Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[brenden]

Hey everyone!
I've decided to lock all three stickies and turn them into collations of essays and feedback. I'll be marking a lot less this year, so hopefully this encourages other people to give marking a try! In hindsight, these threads probably would have discouraged other users.

Note for any confused users: Definitely put your essays in the English Work Submission and Marking board!!! Just because these stickies are locked doesn't mean the board isn't open .

Wishing you happy writings and much luck!,
Brenden.

Mod edit - bangali_lok: Some of the best study you could be doing is reading through people's detailed feedback on this thread, taking notes and figuring out when you're making the same mistakes!  When you've finished reading through this thread (), feel free to go through the links below, which I've compiled from the rest of the board (none from this thread), from 15-07-2015 back to the start of 2013.

Click here for links to feedback from the rest of the board

I_I, FB bangali_lok
Apink!, FB [email protected]
Apink!, FB bangali_lok
Chang Feng, FB bangali_lok
StupidProdigy, FB bangali_lok
[email protected], FB bangali_lok
Burt Macklin, FB bangali_lok
I_I, FB bangali_lok
chansena, FB bangali_lok
username111, FB bangali_lok
[email protected], FB thaaanyan
[email protected], FB thaaanyan (+ scroll down to further discussion)
Mincent7, FB bangali_lok
Zues, FB DJA
Zezima., FB o’doyle rulz
Yacoubb, FB Ned Nerb
rajinikanth, FB Vermilliona
Paulrus, FB 24bauer12
Gutthi, FB walkec
rajinikanth, FB Ned Nerb
zopiafuentes, FB literally lauren
bennick18, FB blondie21
Einstein, FB brightsky + scroll down for literally lauren
looking4help, FB flor
DylanBurrowes, FB Ned Nerb
NoticeMeSenpai, FB Ned Nerb
507, FB Ned Nerb
Stick, FB FlorianK
Special At Specialist, FB Ned Nerb
Smiley_, FB Ned Nerb + scroll down for Dilks

[hanj95]

this is my language analysis pls tell me areas I could emphasise and improve on

[dilks]

On (In?) a magazine article (You must provide the name of the article!) addressing the consumer readership (Identify the demographic. Saying that the article is aimed at readers of the magazine is not very helpful.), Marie Dorigny presents issues of child labour (?) inflicting afflicting many children in our repressive oppressive world. (Weak.) Dorigny contends that her main concern is to stop the mistreatment of children by means of hard work, often tediously harmful for up to 12 hours a day with a meagre 60 cents wage per day. (The contention is the argument the author is making, you can't have a contention about being concerned about something.) Dorigny employs many tones throughout the article (Cop out.), ranging from an overemotional tone to a satirical one condemning children from manufacturing soccer balls. She shows a blatant disregard for the parents of those in the wormhole and does not address solutions that can be laid by parents thus evoking to the consumer readership that it is them that can uphold the wrong doing of child employers through a devoted synergy. (You aren't allowed to critique the article.)

Dorigny establishes a shocking (Inappropriate.) piece of anecdotal evidence of a young boy whom has grown vulnerable (?) and used to sitting crouched in the corner of a hot airless shed for 12 hours earning a staggering 60 cents. (This sentence is too long, at the very least add commas in somewhere.) Dorigny further unravels the statistic of another 200 million boys in this position. (?) She positions the consumer readership to have an overemotional and sympathetic appeal (Egregious use of metalanguage will lose you marks.) to those children whom are subject to subjugations by ruthless manufacturers. Dorigny further intensifies the consumer readerships empathy and emotions by presenting a piece of imagery of a young boy which shows him almost stuck to the embodiment surrounding him. (How? Explain.) Although it has many elements of euphuism, (How? Explain.) it positions the consumer readership reader to take responsibility in funding this sadistic nature of child labour. (Once again, how?) It was designed to affect the conscience of the consumer readership.

