[2016 LA Club] Week 11

[literally lauren]

Little comparative task this week, but these two pieces are both fairly straightforward. Try to concentrate on the differences between these two contentions, if possible, since being able to identify subtle nuances in arguments is a huge advantage in the exam

Background: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently stated that Australians had to "live within our means" in order to get through tough economic times. This attracted widespread criticism from some members of the public, as can be seen below in these Letters to the Editor published in The Age last week.



Will the pollies tighten their belts?

The PM again trots out the well-worn phrase that "we must live within our means". Does this mean $4000 helicopter rides are a thing of the past? That we will dispense with the ludicrous idea of paying politicians $273 a night to live in their Canberra homes when Parliament is sitting? When it comes to largesse, politicians make the rules and lead the way. Is it any wonder they are held in such low regard by the majority of taxpayers.

- Hans Pieterse, Narre Warren North



New slogan is meaningless and unhelpful

The slogan that we must "live within our means" is as meaningless as it is useless. Most people try to do just that. But, of course, there are those who live well beyond the means of others; many even need accounts in tax havens to help them make ends meet. And if we all lived within our means and resisted borrowing, surely that wouldn't be good for the banks and the economy?

- Henry Herzog, St Kilda East

[zhen]

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnball's statement that Australians had to "live within our means" has attracted the criticism of general public. Hans Pieterse's letter to the editor, which was published in The Age last week, employs a satiric tone to condemn Turnbull's lifestyle. Pieterse juxtaposes Turnbull's statement that Australians should "live within our own means" with his current lifestyle, drawing out contradictions between Turnbull's statement and his actions. Through the utilisation of rhetorical questions, Pieterse portrays politicians indulging in "$4000 helicopter rides" and being paid "$273 a night to live in their Canberra homes" as ridiculous, which brings forth the idea that politicians are living well above their means. This idea that politicians are not adhering to their own statements undermines their validity, positioning the audience to perceive them as hypocrites.

In contrast to Pieterse, Henry Harzog utilises a calm tone and endeavours to address the flaws of the slogan, rather than mocking politicians. Herzog highlights that the slogan "is as meaningless as it is useless", by presenting a dichotomy between the people who adhere to this slogan to "those who live well beyond the means of others". This dichotomy illustrates the idea that there will always be people who will not adhere to the slogan, which compromises the slogan's validity. Herzog further undermines the slogans validity through presenting the notion that following the slogan "wouldn't be good for the banks and the economy", which manoeuvres the audience in questioning the credibility of this slogan.

[literally lauren]

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's statement that Australians had have (keep your tense consistent) to "live within our means" has attracted the criticism of general public. Hans Pieterse's letter to the editor, which was published in The Age last week, employs a satiric tone to condemn Turnbull's lifestyle. Pieterse juxtaposes Turnbull's statement that Australians should "live within our own means" with his current lifestyle, drawing out contradictions between Turnbull's statement and his actions. this seems like a bit of a general statement; might help to combine this with the following sentence so you can be more specific. Through the utilisation of rhetorical questions, Pieterse portrays politicians indulging in "$4000 helicopter rides" and being paid "$273 a night to live in their Canberra homes" as ridiculous, which brings forth the idea that politicians are living well above their means see end comments. This idea that politicians are not adhering to their own statements undermines their validity, positioning the audience to perceive them as hypocrites.

In contrast to Pieterse, Henry Harzog utilises a calm tone and endeavours to address the flaws of the slogan, rather than mocking politicians. Herzog highlights that the slogan "is as meaningless as it is useless", by presenting a dichotomy between the people who adhere to this slogan to and "those who live well beyond the means of others". This dichotomy illustrates the idea that your sentences could be stronger if you focused on the author instead of what a technique illustrates there will always be people who will not adhere to the slogan, which compromises the slogan's validity. Herzog further undermines the slogans validity repetition through presenting the notion that following the slogan "wouldn't be good for the banks and the economy", which manoeuvres the audience in questioning the credibility of this slogan expression is a bit confusing here.

General gist of your analysis is solid, and you seem to have understood the two pieces and found some subtle difference between them. The main thing I want to address is this:

Through the utilisation of rhetorical questions, Pieterse portrays politicians indulging in "$4000 helicopter rides" and being paid "$273 a night to live in their Canberra homes" as ridiculous,[/u][/b] which brings forth the idea that politicians are living well above their means.

