50 in English, available for queries :)

[asdfqwerty]

Hey literally lauren,

I have to analyse a cartoon and i was just wondering if you give me a deeper insight. It would help me a lot!!!!

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/national/cartoons-for-tuesday-25th-march-2014-20140324-35dll.html

of the 8 avaliable cartoons - its the fourth one

portrays Australia as a bad country

contention: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Abbott are trying to hide publicising their association with the deaths at manus island - portraying them as guilty - their faces look angry (so publicity is not want they want)

'no one would ever want to come to australia' - implying that Australia as a whole is just as bad as Morrison and Abbott's refugee policies - ridicule Australia into guilt and acting otherwise

the set up looks something like an interview - Morrison and Abbott each have a pile of notes in front of them compared to the guy talking - and they all have their eyes on him. - don't think the interview set up has any impact though.

they are all wearing blue ties - symbolising all from liberal party - dont think that has any implications either....

is that the contention?

thanks

[literally lauren]

contention: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Abbott are trying to hide publicising their association with the deaths at manus island - portraying them as guilty - their faces look angry (so publicity is not want they want)

'no one would ever want to come to australia' - implying that Australia as a whole is just as bad as Morrison and Abbott's refugee policies - ridicule Australia into guilt and acting otherwise

Double tick (if I knew how) for the contention, that's bang on. But I think you can go a bit further...
The 'interview' set up isn't too critical, apart from the fact that there's a clear two-against-one scenario, which suggests Morrison/Abbott are bullying their people, even if they aren't doing it overtly. I wouldn't read too much into the ties either, but the connection between the policy and the nation is a very important one. By equating the two, the cartoonist infers that the way people regard the policy is the same as the way they regard our country. Thus, the audience is more inclined to desire a policy that accurately reflects our national values of compassion, a fair go for all... etc.
You're definitely on the right track. It's a pretty pithy little cartoon, so you've picked out all the important parts

[asdfqwerty]

hehehe thank you lauren !!!

i was thinking: where in the cartoon did you pick up the message: 'By equating the two, the cartoonist infers that the way people regard the policy is the same as the way they regard our country.' is it in what the boy says?

thank you once again, i can't tell you how thank you i am

[literally lauren]

Yes, it was in what the boy says, but it's more of an implication than an overt equation.
The government's policy was designed to stop (the "wrong" sort of) people from coming here, which has lead to a seemingly anti-tourist agenda. The boy comically misinterprets the as a success: "No one will want to come here." So if the policy has lead to this unflattering regard for Australian tourism, then the policy must be the root of the problem (this is actually a logical fallacy, but oh well)
In mathematical terms:
Negative image <-- policy
∴ policy ⊆ negative image
If negative image = bad
∴ policy = bad
The author equates these two things with the intention of convincing readers that if we which to change the national image we project, we must change the policy. etc. etc.

[Yacoubb]

Hey literally lauren,

When did you start studying for the exam? Mid, early, end term 2/3??

[Bestie]

Hi Lauren,

Thank you for all the help you have given me

In regards to the Waleed article... but if the author is trying to assert readers that this tragedy is fate: 'Tragedy in the Greek sense, unfolds as inevitably'... what is the purpose... isn;t it like saying oh there's no point doing anything now cause its all set/cemented we can't avoid it... which is sorta the opposite to what many writers try to do: get their readers to act in a manner that serves their contention. I'm just a little confused at what the author is trying to do with his contention (it seems like im still a little stuck on the contention - we are the ones creating these tragedies by making the dentention centres a place of horror and we are inhumane in that we may respond to the one that died in the centre (although the response aint that great either, we acknowledge it but don't act), but what about those dying at sea?) is there a better way to rewrite, if i'm right?.

It seems contradictory: 'we don't get to be outraged because this violence, with its brutal, deadly consequences, is inherent' but the next line 'we choose it, even if we refuse at every stage to acknowledge it' If its inherent, its permanent, one cant really choose it??? I'm so lost.