Dorigny’s tone had immediately transformed from a sympathetic and overemotional tone to a more rewarding benevolent tone where she addresses the consumer readership of the wonderful rewards gained through persevering (?) and endless days of campaigning , FIFA, the world’s governing body (Um?) had put a seal to the companies whom subjugate children. This positions the consumer readership reader to have some sort of euphoric connotation (This is not what connotation means...) and relief to know that a big stab was inflicted on child employers.

Dorigny also has a shift in attitude toward the end of her article. Dorigny’s attitude is exemplified by the redemption of a former child labour. The child Aghan’s road to redemption was sealed by the road to education. Dorigny emphasises that only through only education will child labour be eradicated and terminated.

Overall, Dorigny had subjectively appealed to the consumer readership. She had used a vast number of tones to appeal to differing views of the individual readerships. The incorporation of imagery further allows readers to view the argument Dorigny is presenting. In doing so, the consumer readership is able to be persuaded that the mistreatment of children is evidently affecting the health and future of the children. This causes the consumer readership to take action by campaigning and raising awareness.

[brenden]

I have nothing to add. You should also be aiming for more analysis => longer piece.

[shaiga95]

link to article http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/the-backpacker/why-im-not-a-proud-aussie-20130116-2cs1z.html#ixzz2I5sr0qGn
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

School Language Analysis- “Why I’m not a proud Australian”
 Australia day is a national public holiday on the 26th of January , it is a day of celebration  of Australian culture and practices where many families gather together to celebrate their Australian identities.In response to the Australia day lead up Groundwater in his article titled  “Why I’m not a proud Australian”, published  January 16 2013 in the Sydney Morning Herald contends in a dismissive and questioning tone that nationhood and patriotism are incongruous  unimportant, and that we should strive to be “ proud citizens of Earth.” The article is accompanied by a visual that depicts a trio of teenage girls wearing singlets with the ‘Australia’ plastered on the front. Additionally these girls are draped in Australian flags. The visual suggests these girls are proud to be and identify as Australian, and are probably hold their home country in the highest regard

   Groundwater immediately captures reader’s attention with his controversial title, “Why I’m not a  proud Aussie” a phrase that may come across as offensive to many, as most Australian’s have a sense of pride in their nationality.  Groundwater presents his opinion early on in the piece. “Sorry proud Aussies, I don’t get you. I don’t agree with you.” The use of pronouns enhances his attack on nationhood and patriotism. Groundwater’s comment has the effect of polarising readers and compelling them to become more engaged in the piece and formulate an opinion on his statement .Groundwater builds upon his attack on patriotism through providing scope to his argument. He defines his argument to encompass “All Australians who pronounce pride in their place of birth” and not just stereotypical patriotic Aussies. He comments about two types of stereotypical Aussies, “Southern Cross- tattooed Aussies” and “VB drinkers watching footy in the bars of Kuta” . These comments appeal to reader’s sense of familiarity as most readers would be able to relate to at least one type of ‘these Aussies’ on some level. Readers may consequently feel more involved in the piece and are more inclined to consider Groundwater’s stance on patriotism.
   
   Groundwater alters his tone to one more anecdotal in nature, to reinforce his view on nationhood and patriotism. Readers are informed of Groundwater’s travelling experience, “But I’ve met so many great people from so many great places.” Through enlightening readers of his travelling experience Groundwater’s credibility is bolstered. Readers are more likely to take to heart Groundwater’s message if they perceive him as an experienced traveller   as opposed to one who is unacquainted with many cultures and places. Groundwater adds a dimension of perspective to his argument portraying patriotic Australians in line with civilians of other countries. This has the effect of cleansing his argument of bias as, “whether they’re from Thailand or Turkmenistan, Britain or Bahrain” are of the opinion that “they come from the best place in the world.” Patriotic Australians are portrayed by Groundwater as standard citizens of a country, behaving in a similar way to other citizens. And although he still does not endorse nationhood and overindulgence in patriotism the believability of his argument is boosted. As Readers who are more inclined  to not feel personally attacked.
 
