Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes, Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru.
The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background.
alright this aint my best work (eating chocolate in my bed rn not even making this up) but this club seems like fun so imma hit it up Welcome!
Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes (good), Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru. Barnett claims that the government is being 'un-Australian,' claiming that the logic implemented is 'denying people' basic human rights, ultimately infringing basic and fundamental rights. The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background. The use of 'our' positions the reader to take a stance towards the issue. Through the use of inclusive language, the author seeks to unify the audience, as they are all ultimately "Australian,' tugging on their patriarchal sense. Moreover, Barnett attempts to use the bonds earlier created to make her solutions appear more appealing. She firmly states that the government "must explore the alternatives." The use of 'must' indicates the urgent nature of this issue to the audience. She proposes that there are solutions to this that "have presented" themselves. The audience is positioned to believe that there is a way to humanely resolve this urgent issue.
Could elaborate more but I got other stuff I gotta do -- Ik this isn't that great but let me know what you think and ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL sooo hmu :) <3 ilys
alright this aint my best work (eating chocolate in my bed rn not even making this up) but this club seems like fun so imma hit it up
Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes, Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru. Barnett claims that the government is being 'un-Australian,' claiming that the logic implemented is 'denying people' basic human rights, ultimately infringing basic and fundamental rights. The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background. The use of 'our' positions the reader to take a stance towards the issue. Through the use of inclusive language, the author seeks to unify the audience, as they are all ultimately "Australian,' tugging on their patriarchal sense. Moreover, Barnett attempts to use the bonds earlier created to make her solutions appear more appealing. She firmly states that the government "must explore the alternatives." The use of 'must' indicates the urgent nature of this issue to the audience. She proposes that there are solutions to this that "have presented" themselves. The audience is positioned to believe that there is a way to humanely resolve this urgent issue.
Could elaborate more but I got other stuff I gotta do -- Ik this isn't that great but let me know what you think and ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL sooo hmu :) <3 ilys
The above one was me. Please credit me for my work where plausible and necessary. I forgot to tick the stupid box.dude do you have a thesaurus nearby when you write or like did you swallow one coz ur vocab is on fleek -- how you do that?
dude do you have a thesaurus nearby when you write or like did you swallow one coz ur vocab is on fleek -- how you do that?yo shit why are my posts all anonymous
An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government. That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s notion denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.
For some reason, I feel like this should be at a higher standard, especially considering I'm a year 12 student and the fact that I want to do well in VCE English.
An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked(1) by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government.(2) That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s(1) - 'invoke' = to call upon an idea, or to cite a personnotionargument(?) denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. (3) In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.
Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers. (1) Barnett stated that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. (2) She is trying to suggest that us as Australians will connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey, the government should be like those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a lifesavers. (3)(1) It's a bit tough to judge here since we were mainly concerned with the language and the background information was intentionally brief, but this isn't quite accurate. The sentence structure you've got here is a bit confusing - it'd be more accurate to say that the government were refusing to 'save' asylum seekers in order to deter people smugglers. But, admittedly, this is an issue with a length and complicated socio-political history behind it, so I'm not too worried about the contextual information.
Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers1. Barnett stated2 that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when3 she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. She is trying to suggest thatusgrammar: we as Australians will4 connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare5 the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey6, the government should be like7 those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a8 lifesavers.
(2) I'm not sure the author is likening the refugee situation with the refugees. If anything, she was creating a link between the government and lifesavers to imply that the former were failing in their duties.
What do you mean? #confused.
Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government....you've stated that the author likens the condition of the refugees to lifesavers, which isn't strictly true. She is using an analogy and making a comparison, but in that example, the author was implying that the government refusing to help the refugees would be the equivalent of a lifesaver letting someone drown at sea.
Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a thought-provoking and contentious piece1 that urges2 her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent future tragedies3. She outlines that ‘267’4 asylum seekers are in Australia seeking medical treatment, intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences of “allowing asylum seekers to stay” and attempts to evoke a sense of fear of what could result5. Barnett reaffirms her previous sentence6 using repetition, reminding the reader once again of this7 ‘immoral’ act. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they conform to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality (Ty Anon) to the land we live in. Through the use of8 an analogy, Barnett aims to present her contention in another way, enticing the audience into seeing the issue as a point of view9. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are part of this10 article through Barnett’s use of ‘our livesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language. Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché11 where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. Reaffirming her point, she imposes on her reader to reconsider their views on the issue, through the word ‘must’12. Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative, challenging the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart. (Anon just called it Call-To -Action, must make note . TY ANON :) )
I’m in Y11, no clue what a language analysis really is, so whipped this baby out. Use of repetitive words is overly common in my piece. Feel free to roast this LA, no offence will be taken
I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ::) ).Point by point breakdown
1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?
2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?
3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.
4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.
5. What exactly could result?
6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam
7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?
8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. ;)
9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.
10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.
11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.
12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.
Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place. :)
I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ::) ).LOL that feedback was really enjoyable to read :P! Why can't everyone give feedback as fun as thatPoint by point breakdown
1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?
2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?
3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.
4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.
5. What exactly could result?
6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam
7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?
8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. ;)
9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.
10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.
11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.
12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.
Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place. :)
Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...
Off-topic(ish):BRACKETS ARE FOR THE WEAK!!Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...
Are we allowed to give extra info in brackets? Like qazser has? I have this same issue every single time I sit down for language analysis and I never know. Lauren, or Heidi, or whoever, please weigh in on this?
Recent controversy has arisen over the Government’s decision to send asylum seekers who are in Australia for medical treatment to detention camps in Nauru. In her opinion piece, Lifesaving spirit lost, Nicola Barnett contends in a critical tone ( totally correct but its better to have more specific words than simply critical ) that the response of the government is “un-Australian” and suggests that they must seek “alternatives to… [the] detention and prevention” of people smuggling.
(Easily covers all the bases for an introduction :D )
Through a series of emotional and loaded language, Barnett suggests that the government is in favour of “denying” asylum seekers “the care and protection” they “need”. This depicts asylum seekers as vulnerable and readers are encouraged to feel sympathetic and concerned for the well-being of asylum seekers. (Repeated asylum seekers twice in the same sentence so the flow feels a bit off) In contrast, Barnett discredits the government in their denial of asylum seeker welfare and her mention of “medical professionals” suggests the incompetence of the government to undertake their responsibilities ( This part is worded strangely. Also a bit of a jump in logic. Yes, she mentions medical professionals, but how does simply this reflect incompetence in the government's actions? Maybe be more clear. ) and thus readers are compelled to view the government as cruel and uncaring. ( Spot on job identifying the techniques and the effect on the readers! However, where does the author's contention fit into this? How do these emotions lead the audience to feel about it? )
Furthermore, Barnett attempts to strengthen her argument in her analogous example of Australian surf lifesavers and the government. ( I don't think analogous example can be used like that. But to be honest I have no idea; it just sounds a little strange ) She states that if a person swam too far out at the beach and “got into serious trouble”, a lifesaver would not “let this person suffer” even though “more deaths… [could have been] prevented”. (And what does this mindset show about the government's regarding asylum seekers? ) In equating the experience of a person in trouble at the beach with asylum seekers, Barnett intends to educate (Not sure educate is the right word here. Educate about what? ) readers with a more personable and relatable experience. Moreover, Barnett links her example (Not super clear what this example is. Is it about the lifesavers? If so, why does their example lead to the government's need to change their policies? ie. Maybe focus more on the patriotic side and explore how the government is not setting a good example to fellow Australians, especially when compared to the lifesavers. ) to the governments need to “explore alternatives to… the prevention of people smuggling” and readers are left under no misapprehension to the importance of the care required by asylum seekers and the neglect of the government.
