ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => AN’s Language Analysis Club => Topic started by: literally lauren on March 23, 2016, 12:03:42 pm
-
Odd numbered week, so I'm back again :D
This time we've got a pretty straightforward piece based on the gang violence that happened in the city a little while ago.
Background: On Saturday the 12th of March, police were called to deal with incidents in Melbourne's CBD when several members of various gangs were seen causing a disturbance. There were a few physical altercations, and instances of gang members terrorising members of the public using chairs from a nearby cafe as weapons to fight amongst themselves and with police. This prompted strong responses from the state government as well as concerned members of the public - one of whom had their Letter to the Editor published in The Age, shown below.
It is time to draw a line in the sand
What occurred on Saturday must never be repeated. Our society must demand that families can enjoy our city without fear. Brawling, marauding mobs have no place here. We need strong, decisive action from government, which must support law enforcement to stamp out this abhorrent behaviour. If offenders are found to have breached laws in relation to good character, tough action such as deportation must be taken. The line in the sand must be drawn and our expectations of decency and respect be made clear.
- Peter O'Malley, Carlton North
This one's pretty short and pithy so it'll be a case of quality > quantity this week; even posting a couple of sentences would suffice, so feel free to jump in. Analysing a single sentence every week would be more helpful to you than doing nothing at all, and with Language Analysis starting to fall by the wayside for a lot of students around the state, you'll be at a huge advantage come exam time if you've been continually refining your skills.
-
In his scathing letter to the editor, Carlton North resident Peter O’Malley establishes delinquency such as that observed on March 12, 2016 must be eradicated. His reference to the culpable perpetrators as “brawling, marauding mobs” vilifies this group, connoting they were responsible acts of brutality. That O’Malley should viciously render these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were. This manoeuvres the audience of Victorian readers to frankly condemn these youths and their actions, viewing them with antipathy and disdain for having partaken in what they perceive to be inhumane behaviour which purportedly went against the behaviour they would expect from a sensible human being. The Carlton North resident’s use of the inclusive “our” positions the audience to accept responsibility and feel as though they must personally endorse and take action to ensure the events of March 12 were not repeated. That he should employ pithy sentences throughout his letter engenders a sense of exigency within the reader, suggesting to take action alone is not enough; it must be taken immediately to ensure these incidents did not become frequent occurrences.
For the first time since Week 1, I'm officially up to date and (hopefully) haven't accidentally posted this anonymously without meaning to. :D
I would totally love it if you could include a mark out of 10?
-
eek!
O'Malley states that "it is time", implying that we have already waited for too long for action. This creates a sense of urgency regarding the issue and sways the reader to believe that it is already too late. O'Malley complements this by asserting that it "must never be repeated", intended to demonstrate that firm action is the only way to deal with the situation. O'Malley avoids describing the incident by describing it as "what occurred on Saturday". By doing so O'Malley implies that the occurrence was too disturbing or taboo to mention, thus heightening the portrayed extremity of the violence.
O'Malley goes on to "demand" that "families" should be able to "enjoy our city without fear". The appeal to Victorian's safety is intended to lead the reader to feel aggrieved and subsequently supporting his "demand" for action. O'Malley further emphasises the fear by describing them as "brawling, marauding mobs". The loaded words show the intent of the culprits to attack viciously and lead the reader to believe that it is not just a one-off event
O'Malley calls to the government by urging for "strong, decisive action". This suggests that the action that the government has taken so far has been weak and indecisive. By comparison, O'Malley presents himself as "strong" and "decisive" by saturating his letter with the word "must". He intends to make the reader believe that O'Malley is the individual who is representing Victorian's needs where the government is not.
-
I don't claim to know what I'm doing when it comes to giving feedback but I've been reassured that if I screw up Lauren, Heidi or someone will correct me.
O'Malley states that "it is time", implying that we have already waited for too long for action. This creates a sense of urgency regarding the issue and sways the reader to believe that it is already too late. This sentence just repeats what the first sentence said but with more words. You could probably condense the last two sentences into one sentence. O'Malley complements this by asserting that it "must never be repeated", this is intended to demonstrate This bit's a little clunky imo which is why I added a "this is" in front of it in the hopes of making it sound less clunkythat firm action is the only way to deal with the situation. O'Malley You have a bit of a formulaic response... Where basically you go "O'Malley does x." over and over again. Repetition of this sort even in the best essay will affect the mark a little probably. avoids describing the incident by describing it as "what occurred on Saturday". By doing so O'Malley implies that the occurrence was too disturbing or taboo to mention, thus heightening the portrayed extremity of the violence.
