FREE VCE lectures this April across 24 subjects. Places filling fast - book now!.

March 20, 2019, 02:02:50 pm

### AuthorTopic: 2018 AA Club - Week 13  (Read 1211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### scout

• Trendsetter
• Posts: 111
• Respect: +37
##### 2018 AA Club - Week 13
« on: April 16, 2018, 04:53:01 pm »
+3
Quote
Background: The Australian cricket team has been thrust into the limelight following a ball tampering incident in a test match in South Africa. The scandal has left the team's reputation in tatters.

We are not teaching our children well

#### Anonymous

• Guest
##### Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 13
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2018, 10:18:09 pm »
0
Analysing the cartoon gave me a headache, and so I gave up. Please don't be too harsh on me. It'd be great if someone could do a sample analysis of the cartoon though. If any critics are feeling generous, please also give me a mark out of ten. Thanks in advance for all your hard work.

A cricket scandal involving ball tampering, and the subsequent actions from those "from within and above" has caused quite a backlash from the public. In a letter to the editor, both Long and Burchill take the same stance in saying that ball tampering is just one in a long list of corruptive actions, although they differ in their approaches. This is in the accompaniment of a cartoon also. While Long chooses to focus on the impacts on people's immediate family, Burchill targets the cricket community, from fans to Cricket Australia.

Long begins by contending that the ball tampering incident is just the most recent manifestations of Australia's descent into immorality. By directly attacking Roger Frankel's point of view, Long asserts in which direction his "moral compass" lies, while simultaneously calling out those who oppose his views as having lost their sense of what's right and wrong.  By setting up this dichotomy that forces people to either agree or disagree, he appeals to readers' sense of morality. As evidenced by news headlines, he makes parallels with the ever growing list that exemplify this, from tax evasion to government corruption, thereby positioning readers to come to the realisation of how commonplace immoral actions have become. Furthermore, the use of inclusive language aids in his argument that this is an issue that affects all Australians, which is followed up by a series of rhetorical question that call upon a parent's protective instincts of their children, in which he implies that if this downward trend continues, it's our "children and grandchildren" who'll have to face the consequences, who might become impervious to such things, or worse yet, view it as something normal or even morally sound. By expanding the situation to encompass other similar incidents, Long positions the readers to apply the negative attitudes that they have for these other incidents to ball tampering.

Following this, Burchill first addresses the root problem, the "rotten culture", in order to exploit how it's "the need to win at all costs," that has caused this debacle, so readers are made aware of the bigger picture at hand. By asserting that "Baum is right - "they just don't get it", the compounded effect of having more than one person agree to something results in people being more inclined to agree with Burchill. He then uses words such as "stain" and "haunt" which have a negative connotation, in order to argue that this incident is a bigger deal than it's made to be, and will be remembered by the people for a long time, and not in a good way either. By contending that the relationship between ball tampering and corruption is analogous to a symptom of cancer, Burchill effectively positions to view this incident as part of disease that could potentially lead to the team's end, which would work to elicit fear in both the audience and members of the cricket team, of what the future might hold if this trend were to continue, and so pushes Sutherland to take action to prevent it. Then by making the generalisation that all "Australians want action now", readers are positioned to want a change also while also condemning Sutherland for his actions, or lack thereof.

In a disparaging tone, Burchill criticises Sutherland's lack of action, by belittling Sutherland's act of "buying himself some time, send some home, take the heat out", a phrase that emanates cowardice as it's a only a temporary fix that doesn't solve to issue at hand. Burchill builds on this by calling Sutherland's actions a "weak kneed" "dash", which has the negative effect of portraying him as a weakling, a "failure" not worthy of "cricket lovers' and fans'" respect. Then by listing out values such as "honesty, trust responsibility, accountability and yes pride", which Burchill sees as synonymous with morality, he pushes the audience to evaluate for themselves whether these traits are present within Sutherland. However, these are also a list of traits that he also deems Sutherland must show in order to right his wrongs. This shows that he's still leaving room for Sutherland and Cricket Australia to redeem themselves, especially when he claims that the "very least" they could do was to make "Lehman… stand down", following his attack at Sutherland's credibility by claiming it's a "joke" that "he left Lehman in his position". This is a challenge directed at Sutherland, who would therefore want to take steps to correct his misdeeds, after being made a "laughing stock around the world", words which would drive him to remove that label.