(Again, where is the effect these techniques have on the reader's opinion on the contention? This is probably the part most English students forget though, and sometimes I struggle to fit it in without sounding too clunky too. But if you can get this right, immediate boost to the examiner's impression on your essay :D )
In her passionate and disparaging letter to the editor, Nicole Barnett castigates the government’s decision to send asylum seekers requiring medical treatment in Australia back to Nauru. Barnett’s appeal to patriotism throughout the letter in associating the government’s proposition with ‘un-Australian’ awesome job at actually clarifying what the appeal to patriotism is rather than just being like 'there's an appeal to patriotism' and leaving it at that values instils doubt in the reader towards the ethics of returning these refugees to Nauru. Barnett’s analogy of surf lifesavers portrays reeeeally minor point, but the word 'portrays' only really works in the context of an active agent or person portraying something. So you can say 'The author portrays his life story,' but you can say 'His life story portrays hardships' if that makes sense. A person portrays things; things can't portray other things :P In this context, you could say 'Barnett portrays...' but not 'Barnett's analogy portrays...' the ‘quintessential Australian’ as people who risk themselves to save others regardless of their circumstances, in stark contrast to the government’s action against the refugees. This analogy interprets again, verb choice doesn't quite work since an analogy can't interpret things. It can convey something, or express something, so try to use more active verbs the return of refugees to Nauru as ridiculous and unreasonable, which promotes audience support of Barnett’s position in condemnation of the government’s proposition v. good! Furthermore, Barnett’s inclusive language in discussing ‘our’ lifesavers transfers responsibility to the reader and compels the audience to act upon the Australian values of fairness and compassion in opposing the government’s return of asylum seekers to Nauru. Finally, Barnett’s indignant tone this is a little bit list-y since your transitions are just like 'Furthermore, the author's >technique< in doing X leads to Y' so mixing up your sentence structure would be ideal just to prevent that sense of repetition gives way to one of authority when she calls for the government to act upon the alternatives presented by ‘academics, “think tanks” and lawyers’. By presenting her alternative solution as one supported by intelligent and accomplished professionals, Barnett strengthens audience approval of her seemingly fairer, more reasonable and more favourable proposition than that of the government, convincing the reader to reject the government’s actions. Really good discussion of the effect; you've got a great understanding of the author's intent both in terms of the argument and how he wants the readers to respond.You've got the process of analysis under control, so you're probably at the stage now where you can start being a bit more confident in varying your sentence structure. You don't have to start with the effect and backtrack to the language or anything weird like that, but even something as small as altering the way you introduce a point can stop the assessors from acknowledging the pattern/formula you're using
Barnett voices her thoughts on the Australian Government's recent announcement concerning the fate of asylum seekers seeking medical aid in Australia in an appalled, disgruntled tone, mainly focusing on the lack of Australian Spirit no capitalisation needed here the government is displaying. Little bit verbose; you could just say 'Barnett employs an appalled, disgruntled tone to condemn the lack of Australian spirit shown by the govt. to asylum seekers.' What you've got here at the moment is like 'The author talks about X in a tone that is Y, focusing on argument Z' but that initial 'talks about X' is a bit unnecessary. We're more interested in the author's argument than the subject matter of their argument, if that helps. But this might've just been an issue because it's a short, introduction-less piece, in which case it's totally fine :) She first unless the chronology is important, don't draw attention to it. The fact that she does this "first" isn't something you unpack or analyse as being persuasive, so it's basically a wasted word in this context laments their denial of ‘care and protection’ to the asylum seekers- a basic human right- and their disregard of the advice of ‘medical professionals’, thus portraying the government as morally corrupt and invalidated in their decisions phrasing is a bit clunky, but analysis is solid. Not only does this lead the audience to lose trust in them, but also evokes emotions of outrage and disapproval towards them, degrading their credibility and urging readers to agree with the author’s contention what part of their contention?? Never say this unless you're instantly going to be more specific like 'to agree with the author's contention THAT THE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESERVE BETTER TREATMENT' in face of these atrocities. This is further extrapolated upon in Barnett’s following statements as she juxtaposes the unjust actions of the government to ‘our surf lifesavers’, revealing the vast dichotomy between their merits and lack thereof I know what you're suggesting here, but grammatically, it's unclear who has merits and who lacks them. Not only does the use of the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ allow the author to connect with the audience further by associating with them together as a nation, but it also purposely excludes the government from this group, following do you mean 'because of'? Just a little unclear on the meaning here their ‘un-Australian’ nature. This appeals to the patriotism of the audience, and encourages them to criticize the government as they are not living up to their responsibilities asan AustralianAustralians (since you're talking about 'the government' which is an intrinsically plural noun in this context - you say '...criticise the government as they...' not 'the government as he/she/it'). As a result, readers are drawn to look down upon vocab the government and instead support the author’s contention, in accordance with their sense of patriotism. slight repetition of 'patriotism' here but otherwise okay.
