[2016 LA Club] Week 12

[Anonymous]

This piece was pretty interesting to write, but I feel like my method of language analysis might be very formulaic. As in, I only included the contention sort of in the very last line of both paragraphs, but I feel like if I include it in the middle as well, it will become too repetitive. Is there a way to avoid doing this? Also any other feedback is very welcome

Shorten emphasizes the disappointing result of the budget in his speech by building up the tension through exaggerated and repeated emphasis on the effort undertaken to create it. This is particularly exemplified through the great dichotomy between 7 months of planning, and the degeneration of the budget in ‘less than 48 hours’. Shorten elucidates this notion by grouping ‘this budget, this Prime Minister, and this government’ together in an attempt to funnel the public’s criticism regarding the budget onto the associated party as well. To this end, the Liberals is depicted as incompetent for failing to produce an acceptable budget plan despite the length of time available, suggesting a needless waste of both the taxpayer’s money and their efforts. Hence, the Labour Party appears more favourable as a result.

Furthermore, Shorten appeals to the wider public, particularly those who are family minded, as he juxtaposes the effect of the budget upon a ‘working mum’, to that of upon a millionaire who is not in need of money. The former figure is one of a disadvantaged member of society who has given much to their community, and thus the speaker attempts to elicit outrage at this injustice from readers, given that they are not compensated fairly for their contributions by the government. It is intimated that the reason the Treasurer ‘didn’t want to talk about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’’ is because they are trying to avoiding acknowledging this injustice, thereby hiding their guilt which only serves to further their apparent dishonesty concerning the benefits of the budget. This portrays the labour party as ostensibly one who does not cater to the needs of its people, exacerbated by the cuts to incredibly vital services such as schools and hospitals that ‘people rely on’. Accordingly, Shorten sways the public to seek other alternatives, namely the Labour Party, for the other’s blatant shirking of responsibilities.

[literally lauren]

This piece was pretty interesting to write, but I feel like my method of language analysis might be very formulaic. As in, I only included the contention sort of in the very last line of both paragraphs, but I feel like if I include it in the middle as well, it will become too repetitive. Is there a way to avoid doing this? Also any other feedback is very welcome

Shorten emphasizes the disappointing result of the budget in his speech by building up the tension through exaggerated and repeated emphasis on the effort undertaken to create it. This is particularly exemplified through the great dichotomy I'm not sure this is a dichotomy - it seems more like just a juxtaposition between one amount of time and another. A 'dichotomy' would be more like if the Shorten had said "this budget rewards the wealthy whilst punishing the poor" - thus creating a dichotomy between the people who benefit or are disadvantaged by the budget between 7 months of planning, and the degeneration of the budget in ‘less than 48 hours’. Shorten elucidates this notion by grouping ‘this budget, this Prime Minister, and this government when he groups them, what does he say about them? Saying that he creates a link between the three is a good start, but you'd need to do some more analysis in order to assert that this amounts to a criticism of the budget and the Libs.’ together in an attempt to funnel the public’s criticism regarding the budget onto the associated party as well. To this end, the Liberals is are depicted as incompetent for failing to produce an acceptable budget plan despite the length of time available, suggesting a needless waste of both the taxpayer’s money and their efforts. Hence, the Labour Party appears more favourable as a result. I think it's fine that you're delving into the contention at the end of your para instead of throughout, but this last sentence is a little bit abrupt since you haven't addressed Shorten's role or his overall point yet at all. In an exam context, this is probably where your introduction would clarify things, but just be wary of linking things back to the contention without fully explaining the link itself.

Furthermore, Shorten appeals to the wider public, particularly those who are family minded with families( - might be a more natural way to phrase this?), as he juxtaposes the effect of the budget upon a ‘working mum’, to that of upon a millionaire who is not in need of money. The former figure is one of a disadvantaged member of society who has given much to their community how do you know? What evidence is there in the piece that supports this?, and thus the speaker attempts to elicit outrage at this injustice from readers, given that they are not compensated fairly for their contributions by the government. It is intimated that could do more to link these two points of analysis together. (not required, but would be good to do occasionally; it'd get problematic if every single paragraph just went from one point to the next without any link at all, though obvs in moderation this is totally permissible) the reason the Treasurer ‘didn’t want to talk about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’’ is because they are trying to avoiding acknowledging this injustice true, but how is this intimated? What is Shorten saying that gives you this impression? You're right, but show me evidence that you're right!, thereby hiding their guilt which only serves to further their apparent dishonesty concerning the benefits of the budget. This portrays the labour Liberal party as ostensibly one who does not cater to the needs of its people, exacerbated by the cuts to incredibly vital services such as schools and hospitals that ‘people rely on’. Accordingly, Shorten sways the public to seek other alternatives, namely the Labour Party, for the other’s blatant shirking of responsibilities good para conclusion!.

Your approach of linking to the argument at the end seems very sensible to me - I wouldn't stress about trying to incorporate it mid-paragraph unless you end up writing much longer paragraphs when you have an exam size piece to deal with. Keep in mind that you can link to a part of the author's argument instead of the same contention every time if you want to avoid repetition, though. This can make your linking more precise too, which is always good

[xilun]

Feedback will be greatly appreciated for this very late piece

In response to the budget proposed by the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition Party, Bill Shorten, disparaged its propositions by proclaiming that its unfairness in benefiting the well-off rather than the needy. Shorten mostly adopts an outraged and disparaging to contribute to his overall efforts in evoking similar feelings in the audience.