Along with the two letter to the editors is a cartoon. This stain removal guide uses humour to give a refreshing take on how corruption within various parts of Australian society will lead to its doom. By doing so, readers can view the situation from another perspective and gain a better understanding that may be less biased. The cricket ball stain refers to the cricket incident, which is "forgotten", as it's not the main issue. The same can also be said for Tony Abbott's caricature, in which his ears are exaggerated to represent his participation in the electoral riggings. As the white shirt represents purity, morality, the stains on shirts leads readers to believe that there needs to be a cleansing of immorality so that we can return to state of righteousness, but accumulation of stains of questionable origin leads to only one possible solution - burning it, which means that if worst comes to worst, it'll be the end of Australia as we know it.

With both Long and Burchill using informal language to seem relatable, readers are urged to consider the impact of corruption on both a small and large scale, and how it would impact Australia as a whole. While Long is more reliant on scaring the audience into submission, Burchill takes on a tone that mellows out, when he makes a concession for those involved, although only after having attacked at them with scathing words.

#### MissSmiley

• Forum Obsessive
• Posts: 331
• Respect: +78
##### Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 13
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 06:25:30 pm »
+4

A cricket scandal involving ball tampering, and the subsequent actions from those "from within and above" who are 'those' and what 'subsequent actions' did they do? and where does it say 'from within and above'? So I probably wouldn't say this. has caused quite a this would be subjective backlash from the public. In a letter to the editor, both Long and Burchill take the same stance in saying that ball tampering is just one in a long list of corruptive actions, although they differ in their approaches. great sentence! Very economical and to the point! This is in the accompaniment of a cartoon also. This sounds a bit awkward. Could you say 'a cartoon is accompanied to accentuate that...or is in agreement with...etc? While Long chooses to focus on the impacts on people's immediate family, Burchill targets the cricket community, from fans to Cricket Australia. Lovely intro!

Long begins by contending that the ball tampering incident is just the most recent manifestations of Australia's descent into immorality. great use of nominalisation + strong topic sentence By directly attacking Roger Frankel's point of view, Long asserts in which direction his "moral compass" lies, while simultaneously calling out those who oppose his views as having lost their sense of what's right and wrong.  By setting up this dichotomy that forces people to either agree or disagree he appeals to readers' sense of morality. I see what you mean, but maybe you need some more analysis. You know how they say to avoid the classic 'encourages readers to either agree or disagree to the writer' ?! I think you've done this here, so maybe just explain what appealing to readers' sense of morality is important for Long? As evidenced by Taking evidence from news headlines, he makes parallels with the is this a bit unnecessary? could you just say 'extracts an ever growing..." ? ever growing list that exemplify this, from tax evasion to government corruption, thereby positioning readers to come to the realisation of how commonplace, immoral actions have become. Furthermore, the use of inclusive language aims to aid in his argument that this is an issue that affects all Australians, which is followed up by a series of rhetorical questions that call upon a parent's protective instincts this doesn't make sense. Just the adjective 'protective' doesn't fit right. I know what you mean, but just in terms of expression, do you want to say 'parental instincts' maybe? something like that? of their children, in which he implies that if this downward trend doesn't fit here. 'trend towards immorality' or something? continues, it's our "children and grandchildren" who'll have to face the consequences, who might become impervious to such things, or worse yet, view it as something normal or even morally sound. By expanding the situation to encompass other similar incidents, Long positions the readers to apply not the right word here. the negative attitudes that they have for these other incidents to ball tampering. did you mean to say something like "carry the same negative stigma associated with the items in the list to the ball tampering scandal aiming to present it in an obnoxious light" or something like that?