Thanks for the feedback Lauren! :DNo worries - the vagueness is something a lot of people struggle with, but now that you're aware of it, it should be a lot easier to spot.
Wow I realise that I do that really vague 'urging readers to agree with the author's contention' a lot actually xD. I'll try to work harder with that!
I just wanted to ask for a bit more clarification on what you mean by balance between specificity and generalizations. Do you mean analyzing the article and what the author is trying to say, but not assuming things about them? I'm not quite sure.
Barnett makes a distinct appeal to the Australian audiences’ sense of patriotism to disparage the government’s current stance regarding asylum seekers. Excellent starting sentence :) The situation having been specifically described as “denying people the care as advised by medical professionals” in combination with the succinct “This is un-Australian” is likely to elicit a feeling of injustice and nationalism the notion of injustice seems to be more central to your discussion here. Try and keep your analysis targeted to the most relevant effects rather than mentioning all possible options that you can extract from that language. By distinguishing the clear lack of respect who's lack of respect? towards respected members of society and also to Australian morals, Barnett generates a sense of hatred towards the government as their position is illustrated in an inhumane manner I'm being super picky here, but your choice of words implies that the author is doing this illustration in an inhumane way, as opposed to depicting their position as inhumane. The act of “denying” and “denial” which is repeated twice is a repetitive employment in which Barnett links to Australian values the portrayal of the government’s injustice bit confused as to your sentence structure here is also represented as intentional as if to almost indicate there is a clear motive to go against such this is a bit too general. The sort of betrayal that the readership are manipulated to feel therefore acts as a galvanizing tool to induce a sense of uproarasto fervently rally against this motion that is so clearly undermining the Australian way of life v good :). Introducing the analogy involving a life saver, an appeal is once again made to the stereotypical Australian and the customs they abide by. The life savertowhich is synonymous with Australian culture specifying that the author was equating life savers with Australian heroism rather than 'Aus culture' in general, therefore adjusts the readership to perceive the image of every Australian as tolerant, helping and friendly and to contrast the staunch difference between what the government has done and what our nation stands for excellent!! An additional element to author’s advancing contention is the engagement of the readerships sense of logic. This seems like a needlessly roundabout way of saying 'The author also employs an appeal to logic' - try and go for simpler expressions if in doubt. The notion of being “prepared to let this person suffer” is intended to create a sense of bewilderment and bemusement as witnessing pain will urgently call upon any average Australian to help nevertheless a lifeguard and thus the audience are again pushed towards bit colloquial accepting an alternative policy as Barnett stigmatizes the current with illogicality and nonsensicality. The additional juxtaposition made between the “quintessential Australians”, “heroes” and altruistic nature of lifesavers compared to the previously unsympathetic one which one? and who's nature was unsympathetic? may incite an easy way to avoid this problem of having to say 'may' or 'perhaps' is to focus on the intention of the author rather than the possible reception of the audience (which is actually more in keeping with the criteria of Language Analysis). So changing this to 'through XYZ, the author seeks to incite...' or 'XYZ is intended to incite...' will neatly bypass this issue the audience into shuddering try and concentrate more on the emotional response. What would shuddering be indicative of? at the continuation of the “off-shore processing policy”. That scathing tone directed towards the government's incompetence in understanding its people probes through the many flaws existing within the current process that henceprompts reconsideration in the audience to a solutionprompts readers to consider a different solution far from a “detention camp in Nauru”.
