[2016 LA Club] Week 16

[literally lauren]

Time for some written + visual fun! So far, we've just been dealing with images in isolation or comparing them to one another, but this week, we've got a letter to the editor as well as an accompanying cartoon. Note that neither one is responding to the other (i.e. they occurred in different publications on different dates, but they're about the same issue so it's okay to use phrases like 'the cartoon reinforces Gilmartin's suggestion that...' or 'however, the cartoon challenges the idea that...' if you want to.) The only background info you really need is that there are certain groups in society called 'anti-vaxxers' who oppose the vaccinations of children on various (and often flimsy) grounds. This letter and cartoon are responding to this issue of parents refusing to vaccinate their children.


Vaccinations: Hard-hitting education strategy is required.

Thanks to the success of immunisation programs, most people of child-bearing age have never seen the horrendous effects of polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough and so on, so a hard-hitting  and ongoing health education strategy, with a high shock factor, is required to make them understand. For example, a visit to the old section of any cemetery reveals that our forebears often lost multiple children to the same infectious disease, within days or weeks of each other. How many  people also don't know that Melbourne once boasted a large hospital in Fairfield, devoted entirely to people with infectious diseases, or that children and adults languished in nursing homes and hospital wards in a vegetative state as a result of complications of measles? Blind children, deaf children, crippled children, I could go on. The health education strategy could be funded by the millions of dollars that Social Services Minister Scott Morrison believes this measure will save the government each year.

- Jenny Gilmartin, Wangaratta



(^ignore watermark)

[Anonymous]

From the outset, Gilmartin establishes a clear stance by criticising the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and questioning the lack of understanding shown. Gilmartin opens with an attack on parents, implying that they have avoided consequence through the use of emotionally charged words such as “horrendous” and “shock factor”. This discredits the parent’s reputation, positioning the reader to critique the decision of “refusing to vaccinate their children” harshly. By mentioning that the “horrendous effects of polio” and other diseases have been avoided due to the “success of immunisation programs” Gilmartin reinforces the importance of parents getting their children vaccinated. This urges readers to realise the significance of having vaccinations and how serious health conditions have been avoided as a result. The cartoon emphasises Gilmartin's suggestion that vaccinations are important by comparing the option of vaccinating children to negligence which implies that parents are failing to take care of their children’s health by not vaccinating their children. Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. By referring to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes” and “[kept in] hospital wards in a vegetative state “   Gilmartin further illustrates the positives of vaccinations and how children haven’t had to experience  the “complications of measles” as a result. This increases the seriousness of the issue of not vaccinating children and manoeuvres readers to take into consideration the serious implications that can arise when children are not vaccinated. By stating that “millions of dollars” could be used to fund the health education strategy which instead  Scott Morrison “believes” will save the government, Gilmartin demonstrates that the money wasted on the government each year could go to a far greater cause which would help build on “the success of immunisation programs”. The use of “believes” in particular re-emphasises Gilmartin’s alignment with the idea that the money spent to “save the government each year” is just a useless cause, prompting readers to question the use of Morrison’s money and generate a sense of anguish for the “blind children, deaf children [and] crippled children” who had suffered as a result of not having vaccinations available.         

[literally lauren]