Following this, Burchill first addresses the root problem, the "rotten culture", in order to exploit how it's "the need to win at all costs," that has caused this debacle, so readers are made aware of the bigger picture at hand. is this necessary? just seems to be pretty self-explanatory. So it doesn't really add to analysis. By asserting that "Baum is right - "they just don't get it", the compounded effect of having more than one person agree to something results in people being more inclined to agree with Burchill. again, firstly this is speculative, and secondly, not a really strong analysis. He then uses words such as "stain" and "haunt" which have a negative connotation yes good, but rather than just saying 'negative' could you say a bit more? in terms of "connotations of an eerie..." , in order to argue that this incident is a bigger deal t colloquial language, so search for a formal word. han it's made to be, and will be remembered by the people for a long time, and not in a good way either. By contending that the relationship between ball tampering and corruption is analogous to beautiful expression here a symptom of cancer, Burchill effectively positions to view this incident as part of disease that could potentially lead to the team's end, which would work to elicit fear in both the audience and members of the cricket team, of what the future might hold if this trend were to continue, and so pushes Sutherland to take action to prevent it. this is quite a long sentence. break it up maybe? Then by making the generalisation I wouldn't call it a generalisation. Just maybe a "patriotic declaration" ? that all "Australians want action now", readers are positioned to firstly, you're speculative here, so avoid using 'strongly certain' language. Secondly, you're repeating 'are positioned to' quite a bit now looking at earlier paras as well, so maybe think of some synonyms or other ways you could describe feelings --> maybe you should analyse more 'audience feelings' as well in your analysis. want a change also while also condemning Sutherland for his actions, or lack thereof. ah! You sound like a legal document here, but good expression!

In a disparaging tone, Burchill criticises Sutherland's lack of action, by belittling Sutherland's act of "buying himself some time, send some home, take the heat out", a phrase that emanates cowardice as it's a only a temporary fix that doesn't solve to issue at hand. you can make your topic sentence a bit stronger than this. Is this what stands out to be the most significant to you that you should write this as your first line? think of something more significant or worthier to write about Burchill's progression of argument Burchill builds on this by calling Sutherland's actions a "weak kneed" "dash", which has the negative effect of portraying him as a weakling, a "failure" not worthy of "cricket lovers' and fans'" respect. Then by listing out values such as "honesty, trust responsibility, accountability and yes pride", which Burchill sees as synonymous with morality, he pushes the audience to evaluate for themselves whether these traits are present within Sutherland. However, these are also a list of traits that he also deems Sutherland must show in order to right his wrongs. This shows that he's still leaving room for Sutherland and Cricket Australia to redeem themselves, especially when he claims that the "very least" they could do was to make "Lehman… stand down", following his attack at Sutherland's credibility by claiming it's a "joke" that "he left Lehman in his position". This is a challenge directed at Sutherland, who would therefore want to take steps to correct his misdeeds, after being made a "laughing stock around the world", words which would drive him to remove that label. You're focussing on Sutherland too much, and this makes your analysis deviate from ball-tampering and what it means to our national identity, etc. Could you use these people, Sutherland, Lehman as examples only (I mean not the people people, but what they said, etc) to further analyse what is at the heart of Burchill's letter. After reading this para, it seems like you're saying that Burchill wrote his letter to only critique Sutherland, and everyone else involved. Clearly, this is not his only intention.

With both Long and Burchill using informal language to seem relatable, readers are urged to consider the impact of corruption on both a small and large scale, and how it would impact Australia as a whole. While Long is more reliant on scaring the audience into submission, woah! don't be so intense Burchill takes on a tone that mellows out no, I don't think his tone is so pleasant and not of harassment. You've used the wrong word - mellows" when he makes a concession for those involved, ok! So I get that you mean "Steve Smith" here? And how Burchill says that he's an innocent victim and almost sounds a bit sympathetic? But, you haven't really analysed the sense of 'concession' in your paras, so I wouldn't chuck this into your conclusion. Worth discussing about this somewhere in your paras although only after having attacked at them with scathing words. yeah see, this sounds contradictory to what comparison you just made between Long's and Burchill's arguments.

