On (In?) a magazine article (You must provide the name of the article!) addressing the consumer readership (Identify the demographic. Saying that the article is aimed at readers of the magazine is not very helpful.), Marie Dorigny presents issues of child labour (?)inflictingafflicting many children in ourrepressiveoppressive world. (Weak.) Dorigny contends that her main concern is to stop the mistreatment of children by means of hard work, often tediously harmful for up to 12 hours a day with a meagre 60 cents wage per day. (The contention is the argument the author is making, you can't have a contention about being concerned about something.) Dorigny employs many tones throughout the article (Cop out.), ranging from an overemotional tone to a satirical one condemning children from manufacturing soccer balls. She shows a blatant disregard for the parents of those in the wormhole and does not address solutions that can be laid by parents thus evoking to the consumer readership that it is them that can uphold the wrong doing of child employers through a devoted synergy. (You aren't allowed to critique the article.)
Dorigny establishes a shocking (Inappropriate.) piece of anecdotal evidence of a young boy whomhas grown vulnerable (?) and used to sitting crouched in the corner of a hot airless shed for 12 hours earning a staggering 60 cents. (This sentence is too long, at the very least add commas in somewhere.) Dorigny further unravels the statistic of another 200 million boys in this position. (?) She positions the consumer readership to have an overemotional and sympathetic appeal (Egregious use of metalanguage will lose you marks.) to those children whomare subject to subjugations by ruthless manufacturers. Dorigny further intensifies the consumer readerships empathy and emotions by presenting a piece of imagery of a young boy which shows him almost stuck to the embodiment surrounding him. (How? Explain.) Although it has many elements of euphuism, (How? Explain.) it positions theconsumer readershipreader to take responsibility in funding this sadistic nature of child labour. (Once again, how?) It was designed to affect the conscience of the consumer readership.
Dorigny’s tone had immediately transformed from a sympathetic and overemotional tone to a morerewardingbenevolent tone where she addresses the consumer readership of the wonderful rewards gained through persevering (?) and endless days of campaigning , FIFA, the world’s governing body (Um?) had put a seal to the companies whomsubjugate children. This positions theconsumer readershipreader to have some sort of euphoric connotation (This is not what connotation means...) and relief to know that a big stab was inflicted on child employers.
Dorigny also has a shift in attitude toward the end of her article. Dorigny’s attitude is exemplified by the redemption of a former child labour. The child Aghan’s road to redemption was sealed by the road to education. Dorigny emphasises that only throughonlyeducation will child labour be eradicated and terminated.
Overall, Dorigny had subjectively appealed to the consumer readership. She had used a vast number of tones to appeal to differing views of the individual readerships. The incorporation of imagery further allows readers to view the argument Dorigny is presenting. In doing so, the consumer readership is able to be persuaded that the mistreatment of children is evidently affecting the health and future of the children. This causes the consumer readership to take action by campaigning and raising awareness.
', [analysis]"[/b] Through enlightening readers of his travelling experience Groundwater’s credibility is bolstered.How? Still with the blunt as fuck sentences btw Readers are more likely to take to heart Groundwater’s message if they perceive him as an experienced traveller as opposed to one who is unacquainted with many cultures and places.Nice! =] Groundwater adds a dimension of perspective to his argument portraying patriotic Australians in line with civilians of other countriesGood! would rather a comma here though and a little bit more. This has the effect of cleansing his argument of bias as, “whether they’re from Thailand or Turkmenistan, Britain or Bahrain” are of the opinion that “they come from the best place in the world.” and what's good about cleansing it of [seeming] bias?Patriotic Australians are portrayed by Groundwater as standard citizens of a country, behaving in a similar way to other citizens. And although he still does not endorse nationhood and overindulgence in patriotism the believability of his argument is boosted. As Readers who are more inclined to not feel personally attacked.<-punctuation/grammar but nice point on attacking
Groundwater advances his argument against patriotism through dissecting some of its various aspects. Patriotism is broadly defined as one’s devotion to their homeland. Groundwater comments, “It seems like human nature to be proud of our patch”, the connotations of the word patch suggest a piece of rugged insignificant land. Groundwater attempts to position readers to view the significance of patriotism as infinitesimal . He conveys this message to readers by bombarding readers with rhetorical questions. “But what are you really so proud of?” he attempts to answer with, “The dumb luck of having been born on a certain piece of land.” The connotations of the words “piece of land” reiterate the writers view that nationhood meaningless. Not too bad. You'd probably benefit from proof reading, too :p "that nationhood meaningless"The writer creates doubt in readers mind concerning the importance of their birthplace and whether it warrants such patriotic behaviour and endorsement of nationhood. Readers may question their motives next time they behave in a patriotic manner and some readers connections to their country may be weakened which is in line with Groundwater’s contention.This is a better attempt than previous paragraphs.
Groundwater suggests a viable alternative to patriotism, not a comma.he executes this through the use of a comparison drawn between patriotism and supporting a football club. “I dislike the whole concept of nationhood, the way people support their country like it's a football team playing in a grand final”you don't need to state something, then quote it as evidence like you would in a text response. Just quote the fucker. Groundwater suggests that there is a lack of unity between people of different nationalities , two separate clauses again. not a commahe provides his solution “ to be a proud citizen of Earth.” He then shows readers how national borders are fading and how the world is heading towards this. “When you can chat to an Iranian on twitter” and you can also, “Head down to your local Ghanaian place for dinner.”. Bit more of a commentary than an analysis hereThrough providing readers with an alternative to patriotism and illuminating how we are heading towards the breakdown of national barriers, readers are better positioned to view patriotism as out-dated and replaceable.good! The writer hammers home this point through the repetition of the word ‘forget’, Groundwater uses the word ‘forget’ to further dismiss the notion of patriotism and reinforce his previous points. “Forget being a proud Australian from the best land on Earth”. The connotations of the word forget suggest that society must move on from patriotismThis very last bit was repetitive, confusing, and didn't show off your analytical skills (which is the aim of the game)
In his article Groundwater contends in a dismissingcomma between multiple adjectives always perplexed tone that patriotism and nationhood are extraneous . Predominantly through the use of attacks the writer attempts to pick apart patriotism and its basis. He strives to accomplish this through dismantling various aspects of patriotism and positioning readers to question their importance. As a persons home country is an integral part of their identity and being ,relinquishing ones patriotic beliefs is no easy task. Groundwater circumvents this potential difficulty through providing an alternative to patriotism whish he succinctly describes as being “a proud citizen of Earth.” This alternative that he provides to be an upright citizen of Earth is appealing to many and may lead them to ditchinformal patriotism which is Groundwater’s aim.Conclusion's not bad :). Still the same chopchopchop
Alright, flaws in your writing: Expression and flow (i feel like I say this for everyone) but your flaws are especially in your heavy use of full stops. Ofc we should be using full stops (lol), but the way you use them is after a sentence of almost the same length the previous and the following, and you rarely use commas to provide the depth to your sentence. So it's just clause after clause after clause separated by full stops. Sometimes when two sentence's subjects are different you've used a comma which is too weak for the distinction in clauses. You need to fix that and start using commas in a way that adds nice expression to your writing. Read a broadsheet newspaper. That's how your writing should sound. The chopchopchop full stop use is also damaging your analysis (or the lack of analysis is causing it!) there are some moments where you've written the kind of lines we really want!, which is good, but sometimes you barely scratch the surface in terms of what you could say. The deeper insight will come with practice as your teacher takes the class through what you could analyse and stuff like that.
There's also no discussion of the image? You mentioned it in the intro but then never actually analysed the image. You would definitely need to analyse it in your essay.
You should be saving the VCAA papers for closer to the exam.
I've attached the two articlesYOU SHOULD FEEL CONFIDENT FOR YOUR SAC :). WRITE CONFIDETLY! ENSURE YOU ANALYSE THE EFFECTS ON READER IN RELATION TO THE OVERARCHING ARGUMENT AND DON'T SKIMP ON THE EFFECT (THIS HAPPENED IN TE ANAKYSIS OF THE WHITEHOUSE PERSON)
Following the ongoing graffiti by vandals in local communities, debate has arisen over whether the councils should take more action against the vandals that ‘desecrate’ local properties. An anonymous editorial titled, ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ in the Daily Tribute, contends, NO COMMA HERE in a strongly disappointed tone of voice DO NOT SAY OF VOICE NO COMMA THERE EITHER, that councils should be more helpful to the victims of graffiti and that these councils should not be encouraging graffiti as an art. Accompanying the editorial is a visual portraying the vulgarity of graffiti vandalism. However, in reply to this editorial, Michaela Whitehouse writes a letter to the editor in which she critically contends that it is the council’s responsibility to improve the behaviour of graffiti vandals by embracing the aspect of ‘culturally accepted art’, also dismissing the allegation that her local council is not making an effort to help out the victims of ‘puerile vandalism’. The editorial is aimed at local residents, who are also furious at the vandals and local council, whereas the letter to the editor defends the actions of the council to its local residents. SOLID INTRO MAN
In the, DOUBLE THE???‘The good, the bad, and the ugly’, the ‘good’ describes the respectable citizens who are being unfairly affected by graffiti, such as the Bergers. PERIOD IS TOO STRONG USE COMMA PRIOR TO WHEREAS, AS A GENERAL RULE Whereas the ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ refer the thugs and the graffiti they produce, respectively. The reader is indirectly caused to associate themselves with the ‘good’ portion of society, and distant themselves ‘bad’, representing the vandals. WHY IS THIS DONE/WHAT FURTHER POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON AUDIENCE?
The writer aims to gain the sympathy of the readers through emotive imagery. By presenting an anecdote concerning ‘Patrick and his heavily pregnant wife’ restoring the condition of their café wall, the writer provokes emotions of disgust, NO COMMA HERE. BE CAREFUL OF SUPERFLUOUS COMMAS, LOOKS LIKE WILL BE A TREND IN YOUR ESSAY. directed towards vandals. The use of the word, INSTEAD START THE SENTENCE WITH "HEAVILY" DESCRIBES... -TO MAKE IT MORE PUNCHY ‘heavily’, describing the condition of the ‘pregnant wife’ causes the audience to further empathise with the couple’s situation and to deem the doings of the vandals as reckless and stupid. The condition of the wall is described as being an ‘eyesore’ and a ‘disgrace’ to locals, as the writer seeks to present the work of vandals in a vulgar manner. Such words evoke feelings of utter disgust, NO COMMA HERE AGAIN. I WILL STOP POINTING PUT BAD COMMAS BECAUSE IT IS EATING TIME. PROOD READ AND TEY TO IDENTIFY COMMAS THAT SHOULDNT TBE THER. regarding the graffiti, from the reader. The author goes on to negatively connote the work of vandals as ‘tasteless’ and ‘foul-mouthed’, also including an anecdote regarding a young mother ‘taking a longer route’ to her daughter’s school, as she would not have the ‘fortitude’ to answer if her daughter is to ask her about the ‘sexual diagrams’. This is done to further antagonize THIS LAST PART NEEDA FIXING. QUOTE TOO LING. LAST SENTENCE LEAVES MORE TO BE DESIRED THAN THE MATTER OF FAVT STATEMET
Next, the editorial shifts its blame towards the inability of the East Park council to help out its residents. NEXT PROMOTES COMMENTARY INSTEAD OF ANALYSIS. HELP OUT IS TOO INFORMAL Another anecdote concerns the Bergers’ ‘tireless’ plea for help, to the local council. Words such as ‘tireless’ and ‘diligent’, used to describe the Bergers’ daily struggle to keep up with their finances, make the reader realise that the Bergers are earnest and hard-working. This also forces the reader to question why the council has been ‘dragg[ing] its heels for months’ and have not yet helped the Bergers out, appealing to their sense of compassion and making the council seem as if it is of no use to its residents. GOOD ATUFF. COULD ALSO MENTION APPEALS TO AUDIENCES SENSE OF IDENTITY IN THEY SEE THEMSELVES IN BERGERA AND PERSONALISES ARGUMENT ETC. ALSO RELATE YOU ANALYSIS BACK TO THE CONTENTION/AIM OF AUTHOR
The editorial concludes by highlighting the ignorant attitude of ‘individuals…defacing other people’s’ ‘hard-earned bricks and mortar’. The author seeks to victimise the citizens affected by vandalism and includes a hyperbole, ‘hard-earned bricks…’, to exaggerate the worth of the properties defaced by graffiti, implying that every single brick and mortar matters. Consequently, the reader is positioned to feel utterly disgusted at the selfish nature of vandals, making it hard for them to believe that the council is condoning ‘cultural vandalism’ and giving these vandals a chance.
Accompanied with the editorial is a visual portraying bland and inelegant graffiti, which obscures the artistic aspect of vandalism, as the image is only focussed at a small portion of the graffiti. The reader is forced to question whether graffitists actually care about the public’s interpretation of their work, again reinforcing the author’s contention in their minds, that the council shouldn’t be supporting this as a form of art.
Whitehouse’s reply to the editorial, in her letter to the editor, is scathing at times, it is written in a rational tone of voice. INVALID SENTECE. THE LAST PART IS TOO DIFFERENT FOR COMMA
Whitehouse commences by downplaying the opinions presented in the editorial, as being ‘dismissive’, already giving her a sense of mindfulness. Also, the ‘summation’ of the Bergers situation presented in the editorial is implied to be incorrect by the writer, which in turn causes the reader to disregard the original assessment of the issue of vandalism, in the editorial.
The writer fires a series of rhetorical questions, asking the reader to ‘imagine the blow-out’ of the council’s budget if they were to help property owners. The editorial portrays the Bergers to be in poor condition, whereas Whitehouse shows them to be in an ‘enviable’ one, as they are better off than ‘hundreds of lease holders’. Whitehouse further refutes the claim that the council ‘dragged its heels’ when the Bergers received ‘written correspondence’ in a few weeks’ time. In doing so, Whitehouse intends to portray the claims in the editorial, to be as misleading as possible. In turn, this makes the readers realise the extent of the exaggeration of claims, presented in the editorial. Finally, she clears up the council’s intentions behind condoning vandalism in a measured mannered, stating that the council has a responsibility to ‘cater’ for the ‘disaffected younger generation’, the word ‘disaffected’ connotes a sense of innocence to the youth, and reader is able to realise why the youth might feel the need to partake in vandalism.
The letter to the editorial finishes scathingly, criticising the attitude of the writer of the editorial as ‘narrow-minded’, claiming that ‘most of us don’t like to see supposedly ‘responsible’ publications like [the editorial]’ encouraging ‘anti-establishment behaviour’. The use of inclusive language makes the reader think as if the issue of graffiti is personally affecting their local community. Again, the audience is positioned to view Whitehouse to be mindful unlike the writer of the editorial, therefore making the council’s actions seem well thought out.
The editorial, through the frequent use of emotive language and anecdotal evidence, is presented in a strongly disappointed tone of voice. Whereas, Whitehouse’s letter to the editor takes on a more measured and reasoned approach, gently refuting the flawed claims from the editorial. As a result of Whitehouse’s direct explanations of the actions taken by the East Park council to combat the issue of vandalism, this issue is only slightly likely to continue to provoke further discussion.
A few articles from 2009, this is a language analysis I did, it was a practice sac a few years ago. I would really appreciate if I got some valuable advice out of this, so thanks a lot for taking out the time to do this. Just some extra information; my sac for Language analysis is approaching in about a week, so at this point I'm trying to aim for a high standard in my writing. I went a bit over the time limit when I was writing this.Lovely writing. First paragraph was great. From then on your need to go deeper
Editorial: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-date-to-remember/story-e6frg72o-1111118672347
Opinion Piece: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dodson-stirs-vital-debate/story-e6frf7jo-1111118670879
Cartoon: http://www.simandan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/visual-texts-new-literacies.jpg
Following the commemorative speech by Mick Dodson as a recipient of the Australian of the Year award, various newspapers have responded to the debate he has raised pertaining to the changing of the date for Australia Day. Great In her opinion piece, Dodson stirs vital debate, Susie O’Brien contends in a reasonable and supportive manner that although the changing of dates for Australia Day won’t achieve much for the welfare of Indigenous communities, Dodson was right in raising “vital debate” and greater awareness of the disadvantages suffered by Aboriginal people in Australia. Woah. Too much difference in clauses for commas. "Dodson stirs vital debate, Susie O'Brien" - you lose the reader right there. Split it up. The Australian’s editorial is diametrically opposed to its attitude towards Dodson and condemns him for raising ‘national “conversation”’ in recognition of what is described as ‘“invasion day”’, suggesting that he “would have done better to rise above” acts such as “mischaracterising vastly important events” such as Australia day Way too much quoting. Phrase the contention in your own words. There is no need for many quotes in the intro like this. , ultimately rebuking Dodson for suggesting the change of date. The supplementary cartoon by Mark Knight, appearing in the Herald Sun, questions the illustriousness of Australia Day and undermines both the importance of the award and Kevin Rudd’s efforts to bestow the “highest honour” to an oblivious Mick Dodson. Great last sentence.
O’Brien asserts that Australia Day has “come to mean positive things to most people” and the date should therefore not be changed. Her claim that the day is “a chance for us to enjoy…our country’s freedom and natural beauty” attempts to engender a unified notion of nationalistic identity in readers, and similarly appeals to the pride that readers may hold for the simplistic liberties from which Australians derive a sense of fulfilment. Furthermore, by highlighting the consequences of changing Australia Day’s date as “a move that is too divisive, and too negative” and one that “will enrage many non-Aboriginal Australians”, O’Brien insinuates an imperilment to the sense of unity that has been established, and thus positions the reader to contemplate the ramifications to our national identity that such a move may bring about. However, O’Brien defends Dodson’s position to “stir” “vital debate” and supports his “right to make the suggestion about the date if it leads to wider discussion”. By showing her consideration and support for Dodson’s rights, O’Brien establishes herself as a well-balanced and sympathetic writer, and thus attempts to propagate her credibility in the reader’s eyes. O’Brien further appeals to a national identity by boldly claiming that “there’s no point denying that there are two Australia’s - one for blacks and one for whites”, attempting to shock the reader out of complacency and to help focus the issue to disadvantaged Aboriginals. Her bombardment of statistics, many of which attempt to produce shock at the plight of Aboriginals through the use harsh factual statements such as “more likely to die at birth, suffer serious illness…live in poverty and die young” ultimately support her contention that although changing the date of Australia Day will not help to further the cause of disadvantaged Aboriginals, a healthy “thrust of… intervention” by the community will certainly improve and help negate their “debilitating cycles of poverty and self-destruction”. Good good. I'd like to see more analysis of connotations. What you are analysing is great. But analyse the emotive effect of "die young" or "self-destruction" rather than utlise it as part of statistics and say they're shocking or harsh. Describe the sound of the audience's heart strings being pulled.
The editorial by The Australian condemns and denigrates Dodson for raising “national ‘conversation’” and suggests that Dodson “would have done better to rise above” “shallow attempts to blame present problems on a long-ago event”. You don't need to justify your description of the article. You just need to quote the evidence you're going to analyse. Right now it looks like you're being a really lazy writer, which I'm sure you are not from the looks of things outside of quotation marks. The usage of sarcasm by claiming that “Professor Dodson, worthy recipient of the honour that he is”, attempts to position the reader into adopting the view that Dodson is an undeserving recipient of this prize, and I think you should cut the comma and the 'and' and use a semi-colon instead. this strongly contrasts with O’Brien’s statement that “Dodson is right to remind us that in reality there are two Australias – and the majority of Aboriginal people don’t have much to celebrate.” However, similarly to the opinion piece, The Australian also claims that there is a “danger in singling out… a date of national pride… (because) it can become divisive (and) offensive”. I reckon it's been close to 125 words and you haven't analysed anything properly yet imo. First para was much better in this regard. You're just letting me read the article without clicking the hyperlinkThis seeks to establish a fair point of view, and attempts to position the editorial in a more considerate light for the reader. To further propagate a well-balanced point of view, the editorial admits that “there is a need to free our indigenous citizens who find themselves trapped… with completely unacceptable low life expectancy and poor health”. This acknowledges the disadvantage of Aboriginals, but it asserts that the “solutions for these needs will not be found in shallow attempts” such as those that Dodson is participating in to change the date for Australia Day. Dodson’s views are positioned as baseless and ill-meaning, and thus an attempt is made to convince the reader of Dodson’s ill-conceived thoughts, as well as the necessity to maintain Australia Day’s date as it is. Okay. Your criteria for a high mark is something like "Demonstrates a perceptive understanding of how language is used to persuade a target audience" or some bullshit like that.
In this paragraph you told me that language:
-tries to make a viewpoint look balanced. Did not analyse why
-tries to discredit opposition audience.
I think you can do better than that.