Side note to Lauren/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to talk about how the author omits to say whatever? Anon's analysis of what he doesn't say is v. good but I thought we could only analyse what was on the page? Obviously, I can't do it for my LA SAC because my school's English faculty hate it when students talk about omissions BUT could I analyse the significance of an omission in the exam?
O'Malley goes on to "demand" that "families" should be able to "enjoy our city without fear". The appeal to Victorian's safety is intended to lead the reader to feel aggrieved and subsequently supporting his "demand" for action. O'Malley further emphasises the fear by describing them as "brawling, marauding mobs". The loaded iffy about this word choice but it might just be me words show the intent of the culprits to attack viciously and lead the reader to believe that it is not just a one-off event I don't get how you've jumped from "attack viciously" to "believe that it is not just a one-off event". Perhaps you need to make a more obvious connection and elaborate more on this idea?
O'Malley calls to the government by urging for "strong, decisive action". This suggests that the action that the government has taken so far has been weak and indecisive. By comparison, O'Malley presents himself as "strong" and "decisive" by saturating I don't think you've used "saturating" correctly... his letter with the word "must". He intends to make the reader believe that O'Malley is the individual who is representing Victorian's needs where the government is not. So?
Overall, some v. good analysis. A lot of the issues I was pointing out was just minor stuff and easily fixed imo. Good job. :D
-
In his letter to the editor, Peter O'Malley, a Carlton North tenant urges the victorian society to take an immediate action against the absurd and appalling behaviour displayed on Saturday, 12th March 2016. O'Malley uses the word 'never' to insinuate the strong objection against the situation on Saturday. Hence, it coerces the reader to also feel the same towards the mobs. The repetitive word 'must' infers the obligation upon the society to create an environment 'without fear'. The inclusive terms such as 'we and our', O'Malley is talking on behalf of the community and appeals to the reader's sense of guilt and thus, they may take similar action. The negative connotation associated with the mobs such as, 'brawling [and] marauding', O'Malley is conveying that the mobs are a destruction in the society, which attempts to alarm the reader of what they might do next. The word 'need' sparks a dire plight in the urgency and in turn, encourages the reader to promote positive changes for their safety. O'Malley supports his contention with the vision of 'good character' and 'tough actions' to be the alteration of the behaviour. This aim seeks the reader to respect and trust O'Malley's purpose of working together. The evocative tone stimulates the reader to be concerned about their livelihood and thus, may 'support the law enforcement' and contribute to minimising the 'abhorrent behaviour'.
-
In his letter to the editor, Peter O'Malley, a Carlton North tenant Personally iffy about this word usage... but that may just be me urges the victorian society Refer to my previous comment to take an immediate action against the absurd and appalling behaviour LA has to be objective. Wouldn't this be considered your personal assessment of that incident since you don't directly mention this is the writer's view... displayed on Saturday, 12th March 2016. O'Malley uses the word 'never' to insinuate the strong objection against the situation on Saturday. Hence, it coerces the reader to also feel the same towards the mobs. The repetitive word 'must' infers You've used this word wrong the obligation upon the society to create an environment 'without fear'. This sentence makes no sense to me but that may be because you used "infers" wrong.
TBy using the inclusive terms such as 'we and our', O'Malley is talking on behalf of the community and appeals to the reader's sense of guiltI don't get the connection between "talking on behalf of the community" and "appeals to the reader's sense of guilt" and thus, they may take similar action. The negative connotation Isn't this a big LA no, no? Saying "negative connotation"? My English teacher chewed me out for it last year and I've been too scared to chuck an adjective in front of "connotation" ever since. associated with the mobs such as, 'brawling [and] marauding', O'Malley is conveying that the mobs are a destruction in the society, which attempts to alarm the reader of what they might do next. The word 'need' sparks a dire plight in the urgency and in turn, encourages the reader to promote positive changes for their safety. O'Malley supports his contention with the vision of 'good character' and 'tough actions' to be the alteration of the behaviour. It might be my own internal grammar or the fact that I've had only 4-5 hours of sleep and am therefore grumpier and not as sharp as I normally am but this sentence doesn't make sense to me...This aim seeks ?the reader to respect and trust O'Malley's purpose of working together. The evocative Have you used this word wrong?tone stimulates I love this word so much... the reader to be concerned about their livelihood Wait whaaaat? What livelihood? Isn't this about kids brawling in Melbourne CBD? How does this relate to the reader's livelihood? Not saying it's wrong, just that you maybe need to explain your point more. and thus, may 'support the law enforcement' and contribute to minimising the 'abhorrent behaviour'.Side note to Lauren/Heidi/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to just name-drop quotes and throw them in without analysis like anon has done here?
