributions the tree had purportedly made to the community in its lifetime as an “avian refuge… [and] balm for urban stress” with the abruptness of his concise assessment it was “gone”. His use of the term “refuge” and “balm” connote the tree’s contributions were all peaceful and in the best interests of the readership. This therefore validates Rechner’s assessment that the felling of the tree had greatly devastated the surrounding community great cumulative analysis . The inclusion of a quote from poet William Blake indicates that there are two different prevailing perceptions of trees as in, people only think about trees in two ways? It might be better to say that this indicates his belief that there are two different perceptions... – some individuals are “move[d]… to tears of joy” while others regard these plants as nothing more than a “thing which stands in the way.” Appealing to his audience of converted environmentalists, Rechner elicits their outrage that the value of a tree could be as undervalued as Blake’s comment suggests.

Ending his letter to the editor with a succinct and firm avowal that “it is time”, Rechner manoeuvres his audience to perceive urgent action was as required to save other trees from meeting the same fate as the “splendid Norfolk Island pine” near his place of residence. His reference to “time” suggests there is only a limited timeframe in which the audience can act to ensure the safety of future trees; this probably isn't necessary, but I appreciate that you're being cautious to clarify your analysis. The next part is all you'd need here, though --> insinuates that to hesitate and thereby delay action would be detrimental to the environment and to other communities who may, in that period of time, be devastated in a similar fashion to his community following the felling of the “Norfolk Island pine” near his area repetition Thus, the writer galvanises the reader to actively and urgently petition for an end to the practice of felling “significant… trees.” good

Aside from a few minor sections where your explanation went into a bit too much detail, this is all fine. And it's better to get to a point where you know what too much explanation looks like so you have a frame of reference.

Excellent unpacking of both language and argument here though; well done

[Anonymous]

Employing a regretful tone, Rechner aims to elicit sadness within an audience of urban habitants, positioning them to support his proposal for a ban on removing landmark trees in urban areas. The opening of his passage, with words such as "mourn" and "loss" intimate his aggrieved tone, connoting the death of something dear, immediately evoking a sense of distress within the readership . Following this, he describes the tree as a "valued neighbour". The subject of the author's grief is unknown at this point, and the anthropomorphic alikening of the tree to a fellow inhabitant is likely intended to emphasise the importance of the issue, as it is implied that a human has died. Indeed, as Rechner exposes his lamentation over the loss of a local tree, it appears as if significant trees maintain a human-like presence in the neighbourhood, and therefore the loss of one is akin to losing a neighbour. Rechner makes the suggestion that the removal of trees is ofter a precursor for "another house demolition", criticising the prioritisation of urban development over these natural landmarks. The implication is that the perpertrators of the suburban expansion are at fault for the loss of such significant trees. In this way, an empathetic audience are inclined to direct their grief and frustration at this demographic for their careless destruction of sacred natural monuments. Furthermore, in his barrage of epithets for the tree, in which he invokes a plethora of positive sentiment, in "landmark, absorber of carbon dioxide...balm for urban stress", Rechner reminds readers of the many benefits there are to trees in urban areas.  Ending the extended sentence with the abrupt "gone", Rechner intends to emphasise the sense of irreparable loss that has been wrought by this example of tree-felling. Additionally, in quoting poet William Blake, Rechner uses the poetry to suggest that such beauty is destroyed at the hands of those who demean these natural landmarks to a "green thing" that is "in the way", thereby conveying the debasement of beauty in the eyes of the antagonistic audience. Rechner's apparent intention is to provoke frustration within the readership, and therefore orientate them towards supporting his calls for greater regulation of suburban trees.