In the supplementary visual repetition here is not great. "You could say complementary or accompanying appearing in the Herald Sun, Mark Knight ridicules both Kevin Rudd and Mick Dodson. It suggests an incompatibility between Kevin Rudd and Mick Dodson, both in their dress code and their intentions. Kevin Rudd is wearing a suit and tie, and is handing out to Dodson the “Aussie of the Year” trophy, which he names the “highest honour” of Australian culture. Dodson is in complete polarity to this, for he is wearing a casual t-shirt which reads “Australia Day Sucks”, thus highlighting the antithesis between the attitudes towards the entire ceremony by both Dodson and Kevin Rudd.good but why? why why why? This is an attempt to portray the discrepancies between what O’Brien described as the “two Australias”, and the reader is positioned to question the importance of the award. The reader is invited to speculate upon whether an award really construes a person as Australia, and the topper of the trophy as a flippantly remarks upon “Aussie” culture and positions the reader to think about the meaning of Australia Day for everyone involved. We need to go deeper hope you get the quote
The opinion piece by O’Brien, ‘Dodson stirs vital debate’, creates a clever my teacher always told me off for saying clever because it was too subjective. I still really like it. Never wrote it though. association with the word “stirs” and “boils” to suggest that it is important to bring the issue of Indigenous disadvantage to the forefront of the community. yeah but what's the association? what's the imagery? some pot that's been getting too hot about to boil over? what? why? The editorial from The Australian condemns Dodson for “mischaracterising vastly important events” but similarly contends that changing the date for Australia Day will achieve nothing for the country but a “divisive” and “offensive” reaction from Australian citizens. The visual ridicules to a certain extent Dodson and Kevin Rudd, but also the award, and questions what Australia Day really means, from vastly different viewpoints, for both non-Aboriginals and Indigenous communities.
Thanks so much for reading this all the way through. I know that I'll really benefit from the advice.
the sound of the audience's heart strings being pulledI didn't analyse the editorial too well, so I'll go back to that and read it closely. Thanks for the tip on using the word 'clever', you're right, it is pretty subjective.
Dodson is in complete polarity to this, for he is wearing a casual t-shirt which reads “Australia Day Sucks”, thus highlighting the antithesis between the attitudes towards the entire ceremony by both Dodson and Kevin Rudd.good but why? why why why?This is an attempt to portray the discrepancies between what O’Brien described as the “two Australias”, and the reader is positioned to question the importance of the award.
I couldn't really understand the overall contention of the rest of the piece or what was the writer tryna say :/Alright, so, this really is a tricky piece and there isn't much obvious analysis. And it's sort of bland :/. I'd rather write a fake article to give to my students, but, whatever.
But how to pay for what everyone agrees is a $5 billion project when the figures fail to stack up?So the author pretty much establishes that we need this fucker built. The problem is, how are we going to do this?! (that's the problem once he's established it/ recognised it). This article is really subtle. So, look for the definite language. Is definite language discussing fact, or something that is debatable? "But it cannot carry the Melbourne of even the next few years without even worse traffic snarls and gridlock." --> So, let's categorise this as 'fact', seeing as the author is pretty generous when they say "tolling traffic MAY be the only road forward" (omg at the pun lol) --> so if they're being factual about this tollway, it seems pretty unbias, so it's like they're establishing a base. When the author establishes a base like this, we can expect their contention to either be at the start or at the very end, with the 'establishing' aiming to make hte contention look like the only logical solution quite subtly. This article is quite literally saying that we should discuss tolling the traffic as a viable option to getting the thingy built. Small article, small contention. The contention doesn't necessarily need to be a big huge 'omg' sort of issue. Just the overall view the author holds. Here, the author's contention is contained in my above quote box.
...
What is needed is not a decision now, but a public discussion. Are people willing to pay the extra tolls?
Tolling the traffic may be the only road forward.
Brenden, you are a legend in your own freaking lunchbox. And I love your analysis structure; yes, perhaps helps that it's so similar to mine! ;)Thank you so much! (yay validation!) :)
Thank you so much! (yay validation!) :)
the Princess Bride reference. Nice.Life can't get better.
Oh my goodness, you are a god Brenden! Thank you so much! Yeah I realised how short my paragraphs were but I don't know how to group them if I'm going through the persuasive techniques as they come up in the article :/ Can I talk about a few in one paragraph? I really should read other analysises :p And hahahah you're so right, I like maths more than English because English makes me sad since I'm not great at it. I'm doing maths and science subjects so yeah.... I do do things methodically. Thanks for all your comments on how to improve! I'll keep practising :)
The solution is to *not* group your paragraphs by technique as they come up in the article. Almost every word should have its own subtle technique: it was chosen for a reason. It's therefore unrealistic to do it (and structurally there are issues). And arbitrarily combining techniques in order to get longer paragraphs? You know in your heart you need to have a coherent point or uniting 'theme' for each paragraph :)
Group your paragraphs by intended effect on the audience; or, if you prefer, by demonstrated attitude of the author towards one particular stakeholder or facet of the argument. For instance, perhaps the author is trying to make the audience indignant over some particular government policy? Do a paragraph on indignation, and include everything from the entire article, headline, image etc that expresses/evokes that indignation. Talk about *how* they each create indignation, being creative with that analysis.
So your method here is to find FOUR different intended effects - or four things/people the author expresses feelings towards (even subtly). Then you allocate one per paragraph, and chuck in everything from across the entire piece that relates to it.
That makes a lot more sense! My teacher never explained that oh my gosh.. Thank you so much! I shall try with this new approach although it will take quite a while for me to do it properly. But thanks again for taking time to help out :D
Shows a perceptive and sophisticated understanding of a range of ways in which the written and visual language positions readers in the context presented.The above is the dot point that you aren't quite hitting that you need to hit. You're sort of half saying why the language is positioning the readers, but you're not going fully in depth, which draws back on your perception and sophistication.
Shows an understanding of how the written and visual language seeks to position readers, with reference to the context presented.[/b]
Achieves a planned and supported response using accurate language and clear expression.
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]Thank you!! And yeah you are so right, my ideas are like flowing in my mind when I'm writing the essay and I forget about the fact that other people need to be able to read it and understand it haha
Okay, there were parts where your writing was sort of "huh?" and that killed your flow, and you could also articulate/express yourself better in general. Some of your analysis was just fantastic and I loved it, but some could also be general/ like you've skimmed it. It's quite long? - are you aiming to 'analyse everything'? One of my friends fell in to this trap, and it caused her to spend far too long writing LAs. You don't need to analyse everything. You need to analyse until you've demonstrated that you're awesome to the assessor. Sometimes it felt like you were analyzing things because you felt obligated to do so, but it wasn't really furthering your position in terms of marks. So for you, I'd want to turn this whole thing into my green writing, and make sure none of my red writing cropped up - (express yourself better and develop flow). Nice response. :)
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]Thanks heaps , will take this on board because a picture paints 120 words ;)
Oh! Also, I almost forgot! I really think you could have got way more for that image. I personally think it is a structural mistake for people to be taught to analyse the image first. I have been taught this way, but I have also been taught to do the image last, and I personally believe the criteria is more effectively targeted when you discuss the image last. It also provides more opportunity for depth. So often, people use the image as an "attention grabbing device" and then give it two sentences worth of discusion, however, you can draw so much more out of images than this, and also remark on how in intertwines with the written language of the piece, which in turns looks sophisticated as fuck and smashed out on of the 9-10/10 criteria dot points. I'd consider shifting your image paragraph to last and devoting more analysis to it (the things I mentioned as my feedback in the first paragraph you could get 120 words out of at least)
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]Haha thanks 10/10 for you :D
I looked at the VCAA criteria page and I believe your essay is more suitable to these two dot points. The stuff in green would bring you up so much higher on the first dot point, however, the whole essay is not green, thus, I must conclude that you "Show and understanding" rather than "show a highly developed understanding" (even though I sort of think you did develop a high understanding, however, that brings me to the next dot point)
Your expression is the one holding you down on this one. When looking at the criteria for an 8/10, I would say you almost made it as far as your 'understanding' went, however, your expression didn't fit the criteria for an 8. Your expression was at times unclear, particularly the unfinished sentences, and some grammar flaws. Punctuation improvements could also be made. So, I gave a 7/10 for this response. That being said - what the fuck would I know?
Douglas Roehrig, who uses a rather informal and calm tone You can do better than that., states personally that socialising with 'real humans' is more beneficial
Hence, the reader is left confused and possibly demanding an answer a solution to loneliness.Whhhyyyyyyyyy? You're saying what the author is doing, you need to describe the intended effect on the audience. This is however abated by a lucid question which inclusively brings the reader to engage and question the crux of the issue: 'Is Facebook part of the separating or part of congregating?'
Here is a LA is have completed. I have a SAC next week so any feedback would be helpful :) Thanks :)
This is a link to the article
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/clock-is-ticking-on-school-funding-reform-20130415-2hwi4.html
With the government’s recent decision that they will begin to cut funding for universities to provide the greater funding, that is recommended for schools, debate has been sparked as to the effectiveness of this decision and how this will our country. In response to this, an editorial was published in “The Age” on the 17th of April 2013 contending in a concerned but rational tone that a decision needs to be made about school and university funding that will benefit the nation appealing to the audience of government officials and members of the public effected by these cuts and increases.
The title of the piece “Clock is ticking on school funding reform” is a pun reminding the audience that time is up with regards to the school funding decision and a decision that will benefit the whole nation must be reached. This creates an image in the reader’s mind of politicians being under the pump to “get their act together” and work something out. This enforces into the readers mind the urgency of the situation and the idea that something needs to be done soon.
Throughout the piece a concerned tone is employed, in an attempt to position the reader that a fair decision needs to be made because our country deserves better. By stating that the problem is not the increase in funding that the Gonski review recommends, it is the “prospect of election defeat” that Julia may be facing in five months time. The audience is invited to consider the idea that what the Prime Minister is doing is less about what is going to be most beneficial for the country and more about what will give her an advance in the polls. Through the use of statistics such as an “extra $9.4 billion in federal funding” and that the state governments must contribute “$5.1 billion” the readers hip to pocket nerve is appealed to when the costs of this scheme and the negative effects that it will place on the state government and therefore the country are realised. By following this information with more statistics the editorial is presented in a positive light and therefore the audience may become more likely to agree with the writers contention. By using the saying “robbing Peter to pay Paul” when referring to the governments funding cuts and increases, the audience is given an image of the government just taking from one area to increase funding to the other instead of having both groups benefit. Through this the reader is positioned to view the governments plans as selfish and not really doing what they should be for our country. By acknowledging the Labor has “increased university funding” the writer’s argument is presented as more well rounded. By following this statement with the rational “but university enrolments have soared” the readers are able to see that what the government presented as something positive was not as generous and kind as first thought. As the piece continues the government’s election battle is referred to as “a lopsided political contest.” This descriptive language refers to the debate that is surrounding the political funding and that is constantly in the media. The audiences sense of justice is appealed to when they are positioned to acknowledge that this “contest” is taking place when our university students are losing funding and question the idea that is this really what is best for our country.
The editor continues the piece by suggesting that a decision needs to be made because our students deserve better. By alerting the readers to the fact that most of the cuts come from “HECSs discounts, scholarships and tax deduction the editor appeals to the readers hip-to-pocket nerve. This positions them to question how better school students will be compared to ones studying at university. A matter of urgency is instilled in the reader when Australia is described as “among the worst in the OECD. “ This reinforces into the reader mind the idea that a beneficial solution needs to be implemented to improve our student’s education. Appealing to the reader’s sense of justice “the inequality in our schools” is described, this positions them acknowledge that more can and should be done to help our students especially those who are disadvantaged. To conclude the piece the editor ends with the firm remark that it “is essential to ensure every Australian student gets a fair go. “ A sense of patriotism is appealed to in the reader as they are able to see that if there the funding for schools was a more thought out decision the future of out children would be improve with would in turn improve the country and its economy.
The editorial incorporates a combination of appeals, statistic and facts, which would appeal to the writers intended audience. The use of formal language degrades the government’s plans while presenting the editor in a positive manner. As this plan has not been implemented the debate is likely to promote further discussion in this budget conscious world.
Thanks :) :) :) :)
Sorry to be annoying but I have a sac tomorrowI'm can't mark, but best of luck to you for tomorrow!
Thank you so much Patches!! :DTry something like
It wasn't critical, and I appreciate it. Anyway, I'll definitely take them on board!
If you could, I got a few more questions.
Should I have worded it better? (eg. Douglas Roehrig, in a generally nonchalant tone...)
I stated that it makes the reader confused - should I have further elaborated about its effect? I'm not sure what you mean :-\I think I read that sentence slightly out of context, it's fine.
A recent Australian Crime Commission report ‘Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport’ has sparkedcontroversiala discussion of the controversial use of illicit drugs in the AFL sporting code. Most recently, Essendon coach James Hird has become the target of such controversial discussion about his role in the ‘doping scandal’ and alleged use of performance enhancing substances. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt published an opinion piece on Hird’s innocence to which he aggressively contended that Hird was the target of the ‘pack’s’ desperate ‘witch hunt’ for a ‘scape goat’. Conversely, a letter to the editor written by Mike of Victoria in response to Bolt’s belligerent articleexaggeratedlyinstead directs the guilt towards Hird and succinctly demands he ‘step down’, following his involvement in the promotion of ‘a regime of injections’ and illicit substances’. Additionally, a recent graphic by cartoonist John Spooner depicts the current role of sports scientists in administering athletes with supplements to which he humorously asserts through the connotative depiction of a surreal and comically embellished experimentation labthis is way too wordy, that sports scientists’ roles and their relation to illicit substances are becoming shadier and more shrouded in doubt.Good introduction, but it's probably too descriptive. Just assume the marker has read the article - you can outline the context of the piece but you don't need to retell it. More about the tone and intention of the article and less about the contents.
Andrew Bolt’s confrontational opinion piece ‘Pack is driven by the Hird instinct’ commences by immediately posing Hird as the victim of a ‘pack’ whom of which have the intent to seek out a ‘scape goat’ for recent allegations of illicit drug use to what has been described as ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. You said the same thing, almost word for word, in the introduction.Bolt aligns his readers to a perspective thatilluminatesreveals Hird as a victim that is being hunted down by a ‘pack’ of ‘politicians’, in what attempts to appeal to reader’s sense of corruption by the sense that Hird is just one person being pursued by many, falsely in the name of justiceGood but wordy - I think 'fairness' would be better than 'corruption', too.. Bolt further elaborates, and by continually not mentioning directly who the people of the ‘pack’ are, Bolt allows for intrigued readers to conjecture their own image of the ’pack’ and thereby is able to implicate an image of ‘weep[ing] media critics’ and ‘politicians’ who set a ‘witch-hunt rolling’ for HirdGood. Talk more about the connotations of 'pack' or mob justice. Bolt’s utilisation of this connotative language engages the audience on a more personal levelDoes it? That's what he's trying to do, but I don't think using words with particular connotations achieves this. Maybe a 'familiar' level, but it's not really an appeal to personal qualities or attributes and also aims to infuriate them, and more readily accept a narrower and direct perspective on the issueThis is a bit of a leap - you could probably tie in 'infuriating them' with the sense of corruption from earlier.Raising several questions through the mentioning ofAsking, ‘…how Australian sport was corrupted with drug cheating.’, Bolt immediately follows up the statements with sarcastic rhetoric, citing ‘why have we seen not a single player of any code charged? Not a single drug test failed?’. Using such questions, Bolt utilises them as a means to expose the ‘Gillard Government’’s statements as being uncorroborated, but also uses them to influence the audience, prompting readers to place more credibility in Bolt’s blunt opinions.Maybe this is just Bolt being Bolt, but what does the government (and specifically Gillard) have to do with this? You need to relate his use of political discussion to the rest of the article. For instance, 'by casting drug use as a political issue, Bolt intends to channel the reader's likely strong political opinion towards a seemingly separate issue.
In stark contrast to Bolt’silliberalstrident view, Mike of Victoriaoverzealouslyyou don't want to make judgements on the quality of his argument points the blame towards James Hird.and in doing so,He commences his letter to the editor by firstly generalising Hird’s behaviourisms as being ‘incompetent’ and ‘naïve at best’Yeah, but what purpose do these generalisations serve?. Speaking hostilely, Mike succinctly barrages the audience with colloquialismyou're overdoing it with the adjectives here, and succinctly and barrage are almost antonyms, targeting the vocabulary and exploiting the level of gullibility of his fellow commenters who have just finished reading Bolt’s one-sided opinion. Mike attempts to sway his audience through attacks at Hird and elaborates on Hird’s role in ‘pumping players full of god knows what’ just so Hird could maintain his own ‘million dollar salary’. Good, but take it further! Why is he mentioning Hird's salary - to limit the sympathy of his readers? You do it a bit but not enough.Through the agitation of the readers, Mike aims to appeal to the commenter’s own sense of monetary value and aims toignite a refute againstreveal the selfish motives Hird has. Mike substantiates his claims through the mention of ‘evidence is mounting’what does this suggest? That the evidence is incontrovertible? and attempts to utilise the rhetoric effect of having previously just read Bolt’s article to better deceive the audience through the just the mention of the it without actually supporting any of his claims.I don't understand this sentence. Mike appeals to a new subset of his audience by specifically aiming at parents through the mention of ‘allow[ing] young impressionable kids” to be by subjected to a ‘regime of injections of pigs[‘] brain extracts, tree bark etc.’. Using shocking ingredients in the ‘regime of injections’, Mike aims to induce a sense of fear for concerned parents Goodand cause them to adopt the one-sided viewpoint of getting James Hird completely out of the sporting code picture.You lost it a bit there - ...concerned parents, positioning them to view the issue as one of safety rather than sporting integrity. Mike succinctly asserts his resolution as “anyone involved in [illicit substances] should be kicked out of footy for a long time”,and abstains from excepting Hird,including Hird whose ‘disappointed and shocked’ reactionfurtherleads Mike to mockingly state that ‘we are the ones who should be shocked.’ Ultimately, Mike belligerently attacks any defence for James Hird and leaves the audience with the impression that there is no need for compassion towards Hird, because the fault of the issue lies straightly with him.That's good, but there's more in why he chose the techniques he did. How does a belligerent tone have a different effect on the audience than a friendly or didactic tone?
Artist John Spooner’s comic graphic represents the humorous yet dark depiction of a sports scientist and his laboratory. Directed towards to an audience aware of the level of controversy surrounding sports scientists and their roles in supplement administration, Spooner offers a stereotyped and unsettling image to sports enthusiasts and athletes alike, and specifically aims at athletes with a bitter and melancholic satire. The experimentation Spooner displays, is stereotyped with infamously recognised ingredients in illicit supplements, one of which is a pig’s head submerged in a flaskThis is sarcasm - surely Spooner is suggesting an element of quackery?. Spooner utilises this well-known symbol to create the clear link to the otherwise vague issue sports fanatics may have been reading about and also to ominously give a sense of unsettlement as the audience is positioned to see a side of the sporting ground that is hidden. The sense of a hidden and concealed experimentation lab is further implied through the door’s entrance which shows the opening to the vast AFL field, showing their closeness and how immediately related the two places are. The juxtaposition of a sports field and a laboratory, contrast, implying the sense that something is foreign and oblique to the audience furthering a sense of unease. In contrast, the vocal bubbles are used give a sour humour to the issue with the false reassurance of ‘It’s just a vitamin …’ followed by ‘Vitamin X’ makes a classic example of satire and aims to situate the audience in a position where the humour of the portrayal can still be appreciated, despite the dark theme. Through numerous elements, John Spooner shows the role of sports scientist as dangerous and unknown and while communicating that primary image of concealment, Spooner’s dark humour lightens as well as driving his assertion further in.That's good, but what are the connotations of the laboratory that might be unsettling to the reader?
Both authors define their position and perspective bluntly and belligerently, and with sarcasm, each target an overlapping audience. Andrew Bolt’s piece outlined the injustice of a hunt just against one man with insufficient evidence to warrant such actions, while Mike of Victoria explicitly declares James Hird as a conspirator who knowingly plays such villainous roles for the motive of keeping a sizable salary. Bolt utilises common sense, succinct statements and anecdotal evidence to spark an obligation of revolt against unjust treatment while Mike uses colloquialism and generalisations to connect with the sporting enthusiasts on a more personal level. Artist John Spooner employs dark humour, an unsettling scene and the powerful contrast provided by juxtaposition to contend the unknown and concealed nature of sports scientists.Not a bad conclusion, but you're really just rehashing what you've already said. Have a look at some other essays - you can summarise without repeating yourself, and leave space for a last bit of analysis that ties it all together.
Pretty good - just do a bit more on the reasons for the inclusion of particular language.Thanks a lot Patches! And yeah I figured wordiness was definitely something I need to work on
Pretty good - just do a bit more on the reasons for the inclusion of particular language.