Use " and not ' when quoting.
Don't be disheartened. I've only picked out the negative because I'm sleep deprived and I just wanted to try my hand at giving you some feedback. You give some really interesting insights and there's some solid analysis going on. I was just being picky.
In hindsight, I may have been a bit savage. I probably should have gotten some more sleep... or a coffee... before I went and gave feedback.
-
As always, if I screwed up, someone correct me, yeah?
-
In his scathing Good use of tone letter to the editor, Carlton North resident Peter O’Malley establishes delinquency such as that observed on March 12, 2016 must be eradicated. His reference to the culpable perpetrators as “brawling, marauding mobs” vilifies this group, connoting they were responsible acts of brutality. That O’Malley should viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were. This manoeuvres the audience of Victorian readers to frankly condemn these youths and their actions, viewing them with antipathy and disdain for having partaken in what they perceive to be inhumane behaviour which purportedly went against the behaviour they would expect from a sensible human being Sentence getting a bit long here. The Carlton North You may be better off just using O'Malley resident’s use of the inclusive “our” positions the audience to accept responsibility and leading them to feel as though they must personally endorse and take action to ensure the events of March 12 were not repeatedI think this is one event, not several. That he should employ pithy sentences throughout his letter engenders a sense of exigency within the reader, suggesting to take action alone is not enough; it must be taken immediately to ensure these incidents did not become frequent occurrences.
For the first time since Week 1, I'm officially up to date and (hopefully) haven't accidentally posted this anonymously without meaning to. :D
I would totally love it if you could include a mark out of 10?
Firstly, may I disclose that I am not particularly comfortable giving marks out of 10. However, I will give you the best feedback I can.
Well done for spotting the tone on the get go. Since it have mentioned, the effect of the tone needs to be analysed too. There were a few grammatical and expression errors (corrections in bold, comments in purple). Other than that, you have stated the effects quite well, and analysed in detail as well. This is quite a high level, as many students just technique and example, and just mention the effect (without explaining it in detail). (Personally, I got in told off by a tutor for doing it myself)
-
Firstly, may I disclose that I am not particularly comfortable giving marks out of 10. However, I will give you the best feedback I can.
Well done for spotting the tone on the get go. Since it have mentioned, the effect of the tone needs to be analysed too. There were a few grammatical and expression errors (corrections in bold, comments in purple). Other than that, you have stated the effects quite well, and analysed in detail as well. This is quite a high level, as many students just technique and example, and just mention the effect (without explaining it in detail). (Personally, I got in told off by a tutor for doing it myself)
RE: The marks out of 10 thing. That was directed more at Lauren not other students. I probably should have been clearer. It's my fault.
Thank you so much for having a go at giving feedback. I personally find it really fun (don't judge I'm weird like that) but I know a lot of kids hate it/don't like putting themselves up like that. So good on you for giving it a go. :D
Some of your corrections/feedback doesn't make sense to me, however. I'm hoping you can explain/elaborate further?
1. Why'd you cross off "That" and "should"?
2. Why would I "be better off just using O'Malley"?
3. Yes, this was one event, not several, but was that not the point? Doesn't the writer want to prompt the reader to act so as to ensure the March 12 continues to be a single event and is not repeated?
-
That O’Malley should viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifies how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were.
There are two variations you could have here. Your original sentence is fine, but the structure of 'That the author does X demonstrates Y' is a thing that a lot of people wouldn't use because of their internal grammatical systems. It's technically fine and I've used it before, but it can sound a bit odd sometimes, and you don't want to overuse it because it's a very noticeable kind of structure.
eg. if you saw two guys on a train wearing jeans and black hoodies, you wouldn't think twice, but if you saw two guys wearing purple and orange jester hats with jingly bells and slippers shaped like cow heads, your brain would probably register that repetition. Reusing basic sentence types is like wearing jeans and hoodies, but the 'that X showcases Y' thing is more like a jester hat + cow slipper combination, so just be cautious with it.