- you mention rhetorical questions, but it doesn't seem like you're actually commenting on their effect. Your focus is on the quotes and the price of helicopter rides and accommodation, which means your reference to the 'utilisation of rhetorical techniques' feel a bit out of place. (also, try not to use 'utilisation' - some teachers don't like it!)
- there seems to be this flowing logic of [the author uses rhetorical questions] --> [which portrays the politicians' expenses as ridiculous] --> [which suggests that politicians are living above their means] but I'm not entirely sure how we're going from one step to another. The second part is okay, but how do those rhetorical questions contribute to the idea that their expenses are ridiculous? What you've got is absolutely right, but there's a bit of linking explanation missing; fill that in, and this will be perfectly fine

Other than that, your statements about the effect on the audience were really good, and you've selected the right kind of language to discuss which is awesome. so keep it up!

[HopefulLawStudent]

Weeeelll the LA Club's pretty dead atm but thought I'd resurrect it temporarily to post this cuz I was bored today and it was either do this or do physics and English won today.

---

Pieterse seeks to highlight the irony underlying the Prime Minister’s use of the assertion pertaining to the import of “liv[ing] within our means”. His use of the colloquialism “trots out” mocks Turnbull and portrays his comments as clichéd and thereby meaningless. This notion is further enhanced by Piertese’s derisive questioning of whether “$4000 helicopter rides are a thing of the past” which alludes to the Bronwyn Bishop scandal and the ensuing scrutiny on parliamentarian spending. Therein, the writer seeks to highlight Turnbull’s hypocrisy and double standard by implying that the Prime Minister cannot demand his constituents live reasonably when his own colleagues neglect to uphold such a lifestyle. Pieterse therefore seeks to lend the outrage of the reader regarding the extravagance use of taxpayer funding to Turnbull’s hypocrisy, thereby engendering the audience’s scorn and indignation Turnbull should insist Australians “live within [their] means”. Likewise, Herzog calmly and rationally depicts this adage as “meaningless” by implying that extravagance is a prevalent aspect of modern lifestyles. The “need [for] accounts in tax havens to help… make ends meet” was facilitated by the inability of individuals to live reasonably; this thus implies that a failure to “live within [their] means” is the norm. He further suggests that extravagance is not only the norm but also something that is “good for the banks and the economy”. Thus, Herzog seeks to undermine the insistence of Turnbull regarding the importance of “liv[ing] within [their] means”, reassuring his reader that they do not need to alter their lives to begin living reasonably.

[literally lauren]

Pieterse seeks to highlight the irony underlying the Prime Minister’s use of the assertion pertaining to the import of phrasing is a bit longwinded; see end comments “liv[ing] within our means”. His use of the colloquialism “trots out” mocks Turnbull and portrays his comments as clichéd and thereby meaningless. This notion is further enhanced by Piertese’s derisive questioning of whether “$4000 helicopter rides are a thing of the past” which alludes to the Bronwyn Bishop scandal and the ensuing scrutiny on parliamentarian spending. Therein, the writer seeks to highlight Turnbull’s hypocrisy and double standards by implying that the Prime Minister cannot demand his constituents live reasonably when his own colleagues neglect to uphold such a lifestyle. Pieterse therefore seeks to lend the outrage of the reader regarding the extravagance use of taxpayer funding to Turnbull’s hypocrisy, what do you mean by 'lend outrage' exactly? This phrasing is a little confusing - are you saying he's evoking outrage or, like, transferring it from one things to another? thereby engendering the audience’s scorn and indignation towards Turnbull's insisting that Australians should "live within [their] means." Turnbull should insist Australians “live within [their] means”. Likewise, Herzog calmly and rationally depicts this adage as “meaningless” by implying that extravagance is a prevalent aspect of modern lifestyles. The “need [for] accounts in tax havens to help… make ends meet” was facilitated by the inability of individuals to live reasonably; this thus implies that a failure to “live within [their] means” is the norm. careful with the contention here; he's actually being a bit sarcastic (i.e. implying that the politicians are hypocrites because they make use of dodgy tax havens - that quote is along the lines of a 'poor rich people, having to make an offshore account to store all their millions... otherwise they'll starve!') Admittedly they wouldn't give you something this nuanced in the exam, and the sarcasm VCAA employ in their Section C pieces is waaaaay more obvious, but it's worth looking out for this more subtle usage. Your analysis of the next part is fine though   He further suggests that extravagance is not only the norm but also something that is “good for the banks and the economy”. Thus, Herzog seeks to undermine the insistence of Turnbull regarding the importance of “liv[ing] within [their] means”, reassuring his reader that they do not need to alter their lives to begin living reasonably. All good; the between-the-lines dig at wealthy people wasn't really unpacked here, but you've got the gist of the argument, which is what matters.