   Groundwater advances his argument against patriotism through dissecting some of its various aspects. Patriotism is broadly defined as one’s devotion to their homeland. Groundwater comments, “It seems like human nature to be proud of our patch”, the connotations of the word patch suggest a piece of rugged insignificant land. Groundwater attempts to position readers to view the significance of patriotism as infinitesimal . He conveys this message to readers by bombarding  readers with  rhetorical questions. “But what are you really so proud of?” he attempts to answer with, “The dumb luck of having been born on a certain piece of land.” The connotations of the words “piece of land” reiterate the writers view that nationhood meaningless. The writer creates doubt in readers mind concerning  the importance of their birthplace and whether it warrants such patriotic behaviour and endorsement of nationhood. Readers may question their motives next time they behave in a patriotic manner and some readers connections to their country may be weakened which is in line with Groundwater’s contention.

   Groundwater suggests a viable alternative to patriotism, he executes this through the use of a comparison drawn between patriotism and supporting a football club. “I dislike the whole concept of nationhood, the way people support their country like it's a football team playing in a grand final” Groundwater suggests that there is a lack of unity between people of different nationalities , he provides his solution “ to be a proud citizen of Earth.” He then shows readers how national borders are fading and how the world is heading towards this. “When you can chat to an Iranian on twitter” and you can also, “Head down to your local Ghanaian place for dinner.”. Through providing readers with an alternative to patriotism and illuminating how we are heading towards the breakdown of national barriers, readers are better positioned to view patriotism as out-dated and replaceable. The writer hammers home this point through the repetition of the word ‘forget’, Groundwater uses the word ‘forget’ to further dismiss the notion of patriotism and reinforce his previous points. “Forget being a proud Australian from the best land on Earth”. The connotations of the word forget suggest that society must move on from patriotism
 
  In his article Groundwater contends in a dismissing perplexed tone that patriotism and nationhood are extraneous . Predominantly through the use of attacks the writer attempts to pick apart patriotism and its basis. He strives to accomplish this through dismantling various aspects of patriotism and positioning readers to question their importance. As a persons home country is an integral part of their identity and being ,relinquishing ones patriotic beliefs is no easy task. Groundwater circumvents this potential difficulty through providing an alternative to patriotism whish he succinctly describes as being  “a proud citizen of Earth.” This alternative that he provides to be an upright citizen of Earth is appealing to many and may lead them to ditch patriotism which is Groundwater’s aim.

[brenden]

 Australia day is a national public holiday on the 26th of January , comma is too weak. Semi-colon or full stop here. it is a day of celebration  of Australian culture and practices where many families gather together to celebrate their Australian identities.In response to the Australia day lead up Groundwater in his article titled This sentence is incorrect/all over the place. It's like you're trying to say three different things at once... How about something like "In response to the Australia Day hype, Ben Groundwater contends in "Why I'm not a proud Australian", (Sydney Morning Herald, 16/01/13),  that nationhood and patriotism are incongruous, unimportant, and that we should strive to be "proud citizens of Earth". ...I've also made the writing more concise here by putting the title and date in brackets. Always use the full name in the introduction/conclusion. Note that I've left the tone out. I would add another sentence working the tone in relation to the audience (which isn't mentioned) “Why I’m not a proud Australian”, published  January 16 2013 in the Sydney Morning Herald contends in a dismissive and questioning tone that nationhood and patriotism are incongruous  unimportant, and that we should strive to be “ proud citizens of Earth.” The article is accompanied by a visual that depicts a trio of teenage girls wearing singlets with the ‘Australia’ logo plastered on the front. Additionally these girls are draped in Australian flags. The visual suggests these girls are proud to be and identify as Australian, and are probably hold their home country in the highest regardIn this intro before the closing lines about the image I'd mention the audience and also give a brief overview of the main emotive techniques.