The alternative, which Falling Star has used, would be to say 'O’Malley viciously renders these youths as having committed a crime against “good character” thus amplifying how reprehensible and sinister these incidents were' which is also fine.
Regarding event/events: this kind of gets into distinctions between whether a collection of related occurrences count as one 'event' or a series of 'events' (ie. if you played tennis and basketball after school last week, did you play 'sport' or 'sports?') It's pretty open to interpretation as both are grammatical - by instinct I'd go with the plural and say 'the events should not be repeated,' but 'event' is possibly more technically accurate in this instance. I wouldn't worry about it though; when we're only dealing with 200 word analyses it's easy to get into semantic quibbles, but when teachers and assessors are reading through hundreds of thousand-word responses, they just breeze through this stuff and ignore anything that isn't apparent on a first skim-read, hence why clarity is so important.
Re: mark out of ten, I have consulted my magic 8 ball and concluded that this is a 9.17459/10. But again, this is maybe a fifth of what you would realistically write in an exam, and no essay maintains the exact same numerical level of quality throughout. Typically, an essay would have certain sections worthy of a high mark and others of a low mark, so this excerpt might sit at a 9/10 level, but it could either be a high point or a low point depending on the rest of your discussion. That's why holistic marks are a bit hard to apply here since writing at a 7/10 standard for tasks like this doesn't necessarily mean you'll be scoring exactly 7/10 in full practice essays. It's probably more helpful to think of things in terms of 'my analysis is at a 9/10 standard, but my expression is at a 6/10' or something like that. If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay :)
-
Oooooh. Gotcha. Good ol' "that" screwed me over again. I'll try and tone it down a bit and go with more basic sentence structures. See how that works.
I get what you mean about the marking thing. I think generally (having done this LA club thing for a few weeks) my problem is not so much the analysis but more getting it down on paper in a way that makes sense and is grammatically correct. It's clearly a problem that won't solve itself so I think I'll focus on that for a while until I have that down pat.
PS: What do you mean by "If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay"?
-
PS: What do you mean by "If you're going to use quantitative measures, then apply them to qualitative components of your essay"?
Basically break down your essay into 'qualitative' or word-based components like 'amount/variation of metalanguage used,' 'overall coverage of the material,' 'linking between sentences' etc. and then you can assign/request numerical scores out of 10 for those components. So if there's something in particular that you can't wrap your head around, just let us know (eg. 'could someone give me a score for my discussion of tone?') if you really need a quantitative indication. Ultimately the explanations will probably be of more benefit though :)
-
Gotcha. Thanks.
-
In a direct, almost domineering tone, O’Malley asserts that ‘brawling, marauding mobs’ should be ‘stamped out’. These descriptives vilify the delinquents involved as they imply barbaric behaviour from the offenders, unsuitable to a functioning member of society. As such, the audience galvanized to deter such behaviour that fails ‘expectations of decency and respect’, in order to reduce such situations from reoccurring in order to maintain the safety of the city. The high modality of the word ‘must’ repeated constantly throughout the letter also clearly defines to readers the urgency of the issue, thus substantiating the responsibility of readers as a part of ‘our society’ to combat it, or else risk shirking such duties. The author further extrapolates on this point by underscoring the currently lackluster, weak action of the government, insinuated by O’Malley’s demands for more ‘strong decisive action’ from the party. This subverts the standing of the government in the public’s point of view, whereby compelling the former to work towards a change to dispel these accusations, while simultaneously spurring the latter to act in order to make up for such a disappointing performance from their government so far in response to the disturbances caused by gangs in the city.