Edit: Thanks a billion Patches :D
FnC, have you sat your SAC yet? Sorry, I haven't checked this thread in a bit. Patches going BEAST mode! Shower the kid with +votes, people.
Edit: Thanks a billion Patches :D
I know there's gonna be a while till this gets marked, just posting so i don't have to do it later :D
( LA on the 2010 English exam's speech regarding Biodiversity)
In 2002, countries worldwide pledged to reduce the destruction of life on Earth, aiming to preserve our species and diminish the alarming growth of poverty. In response, a speaker's speech speaker's speech? That sounds awkward during the 2010 International Biodiversity Conference contends in an initally controlled and formal tone that despite the United Nation's description of 2010 as a "celebration of life", the rate of biodiversity loss is invariably unequivocally is a synonym if you ever want to use it evident and requires immediate action. Through the constant use of inclusive language avoid writing about persuasive techniques in the intro, the speaker distinctly is 'distinctly' really necessary? encourages his targeted just "target" is fine audience of educated leaders of biodiversity to claim responsibility on the issue, in the hopes of "preserving" life on Earth and alleviating poverty.provide a quick overview of the image you are going to write about as well
During the initial stages of the speech, the speaker opens opens upto his audience in a controlled and formal tone, instigating that 2012 is a year of "vital significance" to our world. The speaker seeks to emphaise the lack of support over life on Earth and the need to "re-establish" and "strenghten'check spelling theirwhose their? goals regarding biodiversity. In conjunction with his status as a prominent leaderwhich does what? What effect does this have on the reader. You have stated that he has credentials, so what is the effect of this: ethos, the speaker's tone establishes a form of trust within the audience and complies them to consider his arguments this sounds generic. Delve into this a bit more; give more detail. However, upon enforcing his contention, the speaker then shifts into an accusatory and passionate tone in order to confront the reader with a sense of guilt in order to establish a sense of guilt within readers. . The speaker essentially declares that his fellow conference members have failed to take "serious action", accusing them of allowing the increasing the growth of poverty and loss of life to occur. Consequently, the speaker induces guilt in his audience, forcing them to take a stand in order to preserve their self moral values.
Throughout the speech, the speaker employs heavy omit use of term 'heavy': inappropriate inclusive language being a leader of biodiversity himself being a leader of biodiversity means that he uses inclusive language? I don't see the correlation. Please make this clearer. The speaker concedes that we are in "the grip" of a species extinction and states that we have "no excuse" for inaction, avoiding any form of alienation between himself and the audience and instead establishing a sense of unity.Additionally, the audience is encouraged to claim responsibility over the issue as the speaker emphasises their positions leaders check expressionof biodiversity. The speaker utilises confronting statistics throughout his speech, declaring that of the IUCN Red list, 38% are "today threatened" and 804 are already extinct. Furthermore, the speaker also states that more than 1.1 billion people remain in "extreme poverty". As a result, the speaker gains immense'immense' word is unnecessary credibility in his arguments by shocking the audience with the consequences of the lack of progress in biodiversity rates, hence further signifying the need for action.statistics are also evidence of meticulous research and further cement the notion that the writer is passionate about what he is writing Immediately after shifting into an accusing and passionate hmm - synonym for passionate? tone, the speaker satirically depicts the lack of action bystating that "wonderful words", "glossy brochures" and "inspiring documentaries" are no substitute for real action. The speaker then proceeds to mock the audience by nothing that they are "mouth platitudes" in the comfort of a "sumptuously catered" conference who have lacked results. Through the combination of satire along with connotative how is the language connotative? You are labelling stuff, but not delving deeper into it. You must justify everything you write language, the speaker heavily implies that the audience is not doing what is necessary to resolve the issue by blatantly stating their former ineffective attempts to do so and their clearexcessive clarification. lack of success, consequently inducing a sense of irresponsibility and failure in the audience. The speaker states that the "dependance" of the poor in biodiversity is "crucial", followed by a declaration that poverty eradication is "crucial" to a global action plan. Hence,the speaker signifies the immediate need for action for the sake of sufferers of poverty. The speaker proceeds to identify himself and the audience as "economic giants", evoking a sense of shame in the audience for their precedency precedency? and once more encouraging the audience to take action.
The speech is accompaniedbywith a highly suggestive image, consisting of a hand holding a miniscule earth in his palms. The image indicates that the hand, symbolising the audience, literally has the world in their hands and hence havehas the power to make a difference, supporting the speaker's urge for the audience to take action. The "white" hand held the earth with Africa facing towards the front, being the epitomeexplain why it is the epitome of pverty. Also, how are readers positioned as a result? of poverty. The conjunction of Africa and the white handthis sounds off. The conjunction of Africa and something else? Doesn't this sound awkward to you? enforces the concept of diversity in which the audience are morally obliged to use their power as privellegedspelling leadersso now members of the audience are leaders? I get what you mean, but you need to make it clearer. in order to help those suffering from the hardships of poverty. Conclusively, the image strengthens the speaker's argument and subtly urges the audience to strive to take vital action to "safeguard" biodiversity, before it is too late.try and focus on what every little bit of the picture is doing to do the audience, rather than what the entire picture as a whole is doing.
Throughout the speech, the speaker contends that there has been no progress in the improvement of the rates of biodiversity loss, urging for immediate action. The speaker initially adopts a controlled and formal toneyou are repeating the exact same words you used in intro/1st paragraph. Avoid in order to introduce the issue, before shifting into an accusing and passionate tonerepetition again in order to blatantly enforce the need for actionin the audiencefrom people in the audience. The speaker repeatedly utilises inclusive language throughout the speech, establishing a sense of trust within his targetedaudience of biodiversity leaders and consequently encourages them to take responsibility and strive for a true "celebration of life" on Earth.
I may appear to sound rude in a few parts of the essay above, but I'm genuinely just trying to emphasise a point. Hopefully this helps you out a bit :)
This is my first crack at a language analysis that I wrote a few days ago (yes, I shouldn't have left it until this late in the year). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Criticize away :P
The recent findings by Professor Farida Fozdar on Australia Day have ignited debate over the ethics behind the research. Neil Mitchell’s dismissive and cynical opinion article, ‘Flag theory is about self-promotion’, (Herald Sun, 25/01/12)I don't think you really have to put this in brackets - why not try and incorporate it into the sentence?, attacks the credibility of Fozdar’s findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist, in comparison to non-flag-bearing Australians. In a condemnatory tone and with restrained satireinsert some sort of quote to prove this tone, otherwise it sounds empty, Mitchell contends that Fozdar’s findings are not and should not be considered a representation of flag-bearing Australians. Moreover, the article intends to create a sense of scepticism, resent and eventually, fear, in theprimary audienceof Australians who participate in Australia Day celebrations. Mitchell is able to achieve this effect on his readers by exposing that the research was not carried out genuinely and with integrity, but rather with the sole intention of gaining attention. In contrast, Todd Cardy’s matter-of-fact and subtly biased opinion article, ‘Racism links to Aussie car flags’, (National News, 24/01/2012)brackets, presents the findingscheck expression. Could just write 'suggests' that a positive correlation exists between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians. Unlike Mitchell, Cardy is not as straight forward in his approach of communicating his perspective. Each article is supplemented by a visual which adds thrust to the language. I like how you succinctly explained what the visual does
Mitchell does not delay in gouginggouging? This can be contradictory and is your opinion of what he does. We want neutral opinions. into the core of his argument. The headline immediately exposes the intentions behind Professor Fozdar’s researchhow does it do this? You labelled what the headline does, but you did not go into detail. Also, it wouldn't hurt to insert the headline as a quote when writing about it.. The opinion article commencesavoid pinpointing through terms like 'latter' or 'incipience' or 'beginning' or 'commences' as to where the persuasive devices occur. The examiner does not care where it occurs in the text; the examiner just wants to know how it is used to propel readers by associating the pejorative derogatory is synonym terms, ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘a smart lot’, to ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’. On their own, ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’ carry positive connotations. Hence, Mitchell instils the doubt and scepticism of this ‘lot’ in his audience, which is necessary for them to later disregard Fozdar’s findings.awesome and well-explained The repetition of ‘self- promotion’, which parallelsfirstly, you should express this as "runs parallels with". Secondly, how is one synonymous to the other? You did not justify this with ‘attention-seeking’, is used to constantly remind the readersany specific type of readers you have in mind? of the lack of ethics behind the research....so the reader is likely to feel what as a result? Mitchell extends his criticism beyond attention-seeking, to stating, ‘It is almost an industry’. As a result, the reader is left feeling as though these ‘academics’ are profiting at the expense of law-abiding Australians, like themselves. After shaking his readers’ trust in ‘the earnest and boring of our media’, Mitchell warns his audience that if they accept the “kick an Australian Day” criticism, disguised as research, the same academics will take advantage of them, and ‘[question] the motives’ of all their beliefs and opinions in the future. Thuscomma the audiences'audience's - singular scepticism has developed into fear that they will be reprimanded ‘about what a nasty country’ they live in. In this way, Mitchell implicitly encourages and sagaciously advises his readers to question the academics before they are challenged and attacked themselves. By acknowledging that Australia Day is not ‘simply a competition’ for ‘the hottest barbeque’, Mitchell displays his awareness of the significance of the holiday, further ingratiating himself with his audience.this last sentence was good, as you addressed the writer's intention and what he did. But I think you should have omitted it, as it does not being your paragraph to an end. It makes it sound like you're about to start addressing another group of points related to the barbecue.
Before stating the findings, Mitchell reminds his audience once more that ‘the party’, is driven by ‘negative navel-gazing’. The familiar repetition of the terms ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘self-promotion’ still echo from earliernice link. At this point, the writer specifically refers to Fozdar and her research and demonstrates that not only is she seeking attention but has received it. Mitchell pokes funyou have a better vocabulary than this. Try 'mocks' or 'derides'. Please do not delve into informality randomly, as the examiners will notice at the newfound popularity of Fozdar’s research that is ‘[cycling] like Cadel’ and has even been recognized by ‘the Australian Kayak Fishing Forum’. Fostering the audiences' resent, Mitchell attacks the method of Fozdar’s research.[b], such that[/b] Fozdar and her team are shown to have disrupted ‘the people of Perth, in holiday mode’, to interrogate them as the researchers ‘dug for racism’. At this point, when the distaste of the audience towards Fozdar’s project is at its peak, Mitchell may list confused here. Why are you telling Mitchell what to do?the results she has found,comma inappropriate here. Dash serves purpose that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than non-flag-bearing citizens. Had he done so at the beginning, the readers would have no reason to oppose empirical evidence. This is the approach Todd Cardy takes as he aims to sway the readers towards accepting the results as indisputable facts.wow - like this critique of Mitchell. Links well to Cardy Having used humorous cynicism'humorous' and 'cynicism' do not really go together? It sounds awkward. to deride Fozdar’s motives and method of research, Mitchell appeals to the reader’s logic. He employs the rhetorical question, ‘Why would anyone who embraces Australian values not think they were good enough for all?’ in response to Fozdar’s finding that ‘91% of flag-bearers believe that migrants should adopt Australian values’.it's great that you've labelled it as a rhetoric, and you mentioned the intended effect on the reader with regard to the logical appeal. But how exactly is this rhetorical question supposed to persuade us? What makes it rhetorical? Mitchell ends his trail of thought with restrained satire and language laden with irony, as he accuses Fozdar’s project of racism; the very thing it is based on exposing.well-identified Finally, Mitchell demonstrates that to be ‘proud of your flag and display it’, is actually a positive thing, describing it as ‘an emerging sense of national identity’. Thus, Mitchell invigorates the readers’ sense of patriotism to cajole them into accepting his viewpoint.
Todd Cardy appeals to the same audience as Mitchell, however writes with the aim of informing his audience that there is a link between racism and flag-bearing.great link The matter-of-fact title of Cardy’s opinion piece sets the tone of the article. what is the title and how does it do this? What effect does this have on the reader?Cardy commences avoid pinpointing locationhis article by listing Fozdar’s credentials and findings. Hence, readers are inclined to accept the research as irrefutable evidence.this is like a generic, textbook type analysis of the readers will do. Make your response, with regards to the Fozdar's authority more individualistic Although he is not as apparent in his opinion as Mitchell, Cardy subtly sways his audience into trusting in the research.how?? Using terms like ‘only 25%’ and ‘an overwhelming 91%’ to compare the percentages of the responses of flag bearers and non-flag-bearers, Cardy makes a point of parallelingparalleling? As in, getting them to agree with the same viewpoint? Make this clearer. the two groups. Hence, the reader is compelledreaders are never forced or compelled to do anything. It is their choice, whether they choose to agree or not to compare the groups and reach the conclusion that the former must be more racist.once readers establish this, then what? How do they feel? Furthermore, Cardy endsposition his article by mentioning the research ‘from PhD student Michael Britton’, which ‘backs up’ Fozdar’s findings. Hence, the reader is positioned to fully embracenot appropriate word. Also, one verb to describe what the readers are inclined to feel is not enough. This needs to be more detailed. the research, given that more than one intellectually superior party has stated that flag-bearing ‘may actually be a sign of disrespect for the country’.
Mitchell’s opinion piece issentimentallysupplemented by a photograph (The Daily Telegraph, Brad Hunter), of joyful young Australians holding up their flag. The image of the flag broadcasted proudly by the girls reflects an inflated'inflated' has negative connotations. This can be argued. Make the examiner understand why you believe it is 'inflated' national pride and figurativelyhow does it figuratively do this? implies that our national identity is nothing to be ashamed of. The happiness of the girls, invoking a similar response from the audiencethe way you said this makes me feel as though the audience has no choice but to feel the same way. What about readers who do not feel the same way? Some apathetic readers, for example, may not care on seeing this photo. Did you accommodate for them?, as they celebrate Australia Day is portrayed as innocent enjoyment. The reader is left to wonder how such smiling, happy, young people can be associated with spiteful racismand as a result, readers do what? Is the credibility of the visual or any of the writer's heightened because of this? How?. Complementing Cardy’s article and adding emphasis to his apparently objective demeanourevidence of objectivity?, is a visual of a car bearing Australian flags. Thus, Cardy remains subtle in his approach by not including an emotionally provocative image.why is this not emotionally provocative? What is Cardy's approach? You've left this paragraph too short and haven't really explained what you state.
The two opinion articles and their accompanying visuals provide contrasting perspectives on Fozdar’s recent findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than their non-flag-bearing counterparts. The crux of Mitchell’s article rests on the mockery of the proposal and those who have carried out the research, supported by the employment of appeals to logic, patriotism and fear. Conversely, the force of Cardy’s piece lies in his well-maintained, seemingly impartial poise, which makes his intentions seem credible as he uses empirical data to sway his audience. It is through the intricate arrangement of these linguistic and visual elements, that each writer is able to communicate his perspective on the issue of the correlation between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians. conclusion is good
Why not go for a more synergistic approach, where you try grouping the paragraphs according to effect on the reader? This is harder to do, I must admit, but it would make your LA sound less monotonous. If you find you are struggling to complete an LA in this style in an hour, just stick with the chronological approach.Yep, yep, I'll give that a go :) I have no doubt I will struggle with time at the beginning but with enough practice I should be able to do it in an hour (I hope so anyway).
Also, you don't fully explain your propositions. It's great that you've identified it, but you have to justify why you feel it is being used in this way
Overall - nice job though for your first LA! :D
^ Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback Starfish :)
Ah man, I have a lot to work on. I was aware of that when I started though, so the only way from here is forward I guess.
Yep, yep, I'll give that a go :) I have no doubt I will struggle with time at the beginning but with enough practice I should be able to do it in an hour (I hope so anyway).
You have pointed out that I mentioned things but didn't dwell on them. I cut things short because I didn't have enough time/the essay was getting too long. Would it have been better for me to discuss less but in more detail? There is no way I could have justified everything I mentioned properly in <1600 words.
Thanks!
Wrote this one in 45 minutes so it's not exactly polished, but I'd be interested to hear what you think. The three articles are on student union fees - it was a practice piece school gave us from like 2005, so I don't think it's online I'm afraid.
Compulsory student union fees are a contentious issue, charged with political and economic significance for both students and the wider public. These piecessources of publication, date etc...? provide a range of views on the role and perceived reality of unionism on university campuses, exploring the issue from the micro-level of the student experience and the macro-level of national significance. think you've left out a few things in your intro that need to be there. For example, you haven't mentioned the articles' target audiences and tone. You haven't compared the pieces briefly in your intro.
Petra Miliankos, a student union leaderhow do these credentials heighten his credibility?, provides an idealistic view of the macro-scale importance of unions in their role in giving a voice to students, both individually and collectively. Miliankos casts unions as an essential part of the Australian democratic tradition, ‘agitators and mobilisers of dissent’ who have been crucial guardians of this shared traditionwhat is his intention as a result & how does this affect the reader?. The Federal government-led dismantling of compulsory union fees is, then, a continuation of what Miliankos perceives as a ‘backlash’ against civil agitators which is in turn part of a broader attempt by the government to curtail democratic rights. This is expressed in terms of a government ‘not content’ with its ‘demoralisation’ of trade unions, which now turns to student unions, which Miliankos regards as potentially the final bastion of free speech and civil awareness.so far I've read two long sentences about what is happening in the article. However, I've not really read an analysis of these language techniques These appeals serve as a call to arms to the reader, suggesting student unions are a vital part of a democratic society that we all have an interest in defending and promoting.this is the intention. But what is the effect on the reader? Miliankos also labels the government hypocritical for assaulting the student unions, given their historical role in nurturing the political caste. Politicians, she suggests, have a personal responsibility to protect a system that provided their political ‘apprenticeships’, and should do so for future generations including, presumably, Miliankos. Miliankos does this...so what? I'm trying to say you've identified the bits in the article where strong language occurs, but you have not described explicitly what effect this language has.
Sally Morrell instead focuses on the micro-scale experience of university students to whom, she suggests, union fees are more often a financial inconvenience than an expression of democratic rights.this contrast is good She challenges the idealistic view of unionists such as Miliankos, inviting them to ‘complain’ but ultimately come to terms with their own unimportance.she does this, but what effect does this have on the reader and what was her intention in doing so? Student unionists are portrayed as an indulgent ‘chosen few’, more inclined to use their position of influence within the university for political posturing than providing genuine services to student members. Union leaders are portrayed as out of touch, wedded to a tradition of ‘partying’ at others’ expense – the warnings of those such as Miliankos that an erosion of student unions will lead to authoritarian government are dismissed as ‘scare campaigns.’ Deluded as to their own importance, their claims that ‘university life as we know it’ will come to an end are, according to Morrell, a futile attempt to protect the comfortable status quo in the face of unwilling constituents who have ‘put up’ with unions for so long. What political importance the unions may have is countered by Morrell as ‘someone else’s political agenda’ – she objects to the assumption that a union can speak on behalf of students as a whole, a view likely to find sympathy in an audience who were obliged to pay union fees at university. it's like you've rewritten the article in your own words, describing what you think is happening from your point of view. This is not an analysis of language.
Descriptions of union fees ‘siphoned’ and ‘used for piss-ups’ in Morrell’s piece are intended to associate unionism with a particular brand of petty corruption, in line with the petty political pretence Morrell has already identified.how does this affect the reader? Perhaps to lend a degree of nuance to her argumentthis phrase is good. This is what we want. , Morrell acknowledges the health care and other services provided by the unions, but maintains that for the most part compulsory fees were ‘rorted’ by a complacent and arrogant leadership who presume the right to decide what students ‘want’ or ‘deserve’. Michael Gilmour’s letter supports this viewgood link, arguing that students can better prioritise services they need than union leaders. Gilmore shares Morrell’s view of the union leadership as patronising and patriarchal, presuming the right to impose financial burdens on their members, supposedly for their best interest.effect on reader? Morrell’s description of the fee as ‘a couple of hundred dollars’, rather than a specific amount, implies a degree of laziness in the unions’ financial operations, which were not subject to economic reality. This supports Morrell’s view of the union’s unchecked waste, bolstering the implication that unions are protected from political and economic reality by the maintenance of compulsory student contributions. effect on reader?
Student unions are regarded in these pieces as either vital democratic institutions, or outdated and inefficient wastes of scarce student resources. Together they provide a varied view of the role and reality of student unionism, and its place in the modern university system.conclusion should be longer. You should also be aiming to summarise the language devices, as opposed to only summarising the ideas in each article.