   Groundwater immediately captures reader’s attentionthis is pretty definite. I preferred to use statements such as "aims to immediately capture", because you can't really know what it does unless you take a survey of every reader. For all we know there's a portion of cynical people out there that saw the title and turned the page with naught but a raised eyebrow and an "i don't give a fuck". with his controversial title, “Why I’m not a  proud Aussie” a phrase that may come across as offensivethis is good to many, as most Australian’s have a sense of pride in their nationality.  Groundwater presents his opinion early on in the piece. “Sorry proud Aussies, I don’t get you. I don’t agree with you.” The use of pronouns enhances his attack on nationhood and patriotism.But how? I'm guessing that very 'to the point' sentences will be a trend through your writing. Groundwater’s comment has the effect of polarising readers and compelling them to become more engaged in the piece and formulate an opinion on his statement .Groundwater, Groundwater, Groundwater. Try to break it upGroundwater builds upon his attack on patriotism through providing scope to his argument. He defines his argument to encompass “All Australians who pronounce pride in their place of birth” and not just stereotypical patriotic Aussies. He comments about two types of stereotypical Aussies, “Southern Cross- tattooed Aussies” and “VB drinkers watching footy in the bars of Kuta” . These comments appeal to reader’s sense of familiarity as most readers would be able to relate to at least one type of ‘these Aussies’ on some level. Readers may consequently feel more involved in the piece and are more inclined to consider Groundwater’s stance on patriotism.In terms of anaylsis this paragaph seems lacking. Expand more upon the bits where you're analysing the possible influence on the reader. You also have a very |chop|chop|chop| formula to your essay at this point with the periodic use of full stops and constant Groundwater references. Say, author, writer, Groundwater, "he" if you're referring to him shortly after using his name. Elaborating on the influence will also vary your sentence length by proxy and kill two birds with one stone
   
   Groundwater alters his tone to one more anecdotal in naturenice!, to reinforce his view on nationhood and patriotism.Cop out! Everything will be aiming to reinforce his view. How?! Readers are informed of Groundwater’s travelling experience, “But I’ve met so many great people from so many great places.”Try to avoid finishing sentences with quotes. Try to put them into it. Try something like "In saying '

', [analysis]"[/b] Through enlightening readers of his travelling experience Groundwater’s credibility is bolstered.How? Still with the blunt as fuck sentences btw Readers are more likely to take to heart Groundwater’s message if they perceive him as an experienced traveller   as opposed to one who is unacquainted with many cultures and places.Nice! =] Groundwater adds a dimension of perspective to his argument portraying patriotic Australians in line with civilians of other countriesGood! would rather a comma here though and a little bit more. This has the effect of cleansing his argument of bias as, “whether they’re from Thailand or Turkmenistan, Britain or Bahrain” are of the opinion that “they come from the best place in the world.” and what's good about cleansing it of [seeming] bias?Patriotic Australians are portrayed by Groundwater as standard citizens of a country, behaving in a similar way to other citizens. And although he still does not endorse nationhood and overindulgence in patriotism the believability of his argument is boosted. As Readers who are more inclined  to not feel personally attacked.<-punctuation/grammar but nice point on attacking
 
   Groundwater advances his argument against patriotism through dissecting some of its various aspects. Patriotism is broadly defined as one’s devotion to their homeland. Groundwater comments, “It seems like human nature to be proud of our patch”, the connotations of the word patch suggest a piece of rugged insignificant land. Groundwater attempts to position readers to view the significance of patriotism as infinitesimal . He conveys this message to readers by bombarding  readers with  rhetorical questions. “But what are you really so proud of?” he attempts to answer with, “The dumb luck of having been born on a certain piece of land.” The connotations of the words “piece of land” reiterate the writers view that nationhood meaningless. Not too bad. You'd probably benefit from proof reading, too :p "that nationhood meaningless"The writer creates doubt in readers mind concerning  the importance of their birthplace and whether it warrants such patriotic behaviour and endorsement of nationhood. Readers may question their motives next time they behave in a patriotic manner and some readers connections to their country may be weakened which is in line with Groundwater’s contention.This is a better attempt than previous paragraphs.