-
In a direct, almost domineering tone precisely what it is! :), O’Malley asserts that ‘brawling, marauding mobs’ should be ‘stamped out’. These descriptives vilify the delinquents involved as they imply barbaric behaviour from the offenders, unsuitable to a functioning member of society. so how do these words – ‘brawling’ and ‘mob’ – make us feel about the people in particular? How is he trying to make us view the people involved? And why does he want us to see them that way? Try to be as specific as possible! As such, the audience galvanized to deter such behaviour that fails ‘expectations of decency and respect’, in order to reduce such situations from reoccurring in order to maintain the safety of the city. The high modality of the word ‘must’ repeated constantly throughout the letter also clearly defines to readers the urgency of the issue, thus substantiating the responsibility of readers as a part of ‘our society’ to combat it, or else risk shirking such duties. The author further extrapolates on this point by underscoring the currently lackluster, weak action of the government, insinuated by O’Malley’s demands for more ‘strong decisive action’ from the party rearranging this could help clarify it: By demanding ‘strong decisive action’, O’Malley further underscores the currently lacklustre, weak action of the government. . This subverts the standing of the government in the public’s point of view, whereby thereby compelling the former to work towards a change to dispel these accusations, while simultaneously spurring the latter to act in order to make up for such a disappointing performance from their government so far in response to the disturbances caused by gangs in the city. that’s a pretty long/complex sentence that you could chop up. Also, what can the public actually do about it? Just ‘encourages people to act on it’ isn’t really specific enough about how it makes them FEEL (specifically) and what it encourages them specifically to do. In fact: what do you think the author is actually trying to achieve from writing this? Think about it.
Overall – pretty solid, no jokes. With a few little slips, you write nicely, and you’re good and keeping focusing on how it influences the audience.
You could probably practice being more specific, though, about how certain WORDS specifically influence the audience. What particular feelings to they aim to evoke? How do they aim to change how the audience sees [the rioters, the government, society, etc.]? And how do those particular words actually create those feelings? Think of examiners as five-year-olds… if you don’t explain every step of the way to them, they’ll get lost. You need to fill in the gaps so they don’t have any questions. See the gaps here? This phrase makes the audience want to take action. <--- like… how does it do that!? I don’t believe you till you prove it to me by explaining every step of the way! ;)
Does that make sense? Let me know if you need clarification :P
Side note to Lauren/Heidi/someone who knows more than me: Are we allowed to just name-drop quotes and throw them in without analysis like anon has done here?
Generally, I reckon you should try to avoid it, because obviously the point of language analysis is... analysis. They're not likely to actively 'take off' marks for it, but it can just leave a bad taste in an examiner's mouth and take away your time from actually analysing. So use sparingly.
[/quote]
-
O'Malley firmly asserts the need for strong government action, foregrounding the atrocious nature of the gang brawls in an attempt to incite fear within readers of law-abiding Melbourne residents. The use of succinct sentences intimates a rigidity to his article, thus compelling the readership to adopt a similarly unyielding stance on the need for safer public spaces. Using negatively connotative words such as "brawling" and "marauding", connoting the danger, disturbance and harassment caused by these gangs, the author endeavours to engender hatred and frustration amongst the public. In conjuction with his characterisation of the criminal's behaviour as "abhorrent", suggesting their actions transgress the social law of common respect, he aims to also diminish any sympathy held by the public and therefore position them to embrace his proposal of harsher penalties. Having done so, O'Malley proposes the need to "stamp out" the delinquent behaviour, thus declaring the need for more aggressive measures to counter the criminal activity. The author's use of the idiom "the line in the sand" accentuates the tough stance he is proposing; suggesting that law makers must put in place a limit to this activity that, once crossed, bears severe and irreversible consequences. Indeed, the article insists upon such stringent measures as "deportation", underscoring the severity of the punishment that is expected for those who breach public codes of decency.
I'm sorry if I shouldn't have opened up this thread again I am happy to delete if that its a problem
-
O'Malley firmly asserts the need for strong government action, foregrounding (great word :D) the atrocious nature of the gang brawls in an attempt to incite fear within readers of law-abiding Melbourne residents. (good that you're being more specific about WHO the audience is! It's also fine to sometimes just say 'the readers', but being more specific at least once per paragraph is a good strategy.) The use of succinct sentences intimates a rigidity to his article, thus compelling the readership to adopt a similarly unyielding stance on the need for safer public spaces. (great point! Most students never think to analyse the author's structure/construction, so this is guaranteed to make you stand out!) Using negatively connotative (redundant since you explain what the connotations are next. However, optionally, you could comment on the assonant 'augh' sounds in 'brawling' and 'marauding' that create an almost gutteral effect. Definitely not essential and tbh, most of the time alliteration/assonance is not important, but it can be interesting to point out in addition to unpacking connotations like you have here) words such as "brawling" and "marauding", connoting the danger, disturbance and harassment caused by these gangs, the author endeavours to engender hatred and frustration amongst the public. In conjuction with his characterisation of the criminal's behaviour as "abhorrent", suggesting their actions transgress the social law of common respect, he aims to also diminish any sympathy held by the public and therefore position them to embrace his proposal of harsher penalties. (FANTASTIC 'why' explanation!!! This sentence is like a distillation of everything you're meant to do in Analysing Argument :D) Having done so, O'Malley proposes the need to "stamp out" the delinquent behaviour, thus declaring the need for more aggressive measures to counter the criminal activity. The author's use of the idiom "the line in the sand" accentuates the tough stance he is proposing; suggesting that law makers must put in place a limit to this activity that, once crossed, bears severe and irreversible consequences. (Also great to see you explain your train of thought, i.e. not just saying 'the idiom "line in the sand" implies there should be harsh punishments'.) Indeed, the article insists upon such stringent measures as "deportation", underscoring the severity of the punishment that is expected for those who breach public codes of decency.