From the outset, Gilmartin establishes a clear stance by criticising the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and questioning the lack of understanding shown. Gilmartin opens with an attack on parents, implying that they have avoided consequence through the use of emotionally charged words such as “horrendous” and “shock factor” WHICH EMOTIONS?. This discredits the parent’s apostrophe after the 's' for plural + possessive reputation, positioning the reader to critique the decision of “refusing to vaccinate their children” harshly. By mentioning that the “horrendous effects of polio” and other diseases have been avoided due to the “success of immunisation programs” Gilmartin reinforces the importance of parents getting their children vaccinated. This urges readers to realise the significance of having vaccinations and how serious health conditions have been avoided as a result I like your step-by-step reasoning here, but this could probably be condensed down to a single and less repetitive sentence. The cartoon emphasises Gilmartin's suggestion that vaccinations are important by comparing the option of vaccinating children to negligence how does it do this? You're right, but show me why! which implies that parents are failing to take care of their children’s health by not vaccinating their children. Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. you're shifting from the cartoon back to the written text here with little warning. Make sure your transitions are smooth but noticeable so your assessor doesn't get confused By referring to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes” and “[kept in] hospital wards in a vegetative state" Gilmartin further illustrates the positives of vaccinations and how children haven’t had to experience  the “complications of measles” as a result. This increases the seriousness of the issue of not vaccinating children and manoeuvres readers to take into consideration the serious implications that can arise when children are not vaccinated good, though there's some repetition in your description of the effect. By stating that “millions of dollars” could be used to fund the health education strategy which instead  Scott Morrison “believes” will save the government, Gilmartin demonstrates that the money wasted on the government each year could go to a far greater cause which would help build on “the success of immunisation programs”. The use of “believes” in particular re-emphasises Gilmartin’s alignment with the idea that the money spent to “save the government each year” is just a useless cause, prompting readers to question the use of Morrison’s money and generate a sense of anguish for the “blind children, deaf children [and] crippled children” who had suffered as a result of not having vaccinations available. good discussion of the associations here.

V. good grasp of the author's points, and you made some decent links between the written and visual material. The main issue here is that your expression was a bit laboured in places, and there were points where you could have easily summarised or simplified your analysis and cut down on repetitive phrasing. Not a huge deal, but if your analysis is more efficient, it means you can cover more material and earn more marks. Whereas, if you get bogged down explaining fewer points in unnecessary amounts of detail, you can limit the potential of your essay. Try to treat the next couple of exercises you do as tests of efficiency, and communicate your analysis as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Aside from that, the direction of your analysis and your use of quotes were both really good; pretty much every sentence I didn't comment on was totally fine, so keep up the good work!

[Anonymous]

V. good grasp of the author's points, and you made some decent links between the written and visual material. The main issue here is that your expression was a bit laboured in places, and there were points where you could have easily summarised or simplified your analysis and cut down on repetitive phrasing. Not a huge deal, but if your analysis is more efficient, it means you can cover more material and earn more marks. Whereas, if you get bogged down explaining fewer points in unnecessary amounts of detail, you can limit the potential of your essay. Try to treat the next couple of exercises you do as tests of efficiency, and communicate your analysis as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Aside from that, the direction of your analysis and your use of quotes were both really good; pretty much every sentence I didn't comment on was totally fine, so keep up the good work!

Thanks for your feedback Lauren, really appreciate it !!! 

Just a few things i want to ask.

"you're shifting from the cartoon back to the written text here with little warning. Make sure your transitions are smooth but noticeable so your assessor doesn't get confused "

how do i make my transitions smooth + noticeable? Also how would i indicate i am shifting back to the written text from the cartoon?

Once again Thanks so much 

[HopefulLawStudent]

Gilmartin’s letter to the editor bluntly endorses the implementation of health education strategies to ensure against future outbreaks of disease. Her enumerations of these illnesses, such as “polio, measles, rubella [and] whooping cough” which the audience would have little personal experience of, highlights to them the importance of vaccinations. By listing these illnesses, she draws forth within the reader’s mind recollections of what they know of these diseases and how they devastated communities. The words “so on” which close her enumerations imply that there are so many more other diseases, the spread of which has been quelled by these programs. This elicits the audience’s gratitude toward vaccinations and positions them to value their lack of personal experience with these ailments. It is a stance that is further enhanced by the way in which Gilmartin further manoeuvres her audience to recall the devastation wrought by these diseases, by reminding them of the way in which many “lost multiple children to the same infectious disease” and that many were left to “languish… in nursing homes and hospital wards”. Her use of the word “languish” accentuates the suffering that outbreaks of these diseases brought, engendering fear within her audience that history could be reprised if vaccinations programs do not continue to be successful; this appeals to the audience’s desire to protect themselves and their loved ones. To this end, Gilmartin compels her audience to not just be glad they live in a time when there is a way to combat these diseases, but to also acknowledge the importance of ensuring the continued immunisation of children. This notion is enhanced by the cartoon which conveys that the decision to vaccinate is clear-cut. The implication is that a failure to immunise children is akin to parental negligence, positioning the audience to regard vaccinations as a parental responsibility as opposed to a parental decision. This thus forces the reader to acknowledge the import of immunisation programs and obliges them to ensure their children are properly vaccinated.