   Groundwater suggests a viable alternative to patriotism, not a comma.he executes this through the use of a comparison drawn between patriotism and supporting a football club. “I dislike the whole concept of nationhood, the way people support their country like it's a football team playing in a grand final”you don't need to state something, then quote it as evidence like you would in a text response. Just quote the fucker. Groundwater suggests that there is a lack of unity between people of different nationalities , two separate clauses again. not a commahe provides his solution “ to be a proud citizen of Earth.” He then shows readers how national borders are fading and how the world is heading towards this. “When you can chat to an Iranian on twitter” and you can also, “Head down to your local Ghanaian place for dinner.”. Bit more of a commentary than an analysis hereThrough providing readers with an alternative to patriotism and illuminating how we are heading towards the breakdown of national barriers, readers are better positioned to view patriotism as out-dated and replaceable.good! The writer hammers home this point through the repetition of the word ‘forget’, Groundwater uses the word ‘forget’ to further dismiss the notion of patriotism and reinforce his previous points. “Forget being a proud Australian from the best land on Earth”. The connotations of the word forget suggest that society must move on from patriotismThis very last bit was repetitive, confusing, and didn't show off your analytical skills (which is the aim of the game)
 
  In his article Groundwater contends in a dismissingcomma between multiple adjectives always perplexed tone that patriotism and nationhood are extraneous . Predominantly through the use of attacks the writer attempts to pick apart patriotism and its basis. He strives to accomplish this through dismantling various aspects of patriotism and positioning readers to question their importance. As a persons home country is an integral part of their identity and being ,relinquishing ones patriotic beliefs is no easy task. Groundwater circumvents this potential difficulty through providing an alternative to patriotism whish he succinctly describes as being  “a proud citizen of Earth.” This alternative that he provides to be an upright citizen of Earth is appealing to many and may lead them to ditchinformal patriotism which is Groundwater’s aim.Conclusion's not bad . Still the same chopchopchop

Alright, flaws in your writing: Expression and flow (i feel like I say this for everyone) but your flaws are especially in your heavy use of full stops. Ofc we should be using full stops (lol), but the way you use them is after a sentence of almost the same length the previous and the following, and you rarely use commas to provide the depth to your sentence. So it's just clause after clause after clause separated by full stops. Sometimes when two sentence's subjects are different you've used a comma which is too weak for the distinction in clauses. You need to fix that and start using commas in a way that adds nice expression to your writing. Read a broadsheet newspaper. That's how your writing should sound. The chopchopchop full stop use is also damaging your analysis (or the lack of analysis is causing it!) there are some moments where you've written the kind of lines we really want!, which is good, but sometimes you barely scratch the surface in terms of what you could say. The deeper insight will come with practice as your teacher takes the class through what you could analyse and stuff like that.
There's also no discussion of the image? You mentioned it in the intro but then never actually analysed the image. You would definitely need to analyse it in your essay.

[shaiga95]

Thanks for the feedback

[brenden]

You're welcome =]

[Smiley_]

Hi
I have done a LA its not great but anyway

its done to the 2009 paper
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2009english-w-cpyrgt.pdf

With the discussion over the increasing prevalence of digital technology an opinion piece was published on the blog "Ctrl Alt" on the 23rd of May 2009, titled "Keyed In". The author of the piece is unknown as the writer uses an alias of "Voxi" this is common on the internet and by using an enthusiastic and positive tone appeals to the audience of technological savvy people  and generally anyone who uses the internet to convince them that the increase in technology is a positive step forward.