Its essay time =]
**Disclaimer: This is not Brenden, this is his sister (he just marked this and it got deleted so he's making me do it instead lol) and any advice is just how I do LA, I am very capable of being wrong, and also pretty rusty on LA so if I say anything that's wrong feel free to correct me. :) **
Brumby’s Camps: Analysis
Prior to the 2010 election, John Brumby’s “Education for Life” program consisted of a 2-week camp experience which sparked heated debate.All three articles and cartoons featured in the Herald Sun over the week of his announcement ardently contend that his proposal is unwarranted and unnecessary.This line says that they all contend x, but you go on to individually state what each article contends, so this line seems unnecessary. The editorial “We Need to Do more” (17/11/2010)puts forward the argumentargues, asserts?that Mr. Brumby’s plans are a desperate plea to win votes and little detail has been provided. Following suit is Greg Kasarik’s letter “Army no Dumping Ground” (18/11/2010),where herefutes Mr. Brumby’s proposal to “send students to army bases”, stressing that the Australian Army adheres to a strict code which should not be tarnished by troubled teens. The accompanying visual aid also downplays the “Education for Life” program, where Mark Knight (17/11/2010) satirically depicts Mr. Brumby’s “boot-camps”. All three articles adamantly reject Mr. Brumby’s plans, manipulating concerned parents to oppose the scheme.I think this introduction would be stronger if you had a couple of the different arguments from each of the articles rather than just one for each. Don't go too crazy and make it super long but yeah.
The Herald Sun’s Editorial “We Need to Learn More”Your title differs between the introduction and here, just a heads up highlights that the crux of Mr. Brumby’s proposal is “scant on detail”. In order to outline the gratuitous nature of his plans, the editor utilizes a sarcastic medium, evident from phrases such as “looks like a winner”. Because “looks like”could beis intended to be?interpreted to be mocking, aiming toreaders could haveevokedwithin them feelings of doubt at Mr. Brumby’s announcement within readers.. This questioningtoneI would avoid saying "tone". Switch it up with something like approach, otherwise it sounds like you are just trying to check off boxes is reiterated and further amplified as phrases such as “sounds like… might… looks like” are littered throughout the editorial. This is designed to denigrate Mr. Brumby’s proposal and therefore undermine his credibility. And create doubt in the reader's mind? More questions could be raised within readers towards the “Education for Life” program as the writer attempts to elicit readers to respond with outrage toward the proposal. The editor is skepticalattowardsorganizations such as “Country Fire Authority… Meals on Wheels”, leaving the implication that they are of no benefit to school children, when their “2 weeks” would be more efficient spent “in the classroom”. This couldRealllly do not like the constant use of could. I get that you're probably trying to avoid using definite terms, but I think "could" makes it seem as if the reader has a choice in the matter and that it is totally up to them. The reader is being manipulated. It intends to, aims to, intentionally sparks.. ect in the reader arouseslightThe author doesn't ever really intend to slightly get the reader's attention or slightly make them angry or passionate. They want the reader to 100% have no doubt in their mind that what they are telling them is correct. hostile feelings, specifically in parents of school children, annoyed that the program is irrelevant and a waste of time.Consequently undermining the authority of Brumby's campaign,opinion ect ect
Moreover, the Herald Sun discloses that the program will cost “$208 million”. This staggering figure in conjunction with “scant on detail” demonizes Mr. Brumby for not giving out information to the public when it will cost so much money. Since a majority of parents reading will be taxpayers, the appeal to the “hip pocket nerve” could make the readership oppose the program.Okay this is all really good idea wise, but I would never say appeals to hip pocket nerve. Try not to directly identify PLT's or tone. It will make you sound less sophisticated. Instead, you can literally just say that it aims to enrage the reader as a taxpayer that a huge sum of money is being wasted on a cause that does not benefit their children, and you could even mention that this creates an oposition between the readers, being the hardworking taxpaying parents, and the careless brumby who throws away huge amounts of money for something that is worthless to their children. +it builds credibility for the editor ect. Don't be afraid to go really indepth and analyse the shit out of stuff, it will pay off even if you think it is absurd. In particular, “scant on detail” is evocative, since “scant”Personally, I try to avoid quoting the same thing twice, and I have noticed that you have done this a few times. I'd try and re-word your sentences so that you don't have to quote the same thing twice, but if it has to be done it's fine. has the undertone that the detail being provided is miniscule, perhaps even non-existent. Thiscouldagain replace this could stimulate the audience into thinking that that Mr. Brumby has ulterior motives or is on a hidden agenda. The accompanying poster telling readers that the “election is 10 days to go”couldintroduce the notion that Mr. Brumby is proposing his plan so that he can win votes.like this! This belief is affirmed as the editor urges Victorians to focus their attentions on how “Mr. Brumby… wrote to the Minister for Defense… for advice on his new proposal”. The Herald Sun condescendingly undermines Mr. Brumby and discredits him for acting rashly and without aforethought.
Similarly, Greg Kasarik’s authoritative and slightly venomousmuch better way of incorporating tone here. letter “Army no dumping Ground” condemns the idea of having year 9 students enroll into the Australian army. Kasarik’s previous occupation of “former soldier” allows him to undermine the proposal without questioning from the audiencesince he has hadusing his credibilty as a result of his previous experience within the defense force. Phrases such as “highly demanding selection…highly professional organization” depict that the Australian Defense Force (ADF) is an organization that adheres to a strict code of conduct and is of vital significance. Thereforehe implies that Mr. Brumby’s proposal of applying troubled youth into the army (in hopes of “fixing their behavioral problems”) as illogical and “silly”. Childish connotations? I'd mention thisAs a consequence, this could incite concerned parents to generate ridicule at Mr. Brumby’s plans, thinking that Mr. Brumby has not asked for permission from the army or thought about the consequences.This derision towards Mr. Brumby is then replaced with fear asKasarik explains that the army “has the demanding role of defending our country”, provoking fear in the reader . In particular, “defending our country”couldelicit fear that withoutourarmy being “ready and professional”,wewould be under constant attack.NEVER say I, we, us , our. It is NOT you, it is the reader. In this case, just replace our with Australia Thus arguing, implying, suggesting? thatthe need for a strong and capable army is of vital importance, and should not be compromised. Akin to the Herald Sun’s editorial, Kasarik also offers an alternative, albeit in a slightly didactic tone. Same deal as earlier with the tone. Being more subtle will make you look more sophisticated.According toKasarik highlights, illustrates that ect ect.. pick a verb to stick in herethe more beneficial thing to do is to “assist them in a civilian environment with trained instructors, who know and want to relate with kids”.This is a hugee block of quote that you later go on to inspect individually. I would take out the huge block and just examine the smaller parts, it also saves you from being repetitive with the quoting. “Civilian environment” suggests that children should not be placed in the army because they need to be educated properly in a safe manner. This also subtly suggests that the army is dangerous and no place for troubled teens.What does this aim to do to the reader? Make them scared because they need an army and they wanna fill it with kids? Make them scared for their own children's safety, or even their own? Drill in the fear here. This is a hugeeee fear provoking technique. In addition “trained instructors who know what to do and want to do it” This is a very big quote. i'd just try and take out the crux of it, like "trained instructors', who "know what to do"implies that the army personnel are not “trained” to deal with adolescents, nor do they aspire to do it in the first place. Hence, Kasarik’s clear and logically framed arguments could permeate into concerned parents, positioning them to view Mr. Brumby’s plans as outrageous. Drill in more of this last part!
In a similar fashion, not sure about that phrasing. Could just be a me thing. Mark Knight’s satirical cartoon spoofs and derides “Camp Brumby”. Parents of troubled teenscouldsame deal immediately feel opposed to Mr. Brumby’s camp as they take note of the line-up of adolescents in the foreground. The children are shown with unenthusiastic and slightly haughty expressions, evident from the disbelief in their eyes. Their comments range from “This sucks already” to “I’m going to seek asylum”. I would go into detail about those captions. The first one seems as though it demeans teenagers, promoting them as whiney ect, which could prove detrimental to the army, drill in the fear again. Also, not only could the second one hint at the detention centre as is mentioned later in this paragraph, but when someone jumps on a rickety boat in search of safety, you'd say that where they were would have to be pretty bad, right? War zones, innocent people being killed, really heavy war connotations, which is juxtaposed to the whiney teenager. Could aim to make the reader wonder if the whiney teen will be able to handle the war zone. Just a thought.Not only do these remarks encompass the notion that children would most likely oppose “Camp Brumby”, but are also homage to some topical issues of that year. To the right of the teenagers, readers would see a figure many would assume as John Brumby himself, evident from his trademark “bushy eyebrows”. Because his chest is puffed out and his large strides could ensue hilarity, this casts Mr. Brumby sardonically. Therefore readerscouldhave instilled into them the mindset that Mr. Brumby and his proposals are not to be taken seriously. That he thinks he's almost posh, foreign, ect. Widens the gap between Brumby and the readers - everyday people.Knight portrays how he views the camps are likely to look like as he draws them with barbed-wire fences and guard-towers.is this how they really will look, OR is it how he wants the reader to think they will look? Twisting the truth is all part of getting the readers on the authors side. These high-security implementations are comparable to what is seen in a jail.explore the connotations of being in jail, teenagers, what impact this aims to have on the reader. Knight hints that “Camp Brumby” is unwarranted because it is more likely to be a detention centre for children rather than a camp for rehabilitation (the fencing and guard-towers implying that there is no escape)like this. Likewise, prominent signs on the barbed-wire fence include “no play-stations, Facebook, phones…” This indicates that Brumby’s camps rob children of their freedom, generating disgust within parents since it makes an appeal to moral and human rights. Or also that teenagers are not concerned with the army ect, but that they are too concerned with technology to take the army and the real world seriously? The notion of his camps being a prison is strengthened as readers focus their attentions on the bus in the background. The cloud of acrid smoke emanating from the trail of the bus could leave the implication that the teenagers are left behind, and that they are left there without second-thoughtssinceas the bus is in a rush to leave. Overall, the image starkly depicts Mr. Brumby’s camps as malign and unjust since it could rob children of their freedom.
The crux of the two articles and cartoon denigrate Mr. Brumby’s “Education for life program”. The editorial utilizes a more emotive approach, niceeseen from the heavy use of sarcastic attacks in order to highlight the lack of detail given. In contrast, the letter to the editor opts for a more scathing and authoritativetone,same deal as Kasarik belittles Mr. Brumby for not considering the impact his proposal could have on the Australian Defense Force. Similarly, Mark Knight’s cartoon downplays “Camp Brumby”, envisioning that the camps are more akin to a prison rather than a rehabilitation centre. Ultimately, upon digesting the contents of all three media texts, concerned parents are likely to view Mr. Brumby’s “Education for Life program” as gratuitous and unwarranted.
I'd also just like to add that author's can totally contradict themselves and ruin their own arguments at times. It will make you look really good if you point out that the author has lost the audience because he's wrecked himself, it shows that you have a clearer understanding ect. I would recommend trying this out where you can!
What do you guys think? Too convoluted/verbose/doesn't make sense? - These are some criticisms I have been receiving from my teacher recently...
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
The issue of euthanasia and its place in society has caused heavy controversies over the years, as a result debate surrounding the legalization of euthanasia has become increasingly evident. I think you could express that better (I'm put off by 'debate' being 'evident' - seems strange, no? In response to the issue, an opinion article written by Craig Wallace What about... "In response to the issue, ABC'S RampUp published Craig Wallace's opinion article "Euthanasia..." (<date>) entitled ‘Euthanasia: let’s look at the bigger picture’ was published by ABC’s RampUp on the 21st of January,2013 in which Wallace contends in a condemning and antagonistic tone that euthanasia should not be legalized, stating that it is essentially “suicide” and hence should not be condoned by society. In contrast, another opinion article entitled “Why is it so hard to grant the wish to die in peace?” in the 16th of May issue of the Age, an anonymous doctor controverts in a logical and controlled tone that euthanasia should be legalized to help doctors realize that “advanced care” isn’t always the solution, and to instead help grant the wish of terminally ill patients to “die peacefully”. Wallace’s article incorporates heavy use of rhetorical questioning and is primarily targeted at supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media whom he believes differentiates suicide and euthanasia due to the factor of disability last part of this sentence could be clearer, and you might consider restructuring your sentence to show that Wallace wants the people that differentiate b/ween the two to STOP differentiating (i'm assuming that's what he's doing, anyway) . The anonymous author utilities inclusive language to encourage responsibility in the target audience of medical professionals who oppose euthanasia. reader, as it is targeted at medical professionals who oppose the use of euthanasia.
I like your intro. I expect good things from this essay, including a discussion of how tone is being used to manipulate a particular target audience (which would be quite impressive). Your intro is promising, I'm hoping the rest of the essay lives up ;)
Wallace’s article contends that euthanasia is simply another form of suicide and therefore should not be legalized. Wallace adopts a combative and condemning tone to project a sense of superiority and intelligence towards the reader you need another sentence saying 'how' and 'why' he is doing this -- i mean, he's trying to project a sense of superiority -- does that work against him or for him? i mean, superiority could just as easily lead a reader to say "fuck you" as it could lead them to submit to his opinion, right? So, tell me, what's he going for with the superiority, and what does it actually do? . Throughout the article, the author enforces the concept of euthanasia being “suicide” multiple times through the repeated usage of rhetorical questions, suggesting that if suicide is a “gift: for a specific group of people who find their lives unbearable, “why not” everyone else? Wallace asserts this point once more when he questions the legitimacy of granting the right of euthanasia to one group but “not another”. Notice here your descriptive verbs/adverbs pertaining to the author. Enforces, suggesting, repeated usage, asserts, questions. These are all describing what the author is diong, and describing the language, yeah? But what you want to be doing is ANALYSING. To BREAK IT DOWN. DECONSTRUCT. "aiming" "has the potential to influence x audience x way because x" -- i know your next sentence is 'encourages the reader to accept his point of view'' - but i think you'll agree with me when i say that's slightly shallow? I mean, how does he indicate that people who disagree are fooloish, and what is the effect of feeling foolish on the reader? I know my last question seems a bit "uhhh, what do you mean, they feel FOOLISH" - but i mean, we can easily say "they feel foolish, thus their embarrassment could potentially lead them to agree with the author in order to restore their previous perception of self, discarding the reason for their original feelings through changing their opinion" (not the cleanest sentence, but you see my point) The author subsequently encourages the reader to accept his point of view by indicating that those who disagree are foolish. Wallace generalizes the communitywhy? by stating that everyone goes through “unbearable pain” in different forms in their lives in order to reinforce that suicide shouldn’t be allowed simply because of disability but how does this work?. The author is able to validate his opinion dubiously and allow the reader to relate themselves to the issue how?. Wallace employs evidence ahh, I see.. Try something to make this connect and flow a bit better, such as "In an attempt to validate his opinion and...., Wallcace employs..."in the form of the UN Convention’s regulations regarding the Rights of the Disabled, which affirms that everyone has the “inherent right” to life in order to restate his position on the issue once more . As a result, the author gains credibility in his arguments, increasing the urge in the reader to accept his position getting better.. The author concludes his article by exaggerating legal euthanasia by comparing it to a “door to hell”, confronting the reader with shock in order to further emphasise that euthanasia has no place in our society. The article is accompanied with an image of a syringe and a bottle labeled with a skull. As an image of a skull symbolizes imminent death, it contrasts with the idea that euthanasia is a “gift” and instead signifies that euthanasia is essentially nothing more than suicide.
Conversely, the article written by an anonymous doctor contends that euthanasia should be legalized to allow the terminally ill to die in peace and help doctors realize that care isn’t always the solution for patients. The article assumes a rational and logical tone, placing the readers who oppose euthanasia in a position of self-doubt how?. The title of the article immediately captures the reader’s attention and solidifies the author’s contention through the use of a rhetorical question, subtly encouraging the reader to consider the issue by implying that those who disagree are illogical. what's the title and how does it say what you say it does? Upon the beginning of the article, the author utilises an anecdote of a man known as “the miracle man” who was denied death and instead continues to live a life filled with daily hardships. The author is therefore able to establish credibility in the need for euthanasia as well as evoking a sense of commiseration in the reader for terminally ill patients okay, good! now go one step further, what's the commiseration going to (potentially) do?!. Being a doctor himself, the author uses inclusive language repeatedly throughout the article to relate with his audience of medical professionals by stating that “we” think advance care is the solution and that “we” are very clever with our treatments. The author is able to encourage a sense of responsibility and duty in a doctor, and emphasizes a need for doctors to accept a patient’s refusal for treatment this is great. The author appeals to the emotions of the reader this is not greatwhen he depicts life as a typical terminally ill patient who is “frail”, “incontinent” and unable to “walk without help”. google connotations, if you don't know the meaning of the word already. Here's a sentence for you to fill in: "The connotations of "frail", incontinent" and unable to "walk without help" position the reader to..... because they could feel....." The author forces i'm very anti being conclusive like this. "the author forces"...... you can hardly force someone to feel sympathetic. the reader to feel sympathetic towards all terminally ill patients, further demonstrating the need for euthanasia. Once more, the author targets medical professionals through the use of rhetorical questioning when he concludes the anecdote of the “miracle man”, by inquiring if it proved a “triumph” in modern medical care, consequently belittling the medical professionals by deeming them foolish for opposing euthanasia and constantly focusing on providing patients with “burdensome treatments”. I read the last sentence twice (which is once too much).
When compared with one another, both articles have distinct similarities in terms of intended effect on the reader. Wallace and the anonymous doctor both establish their authorities during the beginning stages of their articles, albeit with different methods. Wallace conducts an attack towards an outside article which didn’t discourage suicide but instead considering a case of euthanasia as a “relief”, resulting in disparaging the media and instigating a sense of compliance in the reader to place their beliefs in his point of views. getting a bit hard to follow in that sentenceContrastingly, the anonymous doctor simply stated that he was a GP for “25 years”, which establishes a form of trust and avoids any form of alienation with his targeted audience, also proving that he is an expert within the field. Both articles denigrate the subjects through the use of sarcasm in which Wallace states his concern for the interpretation of “voluntary” in a world that isn’t the ideal world of “crystal clarity” whilst the doctor concludes his article by suggesting that medical professional stops the “treatment merry-go-round”. Both authors are subsequently able to project a sense of superiority over those who oppose their view, gaining validity in the reader towards their respective contentions i followed, but getting stretchy. Both authors distinctly state the consequences of euthanasia, where Wallace dramatically states that there is no “undo button” in death, inferring onto the finality of euthanasia whereas the doctor depicts the life of terminally ill patients, referring to them as having brains and bodies which are on a “downward spiral” and being “run ragged” due to being denied a peaceful death. As a result, both articles are able to confront the reader by triggering a sympathetic response and increasing the reader’s sense of empathy, further strengthening their initial contentions. holistically, this paragraph is a big of a damager on the flow of your essay - notice how all of your sentences are lengthy. it might be okay once or twice intermittently, but when you put it all together in one "BAM TAKE LENGTHY SENTENCES, MOTHERFUCKER... well, shit gets a bit awkward for the reader.
Wallace’s opinion article uses a condemning and antagonistic tone to consolidate his point of view that euthanasia should not be legalized as it is merely a form of “suicide”. Wallace constantly uses rhetorical questions to degrade his opposition and is therefore targeted towards supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media. The anonymous doctor’s opinion piece employs a logical and reasonable tone to place the reader in a position of self-doubt, enforcing his contention that euthanasia should be legalized for patients to die peacefully and to avoid medical professionals forcing active treatment upon them against their wishes. The author substantially uses anecdotal evidence and inclusive language to emphasise his arguments, targeted specifically at the medical professionals amongst those who defy euthanasia.
Just to clarify -- you're a Year 11 English student??
Not bad for a Year 11 ;). Aim higher than 43.
could i get a mark for this fixed up piece
After the release of the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling, debate arose surrounding the need to improve schooling in Australia.good contextualising sentence In an opinion piece published in “Entry standards for teachers are too low” published in “The Age” on Wednesday the 24th of July, Professor Ed Byrne contends in a measured and educated approach supply a quote to prove this tonethat the entry standards for teachers need to be raised, if Australiasapostrophe? schoolsjust write 'school' not 'schools' system is to be improved. The piece is complemented by an accompanying cartoon from “Dyson” that presents graduation hats in the air along with a Mickey Mouse face.have not mentioned target audience
Throughout his piece the writer employs a measured rationality to attempt to position the readerto believe that raising the standards for undergraduate teaching courses would benefit schools and their students. how does he employ measured rationality? How do you know this? Where's the stimulus that gave rise to this conclusion? Byrne increasesI don't think the verb 'increases' is suitable here to describe credibility his credibility when he refers to the Gonski Review of Funding and states that “excellence in teaching”.. “is important”"excellence in teaching...is important", need for semicolon here if choose not to capitalise the 't'. Personally, I would have just used a fullstopthis manipulatesit does not necessarily manipulate the reader. Instead, readers may feel manipulated. There is a difference. the reader to gain a sense of what would be best for the students that are currently completing their education and are about to embark on their university journey. By stating that the proportion of students gaining entry into undergraduate teaching with an ATAR of less that “70 has increased by 7 per cent”, furthermore,.....you should have used a linking word like "furthermore" here, because these statistical points need to be connected in some way to your prior analysis a sense of fear for our future and our students is evoked in the reader, full stop or semicolon requiredthis positions them to question the impact thatthissuch atrend may have on future generations. Bryne presents himself as concerned for school leavers , as he asserts that...assertingthat having a high ATARwhile not a measure of “intellectual ability”is not a measure of "intellectual ability", but rather, is a fairly accurate representation “oftheirpreparedness for the rigours of university study”, full stop here.here he allows the reader to question whether allowing toit is too many students with low ATARs will not only be detrimental for our school system, but also for... but for the studentsapostrophe own learning and university experiences, as they will not be fully prepared for the rigours of university life. As a result, the reader feels what?By explaining that there is a “youth bulge” comma a sense of urgency is evoked in the reader. a double dash would be excellent hereThat if action is not urgently taken then the education standards of Australia's schools will not rise. The credibility of the writer is extendednice verb by acknowledging the opposing viewpoints that the having a good standard of teachers check expression. I would have rewritten this my self, but I'm not too sure how it is to be interpreted in the 1st place, as the phrasing is uncleargraduating from the course is “more important that entry standards” .but, by stating that having higher ATARs is a “starting point” the readers is positioned to acknowledge that something must be done to prevent Australia from falling behind.