In terms of longwinded phrasing, you basically want to avoid having too many 'layers' in your sentences. When you say something like: (This is the house (that Jack built)) it's not too complicated. But when you say: (This is the dog (that worried the cat (that killed the rat (that ate the malt (that lay in the house (that Jack built)))))) ...it's a lot tougher to follow. That latter one would be the example of a very layered (or in grammatical terms, 'recursive') sentence, and though it's perfectly grammatical, writing in this fashion is often considered clunky and imprecise.

To take this example:

(don't worry too much about the noun phrase/ prepositional phrase stuff; I'm not even really using those terms properly here; this is just a demonstration of recursion.)

Notice how the original sentence has a few too many layers? We keep needing to go deeper and deeper into the sentence to work out what's going on. But in the second breakdown, we can simplify the sentence so we don't need to encapsulate so much information.

That's not to say you should use any recursion at all, since it's sometimes the most convenient way to package information, but try to steer away from really dense sentences with excessive amounts of layers like that

[Anonymous]

In response to Malcolm Turnbull’s suggestion for Australians to ‘live within their means’, Hans Pieterse identifies the hypocrisy of these words by suggesting that a man who presumably has ‘$4000 helicopter rides’ does not have the right to be saying these words, as he clearly is not living frugally himself. This in turn degrades Turnbull’s standpoint in the reader’s perspective, establishing distrust in the these words as for the benefit of the people, rather than for the politicians themselves. To this end, the audience becomes much less willing to follow the prime minister’s words. Indeed, Pieterse generalises this sentiment to attack all politicians, intimating that they ‘lead the way’ in extravagant spending, and so are the true source for the country’s tough economic situation. Subsequently, this brings into question to the audience whether or not the politicians are upholding their duty and are suitable to govern Australian in these circumstances.

Similarly, Henry Herzog criticizes Turnbull’s words, but with much less vitriol, and in a more rational tone. He argues that the term is ‘meaningless’ as many people already try to do as such, indicating an insensitivity and obliviousness on Turnbull’s part. This demonstrates to the reader that Turnbull does not understand much about this issue, and as a result, his words should not be taken in consideration in regards to it. The author also extrapolates upon this point by questioning the contradictory nature of the government in proposing these actions which would damage Australia’s economy, when their purpose should be to improve it. This in turn furthers the audience’s mistrust in Turnbull’s government, as they do not see the true implications of their actions.

[literally lauren]

In response to Malcolm Turnbull’s suggestion for Australians to ‘live within their means’, Hans Pieterse identifies the hypocrisy of these words by suggesting that a man who presumably has ‘$4000 helicopter rides’ does not have the right to be saying these words, as he clearly is not living frugally himself v. good summary This in turn degrades Turnbull’s standpoint in the reader’s perspective, establishing distrust in the these words as for the benefit of the people, rather than for the politicians themselves I get what you're saying here, but the phrasing's a bit confusing. Maybe explain this part before you start analysing, since this pertains to Turnbull's argument rather than Pieterse's. To this end, the audience becomes minor point, but try and angle your sentences so that you're commenting on what the author is intending to do, rather than how the audience might respond (i.e. 'the author aims to engender readers' support for X' rather than 'readers are more likely to support X' as the latter can sound a bit too definitive.) much less willing to follow the prime minister’s <-- always capitalise Prime Minister words. Indeed, Pieterse generalises this sentiment to attack all politicians, intimating that they ‘lead the way’ in extravagant spending v. good link!, and so are the true source for the country’s tough economic situation. Subsequently, this brings into question to the audience whether or not the politicians are upholding their duty and are suitable to govern Australian in these circumstances. this final point is a little vague, but overall this is a very good chunk of analysis.

Similarly, Henry Herzog criticizes Turnbull’s words, but with much less vitriol, and in a more rational tone. <-- another great integrated comparison here He argues that the term which term? Obviously your assessor would be able to fill in the gaps, but you don't want them to have to do this. The more they have to think, the more frustrated they get, so try and contextualise things where necessary is ‘meaningless’ as many people already try to do as such, indicating an insensitivity and obliviousness on Turnbull’s part. This demonstrates to the reader that Turnbull does not understand much about this issue, and as a result, his words should not be taken in consideration in regards to it. The author also extrapolates upon this point by questioning the contradictory nature of the government in proposing these actions which would damage Australia’s economy, when their purpose should be to improve it good, though the notion that the government's "purpose should be to improve the economy" is something you should probably offer evidence for rather than state as fact - how do you know this is true based on what the author has said in his piece? This in turn furthers the audience’s mistrust in Turnbull’s government, as they do not see the true implications of their actions. again, this ending is kind of nebulous. Which implications and actions are you talking about here, and how does this contribute to the author's point? Overall though, you've got some very well articulated points of analysis with some very impressive connections between the articles, so keep up the good work!