--

Dumb question: What's the tone of the Gilmartin article? Is there a tonal shift? I'm a little tone deaf...

[Anonymous]

I'm aware that this response is pretty low quality compared to some of the others posted here... but err, please go easy on the criticism aha - I'm just trying to improve one step at a time   Thanks in advance for helping out!

Gilmartin’s letter to the editor “Vaccinations: hard-hitting education strategy is required” is clearly and unapologetically supportive of vaccination. Surprisingly, her argument targets a niche audience in the issue, parents unsupportive of vaccination. This is elucidated by Gilmartin’s use of facts which correlate not vaccinating children with disease. For instance, the simple phrase “blind children, deaf children, crippled children” is implemented by Gilmartin to state the effects of polio (prevented via vaccination). With a different from of debilitation repeatedly linked to children, whom parents obviously care for, the effects of polio are imprinted in the minds of parents. Furthermore, this information is smoothly conveyed in the form of a tricolon. By regurgitating this, misinformed parents can not deny that vaccination prevents disease, thus ruining the foundation of their own argument; rendering it useless. Gilmartin’s method of re-informing parents founds itself on the premise that the predominant agenda of parents against anti-vaccination is to shield their children from harm and disease. Hence, Gilmartin persuades parents by effectively re-informing them that the lack of vaccination causes harm to their children by disease and that vaccination acts as a preventative measure. 

[Anonymous]

Eh, idk if I got the contention right

In a letter to the editor regarding the recent rise of anti-vaccination supporters in Australia, Jenny Gilmartin responds vehemently, contending that those who oppose vaccination are inevitably jeopardising the health of the future generations, and that the government current allocation of budget is unsatisfactory and may be detrimental to public health in the long term.

Gilmartin’s straightforward headline encapsulates the author’s firm stance on the issue that an education strategy to dispel radical and cynical views against vaccination and to quell the anti-vaccination movement. Adopting a logical and reasoned tone, Gilmartin opens by listing various diseases of the past, compelling the readers to reflect upon the positive implications that vaccination has brought to humanity. This appeal to ethos conditions the audience to comprehend the cause and effect model of immunisations, and allowing them to clearly understand the connection between vaccination and the eradication of diseases. Substantialising her stance with an analogy of visiting an old cemetery, Gilmartin instils fear within her audience by highlighting the deaths of “multiple children […] within days” of each other due to infectious diseases. Here, Gilmartin accentuates the severity of the threat of infectious diseases whilst impelling the audience to experience gratitude for the modern society, safeguarded by vaccinations. In this historical comparison, author reinforces the “success of immunisation programs" and positions the audience to share her point of view that vaccination are a vital aspect of humanity that must not be undermined at any costs.

Switching to a passionate tone, Gilmartin proceeds to underscore the “horrendous effects” infectious diseases has upon children. Connotations of the words “blind”, “deaf”, “crippled” and “vegetative” illustrate to the audience the horrifying consequences of measles, presenting to them a hypothetical future outcome should the immunisation program be jeopardised. Gilmartin’s repetition of “children” appeals to the readers’ family values, inviting them to respond empathically and galvanises them to side with Gilmartin’s contention that the health of our future generations may be at stake. The accompanying visual also exemplifies Gilmartin’s stance in that vaccination is monumentally significant to the future generations. Presenting the audience with “vaccination” or “negligence”, the author implies the obvious choice in a near ironical sense, simultaneously ridiculing the anti-vaccination supporters. Similarly, Gilmartin expresses her discontent with the funding designated to the current health education strategy, suggesting that with the millions of dollars that could be contributing towards this worthy cause is instead ineffectively used in what “Minister Scott Morrison believes […] will save the government”. The use of the word “believe” hints at the minister’s degree of uncertainty in his decisions and prompts the audience to accept that the funding ought to be used for health education.