Hi there!
I really like some of the ways you've expressed yourself - e.g. using those beautiful nominalisations. Haha expression is something that I desperately need to work on too during the year before exams, so that's why I loved some of your sentences
My overall suggestion would be to try and include more analysis rather than summarising? So unpack connotations of some words that sparked really strongly in these letters and then analyse how they would make the audience feel and how they are likely to behave as a result.
Also, avoid really strong and certain language. Instead, things like "aims to.." "seeks to" (sorry for the cliched ones, but like search some synonyms for these) and you'll be fine!

Oh and hey, sorry if I was being really picky!! But please don't think otherwise, afterall, these are just suggestions from a fellow Year 12 student, so it's not like I'm a tutor or teacher or anything Please only take from this what you think is necessary! And I find setting small goals is so much less stressful than worrying about a whole heap of suggestions!
Also, I'm really not great at giving marks, so maybe someone else can give you a mark next time

Thanks!

2017 : Further Maths [38]
2018 : English [45] ;English Language [43] ; Food Studies [47] ;French [33] ;Legal Studies [39]
VCE ATAR : 98.10
2019 - 2023 : Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts at Monash University

#### Anonymous

• Guest
##### Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 13
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2018, 05:12:06 pm »
0
The Australian cricket team’s reputation has been left in tatters after it was discovered some of the players engaged in ball tampering during a test match in South Africa. In response Bryan Long has written a disappointed letter to the editor, arguing that the incident is a reflection of what is happening in wider Australia and that it cannot be ignored. Similarly, Paul Burchill argues that it cannot be ignored, however he believes it is a symptom of the rotten culture of Australian cricket. Also in response to the issue, Dyson published a cartoon showing that many incidents have stained Australia’s reputation, but this one cannot be ignored.

Bryan Long argues that this is simply the last in a long series of events in wider society. He uses inclusive language in saying ‘we have lost our moral compass’ to give his audience some responsibility for the incident. This is intended to include them in the debate, putting them into a position where they are more likely to agree with his views. He goes on to appeal to our sense of patriotism by highlighting recent events that have earned us international condemnation. This approach puts all Australians on the same side and allows him to show the audience that we need to cause change from within. He ends with rhetorical questions asking what sort of society we want our children to live in, particularly targeting parents who may wish for a better Australia for their children. These readers are then encouraged to not accept the current state of society, and therefore are encouraged to not ignore this latest scandal.

Similarly, Paul Burchill exasperatedly contends that ball tampering is a symptom of a rotten culture. He mockingly contends that Sutherland ‘just doesn’t get it’ because he thinks he can just treat the symptom. He also uses patriotism to make it seem as if the majority of readers understand that more action needs to be taken. This is intended to win over undecided readers by allowing them to see that they should also feel that more action is needed. Dissimilarly to Long, he does not argue that it reflects on Australia as a whole, rather limiting his arguments to the corruption of Australian cricket. He shifts to a sympathetic tone when discussing Steve Smith, telling readers that ‘he is a product of a naïve young man living inside a bubble.’ This shifts the focus from the individual guilty players to cricket Australia as a whole, who Burchill believes is responsible.

Both Long and Burchill argue that this scandal cannot be ignored, however they take different approaches to convincing their audience of this. Long appeals to parents who want to give their children positive role models. He lists a series of incidents to show the impact of Australia having ‘lost our moral compass’. A moral compass is seen as a positive thing and a way to tell right and wrong. Parents are likely trying to raise their children to know right from wrong and so they will want Australia to have a good moral compass that their children can use to guide their own decisions. Burchill similarly argues that it is about ‘honesty, trust, responsibility, accountability, and pride.’ These are all positive values that he hopes the audience will also want to see in cricket. He argues that ignoring or a ‘week-kneed response’ to the ball tampering will not support these values, thereby framing ball tampering as the adversary to positive values. He extends this argument by explaining that cricket as a whole is ‘rotten’. It is known that things that are rotten must be thrown out and started afresh, thereby the audience is made aware that Burchill believes that cricket Australia must be overhauled.