Barnett encourages Australian readers to defend Australian values by opposing the Government's new proposal. Barnett creates a dichotomy between Australian supporters and dissenters of the new proposal by dubbing the act of denying medical care to asylum seekers as "un-Australian". The latter audience is positioned to cement their disapproval at the ruling as it is depicted as contradictory to Australian values, leading them to believe that it is unacceptable in our avoid first person pronouns in L.A. essays, if possible. Just saying 'Australian culture' would be fine here culture. However, supporters of the rulingisare guided to feel threatened and shamed as they are casted off bit colloquial - what do you mean by this? rejected? belittled? dismissed? disregarded? etc. as not an Australian but as the 'other'. This readership is likely to reflect upon their opinion about the proposal as they believe themselves to be disapproved by rest of the society, and are thus more inclined to change their stance on the issue to save their reputation. Furthermore, by depicting the proposal as lacking human pathos, Barnett attempts to discourage not only Australian reader, but a broader audience. The phrase, "I am prepared to let this person suffer" creates a monotonous, matter-of-fact tone due to the simple, clear sentence structure which when contrasted with the horrific meaning, intensifies the moral degradation of what is being suggested like that you're unpacking the language so closely here, though be careful to always take explicit care in showing your workings for stuff like this - skipping from 'the clear sentence structure' to 'moral degredation' would be a bit of a leap otherwise'. Thus, readers are guided to feel disgust at the government. Ultimately then, Barnett's readership is guided to feel as though the proposal contradicts their Australian pride as well as humanity, could probably collapse these into one concluding statement about the effect perhaps spurring them to demand for a new ruling from the government might be a bit of a stretch; saying 'perhaps' lets you get away with this, but if in doubt, stay close to the material and just talk about what consequences the author is seeking to bring about :).
Not sure if I can post on this kinda old thread ...
Um and who do I give feedback to? I’m pretty sure most people who posted are year 12s who never want to see language analysis again lol
The government’s decision to force 267 asylum seekers undergoing medical treatment in Australia back to detention camps in Nauru has sparked a furore over the exigency to save these lives.too evaluative? Remember the point of LA is to be as objective as possible In the letter to the editor “Lifesaving spirit lost”, Nicola Barnett admonishingly contends that other alternatives to mandatory detention and the prevention of people smuggling (basically copied this from the text, is that okay?)Yeah. Should be fine? Fairly sure a good proportion of my year level used background info almost verbatim (just like throw in some synonyms or something so that it's less obvious if you're iffy about copying fr the text must be considered by the government. The readers to whom the piece is directed is the government, although members of the general public Your audience is never never NEVER "the public" EVER may welcome it to help provide them with a clearer perspective of the ramifications for these asylum seekers, who bear the brunt of this decision.
Barnett argues that asylum seekers are in need of support. By casting asylum seekers’ plight as one predicated on “misfortune or error of judgement”, Barnett accentuates the notion that their current situation stems from bad luck or a poor decision; factors for which they should not be chastised. Readers may react with compassion to this unfortunate quandary, and thus, may castigate the government who afflict further sorrow upon them. In addition, the negative words Rule of thumb for LA (if you wanna be safe) is to just avoid stuff like "negative" words and "positive" words. I swear every time I used it, my teacher lost his marbles (and not in a good way)"serious trouble" reinforce the grave issues that asylum seekers must endure, alluding to a possible danger or risk they must face. Readers are positioned to not simply disregard or dismiss their circumstances as negligible, and instead, consider its significance.
Barnett also argues that the government’s actions are abhorrent and deplorable. The negative word “deny(ing)” denotes the government’s refusal to grant their plea. By appealing to values such as equality and fairness, concerned members of the public may find their judgement morally repugnant and share Barnett’s indignation in depriving asylum seekers of the basic rights to which all humans are entitled to. Additionally, Barnett highlights the legitimacy of the asylum seekers’ health issues Too evaluative. You probs need a qualifier like "Barnett highlights the perceived legitimacy..."as they are supported by “medical professionals”. Hence, readers may take into account their implied expertise in diagnosis as regarded, reputable and unbiased professionals. In so doing, readers are challenged to consider the necessity for the asylum seekers to be granted stay in Australia for their needs are fulfilled, given their vulnerable state. Furthermore, Barnett dubs the government’s actions as “un-Australian”. This pejorative term negatively connotes their behaviour,whichviolates typical Australian cultural norms and fundamental values. Through this condemnation, Bennett accentuates the irony that underpins their behaviour: the government, who is purportedly patriotic, does not have the nation’s interests at heart with such a decision. Clumsy. And seems unnecessarily verbose. Thus, Bennett attempts to instil a sense of shame in Australian readers So you're saying the audience is Australian readers? (Please don't, it's like saying the audience is the public.) Pick an audience and stick by it; don't start changing up who the audience might be mid essaywho share the government’s resolve to turn back ill asylum seekers in need, whilst other readers may decry this choice because it undermines Australian values.
note: i haven't finished, still need to write a paragraph on how barnett depicts the surf lifesavers and the conclusion