I know most of the article is about mocking the readers into feeling a sense of guilt cause a) we acknowledge that its not the way to go, that its horror to them but don't act b) to think differently of the policies and traditions of Australia (fair go) that we take pride in yet don't enforce (hypocrites)...

and lastly, in your previous comment 'Focus on his critique of the masses' what did you mean by 'masses'?

Thank you for this lost little lamb....

[tiff_tiff]

hello,
language analysis help:
not sure what the contention of this short piece is. At first i thought the contention is that the violence in detention centres is due to the certain asylum seekers themselves 'evident in the last sentences: 'They are not going to blame the government for what happened off the coast of PNG. They will hold the ringleaders of the Manus Island violence responsible and argue that there are plenty of other people who are, or have been, in detention, and never rioted in such a way.'

but then i feel like i'm ignoring the abbott and labor bit in the middle, 'One of the reasons support for Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stabilised is that asylum seeker boats have stopped. Whether you voted for Tony Abbott or not, that was his number one election promise; that he would stop the boats. The promise included offshore processing to make sure that people who arrive here unlawfully can’t beat the system.' - this 'Austraia's shame day' is what we elected and that if their is anyone to blame it should be us? which sorta of contradicts what i said in the first paragraph...

i also didn't get what they meant by: 'An existing situation has simply been continued.' the situation is? labor gov. actions is now the liberals problem too?

plz help me....

[Einstein]

great thread 

[Dahello]

THANK YOU.... (i would say i love you but that would be awks hehehe)

With the title of the article: 'the whole point of detention for asylum seekers is horror, whether it is acknowledged or not' i'm trying to analyse that.
The only thing ive come up with so far is: Even on the outset, the writer's use of 'horror' attempts to shock readers of the conditions in detention centres. By entering the discussion with details, 'a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull' alerts readers of the situation.
I'll add later in the body paragraph about the 'doesn't change anything' cause it links with the ending and other part of the article ' they will mean nothing' about how we know about it, but we don't act - i'll talk about that idea in the 2nd apragraph. The first is about the idea of unjust treatment towards asylum seekers and that there is obviously something wrong for them to riot, drawing on sympathy...

As you can tell the only thing i got from the heading is 'horror' nothing else... it feels like there is some effect from 'whole point' - its like horror is the only thing we focus on, not their actual wellbeing??? but thats not really explicit in the article
and the 'whether its acknowledged or not' seems like there is a purpose to why the writer would have added that in cause otherwise the title is ok without it. its talking about how its reality, we can't change it and so readers are positioned to feel challenged to change it??? i dunno i guessed???

and the opening 'sorry we don't get to be outraged at this' is this like directly talking to the audience in order to get them involved in the issue - invites readers attention

What do you think about the heading? and the two sentence beginning?

Thank you

English is so hard

but thank you so much... you make it alot more do-able

[literally lauren]

Yacoubb,

hmm.. well ultimately everything you do throughout the year is supposedly practice for the exam. If you're asking when I started doing practice essays under time (~1 hour per essay give or take) then probably not till term two, though my school had pretty tough SAC conditions, so I had to start early to get through the year :p Middle of the year seems like a good estimate, but this will vary from student to student. If you're like me and still unsure of the structural requirements or nuances of each essay type by Term 2, you may need to spend more time doing study of a different kind. Whereas if you've had good teachers up till now, and you know exactly what you're meant to be doing, then it's just a matter of refining your ability through practice essays. Obviously this isn't all you'll be doing in any case, but you should assess your ability before jumping into a study regiment.

