Login | Register
Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 05, 2021, 12:34:14 pm

Author Topic: Need feedback on my comparative language analysis  (Read 1391 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

zopiafuentes

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Trinity College Colac
Need feedback on my comparative language analysis
« on: January 29, 2014, 05:36:50 pm »
0
:$
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 05:14:29 pm by zopiafuentes »

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1410
Re: Need feedback on my comparative language analysis
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2014, 07:44:34 pm »
+4
Animal testing, also known as animal experiments is the act of using non-human animals in research, development projects or scientific experiments. Statistics reveal that, each year millions of animals such as dogs, cats, rats, mice, ferrets, hamsters and monkeys experience physical and mental torture due to scientific practices. Providing background is good, but there's no need to define any of this. A simple opening statement like 'The issue of animal testing remains a contentious one with strong advocates on either side...' is all that's required Although some believe that these experiments are necessary on grounds of advancement of medicine'for the sake of medical advancement' (just sounds smoother), most people believe that these experiments are cruel, unethical, barbaric and outdated. While the debate towards aboutanimal testing continues to linger on, many sides and opinions argue their point of view, persuading to attempt us to accept and idolise their opinion as the only accurate assumption. redundant, if you're not going to introduce the articles in the intro (which is fine) then summing up the general contentions is enough.

The following articles have controversial views on the issue at hand. Dr Bella Williams' opinion piece, ‘Animals play a small but vital role in research’ which occurred in the Manchester Evening News on the 28th of August your school might have different rules, but generally this info isn't necessary, the title and author are sufficientencourages animal testing, suggesting that animals in fact, should be experimented on and animals are essential in scientific research, for developing medicines and safety testing. William's angles his article to rely on the emotional responses of the reader, needs more here: how does he do this? what words are particularly emotive? As for Monika Merkes’ article, ‘Using Animals for Research’ which featured in the Conversation, on the 6th of August, who takes on a contentious perspective, contending; that we should steer clear from animal testing all together. Unlike Williams, she uses logical and factual information to sympathise with the reader'evoke readers' sympathy' (she isn't feeling sorry for readers, she wants them to feel sorry for the animals. And again, how does she do this?), despite these conflicting sentiments, both articles compare in the same aspect of how they express their point of view. Both authors use a scientific based vocabulary to emphasise the impact the information has on us as readers. good, you've found one point of comparison, now analyse what effect this vocabulary has upon a readership

William's feels very strongly ? feels what very strongly? Pride? Defensivenes? Vitriol? And how can we tell?towards the progression and advancement animal testing has brought upon medical history. “Many medical advances that we now take for granted such as antibiotics, blood transfusions, vaccines or asthma medication could never have been achieved without animal research”. The impact this sentence has on us is crucial. This sentence leads stronger word may be better here: 'implores,' 'entreats'etc, us to look past the moral and ethical questions of animal testing, causing us to consider that without these experiments, civilisation would be nowhere as advanced as it is today. This effectively persuades us as readers to agree that its essential we continue to experiment on animals to continue medical progression. Very good

Whilst the first article was characterised by the contribution animal testing has provided towards medical advancement, conversely, this Merkes' article attempts to convince the reader that animal testing is not predictive of beneficial to human health, and therefore, it should not continue. Merkes’ begins her article She begins with overstatement and exaggeration* to describe what happens to animals in regards to medical research. The distressing opening line referring to “inflicting pain and death on animals for the purpose of medical research”, effectively grasps the reader’s attention, making the situation sound much more extreme and vile. This provokes feelings of anxiety and disgust, with the use of the word ‘inflicting’ we are lead to believe that nothing but bloodshed and torture comes to these innocent animals. Excellent. Thus positioning us as readers to be much more skeptical about animal testing and the results that occur. Very good Further into the article, Merkes uses statistical evidence to support her contention; “there are over 60 drugs that have been successfully tested on animals, but are toxic to humans. In fact 90% of all drugs fail in clinical trials.” by using factual based information from “Humane Research Australia”, we are situated to agree with Merkes hope for the prevention of animal testing as it is highly unlikely we will question this information that is believed to be true. meaning unclear. Try: 'These numbers are not only confronting, but appeal to a reader's rationale by depicting the testing as both cruel and useless. Thus we are more inclined to position ourselves against such a process.

After deep consideration and research I have come to a conclusion with my opinion toward the help and harm coming from animal testing. I have decided that animal testing is very cruel and sometimes it doesn't even work not helping us as much as it is hurting animals. Animal testing is very cruel and sometimes it doesn't even work. Could you imagine being a defenceless little animal bred and born only to be cut open, injected and electrocuted until you die? Animal testing is extremely risky therefore, should not be allowed since it involves extrapolating data located in animals by using it for humans. This is because animals have different genes, proteins and metabolic pathways from that of humans. Although it is true that, these experiments help improve science, they also hinder medical developments. For example, in previous years, patient studies revealed a connection between cancer and tobacco use. Many scientists held this to be true since exceptionally strong evidence supported this relationship. However, during animal testing, tobacco repeatedly failed in producing cancer in the test subjects. Since the tests failed, warnings regarding the dangers of cigarette were dismissed for many years.



my 2 articles.
for; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/for-and-against-animal-testing-693965
against; https://theconversation.com/animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop-7890

this is my first time writing comparative language analysis and i'm still not quite sure how to write it. a feedback would be great, as i need to hand this in tomorrow morning.

*If you're looking to maximise marks, avoid listing techniques. By changing this sentence to: 'Merkes' exaggerated hyperbole serves to...' you are able to say something about what the language is doing rather than just calling it a type of language.