The format of the piece is that of an opinionated blog. The top of the blog contains the keyboard keys "Ctrl and "Alt" this adds interest, captures the attention of the audience straight away and helps to appeal to the technologically savvy members. The title of the piece "Keyed In" connects with the theme of the piece as the readers who view this piece will be  "Keyed In" into the latest information and opinion on the impact of digital technology.

To begin the piece Voxi suggests that the increase in technology is a positive step forward. By explaining that people are and should be "excited by the possibility of the unknown" in a measured and rational tone the reader is positioned to consider that the idea of the new tools and events is something that should be embraces and enjoyed. By referring to the invention of technology as something similar to Copernicus or Galileo the audience sense of admiration is appealed to. As technology is compared to something so great the audience is positioned to acknowledge that the invention of new things is definitely a good idea. As the piece continues Voxi explains that humans can go from "homo sapians"   to "homosupersapians" by exaggerating this scientific knowledge and fact the audience is able to understand how great we could become if we continue to embrace new technology. By using positive language such as "find cures faster, find ways of preserving  the planet" and "ending war and violence" when describing the ideas that technology could lead to, Voxi positions the reader to consider that only good things can come from the continuation of the development of technology. A sense of fear is also instilled into the reader because if technology was to stop developing then these wonderful, positive things would cease to happen and we would not have the "opportunity to lead happy, safe and full filling lives". By using the rhetorical question "whats to be afraid of? The audience is asked to consider the question not only directly but acknowledge their part in the advances of electronics and what they can do to help improve society. By listing all the activities such as "online
banking, working out the
itinerary for your holiday" and "looking up Google Maps" the audience is reminded of all the wonderful things we have come to associate with the internet and how many things we would miss. As the letter progresses Voxi explains that "people who wouldn't normally go to a library actually do that" with the internet and the resources it contains. This continues to reinforce into the readers mind that the advancement of technology is a great benefit to society as it is a fantastic educational service. By stating facts such as the idea that we would "be swinging from the tress or hiding in caves" if we didn't learn to try and give new things a go allows the reader to be appreciative of everything technology has achieved. The phrase "bring it on" in such a positive and optimistic tone explains to the reader Voxs readiness and passion compelling others to follow suit and embrace the change.

Voxi further attempts to convince the reader that we should embrace the rapid development of technology as doubts that members of the public may have a diminished. In a effort to postion the reader, the author writes that "some people are naturally afraid of the new" and that people are too afraid to leave their "comfort zone" this allows Voxi to shame and position people to feel that their ideas about new technology are outdated and need to be changed. Voxi acknowledges apposing view points when it is explained that there is a fear that technology will "reduce human intelligence, replace human memory, displace cognitive function" by acknowledging this Voxi is presenting in a positive light as someone who is well rounded and has a logical view point. Voxi uses the rhetorical question "Why wouldn’t you want it in your life?"  when referring to "digital technology" this postions the reader to think deeply about why they would have fears about things that may be relatively new to them. Voxis contention is presented in a positive light as it considers the fear that people may have but works to diminish this. As the piece concludes people who dont use computers are referred to as a "loser" this insult appeals to the readers sense of fear as they may soon become the odd one out if they don't embrace the increasing prevalence of technology. The piece concludes on a positive note that Voxi "pretty much like(s) the look" of the future this strong positive comment is what the reader will have left in their mind, that the future will be improved with technology.

Accompanying the piece is a picture of a human head imbedded with computer microchips. This image catches the readers eyes and enhances the development of technology and links in with the idea that the brain is a beautiful powerful machine that will not lose brain power because of technology as it is coming up with it.

Both the article and accompanying image complement one another in an attempt to position the reader into viewing the development and progression of technology as something extremely beneficial to all. This is done through promoting excitement in the reader about change and the degradation of the fearful and afraid opinions that people may have. As this piece was published on the internet for everyone to read, this issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to the impact of technology on the everyday lives of many people.   


thanks

[dilks]

You should be saving the VCAA papers for closer to the exam.

