Hey guys! I'm not sure if anyone's still checking this edition of the Analysing Club, but I'm just starting AA again to get ready for exams so i thought I'd give it a go. If someone could give me some feedback it'd be awesome!!
The Liberal government recently released plans to end the subsidization of university fees. In response, Mr Karl Green’s letter to the editor contends that university funding is vital to a “booming” economy, and that its removal would be detrimental to all members of society. Green employs an indignant and inflammatory tone, and specifically targets politically minded members of the Australian community. Green has three main arguments supporting his contention.
Green’s first main argument is that Australia has a “world famous” university system and has produced “renowned scientists”. He uses the connotations of these words to create a utopic representation of the current university environment. In doing so, he positions the reader to feel as if the system is something to be proud of. This is also an appeal to patriotism: by linking the prowess of our universities to Australia achievement, the reader feels as if universities are an integral part of Australian history. Additionally, he mentions that the previous Prime Minister’s attack on university funding led to his downfall, showing the reader that the universities have been defended before, demonstrating that the vast majority of voters supports university funding, and suggests that they, the reader, should too. Green also begins his use of inclusive language, which is prevalent throughout his piece; he repeatedly uses the pronoun “we” instead of “I” to prompt the reader into feeling that this is an issue that will affect everyone. While presenting this argument, Green’s tone is somewhat indignant, as if wondering how anyone could attack the illustrious university system. Here, his tone servers to make the government’s proposed plan seem outlandish and unfavorable.
Green’s second argument refers to the fact that Australia has always had subsidized education and that, a few decades ago, they were completely free. He employs a subtle ad hominem attack by mentioning that most of the politicians trying to defund universities would have benefitted from the very thing they are attempting to take away. By doing so, he attacks the integrity of the Liberals and insinuates that they are not worthy of the reader’s trust and vote. This reference to university systems of years gone past also appeals to a reader’s sense of equality; if everyone used to have free education, then why shouldn’t we? Green uses cause and effect to link accessible tertiary education to Australia’s “booming” economy, highlighting its importance. Green also has an appeal to fear by stating “we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse”. This appeal also has a financial aspect due to the fact that Green has already linked an educated society to Australia’s wealth, intimating that the wealth of the reader is connected directly to the level of education in the population. This supports the contention, since Green has declared that a cut in funding will lead to a decrease in education levels.
Finally, Green contends that if the Liberal pass their proposed law, Australia will end up with an education system like that found in America. He uses the phrase “dangerous slippery-slope,” with its connotations of a lack of control, and events happening quickly and irreversibly, to reinforce the author’s attempt to establish a sense of dread when the reader thinks about the American system. Here, Green employs his only numeric statistic: $200,000. Such a colossal number conveys an obvious message to the reader: if the Liberals pass their law, nobody, other then a privileged few, will be able to afford a tertiary education. This goes against the Australian sentiment of everybody getting a go, that “if you try hard enough, you can get wherever you want in life”. Therefore, the reader will be instilled with a strong opposition to the law just before Green’s final plea for support: he invokes an appeal to family by asking the reader to think of his/her children and grandchildren. The author presents a trend of decreased university funding and increased cost as fact, therefore the reader is lead to believe that by the time their grandchildren want to go to university, it will be out of their reach. Therefore the reader finishes the piece with a sour taste in the mouth, as they believe the Liberal law will lead to members of his/her family not having access to proper education.
Mr Karl Green’s letter reflects the overall community opinion that the government is unjustly stripping its citizens of the right to an education. Green employs a diverse range of persuasive techniques that combine to effectively support his contention. The reader is left with feelings of animosity towards the Liberal government and is perhaps less likely to vote for the Liberals than they would have been before reading the piece.