Shorten draws attention to the longevity of the making of the budget utilising repetition of the word ‘after’. In particular, he points out the ‘apprehension and great expectation’ of those awaiting its being published to enhance his attack on the fact that it had ‘fallen apart in less than 48 hrs’ to highlight his stance that the budget is a great disappointment to the nation. The reader is encouraged the reader to agree that a better budget plan could have been produced given the time and supposed efforts. The contrast in the anticipation at the start of the sentence and the thorough disappointment Shorten conjures at the end forms an attack on the Liberal Party by implying that they have failed their job.

 Employing an assertive and matter-of-fact tone, Shorten seeks to depict the budget in an extremely negative light by contrasting its effects on a ‘working mum’ with two kids and ‘someone on a million dollars’. The example of a single mother plays on the audience’s sympathy, as the mother is preconceived to struggle financially and thus deserving of the government’s help. Thus, the audience is likely to be appalled at the fact that she would be ‘$4700 worse off’, and thus brand the budget as uncaring to the lower class.  Likewise, the example of ‘someone on a million dollars’ is designed to represent the extremely wealthy.  The audience is set up to resent any increase in income in their part, epically a ‘$17,000’ as disclosed by Shorten. Thus, Shorten attempts to depict the budget to be unfair and thus deserving of reproval. Similarly, Shorten’s assertion that ‘three-quarters of Australian workers’ would ‘suffer” from cuts in the budgets influences the audience to draw the conclusion that the new budget hurt the interest of the majority. The word ‘suffer’ portrays the Liberals’ as cold-hearted towards the working class. The adjective ‘disproportionately’ further highlights the unfairness of the situation and is likely to engender outrage in the audience, prompting them to utterly dismiss the budget as a functional one. Moreover, coupled with his credentials as an authoritative figure, Shorten’s usage of the word ‘fact’ and statistics throughout his speech lends weight to his argument as the audience is positioned to believe that the conclusion he draws are based on sound facts.

[literally lauren]

Feedback will be greatly appreciated for this very late piece

In response to the budget proposed by the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition Party, Bill Shorten, disparaged its propositions by proclaiming that its unfairness in benefiting benefits the well-off rather than the needy. Shorten mostly adopts an outraged and disparaging tone to contribute to his overall efforts in evoking similar feelings in the audience. good intro, though remember you don't have to talk about tone if you don't want to. It's more important that you're able to bring it up within body paragraphs and analyse it like you would any other technique.

Shorten draws attention to the longevity of the making of the budget utilising repetition of the word ‘after’. In particular, he points out the ‘apprehension and great expectation’ of those awaiting its being published to enhance his attack on the fact that it had ‘fallen apart in less than 48 hrs’ to highlight his stance that the budget is a great disappointment to the nation. This is quite a long sentence with a lot going on - don't cram too much in one go! The reader is encouraged the reader to agree that a better budget plan could have been produced given the time and supposed efforts this is a very valid statement of the effect, but because you've got so much language in the previous sentence, I'm not sure where specifically this idea is coming from i.e. what words/phrases/techniques in particular are leading you to conclude that the author is inferring the budget was underwhelming? The contrast in the anticipation at the start of the sentence and the thorough disappointment Shorten conjures at the end forms an attack on the Liberal Party by implying that they have failed their job. good, though as a para conclusion this feels somewhat incomplete. Consider taking this back to the author's overall argument to strengthen this point.

 Employing an assertive and matter-of-fact tone, Shorten seeks to depict the budget in an extremely negative light by contrasting its effects on a ‘working mum’ with two kids and ‘someone on a million dollars’. The example of a single mother plays on the audience’s sympathy, as the mother is preconceived to struggle financially and thus deserving of the government’s help. Thus, the audience is likely to be appalled at the fact that she would be ‘$4700 worse off’, and thus brand the budget as uncaring to the lower class.  Likewise, the example of ‘someone on a million dollars’ is designed to represent the extremely wealthy.  The audience is set up to resent any increase in income in their part, especially a ‘$17,000’ as disclosed by Shorten. Probably don't need to explain this part; your previous analysis has basically solidified this point already, though I like that you're showing your full workings here for clarity Thus, Shorten attempts to depict the budget to be unfair and thus deserving of reproval. Similarly, Shorten’s assertion that ‘three-quarters of Australian workers’ would ‘suffer” from cuts in the budgets influences the audience to draw the conclusion suggests (--never use seven words when one would do ) that the new budget hurt the interest of the majority. The word ‘suffer’ portrays the Liberals’ as cold-hearted towards the working class. The adjective ‘disproportionately’ further highlights the unfairness of the situation and is likely to engender outrage in the audience, prompting them to utterly dismiss the budget as a functional one. Moreover, coupled with his credentials as an authoritative figure, Shorten’s usage of the word ‘fact’ and statistics throughout his speech lends weight to his argument as the audience is positioned to believe that the conclusion he draws are based on sound facts. this final point is a little generic; 'use of statistics = credibility' is a rather pedestrian point and most low/mid-range essays will tread that ground repeatedly, but your close analysis of various connotations and other language features was excellent.

I think the order of your points might be something worth working on as there were a few moments where it felt like you were repeating yourself when describing the intended effect, and a few other moments where the analysis didn't really gel with what cam before/after it, but that's a very minor concern, and there's some very sound analysis here. Clarity's the most important thing, and you've got that downpat. There was basically no point where I was like 'yeah, but how do you know?' (aside from a brief moment in P1) which is really good - that's a big distinguishing factor in the exam, so keep up the awesome work in spelling out the process of persuasion!