By implying that more attention should be given to the health education strategy in terms of dismiss sceptical beliefs against the vaccination program, Gilmartin seeks to encourage the audience to come to realisation of the revolutionary benefits of vaccination on public health, and the exigency for better government funding in order to continue the success of immunisation.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your feedback Lauren, really appreciate it !!! 

Just a few things i want to ask.

"you're shifting from the cartoon back to the written text here with little warning. Make sure your transitions are smooth but noticeable so your assessor doesn't get confused "

how do i make my transitions smooth + noticeable? Also how would i indicate i am shifting back to the written text from the cartoon?

Once again Thanks so much 

Bump 

[literally lauren]

how do i make my transitions smooth + noticeable? Also how would i indicate i am shifting back to the written text from the cartoon?

Okay, so your original sentences were: "Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. // By referring to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes"..."

Notice how there's nothing in that second sentence that signals we're talking about the written material? Compare that to something like: "Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. // Likewise, the fact that the author refers to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes"..."

Even something as simple as 'Similarly, in author's piece...' or 'This is also reflected in author's assertion that...' can be sufficient. A linking word or phrase should suffice

Gilmartin’s letter to the editor bluntly endorses the implementation of health education strategies to ensure against future outbreaks of disease. Her enumerations of these illnesses, such as “polio, measles, rubella [and] whooping cough” which the audience would have little personal experience of, highlights to them the importance of vaccinations. how so? By listing these illnesses, she draws forth within the reader’s mind recollections of what they know of these diseases and how they devastated communities so do they know about these diseases or not; this sentence seems to contradict the previous one a bit. The words “so on” which close her enumerations imply that there are so many more other diseases, the spread of which has been quelled by these programs. This elicits the audience’s gratitude toward vaccinations and positions them to value their lack of personal experience with these ailments. It is a stance that is further enhanced by the way in which Gilmartin further manoeuvres phrasing her audience to recall the devastation wrought by these diseases, by reminding them of the way in which many “lost multiple children to the same infectious disease” and that many were left to “languish… in nursing homes and hospital wards”. Her use of the word “languish” accentuates the suffering that outbreaks of these diseases brought, engendering fear within her audience that history could be reprised if vaccinations programs do not continue to be successful good point; this appeals to the audience’s desire to protect themselves and their loved ones. To this end, Gilmartin compels her audience to not just be glad they live in a time when there is a way to combat these diseases, but to also acknowledge the importance of ensuring the continued immunisation of children. This notion is enhanced by the cartoon which conveys that the decision to vaccinate is clear-cut. The implication is that a failure to immunise children is akin to parental negligence, positioning the audience to regard vaccinations as a parental responsibility as opposed to a parental decision. This thus forces the reader to acknowledge the import of immunisation programs and obliges them to ensure their children are properly vaccinated. great integration & analysis of the visual here

Gilmartin’s letter to the editor “Vaccinations: hard-hitting education strategy is required” is clearly and unapologetically this seems a bit evaluative, try to just focus on the gist of the contention, or at most, say something about the tone alongside it here supportive of vaccination. Surprisingly, again, this isn't really necessary. Comment on what the author does, but try not to provide your opinion about any of it her argument targets a niche audience in the issue, parents unsupportive of vaccination. This is elucidated by Gilmartin’s use of facts which correlate not vaccinating children with disease. For instance, the simple phrase “blind children, deaf children, crippled children” is implemented by Gilmartin to state the effects of polio (prevented via vaccination) <-- avoid brackets in formal essays; they're considered fairly colloquial. With a different from of debilitation repeatedly linked to children, whom parents obviously care for, the effects of polio are imprinted in the minds of parents. Furthermore, this information is smoothly conveyed in the form of a tricolon and what effect does this have? Why would the author use this tricolon? By regurgitating word choice this, misinformed parents can not deny that vaccination prevents disease, thus ruining the foundation of their own argument focus instead on what the author wants readers to think/feel; rendering it useless. Gilmartin’s method of re-informing word choice parents founds itself on the premise that the predominant agenda of parents against anti-vaccination is to shield their children from harm and disease. Hence, Gilmartin persuades parents this is quite definitive; it's better to talk about the author's INTENTIONS (i.e. 'Gilmartin attempts to evoke...' or 'Gilmartin intends to position X as Y') by effectively re-informing them that the lack of vaccination causes harm to their children by disease and that vaccination acts as a preventative measure. You've definitely got the right idea with these arguments; you just have to refine the way you're focusing on language in some sections