Amazing work overall! Your written expression is excellent, and you clearly have a strong grasp of what's required in AA. I'm especially impressed by your 'how'/'why' statements as this tends to be where students struggle, but you've thoroughly dissected and (more importantly) clearly explained your logic!
My only advice would be to look out for recurring words and techniques as this can help make your analysis more efficient. Obviously this is just a practice exercise and I know you wouldn't necessarily write this much on a tiny paragraph of an article in the exam, but since your analysis is really solid, you can start thinking about how best to cover the breadth of the material.
For example, this letter to the editor included a lot of high modal language (e.g. 'must' 'no place here' 'strong, decisive action') - in particular, the word 'must' is used 5 times, obviously heightening the sense of urgency as well as the moral absolutism of the author's stance. Therefore, writing one quick sentence like:
The author's repeated use of the high modal adverb "must" intensifies the author's urgent, definitive, and authoritative call for action...
allows you to pull together evidence from across the piece and analyse the general ~vibe~ as well as a specific instance of language use.
That said, analysing "must" wasn't a requirement here - the assessors don't keep a shortlist of quotes you must discuss. So I think your challenge will be identifying the best possible opportunities to make your analysis shine in the material. Don't stress about covering everything - just keep being selective and make active choices about what to analyse out of all the options you see.
Great work overall! Hope that helps and best of luck for the exam ;D
-
Thank you so much - that is really helpful feedback
going a bit mad practicing for exam 2 days out but better late than never I guess... :P
is it ok if I post some practice stuff on these LA pieces because I find the short ones super helpful - it's ok if you'd rather I didn't open up these chats again but I just thought I would ask
-
No worries! Feel free to post in these old club threads - they're all still relevant, and it's a good time to bump them for everyone else doing pre-exam cramming. I'll do my best to give feedback here this week :)
-
Hi. First wanted to say thanks for this post. It would be really helpful.
Recently due to increase number of gang violence in Melbourne, Peter O'Malley a concerned member of public wrote a letter to editor expressing his fear for current increase incidents of violence in Melbourne. .
From start, O'Malley tries to appeal to concerning population by stating how "families should be able to enjoy our city without fear", stating this he is trying emphasize how the city has slowly begun to be unsafe for family to even travel. By trying to talk about family he is also trying to make individual realize how them and their kids could be unsafe due to current situation n CBD.
O'Malley calls for action from the government by stating how "we need strong action from government" , through this he is trying to urge the people in power to take more harsher or stronger action so that the events such as the above one would not be repeated again.
From start O'Malley had strong language through which he was trying to make the reader realise the problem and trying to emphasise the importance for change that must be taken. In end his tone becomes calmer where he again tries to urge his reader to take action as he talks about how it is their right to be "respected" and have a better life.
(Just wanted to again say thanks for this threat)
-
Recently due to increase number of gang violence (be careful with phrasing here; 'an increase in gang violence' would be an easier way to say this. Try to make your writing as clear as possible, as this makes it easier for your assessor to read!) in Melbourne, Peter O'Malley a concerned member of public wrote a letter to editor expressing his fear for current increase incidents of violence in Melbourne. This is a good start, though you could be more specific about the contention. This sentence only really identifies the issue, so ask yourself: what does the author want to happen? In this case, that's probably something like: '... and thus O'Malley calls for urgent and aggressive action from the government against anyone involved in gang violence' (since his piece is very angry and calls for a 'line in the sand' to put a stop to the violence).