Ed Byrne continues his pieceso you've adopted a chronological style to your analysis. That's great, but in my opinion, you shouldn't reference the areas of the text you are discussing. I realise you haven't pinpointed stuff explicitly, by saying things like, "in the 3rd paragraph, Byrne...". However, the phrase I have underlined can allude to something of this nature. by presenting the idea that if other professionals have higher standards, this should be the same for those who are teaching our students. Readers are inclined to ....... because of this?By using the analogy that ofthere beingthe potential forpublic outrage if “doctors were being admitted to university with ATARs of 40”commathereaders are positioned to view having low ATARS as unjust and unfair for the pupils that they would be teaching. The reader is positioned to feel as if it an injustice for highdash achieving students putting in more effort than their fellow students who get into the same course.nice. You would have really hit the mark if you stated the writer's intention appeals to justice. A positive image of our teachers is generated when they are referred to as “important” and that they “deserve to be respected". this praiseadulation is synonym positions the reader to feel that this should continue to happen.why does it position the reader to feel this way?? .A series of rhetorical questions including comma“Do we want our children to be taught by the best and most capable teachers?” generatesgenerate feelings of... a feeling compassion for our childrenfullstop. Readers feel that they... and that they should deserve better. By ending position in text again? with the strong statement that the “current trend has to be reversed” this is the last part of the articlejust check your expression in this sentence; when you read it out loud, does it sound convoluted? that will be reader and therefore left in the readersapostrophe mind,full stop. This firm... this firms statement aims to leave no doubt in the readers mind that changes must be made to the entry standards for teachers if we want to lift Australias education system.
The cartoon above the article contains many hats could you describe the hats, rather than just say 'hats'? from university students being thrown in the air astheyis done on graduationdo on graduationcomma as well as a Mickey Mouse outline. All the other hats represent the other respected professionals and university degrees. The Mickey mouse symbol signifies that teaching is “easy”. This ties in with the saying “Mickey Mouse subject”, that it is not difficult.I had to read this sentence twice over to understand what you were trying to say. I would say something like "The Mickey mouse symbol signifies that teaching is "easy", tying in with the saying "Mickey Mouse subject", which in turn implies that something is not difficult. It is also lower than the other ??has reinforcing into the readers mind that teaching only requires low scores to gain entry.do you think readers will be affronted because of this? Also, does this cartoon aim to debase the writer, or does it support his view? You should make this explicit somewhere in this paragraph As Mickey mouse is a children’s cartoon and it is it is........?? I haven't seen the cartoon; it may indeed be too simple for you to expand on it, but in spite of this, I would have written more about it. There isn't enough detail about the cartoon in your analysis. Because there is less detail about the cartoon, you were unable to fully describe the impact of different aspects of the cartoon on the reader, which is what we are really after.
Both the article and the cartoon present the idea that teaching is easy to gain entry into. The articleattempts to instil a sense of urgency into the reader regarding entry standards for teaching. Similarly, theThe cartoon reinforces the typical image of teaching as being easier to ...that it is easy to get into and thatanyone can do it.Summary of linguistic and visual elements you have discussed?
This is for the 2011 VCAA exam piece on technology by 'Voxi'.
The degree to which the proliferation of digital technology, and its impact on the ways we work, live and think, can be controlled is a uniquely modern challenge.I had to read this sentence 3 times over, just to group things together, so I could understand what you were trying to say. I would have written the sentence like this instead: The degree to which the proliferation of digital technology can be controlled - its impact on the ways we work, live and think - is a uniquely modern challenge. This peacedo you mean piece?, appearing as it does in an online journal, argues that the tide of technological advancement is inexorableI haven't looked at the article myself. Is there an author of some sort? , and indeed exiting; opponents of this view are thus neo-Luddites whose aversion to progress is backwards-looking and regressive. audience? tone? supporting quote?
The piece’s title creates a contrasting image of two opposing, ‘polarised’ groupscomma alternately ‘keyed in’ and ‘keyed out’. Voxi’sso there IS an author! Why on Earth was Voxi not mentioned in the introduction of your LA? *bemused* descriptions are intended to paint those opposed to the ‘new’ as ‘afraid’ of being ‘dislodged’ from their ‘comfort’ zone, as opposed to the ‘excitement’ and ‘pleasure’ with which so-called digital natives step out into their ‘expanding universe.’ This juxtaposition is ostensibly sincerehow do you know that this juxtaposition is are 'ostensibly sincere'?, but betrays a view commonly held among young people including, presumably, Voxi, that opposition to ‘new ways’ among the mostly older ?? Why don't you write "among mostly older people"? I don't think what you wrote before was very clear. It sounded awkward. is fuelled more by ‘fear’ and the complacency of ‘if it works, why fix it’, rather... than a genuine appraisal of the benefits and threats of new technology. Voxi’s exasperation with the stubborn opponents of ‘new things’ will likely resonate with a digitally active audience with first hand experiences of dealing with the technologically reluctantthis is kind of like what you did when referring to the older people above. In this case, it fits in nicely. I don't think it worked when you tried it out above, because your sentence was already long and complex. It got to be a bit too much. . By virtue of their reading an online journalcomma the vast majority of readers are likely to share Voxi’s views; consequently he or she 'he or she' references in essays should be avoided. Substitute this with 'people' :)is free to create a stereotypical image of digital opponentscomma which appeals to the audience without fear of alienating thosedismissivelydescribed as ‘naturally afraid’ who are unlikely to be reading the piece.nice. Thoughts are good.
Voxi’s posting, then, consists largely of justifications and flattery directed towards an audience who likely already shares his or heryou don't know Voxi's gender? If not, then his or her is okay here. view of the ‘exciting possibilities’ of technological advancement. The description of ‘grits in the oyster’ who ‘moved forward humanity’ summons an image of a persecuted minority in wider society who will ultimately be vindicated like ‘Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin’ who faceddownopposition to the ‘radically new’ from those more ‘comfortable… with the safe and predictable.’ How will readers feel because of this?Voxi elevates his or her readershipreadership? to a historically important ‘special few’, whose early adoption and defence of innovation will ‘in time’ contribute to ‘revolutionising… the human experience.’ This indication, that Voxi understands the opposition the audience have likely encountered, invites the audience to form an allegiance amongst themselves and with the author, based on a mutually cogent understanding of the facts of new technology.!!! nice
Voxi then presents a view of theof the what? as yet unrealised potential of new technologiesdid you forget to type in a word here?, intended to channel the audience’s enthusiasm for the newfor the new what..? for the new generation? towards ever greater ‘dreams’ of a ‘free and peaceful’ world. The presentation of technology as a panacea for the world’s problems – ‘war’, ‘violence’, hunger and the environment – once more elevates a technologically active readership to the ranks of the ‘adventurous’, themselves individually fundamental to the realisation of this dreamwho is 'themselves'? This sentence is not clear.. The choice of the term ‘dream’ would appear at odds with an exhortation of the benefits of a pragmatically utilitarian view verbose. Reads exhaustedly.of the potential of technology to solve serious problems. However, the term reinforces the extent to which the technologically ‘switched on’ have a personal responsibility to help the dream be realised to the greatest possible degree.this affects readers how?
Voxi is careful to temper this endowment of the audiencewow. :) with historical importance by describing a range of everyday examples of the boons of embracing technologywow again :). Shopping, banking and planning have been ‘revolutionised’ by technology, and Voxi implicitly asks the audience whether they could live without these services, which have embedded themselves to such a degree in the lives of the technologically active. This question is echoed in the graphic, showing a person with a circuit board embedded in their head.nice so far!!!! At once, the image asks to what degree technology has become an intrusion into our psychologyyou could also say 'At first glance, the image asks...of the reader, and by way of the lines of code emanatingerroneous use of verb. Emanate is used in the context where heat is released or something along these lines. upwards just how new technologies may allow us to reach ourever-greaterpotential. The description of a technologically liberated audience, freed from the shackles of the modern equivalent of ‘swinging in the trees’having not read the article in question, I'm just letting you know that I don't understand what you mean here., is a powerful appeal to the audience to share Voxi’s pride in the imminentwhen used in this context, the word 'imminent' appears to be awkward and out of place. As opposed to making you appear sophisticated and knowledgeable, its usage here has the opposite effect (in my opinion) arrival of the future.
By callingI think 'encouraged' would be better here the audience to be ‘excited’ for the arrival of the newof the new what?, Voxi frees them from the ‘darkness and ignorance’ of ‘losers’ who will be cast aside into the dustbin of history. ‘The future is here now’ – no double dash required.and Voxi asks his or her ‘keyed in’ audience to celebrate their readiness to be a part of it.Well I think this was excessive quoting for a conclusion. Also, maybe you could have included some of the linguistic elements explored from the article (in a summary format of course).
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-young-people-are-sucked-in-by-raunch-culture-20130827-2so9s.html
In response to a year 11 student, Olympia Nelson comments on sexuality in the media,and Lee Burton on the 28th of August discusses the “raunch culture” present is today’s society. Burton uses ameasured and calm stanceandquote to prove this tone?.herHerposition as a media educator and researcheron theregarding theinfluence of pornography on young people,topositions her intended audience of educators, young people and the mediato believe,that our community shouldhavemore educationbe better educated on the sexualised images in the media. A photograph published together with the opinion piece supports Burton’s view through the use of “The Pussycat Dolls”and their sexualised poses and outfits., who are lewdly characterised.Also publication source being "The Age" was not mentioned.
Throughout her piece, Lee Burton employs a measured rationality in an attempt to position the reader to acknowledge that “sexy pics” can be harmful to a child or teenager's personal wellbeing.How do you know that her tone is one of measured rationality? By stating that young people are “digitally adept” a positive image is created of young people; this attempts to soothe younger peoplein tointosubmission, but alsotoallows other readers to view young people asmore than just irresponsible and immature childrenexceeding the narrow-minded stereotype of immaturity. A sense of fear is evoked in the reader through the suggestion that “children as young as 12 are taking and distributing sexy images”. Thisthispositionsthereaders toquestion the valuesthat the media is presentingpresented by the media ~ use passive a little more. It gives your writing more authorityand if this is something that parents what to continue for their children.In the same manner, parents are also asked to question whether this is something they want for their children.Utilising the emotive “graphic photos” and “poses that amount to pornography”, the reader’s sense of values is appealed toI'd like to point out that different readers have different 'values'. What is a value to one reader may be dismissed by another. As a result, I think you'd be better off alluding to the fact that morality is appealed to, in this instance.. This characterising of the images allows the reader to gain an understanding of the magnitude of the situation.how so? How do I know what the magnitude of the situation is? How do I know that this issue is widespread? Tell me specifically how these images are characterised; you are supposed to be doing the complete analysis, not leaving half of it for the marker. The magnitude of the situation is againpresentedreinforcedwhen Burton explains that young people are continually exposed to sexually explicit material through the “video games they play, magazines they read and the movies”, highlighting how widespread the issue is. The substantial number of ways for children to view these images creates a sense of urgency in the reader to position them in favour of the writer's contention. this sounds so cliché.
Towards the denouementmentioning of position in the article is discouraged. Besides, is its position really necessary? Does it really matter WHERE she says what? No. It matters HOW and WHY she says it. of the piece, Burton puts forth her suggestion that education about the sexuality in the media will help children become more criticalof what?. The writer aims to present herself in a positive light through her suggestion that itwhat is this 'it'? is “much better”, than the current state of affairs. Her suggestionOn reading this, I understand what you meant by the prior sentence. You mean that her suggestion is better than what is going on now. I fumbled with the meaning of what you were trying to say in this last sentence. It was not expressed adequately. is to “train teachers to help students analyse “raunch” culture”. When Burton explains that this will be done by focusingofonthe “stories, symbols and stereotypes”, the audience is presented with ameasuredreasonablesolutionhow exactly do these "stories, symbols and stereotypes" position readers to feel a sense of urgency? Why does giving a solution result in urgency? Shouldn't it result in tranquillity, because something is being done to eradicate the problem? This point about the urgency would have been fine, had you justified it., which aims to instil a sense of urgency intothe reader that something needs to be done for future generations. The positive image of the writer is continued by explaining that the pictures that are sent can damage “their reputations, wellbeing and relationships”I still don't understand why I should be viewing the writer in a credible way? What exactly is it that makes her likeable? Is it that her tone is interlaced with one of assurance and authority, through the logic portrayed in her arguments? Is it the fact that she is detached from an emotional outlook, and is dealing with things in a pragmatic and objective way? This presents the writer as caring and looking out for the younger generationso THIS is why we like her. Because she is sensitive. You need to explicitly state this.. The writerdo you mean reader? is also positioned to question if this is something that they want for their children. By stating that “media and literacy is an essential skill”, the reader is encouraged to ruminate over whether they would also be benefitted, had their children developed this skill. From this, one can ascertain that self-interest is appealed to.positioned to feel as if they would be benefitted if their children were to develop this skill. Through ending the piece by likening giving ?? young people the knowledge about sexual images to “drug and alcohol education”, a similarity is drawn with what?as the population is aware of the harm that can come about if people are not education about drugs and sex. By appealing to the reader's sense of safety, the writer aims to postion them in favour of her contention cliché againinwith regard to Australia's “raunch culture”.
Accompanying the article is a photo of the six singers “The Pussycat Dolls” dressed in mini shortsand,sportingbare midriffs. This image highlight how celebrities, which young children and adults look up to, dress up in a sexual mannerWe know it's sexual because they are semi-naked. You might want to point this out.. Just like in Burton's articles, the women have “hugely enlarged lips and breasts and minimal clothing, posed with hands on hips” portraying how widespread this issue ishow did you link their semi-nakedness to the magnitude of the issue? I don't understand this.. None of the women in the photo are overweight; in fact, they are skinny, reinforcing how important it is for children to be criticaltoof what they see in the media. because they are skinny, why are children then more critical? I don't understand the logic here.
Both Lee Burton's opinion piece and the photograph are designed to shock the reader and to leave them feeling as if education is needed to help rectify this situation. The opinion piece's rationality and suggestions present the issue as one that can be rectified, through learning how to critique these images on adds or music clips. The image gives the reader a visual picture of the scale? I don't think this is the right word of the issue, showing how future generations will be affected if this trend is to continue. As indicated by these responses , the issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to its impact on the health of Australia’s children.
Hi I would love any feedback on my piece because I know that I am not doing well.
On my last piece my teacher gave me a 3.
Please help I need to do much better than that!!
Here is the article
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-young-people-are-sucked-in-by-raunch-culture-20130827-2so9s.html
In response to year 11 student, Olympia Nelsoncomments on sexuality in the media, Lee Burton on the 28th of August discuss the “raunch culture” present is today’s society.don't know who's meant to be who. Is Nelson the student or the writer? Oh, I get it. Scrap the date and put this in brackets (28/08/12) at the end Burton uses ameasured and calm stance and her position as a media educator and researcher on the influence of pornography on young people, to position her intended audience of educators, young people and the media, that our community should have more education on the sexualised images in the media.Sort of unclear. I think you might be missing a word or a sentence here. It talks about the background and then launches on the influence. Those two parts don't quite connect A photograph published together with the opinion piece supports Burton’s view through the use of “The Pussycat Dolls” and their sexualised poses and outfits. Instead of a general comment on the photograph, I think this should be a separate paragraph. (My preference though).Throughout her piece,Nothing is ever throughout.Lee Burton employs a measured rationality in an attempt to position the reader to acknowledge that “sexy pics” can be harmful to a child or teenagers' personal wellbeing. By stating that young people are “digitally adept” a positive image is created of young people, this attempts to soothe younger people into submission but also to allow other readersI think you need to specify the audience to link it more with your analysis to view young people as more than just irresponsible and immature children. A sense of fear is evoked in the reader through the suggestion that “children as young a 12 are taking and distributing sexy images”use a semicolon if you have two sentences in the one so it doesn't hurt when reading or use a conjunction which positions the readers toquestion the values that the media is presenting and if this is something that parents what to continue for their children.what=want? phrase needs to be more complex. What do parents want their children to do or not? It's not really clear here. Utilising the emotive “graphic photos” and “poses that amount to pornography” the reader’s sense of values is appealed to. Rough sentence. Describe the photos and then link to analysis. Of course it's a persuasive piece anything can be appealed to so be specific and don't leave a sentence hanging. Explain how the sense of values make the reader feel/do/act.This characterising of the images allows the reader to gain an understanding of the magnitude of the situation. which is what? specify.The magnitude of the situation is again presented when Burton explains that young people are continually exposed to sexually explicit material through the “video games they pay, magazines they read and the movies” highlighting how widespread the issue is. The substantial number of ways for children to view these images creates a sense of urgency in the reader to position them in favour of the writer's contention.Towards the denouement of the piece,Burton puts forth her suggestion that education aboutthesexuality in the media will help children become more critical. The writer aims to present herself in a positive light through her suggestion that it is “much better”, than the current state of affairs. Her suggestion is to “train teachers to help students analyse “raunch” culture”link this to her overall position and effect on the readers. Does her suggestion reflect the idea that the problem can be easily solved and if it does, doesn't this give her credibility in her position? Isn't she more believable, more compelling?. Don't start with when. It's an analysis everything has a 'when'. Jump into the sentence. Eg. Burton's explanation that yadadada...When Burton explains that this will be done by focusing of the “stories, symbols and stereotypes” the audience is presented with a measuredfind a synonym for this, you keep using this word solution, which aims to instil a sense of urgency into the reader that something needs to be done for future generations. The positive image of the writer is continued reinforced rather than continuedby explaining that the pictures that are sent can damage “their reputations, wellbeing and relationships”thiswhichpresents the writer as caring and looking outtoo colloquial, find a better adjective for the younger generation. The writer is also positioned to question if this is something that they want for their children. By stating that “media and literacy is an essential skill” the reader is positioned to feel as if they would be benefitted if their children were to develop this skill.Through ending the pieceby likening giving young people the knowledge about sexual images to “drug and alcohol education” a similarity is drawn as the population is aware of the harm that can come about if people are not education educatedabout drugs and sex. By appealing to the readers sense of safety, the writer aims to postionposition them in favour of her contention in regard to Australia's “raunch culture”.
Accompanying the article is a photo of the six singers “The Pussycat Dolls” dressed in mini shorts and bare midriffs. This image highlights how celebrities, which young children and adults look up to dress up in a sexual manner.Do adults really look up to celebrities? I think the point of the article is aimed at parents and the media and persuading them to do something to eradicate the raunch culture in Aus. Just like in Burton articles the women have “hugely enlarged lips and breast and minimal clothing, posed with hands on hips” portraying how widespread this issue is. and it being widespread means...? Link to an overall position of the writerNone of the women in the photo are overweight; in fact they are skinny reinforcing how important it is for children to be critical to what they se in the media. Explain significance and how the reader is affected
I don't think it's needed to say that the article and photograph does this and that because if someone where to look at your analysis and a date is provided, they can just look up the article themselves and they can see that a photograph is there so no need to mentionBoth Lee Burtons opinion piece and the photograph are designed to shock the reader and to leave them feeling as if education is needed to help rectify this situation. The opinion piece's rationality and suggestions present the issue as one that can be rectified through learning how to critique these images on adds or music clips. The image gives the reader a visual picture of the scale of the issue showing how future generations will be affect if this trend is to continue. As indicated by these responses , the issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to its impact on the health of Australia’s children.
Thanks , I'm really trying to improve
(I think they're called authorial verbs)I think I might have made that up to teach you. Not sure lelelelel.
Hi, here's a piece I recently did.
Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains – Engageeducation.org.au
The growing number of pets amassing in animal welfare shelters has sparked criticism over the availability of pets for purchase in pet stores which are deemed to be the cause of the issue. In the article for Melbourne Weekend Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13) the magazine negates the pet industry for their alleged connection with puppy mills and attempts to persuade animal activists as well as dog owners and would be dog owners to support their cause. Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor adopts the magazine’s contention and uses satire to contend that puppies born from puppy mill factories may potentially be discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects. In opposition to the issue, Nick Conan’s letter to the editor refutes the article’s claims and contends that would be pet owners shouldn’t have to pay expensive fees just for a dog and despite possible disabilities that a dog is still a dog.
The alliteration in the title ‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’ immediately captures the reader’s attention, appealing to their sense of sympathy and concern as dog owners and animal activists are provoked to imagine a dog, especially a ‘boxer’ or a ‘dane’ in a position of harm and elicit a feel of disgust in the readers. Moreover, the subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish. Moreover, the expert opinion of Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika, aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills. The use of the adjective ‘huge’ coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar of most Australians’ emphasises the gravity of the issue and prompts readers to consider the issue of puppy mills and pet neglect and convinces everyday Australians to be more aware of the issue, thus garnering their support for animal rights.
In addition, the image of a dog with a billowing stomach elicits readers’ sympathy as they are positioned to feel disgust about puppy mills. The slanted eyes of the dog directly looking at the reader acts as a personal connection which may provoke readers to also consider campaigning for animal rights. In effect, readers, especially new pet owners are encouraged to question the credibility of pet shops and their contribution to the issue of animal neglect and puppy mills due to Ruka’s conclusion that registered breeders don’t ‘condone…a method of sale’. In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the response of pet industry organisations in regards to the issue and position readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights. Moreover, the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s response reinforces readers’ support and prompts them to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. Sillince’s ‘scathing’ response acts to further the readers’ interest in the issue and support for the closure of puppy mills.
Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justice and lead them to question the responsibility of these animal welfare bodies. Finally, the author acknowledges the opposition’s argument that the campaign has ‘nothing to do with closing pet shops’ to engage the readers’ support, as their interests in animal welfare appear genuine. Furthermore, the article’s conclusion acts as an insightful comment on the production of pets in pet stores and gives readers insight about the truth of puppy factories. Knox’s comment that pups ‘repeat the cycle’ and are ‘dumped in [their] shelters’ reinforces the cruelty of puppy factories.
The pun ‘Cruella DeMill’ employed by Robrane in her support of the magazine’s campaign for animal rights is a satirical comment on the operators of puppy mills employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stance. Just like the infamous villain in ‘101 Dalmatians’, readers are provoked to consider that the puppy mill business is abhorrent and evil just like ‘Cruella Devil’. The use of an anecdote recounting her story of her dog’s disability, ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’, is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores. In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet.
Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence that ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration on the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for the issue and invites new pet owners as well as potential owners to visit the website to make a difference. The use of the link ‘www.closepuppyfactories.org’ presents an easy solution to the problem and invites readers to consider that by going to the website, they are contributing to the eradication of puppy mills and therefore, reducing the chances of buying a defective pet and having to feel regretful for their situation and potentially having to suffer just like Robrane.
Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’, and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs whether disabled or defective is still a dog and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful. Consequently, the exaggeration that buying from a registered breeder is like ‘pa[ying] an arm and leg’ aims to convince readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian.
The colloquial tone employed by Conan and his rhetorical question ‘why would I pay more than a day’s wage when I don’t have to’ influences the reader by positioning them to find alternative methods of purchasing their dogs. Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of current situation. Also, Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not ‘activists’ implies the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign; thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry.
The magazine’s use of evocative language and statistics aims to persuade the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement with puppy mills. In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all. Whether pet stores are connected to the operation of puppy mills remains to be further explored on the oncoming weeks, however, criticism of the pet industry appears to be widespread and supported by animal organisations.
Totally marked like half of this and then clicked the backspace and lost it all (HAPPENS WAY TOO OFTEN WOW)
-cries into 2045
Ill get back to this later when I'm not about to light myself on fire hahahaha
Hi, here's a piece I recently did.
Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains – Engageeducation.org.au
The growing number of pets amassing in animal welfare shelters has sparked criticism over the availability of pets for purchase in pet stores which are deemed to be the cause of the issue. Pretty average opening sentence. Amassing can probably go, maybe try something like: Increasing overcrowding in animal shelters has sparked a debate over the availability of pets in pet stores. Not the best, but you've definitely got too much going onIn the article for Melbourne Weekend Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13) the magazine negatesdon't think negates is right the pet industry for their alleged connection with puppy mills and attempts to persuade animal activists as well as dog owners and would be dog owners to support their cause. Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor adopts the magazine’s contention and uses satire to contend that puppies born from puppy mill factories may potentially be discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects. In opposition to the issue, Nick Conan’s letter to the editor refutes the article’s claims and contends that would be pet owners shouldn’t have to pay expensive fees just for a dog and despite possible disabilities that a dog is still a dog.
I think this is a good intro but too much. I don't see the point in listing off the audience, tone etc (and definitely not rewriting the title and the date) - you're going to be talking about these factors later on. Text response sort of intros just don't read well for language analysis.
The alliteration in the title ‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’ immediately captures the reader’s attentionmaybe it does, but why does it capture their attention?, appealing to their sense of sympathy and concern as dog owners and animal activists are provoked to imagine a dog, especially a ‘boxer’ or a ‘dane’ in a position of harm and elicit a feel of disgust in the readersgood, but you could go further. What are the connotations of 'drain', say? Waste?. Moreover, the subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish. Moreover, the expert opinion of Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika, aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills. The use of the adjective ‘huge’ coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar of most Australians’ emphasises the gravity of the issuegood and prompts readers to consider the issue of puppy mills and pet neglect and convinces everyday Australians to be more aware of the issue, thus garnering their support for animal rights.Think you lost it in the second half of that sentence - 'thus garnering their support for animal rights' is much too general.
In addition, the image of a dog with a billowing stomach elicits readers’ sympathy as they are positioned to feel disgust about puppy millsbut why that specific connotation?. The slanted eyes of the dog directly looking at the reader acts as a personal connection which may provoke readers to also consider campaigning for animal rights.Much too broad a conclusion I think - make up something like 'the dog stares out at the reader, seemingly imploring them to consider how puppy farms are responsible for widespread abuse - something like that. Someone else here said to 'describe the sound of the reader's heartstrings being pulled' - what is it exactly that the image is trying to convey? In effect, readers, especially new pet owners are encouraged to question the credibility of pet shops and their contribution to the issue of animal neglect and puppy mills due to Ruka’s conclusion that registered breeders don’t ‘condone…a method of sale’. In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the response of pet industry organisations in regards to the issue and position readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights.Yeah, but what specific techniques are used to provoke those negative feelings? Moreover, the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s response reinforces readers’ support and prompts them to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. Sillince’s ‘scathing’ response acts to further the readers’ interest in the issue and support for the closure of puppy mills.
Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justice and lead them to question the responsibility of these animal welfare bodies. Why 'millions'? What is the image of the government that's being created here?Finally, the author acknowledges the opposition’s argument that the campaign has ‘nothing to do with closing pet shops’ to engage the readers’ support, as their interests in animal welfare appear genuine.Why? It's not enough to say 'engage the reader's support' - that's the point of the persuasive piece. Why is the author deliberately distancing themself from claims they want to pet shops? Furthermore, the article’s conclusion acts as an insightful comment on the production of pets in pet stores and gives readers insight about the truth of puppy factoriesThis definitely doesn't work - you're evaluating the success of the article, not its contents. Knox’s comment that pups ‘repeat the cycle’ and are ‘dumped in [their] shelters’ reinforces the cruelty of puppy factories.
Not a great paragraph. Think in terms of what is the author trying to make us think, and what techniques are being used. You're really missing the second part here.
The pun ‘Cruella DeMill’ employed by Robrane in her support of the magazine’s campaign for animal rights is a satirical comment on the operators of puppy mills employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stanceBut what is it about the pun that does this? Pretty much everything in the article is 'employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stance'. Just like the infamous villain in ‘101 Dalmatians’, readers are provoked to consider that the puppy mill business is abhorrent and evil just like ‘Cruella Devil’. The use of an anecdote recounting her story of her dog’s disability, ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’, is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores. In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet. Not bad, but take it further. Is it that they feel guilty because they are perceived to be putting money before the safety of their pet? How does the author turn an accusation into a persuasive technique?
Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence that ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration on the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for the issue and invites new pet owners as well as potential owners to visit the website to make a difference. The use of the link ‘www.closepuppyfactories.org’ presents an easy solution to the problem and invites readers to consider that by going to the website, they are contributing to the eradication of puppy mills and therefore, reducing the chances of buying a defective pet and having to feel regretful for their situation and potentially having to suffer just like Robrane. This is really just describing the argument - why is the author including things like the website?
Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’, and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs whether disabled or defective is still a dog and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful. Bit convoluted but not badConsequently, the exaggeration that buying from a registered breeder is like ‘pa[ying] an arm and leg’ pedantic, but I would just put paying 'an arm and a leg' - the square brackets look a bit sillyaims to convince readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian.You're still just restating the argument - why does he say 'an arm and a leg' as opposed to just 'a lot'?
The colloquial tone employed by Conan and his rhetorical question ‘why would I pay more than a day’s wage when I don’t have to’ influences the reader by positioning them to find alternative methods of purchasing their dogs. Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of current situation.Good analysis but still a bit pedestrian - you need to describe the implications - surely you've got more to say about a 'steaming pile of dog poo.' Also, Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not ‘activists’ implies the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign; thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry. Much better. Not necessarily convinced that's his exact argument, but you've described how he made it well.
The magazine’s use of evocative language and statistics aims to persuade the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement with puppy mills. How?In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all. Whether pet stores are connected to the operation of puppy mills remains to be further explored on the oncoming weeks, however, criticism of the pet industry appears to be widespread and supported by animal organisations.
if an author wrecks themselves dont be afraid to tear them apart in analysis - it can sometimes even show off your skills moreso than if you were to just agree with what the author says.
She means that if an author uses language in a way that will potentially be BAD for their contention, ie. the audience will be full of shit, then you should criticise. (Not subjectively, don't judge the author or anything like that).
Consider an author who is writing about why he loves jeans and targeting 16-24 year old women.
Here is his argument:
Jeans are warm.
Jeans are aesthetically pleasing.
Jeans are easy to wear.
Jeans make the backsides of women very attractive.
You can say "However, the author's use of <words> risks alienating some feminist portion of his audience, as..."
Or, let's say, someone uses a statistics from the 1930s
"However, the statistic is outdated and could potentially represent an agenda on the writer's behalf; this risks fostering distrust in the audience" or something like that.
You don't evaluate, but you can ANALYSE. If a footballer makes a shit play and you're analysing the game, you can say "see why that was bad?" without judging the footballer.
Oh, lol. I never knew you could do this. Thanks for explaining!You can do anything that hits the criteria :). Honestly, you could write "I" if you wanted to and still get a 10, but 9999999% of the time it would damage the criteria. Like, if EZ or Lollymatron wrote a text response and spent 1.5 hours on it Nd made it super brilliant, and said "I", well, what idiot is going to say that their textual knowledge is bad, or that their Analysis is bad? You'll find in uni, they expect you to use "I".
Thanks for the critiques, I'll rework it soon. :)
Wait, I don't know what you mean by this. Do you meant to evaluate, if yes, I'm not sure if we're allowed to do that. Well, at least, I've been thought not to.
Good luck with it :)[/b]
Hi so I'm sort of just starting my study for the English exam now :-\ and I haven't written a LA in months so I know this is quite bad but I'm willing to take on board any advice or suggestions that you can give me and am hoping to improve as much as I can in one month! Thanks in advance!
This was done to time so it is short :(, and the article is from the Insight 2009 Exam (attached).
The removal of computers and laptops from classrooms at Hightower College has sparked concern from parents in the school community. The principal A. Jones attempts to appease the worried parents in his open letter "Are Computers Compromising Education?". Jones outlines the rationale behind the decision and fervently contends that technology detracts from student learning and development. He also addresses parents' fears that their children may be left out of the contemporary 'education revolution' while alluding to the greater detrimental effects of computers and laptops.
Jones creates a disparaging profile of technology use in the classroom and cautions parents against conforming to such ideals propagated by the government. With an empathetic tone, Jones identifies the "fears" of the "concerned parents" and remarks that "understandably, some parents are worried". This allows Jones to establish a positive rapport with the parents from the outset as they feel they are being listened to and that their concerns are being addressed. Whilst acknowledging the source of their fear, Jones dismisses the concept of "Australia's 'education revolution' " by portraying it as a gimmick. The repeated use of inverted commas downplays the significance of the government's policy and renders it insubstantial and misleading. This elicits a sense of contempt among parents towards the government and their "false promise". Here, Jones warns parents against being swept up in the tide of "the so-called 'technological revolution' " which he claims is a "fad". By portraying the use of technology in classrooms as a scam and a ploy by the government, Jones belittles both the government and the concept of computer-centred learning.
Furthermore, Jones asserts the value of the teacher in the education of a child and argues that technology interferes with this connection. Jones appeals to the vested interest which parents have in their children's education when inclusively generalising that "we all know teachers are the most important element". While reminding parents of the "essential" skills that "teacher-to-student learning" provides, Jones proposes that computers compromise this interaction. His statement "every dollar spent on...a computer is a dollar taken away from quality teachers" presents a dichotomy between teachers and technology. Jones implies that the school has had to choose between teachers and technology and that their decision to ban technology prioritises the "most important element in a child's educational life". The prominent role that a teacher plays in a classroom is supported by the accompanying image of a teacher looking over the work of three students. The focus of the teacher and students on the opened book aligns the audience's focus on the education of their children. Parents are given a visual reminder of what education involves and the student-teacher interaction that takes place. By reinforcing the value of the teacher in the classroom, both Jones and the visual allow parents to warm to the idea that teachers are superior to technology in educating their children.
In addition to this, Jones reveals that technology can prevent students from developing good communication skills and having high levels of concentration. Firstly, Jones portrays students as vulnerable and at "risk" of being influenced and distracted by technology. This is likely to be a view that protective parents share and hence they may welcome Jones' consideration of this. Jones paints the picture that technology is not suitable for "impressionable minds". The word "impressionable" evokes feelings of protection and care from parents as the word implies that students are easily influenced. The extent of this influence is ardently expressed in "students' brains are becoming deadened", contrasting to "being nourished by traditional texts". The word 'deadened' adds to the disparaging profile of technology as now parents perceive that laptops may destroy their child's minds. The contrasting nourishment that "traditional texts" provide promotes the idea that books are life-giving. Also, older parents in the audience may appreciate the concept of "traditional texts" and "proper; library-based research" which appeals to their value of time-honoured teaching methods. Altogether, Jones demonstrates that skills such as research skills and concentration can only be developed with human connections and interactions.
In his letter, Jones addresses and subdues the fears of parents while aligning the school's decision with their desire for a good education for their children. He paints the picture that the contemporary popularity of computer-based learning is a gimmick and that in reality, technology is detrimental to students' learning and development of life skills required for the future.
If you could give me a mark out of 10 that would be greatly appreciated, so that I can see where I stand at the moment. Thanks!
The proposed ban on the use of mobile phones for drivers, released by the reports of the Accident Prevention Group (APG), has triggered a defensive response from various authorities. In his opinion piece, featuring in the ‘Driver’ magazine, David James asserts on the behalf of the National Organization of drivers, that although APG’s decision to insist on the ban of mobile phones in cars can be understood, there is more to gain from the use of mobile phones than just the dangers it presents to drivers and that such bans will be unrealistic. James’ piece, ‘Mobile Concerns’(Newspaper X, Date), employs a rational and pragmatic mannermanner doesn't fit the sentence, try another word hahaha. in deeming the ban on mobile phones in cars unnecessary, thereby appealing to the reason and logic of concerned drivers. Brief description of the image should be at the end here!
I think in terms of the contention of the author, you could have been a bit more specific. For instance, he partially disapproves with the recommendations, since he differentiates between hand-held mobile phones and hand-free. He recognises that the former should be banned, while the latter should not.
The title of the opinion piece, ‘Mobile Concerns’, is a pun which acts as to belittle the issue at hand, as it implies that the concerns put forth by APG’s report can be overcome as they are a ‘mobile’ phase which will wear out overtime.You could even take this further - cheap, tacky, low quality?? that's what your sentence makes me think of anyway haha In turn, the reader is positioned to disregard the significance of the dangers resulting from the use of mobile phones in cars. Use examples to divulge this further! Quote the statistics..you could argue it's so minute, that it's not even worth consideration. Also it's preceded by the term 'arguably'-- it's in ITALICS MAN...WHY? UNPACK THIS. He basically weakens Grey's previous assertion making his stance more valid.The writerJames Make the writer a more active agent seeks to debunk the proposed bans on hands-free mobile phones in cars through initially aiming to appear mindful by asserting his understanding of the threats imposed by the use of hand-held phones. This works by encouraging the reader to readily accept James’ views as he is shown to be considerate and mindfulanother word here, you just used in the last sentence. Change it up a bit., rather than a narrow-minded writer. By comparing the harms of the use of hands-free phones with other distractions such as a ‘GPS’ or ‘talking to a passenger’, James uses arhetorical questionI'd personally always avoid analysing rhetorical questions - you can write the same thing for them every time they occur, so it comes across as shallow analysis to challenge the reader’s views on whether such distractions should be banned too, thereby highlighting the absurdity of APG’s stance against the use of hands-free technology in cars.Also,Moreover, James appeals to the reader’s common sense through the implication that it will become a tedious process to ban every distraction faced by drivers, and that such as task is not realistic.
The author goes on tosounds a bit colloquial present ahypotheticalanecdotequote what exactly you're talking about and explain it rather than identifying techniquesin order to highlight the inconvenience the ban on hands-free phones for drivers. James suggests a scenario in which ‘your seven-year old has been injured’ and where it is ‘impossible to pull over’ to attend to the daughter’s needs through a hands-free mobile phone. Through this, Jones What? Are you sure that's his name? Who is this?evokesfeelingsa sentiment of guilt what about fear? from the reader, in order to convey the notion that parents will be left helpless if they are not given the permission to respond to such important calls.and even that it is a necessity to be able to do so?? James directly caters for his audience through the use ofinclusive language, same deal as in the essay I marked yesterday, you don't want to be directly identifying the technique. Quote and explain instead - definitely makes the essay flow better and sound less like a checklist!Yeah, I agree. Why not just say something simple like "through the use of the term" in describing the daughter to be ‘your’, thereforeamplifyingarouses the parents’ protective instinctsas the child presented is their own and someone they must worry about. In personalising the issue,In effect, the reader, particularlyparents are positioned to disagree with the proposed bans on hands-free technology because I f prohibited, this could potentially result in their child’s suffering due to not being able to respond to any urgent calls through a hands-free phone, while driving. Well that was a mouthful. You might want to work on refining this sentence.Theaudiencereader is also positioned to disassociate themselves from the helplessness of the parents presented by James.
Furthermore, James contemplates the unrealistic nature of the ban on hands-free technology through claiming that it would be hard for the police between to ‘differentiate’ between the actions of a driver. In turn, James appeals to the reader’s logic and common sense through the use of arhetorical question,same deal ‘how easy would it be to differentiate between someone talking on a hands-free mobile…?’, therefore outlining that a ban on hands-free technology in cars will be unfeasible in its implementation as it would be a futile process for the police to monitor this law, if passed. Subsequently, the reader is able to come to the realisation that this ban will be unnecessary as it will only serve to toughen the jobs of policemen and therefore, such a ban will not be pragmatic if enforced.You could also say that James ruins his credibility by arguing that people should be able to use mobile phones in cars - its dangerous! Why should we believe what he's telling us! .. Just something to think about :)
Finally, James suggests an alternative solution to reduce the road toll by demanding the government to ‘fix roads’ in order to eliminate the ‘pot holes’ which make driving ‘treacherous’. Through this, James seeks toshareplace the blame of the road toll,withon the faulty roads, in turn detracting from the view that accidents are solely caused by the use of mobile technology.Good! The writer engages the audience by describing the faulty roads to be ‘our’; this is a call for action in attempting to position the reader’s focus also on the dangers presented by the problematic roads and not just on how mobile phones undermine the safety of drivers. -tick-The author employs an imperativetone of voicesame deal as yesterday, you don't want to explictly say "tone". Synonyms for approach! in asserting that ‘we must all pay if our roads are to be safe’, appealing to the reader’s sense of urgency and subsequently positing the audience to deem such an improvement as a necessity, if they are concerned about bettering their safety on roads. Nice analysis here.I want more though! This idea of safety actually reverberates throughout the entirety of the piece. MORE MORE ANALYSIS
AccompanyingYou could also say complementing - note the e the opinion piece is a visual depicitng afemaleNO!!!!!!!! The image is in black and white, it's too ambiguous to make such an assertion. I just asked my mum whether she thought it was a guy or a girl and she said it looked like a GUY because of the way the figure is holding the steering wheel. HERE'S A GOOD WAY TO SHOW OFF YOUR AWESOMENESS AS AN ENGLISH STUDENT --- GENDER NEUTRALITY. Unpack this -- trust me you can get some rrrrrreeeallly good things out of it. driver with a strong grasp on her driving wheel, included with the annotation: ‘focussed and in control’. Through this, James shares his concerns for the safety of drivers and leaves the audience with his hopes of how it is possible to be in control of the situation while using hands-free technology. In effect, the reader’s concern regarding the threats imposed by hands-free technology on road safety are lessened through the empowering depiction of the dutiful driver, eradicating any remaining fears that the concerned drivers may have.You should be able to write a bit more about the image - be creative with it and try and write as much as you can, the image is really important !Yeah, I agree. You could talk about the colours, posture, the fact the figure is intently gazing at the road (link this to the title 'focussed and in control'). There's heaps more, but honestly that should cover you in terms of comprehensively analysing the image.