A cartoon by Dyson agrees with parts of both texts. It shows a shirt with several stains representing issues that have occurred in Australia along with text naming the issue and listing the suggested treatment. It is similar to Long, in that it shows ball tampering as just one in a series of issues that reflect badly on Australia. A yellow ball represents the ball tampering incident and Dyson has labelled it as ‘Forgotten. Move on.’ This is contrasted with a ‘baggy green stain’ which the audience is intended to recognise as representing cricket Australia. Its treatment is listed as ‘Indelible. Burn shirt.’ This demonstrates to the audience that Dyson, like Burchill, believes that cricket Australia is ‘rotten’ and that the issues cannot be solved with a ‘week-kneed response’. Like Burchill, Dyson believes the ball tampering is simply a symptom of a much worse issue, cricket Australia.

Bryan Long, Paul Burchill and Dyson all believe that the ball tampering scandal was a symptom of a larger problem. Long argues that it is the latest in a series of mishaps in Australia whereas Burchill believes it is a result of the rotten culture of cricket Australia. Dyson shows it as part of a collection of events, but also shows cricket Australia as a stain that can’t be removed.

Thank You!!

#### MissSmiley

• Forum Obsessive
• Posts: 331
• Respect: +78
##### Re: 2018 AA Club - Week 13
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2018, 06:43:05 pm »
0

The Australian cricket team’s reputation has been left in tatters after it was discovered some of the players engaged in ball tampering during a test match in South Africa. In response Could you say 'regarding this' or 'in light of this,' because I feel 'in response to' is more for an article or someone written before, you know what I mean? If you say 'regarding this' you can fulfil the criteria of that issue-spark as well. So it doesn't sound unsophisticated as one would think. Bryan Long has written a disappointed letter to the editor in a disappointed tone, arguing that the incident is a reflection of what is happening in wider Australia and that it cannot be ignored. Similarly, Paul Burchill argues that it cannot be ignored, however he believes it is a symptom of the rotten culture could you use something else instead of mentioning what's already in the his letter? of Australian cricket. Also in response to the issue, yes! This is a great signpost phrase! Dyson published a cartoon showing that many incidents have stained Australia’s reputation, but this one cannot be ignored.

Bryan Long argues that this is simply the last unclear and how did you think he argues that this is the 'last' in this series? Who knows? Things like this could continue! So maybe delete this. in a long series of events in wider society. He uses inclusive language in saying ‘we have lost our moral compass’ to give his audience some responsibility for the incident. This is intended to include them in the debate, putting them into a position where they are more likely to agree with his views. We already know this. So try to put in some new analysis. He goes on to appeal to our sense of patriotism by highlighting recent events that have earned us choose another verb. Because 'earn' and 'condemnation' sound contradictory international condemnation. This approach puts all Australians on the same side unclear and perhaps even unnecessary to say this and allows him to show the audience that we need to cause change from within. He ends with rhetorical questions asking what sort of society we want our children to live in, particularly targeting parents who may wish for a better Australia for their children. These readers are then encouraged to not accept the current state of society, and therefore are encouraged to not ignore this latest scandal.
You need to quote evidence from the text to support this interpretation, and also try to describe some of the connotations behind specific words in the evidence that you pull out. Just gives you more of a chance to analyse

Similarly, Paul Burchill exasperatedly contends I like how you're using adverb, then noun!  that ball tampering is a symptom of a rotten culture. He mockingly contends that Sutherland ‘just doesn’t get it’ Aww!! I almost loved your idea firstly if you called it a 'pun,' but then I looked at the letter. And the disease thing is after he says that "they don't get it" So unfortunately, this 'mocking / pun won't work. It would have worked if the disease was introduced earlier because he thinks he can just treat the symptom. He also uses patriotism to make it seem as if the majority of readers understand that more action needs to be taken. This is intended to win over undecided readers by allowing them to see that they should also feel that more action is needed. Because this sounds subjective, this doesn't seem like strong analysis. Maybe use a bit of evidence and then analyse that Dissimilarly to Long, he does not argue that it reflects on Australia as a whole, rather limiting his arguments to the corruption of Australian cricket.[/b] I reckon I can buy this point, but what's happening is, you haven't justified and analysed why he's talking about corruption in cricket only. That's why this sentence seems hanging, because you then directly move to tone. He shifts to a sympathetic tone when discussing Steve Smith, telling readers that ‘he is a product of a naïve young man living inside a bubble.’ This shifts the focus from the individual guilty players to cricket Australia as a whole, who Burchill believes is responsible. I reckon there is more to it than this, perhaps analyse why he is sympathetic --> potential writing (maybe because everyone targeted the players and their families, so that's why he's saying that they deserve some privacy now)?