In a letter to the editor regarding the recent rise of anti-vaccination supporters in Australia, Jenny Gilmartin responds vehemently, contending that those who oppose vaccination are inevitably jeopardising the health of the future generations, and that the government current allocation of budget is unsatisfactory and may be detrimental to public health in the long term yep, contention here is all good .

Gilmartin’s straightforward headline which is...? (quote?) encapsulates the author’s firm stance on the issue that an education strategy to dispel radical and cynical views against vaccination and to quell the anti-vaccination movement. Adopting a logical and reasoned tone, Gilmartin opens by listing various diseases of the past, compelling the readers to reflect upon the positive implications that vaccination has brought to humanity. This appeal to ethos not sure this fits here conditions the audience to comprehend the cause and effect model of immunisations, and allowing them to clearly understand the connection between vaccination and the eradication of diseases. Substantialising Substantiating her stance with an analogy of visiting an old cemetery, Gilmartin instils fear within her audience by highlighting the deaths of “multiple children […] within days” of each other due to infectious diseases. Here, Gilmartin accentuates the severity of the threat of infectious diseases whilst impelling the audience to experience gratitude for the modern society, safeguarded by vaccinations great summation of the effect. In this historical comparison, author reinforces the “success of immunisation programs" and positions the audience to share her point of view that vaccination are a vital aspect of humanity that must not be undermined at any costs.

Switching to a passionate tone, Gilmartin proceeds to underscore the “horrendous effects” infectious diseases has upon children. Connotations of the words “blind”, “deaf”, “crippled” and “vegetative” illustrate to the audience the horrifying consequences of measles, presenting to them a hypothetical future outcome should the immunisation program be jeopardised really like the way you're linking these quotes with their effects. Gilmartin’s repetition of “children” appeals to the readers’ family values noooooooo don't say this! 'family values' is horrendously vague; I used to use it all the time too, but my teacher looked so mortified when he saw it in one of my essays. Try to specify which values are being addressed here; otherwise, just cut this out entirely, inviting them to respond empathically and galvanises them to side with Gilmartin’s contention that the health of our future generations may be at stake. The accompanying visual also exemplifies Gilmartin’s stance in that vaccination is monumentally significant to the future generations. Presenting the audience with “vaccination” or “negligence”, the author implies the obvious choice how so? How does the visual language contribute to this? in a near ironical sense, simultaneously nice incorporation of different effects ridiculing the anti-vaccination supporters. Similarly, Gilmartin expresses her discontent with the funding designated to the current health education strategy, suggesting that with the millions of dollars that could be contributing towards this worthy cause is instead ineffectively used in what “Minister Scott Morrison believes […] will save the government”. The use of the word “believe” hints at the minister’s degree of uncertainty in his decisions and prompts the audience to accept that the funding ought to be used for health education.

By implying that more attention should be given to the health education strategy in terms of dismiss sceptical beliefs against the vaccination program, Gilmartin seeks to encourage the audience to come to realisation of the revolutionary benefits of vaccination on public health, and the exigency for better government funding in order to continue the success of immunisation. v. nice conclusion

[Anonymous]

Okay, so your original sentences were: "Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. // By referring to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes"..."

Notice how there's nothing in that second sentence that signals we're talking about the written material? Compare that to something like: "Furthermore the use of a big pen highlights the huge choice parents make when they refuse to vaccinate their children, which terrifies readers and hence propels them to ensure they are vaccinating their children in order to take full care of their child’s health. // Likewise, the fact that the author refers to the incident of people once kept in the Fairfield hospital as “children and adults languished in nursing homes"..."

Even something as simple as 'Similarly, in author's piece...' or 'This is also reflected in author's assertion that...' can be sufficient. A linking word or phrase should suffice

Thank you very much literally lauren  !!