Goodluck with it :)[/b]
Thanks :)
Overall, this is a sound piece of writing. I can tell you have a perceptive understanding of language analysis.
Tips
1. Go more in depth with your analysis of the image
2. Work on your expression and don't be afraid to shorten/break up sentences.
3. Work on expanding your vocab, I honestly think you could benefit from this.
4. Be more specific -- with examples, explaining the contention, etc.
Thanks :)
Yeah the main problem with my expression, I've been told, is the use of unnecessarily long sentences, so I agree with you. And as for identifying techniques, I try to have a bit in there so that I don't lose marks for metalanguage, but I may have overdone it here!
Things to consider/work on/advice ect ect
-I would suggest shortening your quotes to 1-2 words (or slightly longer if vital) at least while you are perfecting your technique - you will find it easier to analyse each individual word and therefore will come off way more beast.
- For each word I want you to tell me: (QUOTE ONE WORD THEN DO THIS, NOT 3/4)
-connotations of the word - what do you think of when you hear it?
-Intended effect on the reader
-HOW that word creates that effect
-why the reader wants them to feel this way
THEN after you have done this you can move on to another word
-Don't use "tends to" - ill kill u if I see that in another essay (jk relax) no but for real BANNED ok
-Make sure you're not directly identifying techniques - we want to be more subtle than that. Quote and explain!!
Des all I got for now, pretty keen to see a redraft :)
Good luck with it! :)
[/b]
darvell, I haven't posted any essays for submission in this sub-forum category, but I do admire the amount of time that you spent marking these essays. Especially with you still doing year 12 at the moment and an English exam in less than one week, I really appreciate the hard work you put into marking these essays.
Very well done!
Edit: this is Brenden. Fuck. just realised I was logged into my sister's account instead of mine. Woops.
I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone join me in giving all of darvells's posts +1's :D
She deserves it!
darvell, I haven't posted any essays for submission in this sub-forum category, but I do admire the amount of time that you spent marking these essays. Especially with you still doing year 12 at the moment and an English exam in less than one week, I really appreciate the hard work you put into marking these essays.
Very well done!
PS just some food for thoughtIKR THE SHOCK =O no wonder she's good at English and willing to help people out :)
I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone join me in giving all of darvells's posts +1's :D
She deserves it!PS just some food for thoughtIKR THE SHOCK =O no wonder she's good at English and willing to help people out :)
Absolutely! All of her posts deserve a +1.
:O That is a shock, Alwin. darvell gets the love of marking English essays from her brother, Brenden. The love for English runs in the family. HAHA!
Hahahaha Yes I was taught by the master, thought I mays well try and help some people out :PNo worries Darvell, but erm this is mine up for marking too :P
P.s Alwin cheers for helping out as well there's been so many posts last couple of days LOL
Chickens Range Free
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf
In the wake of the illegal release of hundreds of chickens from a truck, many media outlets have been quick to slam these actions and protestors. However, one opinion piece by Jo Smith entitled “Chickens Range Free” calls upon all Australians to see the ‘other side’ of the issue – that animals should be given the same right as humans. For some of the readers of the Melbourne newspaper, this view is too extreme and Smith endeavours to sway these individuals by exploiting her position as publicity officer for Australians for the Animal Rights (AAR); often pleading to readers especially those interested in animal welfare to take action.Nothing wrong with your intro - could tighten up the wording a bit especially the last sentence.
As with many opinion pieces, Smith opens with an ironic headline, “Chickens Range Free”, and heavy emotive language many tabloids are famous forSo? The examiner knows what the piece is called - never understood the point of simply restating it.. The pun, however, is a double edged swordyup - so what? Isn't that what all puns do?. Not only do animal rights supporters recognise “free range” as symbolic of chickens running free in “fresh, clean air” or open farm land, but also do many adult consumers familiar with the option of ‘free range’ or ‘caged’ eggs in supermarketsYeah, but take it further. Why is her comparison of the released chickens being 'free range' making a point re 'free range' eggs? All this sentence does is define free range and say that free range eggs exist - how is the phrase being used to persuade/make a point?. However, for some truly passionate advocates for animal rights may condemn her use of a pun as it gives the impression Smith is being flippant and not treating the problem with enough respectwhy would they think this? You need to explain, not just regurgitate the article.. Moreover, the pun in the headline is too similar to the quotation “Fancy a free range chicken?” which Smith slams the talk-back radio presenter forbut whyyyyyyyy. Indeed, the headline is witty and establishes the issue of chicken living conditions, but is rather inappropriate given part of Smith’s audience are animal rights activists.you definitely don't want to make judgements on the success of the argument
Immediately, Smith seeks to position herself as a supporter for animal rights, condoning and even rejoicing at the actions of the two people that freed the chickens. Not only does she make her views clear, “I understand…”, “I think…” and other such phrases, but also explains she is the publicity officer for AARbut why does she do this? What makes her opinion as a member of the AAR different from the opinion of some bum on the street?. By describing the living conditions of chickens as the “dire plight of oppressed animals on this planet”, Smith is trying to position readers to see this as a global issue not limited to one incident involving a few hundred chickens. Moreover, having positioned readers to see the ‘big picture’ not just the two activists, she states that it is “…important for someone to stand up for the rights of animals.” Though the use of italics is unconventional in a formal pieceI guesss... there are much more interesting things to talk about. What are the connotations of 'planet' re environmentalists?, it emphasis the stress on the word “someone” placing responsibility on the readerplacing responsibility on the reader to what?. Combined with Smith’s notion “direct action is the only way to bring public attention” it is a call for readers to take actionyep, that's what she said, so what?. Furthermore, Smith attempts to create an opposition for readers willing to take action by attacking local media for “… [giving] air time to critics of the action…” but why oh why oh why does she do that? What purpose does it serve?By including quotes from these ‘critics’ such as “idiotic…clowns…anti-social hippies and bludgers” Smith entices readers to disagreehow do those specific words achieve this? positioning them on Smith’s side of the argument. However, it should be noticed that critics of the animal rights actions would agree with the quotations and be alienated from the rest of the opinion piece.again, no need to judge the effectiveness of her argument
Having created a divide of sorts between supports and critics, Smith generalises her arguments moving away from the personal pronoun “I “ and using “we” to make readers feel the problem of animal rights is also their problem toonot bad . Initially, Smith state that “…we Australians for the Animal Rights believe that all animals deserve to be free…: stating the view of the organisation she representsyep, so what?. But, she drops the AAR reference for the remainder of the paragraph inviting readers to agree that “we believe” and “we mistreat them” and “we have over populated” rather than making the clear distinction that this is AAR’s view. Thus, any reader who agrees with any point Smith makes is in fact aligning themselves with the AAR because of Smith’s subtle change of addressgood idea. That is why Smith has so many sentences describing ARR’s beliefs, in order for the reader to identify with one and hence the holistic argument
Continuing, Smith continues to plead to reader’s sympathy and intellectual side. By claiming “too many people have a simplistic human-centred view of the world”, Smith challenges readers to oppose this stereotypewhat's the stereotype? how does it square with the shock jock she quotes earlier? You need to add some value to the quotes you use rather than restate everything she says. Many readers will because of the negative connotations, again positioning them on the side of Smith and AAR. Smith also makes reference to her caption-less image, that chickens are “…trapped in cages only 450 square centimetres in size…” a clear description of the chickens in the image. The fact that they are three chickens “trapped” in this particular cage is to further extract sympathy from readers for AAR’s causeyou're a much better writer than this - how does she 'extract sympathy'?. However, as many readers would be unfamiliar with what “450 square centimetres looks like, the lack of a visible back wall of the cage does not support Smith’s argumentonce more, no need to evaluate the quality of her argument. However, neither does it detract from it because she is seeing the image and imagery in her writing to juxtapose the ‘awful’ living conditions with the ‘joyful’ free range conditions she alludes to in her headline. However what does retract from Smith’s argument in that she claims “…if the public knew the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating the,…” Her omission of specific details makes readers, even ones who have agreed with Smith to that point, speculate what is so ‘bad’ about these conditions and why hasn’t Smith expanded them or if Smith is hiding something.definitely definitely definitely stop doing this
And only in the penultimate paragraph does Smith seek to sway readers who don’t believe animals should have the same rights as humans. Smith quotes Jeremy Bentham a philosopher that “The question is…can they suffer?” forcing readers to ask themselves this question about chickens toothat's like 2/10 quality. Why does she quote a philosopher rather than a baker or a carpenter?. Smith does not explicitly answer this question, but her conclusion that humane methods should be found to keep hens alludes to the answer: yes, chickens can suffer. This is a much more reasoned argument that her initial half lacks, and as such more readers will be able to follow her arguments and not be alienated by her initial use of emotive language. To close off her piece, Smith returns to the initial release and re-justifies their actions
As a whole, the piece operates in many levels, both emotionally and intellectually. However, Smith’s chosen structure of alienating opposition first then attempting to persuade them at the close is dubious. But her use of symbolising the release of chickens is effective especially since she doesn’t mention some chickens were run over by passing cars.
No worries Darvell, but erm this is mine up for marking too :PHahaha it's good practice, all good! (Thought I would mark it as well as I can probably offer some different tips :P)
I SHOULD WARN YOU THOUGH IT IS PRETTY RAMBLING AND I DID IT AFTER A PRACTICE ENGLISH EXAM SO IT AIN'T TOO FLASH
Yo Darvell, do you even mark essays bro?
... the editor usesCould you provide an example of a quote that could be used to replace it?descriptive languageunnecessary, quote what you're talking about! to encourage readers to visually see them in such a way.
As such, the inclusion may encourage readers to act. I think the last bit is maybe unecessary, might be a nice ending sentence but it doesnt really add anything to your analysis - your job is to say how the reader will feel in response to what the author has intentionally done - but not necessarily how they will act in future. I tend to avoid sentences like these personally, I think they're a bit irrelevant to the article analysis.If I said "the inclusion may encourage readers to act against the issue.", as well as explained why (eg. the word "must" provokes a sense of urgency and the words "bravely" and "history" highlight the seriousness of the issue as the two words are seemingly referred to military and war situations) would this be ok? Or should I just avoid altogether? I ask this because I feel this part does take a part in persuading the audience to share a point of view of the writer.
Hey Darvell, thank you very much for checking LAs :)Hey man,
I have a few questions from your corrections:
Could you provide an example of a quote that could be used to replace it?
If I said "the inclusion may encourage readers to act against the issue.", as well as explained why (eg. the word "must" provokes a sense of urgency and the words "bravely" and "history" highlight the seriousness of the issue as the two words are seemingly referred to military and war situations) would this be ok? Or should I just avoid altogether? I ask this because I feel this part does take a part in persuading the audience to share a point of view of the writer.
Once again, thank you!
I've never understood why people regurgitate the name of the article and its date in the introduction, the examiner does, presumably, know...Is it, though? :p
Especially given the title is going to be analysed in a later paragraph.
Is it, though? :pMeant to say usually will be - the vcaa ones usually seem to be some kind of pithy pun with something to talk about :P
Darvell, is it a stylistic thing to include sub-arguments in the intro, or is it actually assessed? I've never done it before, try to keep my intros as brief as possible
The financial distress caused by increasingly high tuition fees has sparked actionor even debate? (Havent read the article, but usually there's debate hahah) this sentence is a little short, seems like it ends suddenly. within university students. Whilst some have sought alternative methods of generating funds, the typical university student ventures into the world of part time employment. Seems like you are writing another article here - probably unnecessary. You want to make sure that everything you include is what the author believes (mostly anyway) In this context, Dan Olsen (a current student), sent a letter with an attached photograph to his trusted teacher Mrs Tran in hope of gaining assistance in securing a position at Simm’s Automotive as a bookkeeper. The letter, sent on May 16th, attempts to garner support in applying for the work through highlighting his interpersonal and academic skills. In doing so, Olsen emphasizes the main factors that not only make him suitable for a position, but deserving of Mrs Tran’s assistance also.Is there an image? If there is an image we want a short description of the image here and how it introduces/relates to the issue.
Ostensibly this word means like "apparently, supposedly" - you cant apparently contend something, be careful :P , Olsen contended 1. NEVER EVERRRRRRRR WRITE IN PAST TENSE haha (this will automatically make your writing heaps better) 2. We want to state the author's contention, but we also want to be a bit more subtle so that it doesn't sound like a checklist. The author asserts, highlights, argues? Google "verbs showing authorial intent" to find more! that “if{he}wrong brackets. [he] were to get this job it would make a great difference” and that through Mrs Tran providing him with such assistance, “costs would decrease.” In doing so, he emphasized ill stop pointing out the past tense from here on, but make sure you fix it all up! his financial concerns and a sense of benefits her aid would provide.In this context,Olsen developed an endearing tone I will avoid saying this personally, just hate explicitly listing things. Instead you can say "Olsen endearingly blah blah" - however some people do use it, so it's up to you to arouse sympathy within the readerhow? . Such a mood to the piece weird phrasing - are you trying to say that she is pragmatic? Might sound better hahaha was achieved in the initial apology, “I’m sorry I was unable to talk to you on the phone…” reflecting a level of courteousness in Olsen’s character, immediately appealing to the reader how? why? . Similarly, through illustrating her “kind” don't quote unless you are going to explain the connotations, intended effect, how this effect is achieved and why the author does it. Unnecessary quoting is a really bad habit - won't get you any extra marks! nature and abilities as a respectable teacher, Olsen aimed to invoke a heightened sense of purpose and vocation alongside emotions of self-admiration within Mrs Tran how does "kind" do this though? Make sure you clearly explain the link between the word and the effect. . In a similar way, Olsen’s opening and closing statements “Dear Mrs Tran” and “Yours sincerely, Dan Olsen” not only serve to establish a level of formality but a sense of respect and endearment toward his teacher seems like you might be dawdling on the one point for too long here. See if there's some strong, manipulative language that you can pick out instead. . From the outset of the letter, it is apparent that through illustrating his family hardships quote??, consequently, a level of pity is evoked in the reader how/why??. Particularly, through the short retrospective glimpse into a time “when {his}again wrong bracket, make sure you fix this issue hahaha mother was so ill three years ago.” Olsen employssuch a techniquethis to garner a sense of pathos through his letter,how? thus enhancing his chances at acquiring her assistance. The accompanying image also supports this notion, through creating a sense of family unity, apparent in their cheerful expressions. Additionally, the photograph exemplified the positive effect of Mrs Tran’s support in the past, increasing the likelihood of her volunteering to help again in another difficult phase of Olsen’s life. We want to be able to write a whole paragraph on the image - it's really importantFurthermore, Olsen further develops his contention through alluding to the positive opinions of others, such as that of Mr Vukotic. In this way,(First sentence seemed a bit waffly, wasn't doing much for you) Moreover, Olsen reinforces how adults view him to substantiate Mrs Tran’s already positive perspective of him. This is particularly apparent in Olsen’s allusions to the fact that Mr Vukotic “is confident” connotations? effect on reader? how is effect created? with his capabilities, thus, strengthening the notion that Olsen indeed deserves such an opportunityhow??. Similarly, the reference to Mr Rowe feeling “pretty pleased” with Olsen’s co-curricular activities highlights his involvements beyond that of academics and an endearing natureok, cool. But what is the effect on the reader. Why has this been included? How does it intend to make them feel?? . Whilst Olsen maintains a highly enthusiastic and professional profile throughout the letter, conversational advances were often made as a means of establishing a friendship between student and teacher. make sure your sentences are directly related to how the author intends to manipulate the reader, it's pretty easy to get off track! :P Such a technique is particularly resonant in the use of rhetoric, inquiring as to whether “Mr Rose {is} still Head of Theatres?”I personally will always avoid analysing rhetorical questions, as you can pretty much say the same thing for them every time they occur. If you are set on analysing them, make sure you're including the effect it has on the reader! In a similar nature, {the job} would probably be more interesting than stacking shelves!” where does this quote start? aims not only to divulge opinion but to prompt an exchange between ‘friends’ whilst still maintaining a sense of formality. effect on reader thoguh?
ok cool, image paragraph.
I'd describe the image a bit before divulging into what it meansThe accompanying photograph depicting Olsen and his mother is employed as a symbol of survival, yet also acts as a reminder of the social support provided by Mrs Tran. In this context, the photograph directly links to one of Olsen’s evocations of the “awful stuff” that occurred in his high school years. The imagery promotes a sense of overcoming struggle and illustrates their relationship one to have endured hardship alright cool. Make sure you're explaining HOW the photograph shows this though. . Thus, it acts as a tool to arouse pity for his clearly troublesome situation why/how?. Yet despite such struggles, Olsen is seen to have succeeded in his academic endeavours, particularly evident in the focus on his prizes won for “top in Business Studies and Account” along with English scores he emphasized Mrs Tran as partly responsible for.seems like you're analysing the issue, not the language! Through such references, Olsen not only reflects on the resilience he displayed towards his studies,how? but his ability to simultaneously exceed whilst faced with tremendous family concernsagain, how is it created??. Thus, he is reinforces his capacity to display motivation, likely increasing Mrs Tran’s interested in writing an engaging piece for Olsen’s desire workplace. would like to see some more quotes from the article alongside the image analysis, but this is a really good start!
Dan Olsen aimed to persuade his teacher Mrs Tran, to write a professional piece augmenting his chances of securing part time employment. In doing so, he contendedsame deal (even though this is the conclusion pleeeease still make sure you're fixing the tense) that despite all the hardships that have beset him, he holds the capability of maintaining resilience and a positive ”work ethic.” Such a concept was encompassed in the attached photograph, reflecting his strength and endurance manifest. In this way, Olsen provides undeniable appeal that aims to garner Mrs Tran’s full support in developing an engaging supporting statement as his referee for the prospective employer.
I think part of why you've struggled with this is because it's a letter for reference and not an article - which is understandable. But just remember, VCAA are sly as and you need to be ready for any curve ball!
Good luck with it :)
lol sorry for the last piece, kinda was half dead when I did it and no Patches you weren't too scathing. Was expecting most of the comments coz I was too tired when I typed it up, thanks for marking it for me :D (if you post another one I'll mark it for you too, if darvell doesn't get to it first :P)
I have a few questions left (seen in blue):
2010 International Biodiversity Conference from the VCAA 2010 exam
Having been declared the year of International Biodiversity, 2010 poses a potential turning point to biodiversity activists. Given the commitment in 2002 to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity attributing to poverty, many participants at the International Diversity Conference perceive this event as an opportunity for self-congratulations (is this explicit enough for identifying the audience?)Hm, it's pretty ok. I personally like a very strong reference to the audience throughout the piece, so I might even be a little bit more blatant/clear. However, the keynote speaker Professor Chris Lee opens the conference by imploring already biodiversity-minded listeners to not rest on their laurels (what is your opinion of using metaphors or proverbs in formal writing? My teacher discourages it)I absolutely discourage it. Professor Lee challenges listeners at the conference to frankly assess their efficacy and what “real action” they have done. Given the conference was held on the 25th to the 27th of October, Professor Lee is calling upon his fellow biodiversity compatriots to make real change and not be contented with simply talking about the issue. Darvell, is it a stylistic thing to include sub-arguments in the intro, or is it actually assessed? I've never done it before, try to keep my intros as brief as possibleYes, just to reiterate on what's been said, it's very stylistic.