Both Long and Burchill argue that this scandal cannot be ignored, however they take different approaches to convinceing their audience of this. Long appeals to parents who want to give their children positive role models. He lists a series of incidents to show the impact of Australia having ‘lost our moral compass’. A moral compass is seen as a positive thing and a way to tell right and wrong. Parents are likely trying to raise their children to know right from wrong and so they will want Australia to have a good moral compass that their children can use to guide their own decisions. Yes, but critically analyse this. Maybe a take could be that since cricket is a big part of Australian culture, children have idolised cricketers and hence are likely to act immoral under this influence...or just something like that. And then link it to parenting values Burchill similarly argues that it is about ‘honesty, trust, responsibility, accountability, and pride.’ These are all positive values that he hopes the audience will also want to see in cricket. He argues that ignoring or a ‘week-kneed response’ to the ball tampering will not support these values, thereby framing ball tampering as the adversary to positive values. He extends this argument by explaining that cricket as a whole is ‘rotten’. It is known that things that are rotten must be thrown out and started afresh, thereby the audience is made aware that Burchill believes that cricket Australia must be overhauled.
This is good! However, just the two lines above it need in-depth analysis because they sound like you're summarising.

A cartoon by Dyson agrees with parts of both texts. It shows a shirt with several stains representing issues that have occurred in Australia along with text naming the issue and listing the suggested treatment.it's good that you're giving a summary, but I'd just incorporate this summary into my analysis of this image, rather than just dedicating it one sentence. It is similar to Long, in that it shows ball tampering as just one in a series of issues that reflect badly on Australia. A yellow ball represents the ball tampering incident and Dyson has labelled it as ‘Forgotten. Move on.’ This is contrasted with a ‘baggy green stain’ which the audience is intended to recognise what does this mean? do you mean 'the audience must infer that the stain is..." ? representing cricket Australia. Its treatment is listed as ‘Indelible. Burn shirt.’ This demonstrates to the audience that Dyson, like Burchill, believes that cricket Australia is ‘rotten’ and that the issues cannot be solved with a ‘week-kneed response’. Like Burchill, Dyson believes the ball tampering is simply a symptom of a much worse issue, cricket Australia.
More descriptive words analysing the image closely are possible

Bryan Long, Paul Burchill and Dyson all believe that the ball tampering scandal was a symptom representation/ consequence? of a larger problem. Long argues that it is the latest in a series of mishaps in Australia whereas Burchill believes it is a result of the rotten culture of cricket Australia. Dyson shows it as part of a collection of events, but also shows cricket Australia as a stain do you mean 'ball tampering as a stain' and not cricket Australia? Because cricket Australia is a stain wouldn't make sense. Or do you mean a stain to national morality or something like that? maybe make this clearer that can’t be removed.

Hey!
Sorry if I'm very picky!! I really don't want to be this mean but you know, I love getting improvements, so maybe why I'm overly picky!
But I'm sorry!
Please please don't be overwhelmed! I'm a Year 12 student myself, so I have no right to criticise, but just some suggestions here
Thank you!
2017 : Further Maths [38]
2018 : English [45] ;English Language [43] ; Food Studies [47] ;French [33] ;Legal Studies [39]
VCE ATAR : 98.10
2019 - 2023 : Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts at Monash University

I'm selling a huge electronic copy of  VCE English essays and resources document (with essays that have teacher feedback and marks) for \$10. Feel free to PM me for details!