From start, O'Malley tries to appeal to concerning population (do you mean 'concerned readers'? Or do you want to say that he tries to make readers feel more concerned? If it's the second one, you can use a word like 'evoke' which means 'to bring an emotion out of someone.' For example, 'From the start, OMalley evokes feelings of concern in readers...' by stating how "families should be able to enjoy our city without fear", stating this he is trying emphasize how the city has slowly begun to be unsafe for family to even travel. By trying to talk about family he is also trying to make individual realize how them and their kids could be unsafe due to current situation n CBD. Good explanation. Now take this back to the main argument. If readers feel afraid for their own families, why are they more likely to support the author's contention? How does this help his argument? (This is the hardest part of Analysing Argument, and you don't have to do it for every piece of analysis, but try and demonstrate this at least once per paragraph!)
O'Malley calls for action from the government by stating how "we need strong action from government" , through this he is trying to urge the people in power to take more harsher or stronger action so that the events such as the above one would not be repeated again. This is good, but try to be more specific about the language. Sometimes you don't need to talk about a technique - you can just talk about why the author might have used particular words. E.g. 'The author states how "we need strong action from the government." In particular, the word "strong" suggests that this action must be forceful, which compels readers to view this as a serious problem that requires a powerful response.'
From start (I know it's a short piece, but try not to repeat your linking phrases like this! There are lots of others you can use: Furthermore... Moreover... Similarly... Likewise... Throughout the piece... etc.) O'Malley had strong language (what are some more examples of this? There's more you could analyse here!) through which he was trying to make the reader realise the problem and trying to emphasise the importance for change that must be taken. You're right, but this is too general. 'Making readers see the importance for change that must be taken' could be a sentence you write in ANY essay. Unfortunately, you won't get marks unless you're more specific. So make sure you avoid using phrases like 'this makes the readers agree with the contention' or 'therefore the audience is persuaded to agree with the author's point of view.' Instead, TELL ME what the contention or solution is. In this case, you could say '...trying to emphasise the importance for taking action to stamp out gang violence and remove violent people from society.' In end his tone becomes calmer where he again tries to urge his reader to take action as he talks about how it is their right to be "respected" and have a better life. Although the tone is calmer here, I'd say the author is still being pretty aggressive. When he says 'our expectations for respect must be made clear,' what he's really saying is 'we need to FORCE other people to obey our laws!'
You've got a good grasp of the argument here, which is always the most important thing! However, there are some places where the analysis wasn't very specific. Don't worry, this is easy to fix! Just make sure that when talking about the effect on the reader, you talk about the specific issue in the article.
For example, a sentence like:
'The author makes readers understanding things from his point of view, and this makes the readers more likely to agree with the author and support his stance that something must be done to address this problem.'
...would basically be worth 0 marks. It's too generic, and it could apply to any persuasive piece ever!
Instead, you want to be specific and tie things to the issue and argument in detail:
'The author positions readers to view gang violence as indimidating and a threat to their lives. By appealing to a fear for their safety, the author therefore compels readers to agree that urgent action must be taken in order to keep law-abiding families safe and secure.'
This obviously takes longer, but it's guaranteed to get you more marks!!
Beyond that, try to also be specific when picking a quote or technique to analyse. Language should always be your starting point as you don't want to just be summarising the author's points.
Let me know if you have questions about any of this, and best of luck for the exam!! :D
-
You've got a good grasp of the argument here, which is always the most important thing! However, there are some places where the analysis wasn't very specific. Don't worry, this is easy to fix! Just make sure that when talking about the effect on the reader, you talk about the specific issue in the article.
For example, a sentence like:
'The author makes readers understanding things from his point of view, and this makes the readers more likely to agree with the author and support his stance that something must be done to address this problem.'
...would basically be worth 0 marks. It's too generic, and it could apply to any persuasive piece ever!
Instead, you want to be specific and tie things to the issue and argument in detail:
'The author positions readers to view gang violence as indimidating and a threat to their lives. By appealing to a fear for their safety, the author therefore compels readers to agree that urgent action must be taken in order to keep law-abiding families safe and secure.'
This obviously takes longer, but it's guaranteed to get you more marks!!
Beyond that, try to also be specific when picking a quote or technique to analyse. Language should always be your starting point as you don't want to just be summarising the author's points.
Let me know if you have questions about any of this, and best of luck for the exam!! :D
Hi thanks for this. It would be really helpful. I would also be looking at improving and trying to focus more on the specific audience.
Thank you