As the keynote speaker, Professor Lee quickly establishes the main theme of the conference, (colon or comma?)colon all the way reflection and evaluation. His opening slide entitled “Taking Stock” is intended to bring images of shopping centres and food venders counting remaining goods in order to calculate their profits or otherwise in listeners’ minds. Thus, when coupled with fact Professor Lee is presenting at a biodiversity conference, there is little doubt that he is making reference to the state of the ecosystem, and that the ‘counting of stock’ is reference to the number of species left in the world with a ‘profit’ representing successful preservation. In conjunction, the image on the slide makes reference to the year, 2010 clearly seem in the outline, but the white cutaways are also indicative of a variety of species: fish, flamingos, humans and trees. Again, Professor Lee is aiming to draw on connotations in the picture, as the fish symbolise sea creatures, the flamingo representing land and air animals, the tree representing plants and the human child grasping the adults hand a symbol of the importance of the connection between all animals and humans. Thus, this opening slide establishes the subject of the presentation, but also alludes to the importance of biodiversity to human survival. (too long to spend on one slide given there is an entire speech and another closing slide?)I don't think so, no. Milk the image.
Professor Lee opens by reflecting on the significance of the year 2010 because it is “the International year of Biodiversity” signifying the wide-scale of this issue, but also referring to the opening slide and the combination of humans and animals in the lettering of the year “2010”. The speaker does not mince words because he knows his audience has come to the conference to hear about biodiversity, and openly questions the purpose of the year “2010”. (too much background info in the opening of this paragraph?) yeah, probably is a bitAs the speech was held in October, the majority of the year has already come to past and Professor Lee is attempting to guilt listeners who have perceived 2010 as a “year of celebration”. By making reference to the time span of the commitment that started “Eight years ago” he is further manipulating readers to question if they have committed themselves fully over the many years. Coupled with the strong use of the word “Honestly” in his question directed at his audience of how well they have done, Professor Lee is implying many have been self-deluded believing they have achieved their goals of reducing loss of biodiversity. Professor Lee reiterates his ‘wakeup call’, questioning again and again “how well” and “how far” have these activists come in their commitment. By repeating his question, he increases compounds uponthe guilt of somefacets sectors of the audience and positions (odd word choice. what would sound better) didn't even think it was that bad :/the remainder to challenge their supposed “success” so far.
The speaker substantiates his case, quoting statistics of loss in biodiversity to break any final delusion in listeners that their commitment is working. Though the statistics are credible from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and shocking in that there are losses of up to 50%, Professor Lee is manipulating his audience through fear-mongering (this even a word? teacher sometimes comments "Neologism" on my work lol). uh, to the best of my knowledge it is a legit wordThe statistics he quotes are “over the last one hundred” years not the eight years since the commitment was made. Thus, the problem is presented as a greater one than it may actually be; a contradiction to Professor Lee’s call for “honesty” in his opening. For readers that pick up on this subtle deception, he has lost credibility in their minds and are less willing to accept Professor Lee's arguments. He moves on by making the comparison of actions by humans and the extinction of dinosaurs, claiming that “in truth” they are similar. Such an extreme analogy has humans being equivocal to a meteorite striking the Earth (the common reason for the dinosaurs’ disappearance), which is the professor’s intention, to strike fear into his listener’s minds about their actions. His continuation of the metaphor, that “we affluent hunters and gathers must hunt less, gather less [and] conserve more” is to present a solution in terms his audience can more likely understand and accept. Moreover, this simplifies the solution etc etc (I won't bore you with the rest but that's pretty much how the LA goes and most of my questions are in the first bit of my analysis anways)
You thoughts on it and any answers to my questions in blue would be much appreciated :)
Hey guys, could you guys criticise where I've gone wrong on my lang analysis esasy and at what level (A,B,C,D) my work is at so far? Any help will be appreciated! :)
I wrote it on the English exam of 2010, section C regarding biodiversity http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2010english-w.pdf
Any feedback will be appreciated!
Here's my essay:
Biodiversity, a crucial part of our existence in the world today is an ever growing issue that has been up for debate. During the International Biodiversity Conference 2010 in Nagoya Japan on the 25th to the 27th of October, Professor Chris Lee delivered a speech “Taking Stock” regarding the issue of Governmental action regarding the issue of biodiversity loss. The speech was delivered to the public consisting of many scientists, government officials and others witnessing Lee’s presentation as he expressed his view in a distressed, enthusiastic, formal and frank manner.Maybe write these as a progression, showing the tone shift as the speech progresses rather than in a list. Lee wished to review the progress made towards achieving the target to reduce biodiversity loss and took beyond 2010.
Throughout his speech, Lee makestheuse of many rhetorical questions with a goal of creating a worry in this piece I believe it was more to get the audience thinking 'have I played my part'and to get the public thinking about the issue. He asks the audience “What have WE – what have YOU and YOUR country actually done since 2002?” and this gets the desired responseWe do not know what response it gets. This is subjective when LA is meant to be objective. The use of the inclusive terms such as ‘we’, ‘you’, and ‘your’ make the audience engaged as these terms personalize the issue due to the fact these words refer to us as individualssentence feels a bit clumsy, try to be more concise.. The fact that this was an International level conference means that many professionals in the field of biodiversity would have been present and by using inclusive terms in his rhetorical questions, he makes an appeal to the responsibility people of such stature not sure what this word means in this contextfeel. By asking what we have “actually done” he is able to create a sense of guilt that the public feel as by saying “actually” it magnifies the fact that our behaviour was not enough to create any positives. The fact that many professionals in the field of biodiversity and science were present at such a conference, these audience members in particular feel guilty. That sentence probably wasn't needed. Lee uses an attackis it really an attack? on the opposition in a concerned way via the use of rhetorical questions.
Emotions create the basis of us to respond to a situation, it gives us the motivation to change a situation. Consider rewriting the conjunction phase.In his speech, Lee uses many emotive terms to further enhance the engagement of the audience. He states the situations that the poorer people in the world have to face and the rates of poverty to make the public feel the effects the issue has on the less fortunate people of our world. He says an emotive statement “the poor are particularly vulnerable because they are directly dependent on biodiversity for their survival”. This touches a nerve in the audience as most people like to believe they have a sense of care for others in despair. It makes them feel a touch of sympathy due to their sufferings as well as make the audience of those in power feel guilty about their lack of action regarding biodiversity loss. The use of the word “poor” has a strong sympathetic and negative connotation attached as they refer to people who don’t have the honor This is getting a bit off topic and becoming subjective. Honour is not appropiate.to live life like the majority of Lee’sspeech’saudience do. By using the word “vulnerable”, which has strong helpless and pitiful connotations attached, Lee is able to touch the hearts of people that care about the issues the loss of biodiversity has on the less fortunate people our Governments claim to care for. Finally, by stating they are “dependent of biodiversity” Lee is able to make a strong link back to the major issue as it means biodiversity loss is making the lives of poor people even more complicated than it already is. It makes his audience feel emotionally connected to his concerns and those of the poor.
Lee makestheuse of slides with images that go with his speech to add another dimension and an extra effect to further enhance his point of view. The use of the logo of the Conference, Lee is able to make sure everyone knows the main topic of debate. The logo that has “2010” on it, has photos of carefully constructed photos of elements of biodiversity. The involvement of water animals such as fishes, land animals such as birds, humans as well as aspects of nature like the tree, clearly states the harmony that biodiversity brings to the world. It creates an overall balanced feel of the logo which stays relevant to the issue. The contrasting nature of a white background that has colored numbers in the foreground creates a clarity in which the focal point of the image, biodiversity in 2010, remains in the audience’s minds. The creation of the logo has the numbers overlapping and joined together, similar to the way biodiversity joins all aspects of the Earth together. This creates a strong sense of likeness to the issue of biodiversity as well as ensuring the logo is relevant to the main topic of debate.
You didn't really analyse the techniques employed to persuade the audience here, rather just described the logo and its relevance to biodiversity.
Hands joining together in unity are an aspect that is required to change an issue such as biodiversity. The image on the closing slide of Lee’s slide shows exactly that as a globe is placed on joining hands to state the fact the unity is required to create a positive effect on biodiversity loss. By placing the globe and hands in the foreground, the emphasis remains on the main issue as the hierarchy of image placement ensure the eyes focus on the focal point first and foremost. The accompanying text that states the words of ecologist “Thomas Eisner” say “Biodiversity is the greatest treasure we have. Its diminishment is to be preserved at all costs”.Don't really need to use the quote. This remains very much relevant to the issue that Lee is discussing in his speech and the use of an expert opinion make his speech that much stronger. The words “greatest treasure” have connotations that regard to great things in life that are precious to lose as by saying “greatest” the audience think of grand positives. The use of “treasure” states that the gained benefits of biodiversity are precious and something that is priceless.
Biodiversity is the “greatest treasure we have” and this is the concerned emotion that Lee expresses in his speech with a means to review progress and form the building blocks for further improvements. By using rhetorical questions his audience which includes many professionals,theyare made to think about the inaction regarding biodiversity. It allows Lee to form the basis for creating a sense of urgency regarding the matter. Together with the use of emotive language and inclusive terms, Lee is successfully able to persuade his intended audience of professionals in the field of science and Government to reduce biodiversity loss. The added use of images on his slides enhances the potential as it ensures visual learners are also persuaded to the full extent.
Thanks for any help, appreciate it! :)
I acutally didn't read the analysis, just answered the questions (pressed for time MY INBOX IS FLOODING)
@Lala1911Thanks. Its been an issue of mine to just state the effect and not really explain it better. Something to keep in mind for tomorrow.
This was my SAC that I did a while ago. I just want to see how you guys would mark it /10. Would like some feedback on it though.
ARTICLE: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/harsh-new-reality-achieving-the-ultimate-edge-is-pushing-us-over-it-20130413-2hsk5.html
tl;dr sorry!
Drugs in sport has become an increasingly alarming issue over the past decade, not only affecting the spirit of the sport, but the physiological and psychological wellbeing of athletes. good contextualising Tim Lane’s opinion piece “Harsh new reality: achieving the ultimate edge is pushing us over it” criticizes the use of illegal drugs in sport. The writer employs bit of an odd word choice a disappointed tone in order to convey his concerns regarding the alarming amount of drugs used in sport and the seriousness of the issue. Audience??
The photograph accompanying the article portrays an unpleasant image of drugs. This intends to frighten the reader by stimulating negative fears. how? what do connotations does the image have? The inclusion of a pun in the headline: “Achieving the ultimate edge is pushing us over it” intends to be playful on the readers mind, acting to catch their attention whilst forcing them to slow down and read it once again. why is this a pun? this kind of identification is around 5/10, if you put in one or two more lines explaining why it is a pun and the effect then 8+ analysis =]
The writers inclusion of the phrase “ultimately doomed” intends to point out the worst case scenario to the reader, which provokes concern that sporting may be on the brink of doom. Futhermore, the writer follows up with “could it be restored?” in order to manipulate how? the reader to question the current stability of sport and whether the spirit of the sport can be restored.
The inclusion of Irish sports writer David Walsh’s book “Seven Deadly Sins – my pursuit of lance Armstrong” acts to prove that the writer has completed his research on the issue by outsourcing. and adds credibility? The remark that Walsh “refused to cover the Tour De France as a sprinting contest” creates maybe not such a definite word a sense of disappointment for the reader, as our sports have now been disgraced by drug cheats. Furthermore, the statement that Walsh could “no longer bring himself to write about the bike race with joy and optimism” acts to show that we’re now unable to enjoy the sports that we previously thrived on, creating a sense of disappointment for the reader. how?? sounds like your just translating the piece, you haven't really analysed the use of the anecdote and the phrase "no longer". what does it imply?
Language utlisised such as “crisis” intends to reveal the seriousness of the issuewhy? what sort of language is this? colloquial language? formal language? jargon?, forcing the reader to believe that the situation is much worse than what they may believe again, you're very definite in your analysis. In addition, the writer then contends that the AFL was an “honourable” sport, however this is followed up by “the possibility that has appeared before us was scarcely imaginable”. This is designed to create negative mental imagery for the reader in order to provoke unimaginable scenarios. how? comparison? juxtaposition?
Lane’' apostrophes appeal that the “young” are affected by the use of drugs intends to show that the issue is now branching out to youth in Australia. This position parents to feel worried and at unease about the overwhelming amount of drugs used. The writer' apostrophes attacking phrase about essendon players that they have “mindless attitudes” intends to belittle the players, forcing the reader to feel as if their argument is flawed.
The writer then transitions to a more pessimistic tone good in order to convey his concerns that “we’re all to blame”, which intends to make the reader feel a sense of guilt for uging and pressuring sports athletes to perform at such a high standard. and? This positions the reader to feel as if they should be more accepting fo athletes capabilities and to cease their criticism.
Language such as “what is far from obvious is whether anything can be done to stop the rot” acts to create a sense of fear that the issue may have escalated too far, which positions us to feel a sense of urgency to take action before its too late. why? tell me connotations and in-depth analysis
The inclusion of Savulescu’s expert opinion acts to increase Lane’s credibility of his argument as he has now done his research and spent time gathering opinions.sounds weird Lane then proceed to criticize the AFL CEO, Andrew Demetriou that he would be getting a “smaller budget” if he was to be born with a “whatever it takes motto”. This positions the reader to feel frustrated at the AFL, as money has becoming a huge factor and not the wellbeing of athletes. why why why? connotations of these words? imagery? figurative language?
The writer concludes his argument by criticisng Savalescu for suggesting to allow drug taking to become a “norm” by stating that he is “delusional”. This positions the reader to feel that if Savalescu’s argument is flawed, then his opinion must too be flawed, urging us to believe that drugs should not be the “norm” but should be prohibited.
Overall, Lane sustains a logical argument throughout the opinion piece. The including of expert opinions helped increase his credibility and provided concern and guilt from the reader. Lane prompts us to believe that in order to revive the spirit of the sport, drugs in sport must be stopped.
Okay, you have a very formulaic approach, and nothing's too wrong with that as everyone has their own writing style.
However, I felt that you missed a few things such as the intended audience and connotations of words
You make a lot of points tho hm
GOOD LUCK FOR TOMORROW =D
I am a Year 10 student, with Language Analysis as part of my examination in two weeks. I don't ask for a high end Year 12 correction, but simply a general review, and possible areas for improvement :)
Just a general query, our teacher has said to "chunk" our paragraphs up into a type of technique for each paragraph, providing a few examples+explanations. However, is it recommended to move in a chronological order and analyse key statements as a paragraph?
ARTICLE IMAGE LINK: http://puu.sh/5f1Ho.jpg
A recent report in the Herald Sun regarding the death of a boy suffering a brain tumour has sparked much debate regarding thehealth system. In the Herald Sun editorial from, January 16, 1998, titled “How the system failed Chris”, the editor addresses the issue of supporting the terminally ill. The author argues in a frustrated tone that it isn’t fair for people who wish to die at homeneedto pay additional costs, compared to dying in hospital. The writer specifically targetsfellow(Didnt see where editor was a parent, may have missed it) parents who would undeniablywouldn’twant fairunjust(few too many negatives) treatment via the government health care system. The issue is briefly introduced by the bold heading. This is most likely to position the reader to emit a sense of compassion, of how something which a family relied most on didn’t meet their expectations. Additionally, it immediately gets the audience to think of the health care system in a negative manner by the use of the word “failed”.
The editor uses a variety of appeals to elicit a sense of compassion and outrage towards the system in his article. One prominent technique used throughout the text isappeals toan appeal to fairness. See if you can get an example here.This further highlights the injustice of the failing health care system. The author mentions “if Chris was in hospital, the drugs would be free” to appeal to the reader’s sense of justice and compassion. The writer is trying to allude to the fact the added financial burden isn’t fair to those wishing to stay at home to die. This is due to the fact that if the government subsidises costs in a hospital, it should only be right to have the same treatment at home. This is further reiterated with the point how staying at home “saves the governments money by not being in hospital”. This creates a feeling of double standards amongst the health care system, creating a sense of injustice.It simply doesn’t make sense for governments to further reduce spending, when they are in fact saving money when people stay at home to die.This was subjective not objective. In addition to this, the author also makes use of appeals to family values. “Tony left his job…to help his wife care for Chris”, is used to evoke a sense of compassion towards the extent to which people must go to support a child dying at home. The author is attempting to make the audience see Tony’s family loyalty as a positive thing. This is done to show how taking care of the ill, especially family, is a highly important task and must be done. It shows how financial costs may be even further increased due the naturally conscience to stay at home to look after a family member.
The Editor also uses strong emotive language and the tragic case study of Tony and his son, Chris, to further drive home that the system is failing for its citizens. The writer promotes a negative connotation on the health care system by the use of phrases such as 'gross failings' and 'outrageous'“the gross failings of the system”.The word “gross” has a strong negative perception which invites the reader to believe that the failings of the “system” are simply not acceptable in society. This Is because “gross” is a word which signifies disgust, which in this case refers to the unacceptable treatment by the healthcare system. The used of the word “failing” positions the reader to think that the health care system is not doing its job – to look after those in distress. It doesn’t meet the expectations of providing peace of mind for families, as it only adds to their worries with additional fees. In addition to this, the author mentions “the battling couple” to promote a sense of compassion to the family. It’s intended effect would be to make get the reader to see eye to eye with the other hardships of daily life, by which this “failing” health care system is only adding to. In essence, the couple are struggling to make ends meat, and to be hit with excess costs to cater for their son in the comfort of their own home further adds to the distress.
As you can see, the Editorial, “How the system failed Chris” makes a worthwhile addition to the debate on the inadequacies of the Victorian Health System. The Editor’s heart-felt appeal, using Chris’ pitiful plight at the hands of senseless bureaucracy is very likely to strike a cord with many concerned citizens. The authors arguments are likely to be ill-perceived by those who see the right to choose where to die as a privilege and not a right. It is clearly evident that the author has effectively used language to persuade the reader that the health care system is in need of attention. This was done through various appeals and the use of emotive language.
I am a Year 10 student, with Language Analysis as part of my examination in two weeks. I don't ask for a high end Year 12 correction, but simply a general review, and possible areas for improvement :)I know your in year 10, but you can always look at the other examples to add and change your conclusion
Just a general query, our teacher has said to "chunk" our paragraphs up into a type of technique for each paragraph, providing a few examples+explanations. However, is it recommended to move in a chronological order and analyse key statements as a paragraph?
ARTICLE IMAGE LINK: http://puu.sh/5jSj8.jpg
The implementation of sniffer dogs in schools to catch drugs has given rise to much debate regarding if this practice is acceptable. Contextualising sentence pretty good !In the Herald Sun editorial form July 3, 1998, titled "Dogs at the end of the drugs trail", the editors contends that there is no logical explanation to stop the use of sniffer dogs. The argument is presented in a tone of discontent and targets the parents of school children. Some people like to say the purpose, it also helps to really focus on how it positions the reader, which you could improve on
The Editor uses a variety of strong emotive language to elicit a sense of negativity towards the use of drugs.This sentence just sounds a bit odd you could include another Contextualising sentence then use this topic sentence with and example When he uses words such as "illegal" and "frightening", it promotes a negative connection on drugs. The use of these words have a strong negative perception which is tojust say "which invites the reader to...." invites the reader to believe that drugs are nasty substances and shouldn't be lurking around schools of innocent children. By utilising the word illegal the writer.... "Illegal" is used by the writer to indicate that such unlawful practices shouldn't be associated with children at all. In addition to this, the Editor make use of such adverse words to highlight the detrimental effects drugs. By employing Phrases such as "a you child being brain squashed for like" and "loosing a life" position the reader to feel a sense of fear in regards to drugs. Here, the editor uses emotive language as an appeal to fear in an attempt to make the audience see how sniffer dogs can protect children from such possibilities. Which leads to...
As well as using emotive language, the Editor also uses techniques such as authority and "cause and effect" to position to the reader to agree with their stance on the issue.Nice ! A quote from Premier Jeff Kennet which "reflects parents' feelings" is used to add further credibility to his argument. It's intended effect would be to position those who are against the idea of sniffer dogs to realise that many parents feel the need for it- to protect their children. Techniques such as inclusive language are also evident here which may promote agreement amongst those who don't in order to fit in with other parents are government officials. To add to this, "cause and effect" is used to establish the point that sniffer dogs are a method to disassociate drugs and students. Could do with a little more explanation The editor mentions how sniffer dogs will "frighten drug users" so innocent children don't have to put up with it. It is to also further highlight that sniffer dogs are an addition to government's fight against drugs- which should only be done in "extreme cases". A sense of justification is created here, to position the reader to see how these sniffer dogs would not overtake the schooling environment.
As you can see, Dont say this !the Editorial, “Dogs at the end of the drug trail” makes a worthwhile addition to the debate on the usage of sniffer dogs at schools. The Editor’s heart-felt appeal, using the illicitness of drugs is very likely to strike a cord with many concerned citizens. The authors arguments are likely to be ill-perceived by those who regard sniffer dogs to be too severe for school use. It is clearly evident that the author has effectively used language to persuade the reader that sniffer dogs would prove to be a positive impact in society. This was done through various persuasive language techniques.