[literally lauren]

Employing a regretful tone, Rechner aims to elicit sadness within an audience of urban habitants, positioning them to support his proposal for a ban on removing landmark trees in urban areas. The opening of his passage, with words such as "mourn" and "loss" intimate his aggrieved tone, connoting the death of something dear, immediately evoking a sense of distress within the readership (Excellent start! I like that you've grouped together quotes that have a similar connotation and effect. This makes for really cohesive, efficient analysis ). Following this, he describes the tree as a "valued neighbour". The subject of the author's grief is unknown at this point, and the anthropomorphic alikening of the tree to a fellow inhabitant is likely intended to emphasise the importance of the issue (you can get away with it here as the rest of this sentence is specific enough, but try to avoid using phrases like 'the issue' / 'the contention' / 'the argument' in your analysis. It's not wrong, but it's usually a missed opportunity to be more specific and earn more marks!), as it is implied that a human has died. Indeed, as Rechner exposes his lamentation over the loss of a local tree, it appears as if significant trees maintain a human-like presence in the neighbourhood, and therefore the loss of one is akin to losing a neighbour. This could probably be condensed with the previous sentence as this is making the same point. Rechner makes the suggestion that the removal of trees is ofter a precursor for "another house demolition", criticising the prioritisation of urban development over these natural landmarks. The implication is that the perpertrators of the suburban expansion are at fault for the loss of such significant trees. Great that you've picked up on this part of the argument! In this way, an empathetic audience are inclined to direct their grief and frustration at this demographic for their careless destruction of sacred natural monuments. EXCELLENT effect statement! Furthermore, in his barrage of epithets (great language! <3) for the tree, in which he invokes a plethora of positive sentiment, in "landmark, absorber of carbon dioxide...balm for urban stress", Rechner reminds readers of the many benefits (only pointing this out as another potential opportunity for analysis; the ideas you've covered are definitely sufficient, but here you could have also talked about the different domains of benefits he extols - e.g. 'Rechner intimates that trees play an environmental role in "absorb[ing] carbon dioxide," a biological role as a "refuge" for birds, a functional role in providing "shade," and even a psychological role as a "balm for urban stress." This wide-ranging deliniation coupled with his use of asyndeton [meaning a list of stuff without 'and' at the end, btw!] implies that the benefits of trees are endless.' there are to trees in urban areas.  Ending the extended sentence with the abrupt "gone", Rechner intends to emphasise the sense of irreparable great word! loss that has been wrought by this example of tree-felling. Additionally, in quoting poet William Blake, Rechner uses the poetry to suggest that such beauty is destroyed at the hands of those who demean these natural landmarks to a "green thing" that is "in the way", thereby conveying the debasement of beauty in the eyes of the antagonistic audience. This could be a clearer; I think explaining the intended effect before delving into the language makes this a bit clunky. Again, not a major issue as the rest of your analysis is so solid, but you don't want to get a mean assessor who thinks you're summarising first and then tacking on analysis at the end. Try to do the quoting and explanations about language (e.g. conveying debasement) earlier in the sentence, and leave the second half to link back to the overall argument. Rechner's apparent intention is to provoke frustration within the readership, and therefore orientate them towards supporting his calls for greater regulation of suburban trees.

Vocabulary is a major strength here - your word choice was consistently spot on, and really amplifies the analysis by allowing you to comment on what the author is doing.

I've highlighted a couple of instances where I thought you could have been more concise with your points, but this is solely from the perspective of knowing the exam time constraints can be kind of tricky. It's clear to me that you'll be able to establish yourself as a highly adept argument analyst early on, so just don't waste time explaining the same ideas twice, as you'll need that precious time for your other essays!

Remember that your AA essay can be shorter than your average TR/CT response. I usually recommended students start with AA and then try to finish in under an hour so you have more time to map out your text essays. After 3 body paragraphs of AA, you hit a point of diminishing returns, whereas there are often better opportunities to add evidence and ideas to your TR/CT essays.

Basically, your analysis is really fantastic here, so try to tighten it up to ensure you can be efficient in covering the exam material without going overboard. (Hopefully VCAA are nice this year, considering the circumstances, and they'll give you a short/manageable AA piece, but even if they don't and it's quite long, there's still no expectation that you talk about everything!)