'Study of a different kind' was something I found much more beneficial. Reading heaps, both external stuff and past students' essays was always a big help, and I also found my classmates could offer... alternative study. A couple of us used to have long arguments about characters' motivations in out T.R. texts, or about why one approach to the context was nowhere near as good as another. Sounds weird, but for us this was a form of expressing ideas that didn't require spending an hour in exam conditions churning out an essay. Simply formulating ideas and opinions helped us a lot down the track, and this was something we could do with people of all abilities. Sometimes we might be helping someone who was struggling (best way to learn is to teach!) Other times we'd get teachers involved and force their opinions out of them 

Basically, it depends what you mean by 'study.' I wasn't doing practice exams (of my own volition) till mid term three, but our SACs were almost identical to the exam conditions, so perhaps you might want to start sooner. At least look over some papers from 2009/10 to familiarise yourself with the format, then leave the others for actual content practice later.

The metaphor I always use is, like any of the maths/science subjects, you can't prepare for an exam/ do practice exams before knowing the formulae, definitions, and content. Your notes might count as preparation, and the revision you do throughout the year might be 'study' for some people, but English is one of those subjects where the way you study is entirely dependent on your skill.

tl;dr: it depends what you're ready for. Don't feel you ahve to rush it, just concentrate on learning the content and exam skills should fall into place as you go

[literally lauren]

Bestie,
It's a tragic inevitability if we continue down the path we're on. So in a roundabout way, he is actually galvanising readers into action.
Your contention was close, but I'd say it's less about asylum seekers and more about the public/masses' reaction to the situation. The key is in the first few lines: "We don't get to be outraged by this..." He suggests these deaths to be natural consequences of our policy, therefore we can't let the government continue to enact these laws and then complain when the system 'works.' It's not something inherent to humanity or Australian culture, it's just inherent in the system/policy. Basically he thinks it's hypocritical to be upset over these deaths when objectively, it's an integral part of the policy. He then goes on to criticise both parties "...bipartisan bollocks..." and their denial over this issue.
Hope that helps

[zeiinaaa]

Hey Lauren, off topic here! But I was just wondering what other subjects did you do besides English? And did you get really high marks in them?
And plus did you have a specific study routine?
Sorry about all the questions, I'm just curious

[literally lauren]

tiff_tiff:
This contention is overwhelmingly politically motivated, so don't ignore "the abbott and labour bit in the middle." This guy is defending Tony Abbott from his critics, suggesting they are completely misinformed about the issue. Abbott has fulfilled his election promise to stop the boats, and the argument about offshore processing being his fault is wrong, since it was the Labour govt. who started all this.
(I'm not endorsing any of this, it's just this guy's slightly nutty contention.)
So... he too is blaming the misdirection of public discourse for the lack of understanding surrounding this issue. Another relatively ambiguous text, so I understand your confusion

[literally lauren]

Dahello,
There's much more than horror in that title.
You've analysed the word horror in isolation, but put it in context. If the point of something is horror, then that thing should be horrific to us. So from the outset, the author is highlighting the public's hypocrisy in supporting a system but being outraged at its results. Also the "acknowledgement" is the cornerstone for his argument. Remember, we're not debating whether the policy is right or wrong, he's just arguing about the public's hypocritical reactions to all this. So, the implication is, whether we're aware of it or not, this policy is objectively horrifying, but that's not what the public discourse is about.
You seem to be on the right track with the first part of the article so I'll leave that for you. Just stop second guessing yourself and go for what you can argue. If you've got valid evidence for why a certain technique might persuade people in a certain way, then it's probably a valid point to make.
Good luck!

[tiff_tiff]

THANK YOU SO MUCH... YOU ARE A WONDERFUL PERSON FOR HELPING SO MANY PPL IN NEED OF HELP...

sorry but i'm still slightly confused, if the contention is that the public lack understanding surrounding the issue and then blaming it on the Liberals when it was in fact the Labor that started it all... what about the last bit of the article...'They are not going to blame the government for what happened off the coast of PNG. They will hold the ringleaders of the Manus Island violence responsible and argue that there are plenty of other people who are, or have been, in detention, and never rioted in such a way.' that's like stating the opposite... this article is confusing

thank you for helping me get through this short yet hard article