There is some good analysis here in the 4th paragraph when you deal with Merkes' article at a word level. Be careful not to slip into summary, and try to use shorter quotes to illustrate your point exactly rather than build up to it. There are some syntax issues but nothing too major.
In terms of content, I'm not sure Williams' piece is entirely emotive; if anything she seems relatively dispassionate in her description of the testing. Also you didn't use Currie's portion of the article at all.
Your intro needs work, and the last paragraph is pure opinion, perhaps this is what you've been instructed to do, but in VCE this is worth very little. Consult some study guides or your teacher if you need help with what to cover in a conclusion.
Overall, stick to a basic pattern of outlining a technique and evaluating its effect on the audience in your body paragraphs. Your ability to zoom in and out with the word-level analysis is good, and should always be done at least twice in an essay. Also, try to use more words like 'infers' 'emphasises' 'suggests' or 'portrays.' This forces you to comment on the author's intention and allows you to make links to the readers' reactions.

Hope this wasn't too acerbic for you :)
Best of luck
Lauren
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 12:44:01 am by lauren9460 »

ConradHolubts

  • New South Welsh
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
  • School: wes
Re: Need feedback on my comparative language analysis
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2014, 04:41:12 pm »
0
Animal testing, also known as animal experiments is the act of using non-human animals in research, development projects or scientific experiments. Statistics reveal that, each year millions of animals such as dogs, cats, rats, mice, ferrets, hamsters and monkeys experience physical and mental torture due to scientific practices. Although some believe that these experiments are necessary on grounds of advancement of medicine, most people believe that these experiments are cruel, unethical barbaric and outdated. While the debate towards animal testing continues to linger on, many sides and opinions argue their point of view, persuading to attempt us to accept and idolise their opinion as the only accurate assumption.

The following articles have controversial views on the issue at hand. Dr Bella Williams opinion piece, ‘Animals play a small but vital role in research’ which occurred in the Manchester Evening News on the 28th of August encourages animal testing, suggesting that animals in fact, should be experimented on and animals are essential in scientific research, for developing medicines and safety testing. William's angles his article to rely on the emotional responses of the reader, As for Monika Merkes’ article, ‘Using Animals for Research’ which featured in the Conversation, on the 6th of August, who takes on a contentious perspective, contending that we should steer clear from animal testing all together. Unlike William's, she uses logical and factual information to sympathise with the reader, despite these conflicting sentiments, both articles compare in the same aspect of how they express their point of view. Both authors use a scientific based vocabulary to emphasise the impact the information has on us as readers.

William's feels very strongly towards the progression and advancement animal testing has brought upon medical history. “Many medical advances that we now take for granted such as antibiotics, blood transfusions, vaccines or asthma medication could never have been achieved without animal research”. The impact this sentence has on us is crucial. It leads us to look past the moral and ethical questions of animal testing, causing us to consider that without these experiments, civilisation would be nowhere as it is today. This effectively persuades us as readers to agree that its essential we continue to experiment on animals to continue medical progression….

Whilst the first article was characterised by the contribution animal testing has provided towards medical advancement…. Conversely, this article attempts to convince the reader that animal testing is not predictive of human health, and therefore, it should not continue. Merkes’ begins her article with overstatement and exaggeration to describe what happens to animals in regards to medical research. The distressing opening line referring to “inflicting pain and death on animals for the purpose of medical research”, effectively grasps the reader’s attention, making the situation sound much more extreme and vile. This provokes feelings of anxiety and disgust, with the use of the word ‘inflicting’ we are lead to believe that nothing but bloodshed and torture comes to these innocent animals. Thus positioning us as readers to be much more skeptical about animal testing and the results that occur. Further into the article, Merkes uses evidence to support her contention; “there are over 60 drugs that have been successfully tested on animals, but are toxic to humans. In fact 90% of all drugs fail in clinical trials.” by using factual based information from “Humane Research Australia”, we are situated to agree with Merkes hope for the prevention of animal testing as it is highly unlikely we will question this information that is believed to be true.

After deep consideration and research I have come to a conclusion with my opinion toward the help and harm coming from animal testing. I have decided that animal testing is very cruel and sometimes it doesn't even work not helping us as much as it is hurting animals. Animal testing is very cruel and sometimes it doesn't even work. Could you imagine being a defenceless little animal bred and born only to be cut open, injected and electrocuted until you die? Animal testing is extremely risky therefore, should not be allowed since it involves extrapolating data located in animals by using it for humans. This is because animals have different genes, proteins and metabolic pathways from that of humans. Although it is true that, these experiments help improve science, they also hinder medical developments. For example, in previous years, patient studies revealed a connection between cancer and tobacco use. Many scientists held this to be true since exceptionally strong evidence supported this relationship. However, during animal testing, tobacco repeatedly failed in producing cancer in the test subjects. Since the tests failed, warnings regarding the dangers of
[color=black]e cigarettes[/color] were dismissed for many years.



my 2 articles.

for; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/for-and-against-animal-testing-693965
against; https://theconversation.com/animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop-7890

this is my first time writing comparative language analysis and i'm still not quite sure how to write it. a feedback would be great, as i need to hand this in tomorrow morning.

Harming animals just for the sake of testing is not appropriate at all.. There must be some guidelines which needs to be followed while testing animals..
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 02:22:31 am by ConradHolubts »

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1410
Re: Need feedback on my comparative language analysis
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2014, 10:38:33 pm »
0
Glad you could share that with us mate  ???
In the future, try not to comment on old threads
Cheers :)