[Smiley_]

You should be saving the VCAA papers for closer to the exam.

thanks we have to do it for homework

[brenden]

With the discussion over the increasing prevalence of digital technology an opinion piece was published Two different thoughts going on here. You've offered half a context but then it's like you changed your mind and jumped forwards to 'On the blog". Do one contextualising sentence, then move onto mentioning hte pieceon the blog "Ctrl Alt" on the 23rd of May 2009 (23/05/09), titled "Keyed In". The author of the piece is unknown as the writer uses an alias of "Voxi" this is common on the internet and by using an enthusiastic and positive tone 'by using' 'appeals' - doesn't work. appeals to the audience of technological savvy people  and generally anyone who uses the internet to convince them that the increase in technology is a positive step forward.
Structure you should try to follow for the intro
-Contextualising sentence
-The 'basics' - author, title, publication, date, contention. Can be done in one or two sentences.
-Tone, audience, how this works together. Can usually be done in once sentence
-Overview of emotive appeals. NOT "they use rhetorical questions a lot". For this article it might be an overarching appeal to progression or something else or both.
-Closing line mentions image of piece. (you wouldn't have it for this piece)
The format of the piece is that of an opinionated blog.This seems like it will be very formulaic. The top of the blog contains the keyboard keys "Ctrl and "Alt"needs punctuation this adds interest, captures the attention of the audience straight away and helps to appeal to the technologically savvy members how? Superficial analysis. It's very easy to say "this captures attention". The title of the piece "Keyed In" connects with the theme of the piece as the readers who view this piece will be  "Keyed In" into the latest information and opinion on the impact of digital technology.Yeah okay, nice!

To begin the piece Voxi suggests that the increase in technology is a positive step forward. By explaining that people are and should be "excited by the possibility of the unknown" in a measured and rational tone the reader is positioned to consider that the idea of the new tools and events is something that should be embraces and enjoyed.not bad! By referring to the invention of technology as something similar to Copernicus or Galileo the audience sense of admiration is appealed toStrange grammar. Just say "...Voxi appeals to the audience's sense of admiration" (don't forget, audience's, not audience). As technology is compared to something so great the audience is positioned to acknowledge that the invention of new things is definitely a good idea. As the piece "to begin the piece. as the piece continues" these sentence starters will detract from your essay. try to just, analyseanalyseanalyse continues Voxi explains that humans can go from "homo sapians sapiens. You've the article in front of you, best to double check spelling."   to "homosupersapians again, copy from the article" by exaggerating this scientific knowledge and fact the audience is able to understand how great we could become if we continue to embrace new technology this is really good, you're hitting the marks, but don't forget to say how and why. You've got the 'what' nailed on the head.. By using positive language such as "find cures faster, find ways of preserving  the planet" and "ending war and violence" when describing the ideas that technology could lead to, Voxi positions the reader to consider that only good things can come from the continuation of the development of technology. A sense of fear is also instilled into the reader because if technology was to stop developing then these wonderful, positive things would cease to happen and we would not have the "opportunity to lead happy, safe and full filling lives".Great By using the rhetorical question "whats to be afraid of?end quote". you should proof read your work. The audience is asked to consider the question not only directly but acknowledge their part in the advances of electronics and what they can do to help improve society. By listing all the activities such as "online
banking, working out the why is this not in the same line? :S
itinerary for your holiday" and "looking up Google Maps" the audience is reminded of all the wonderful things we have come to associate with the internet and how many things we would miss. As the letter progresses Voxi explains that "people who wouldn't normally go to a library actually do that" with the internet and the resources it contains. This continues to reinforce into the readers mind that the advancement of technology is a great benefit to society as it is a fantastic educational service.You need to be more specific in your analysis. Again, how and why, specifically? By stating facts such as the idea that we would "be swinging from the tress or hiding in caves" if we didn't learn to try and give new things a go allows the reader to be appreciative of everything technology has achieved yes we are going to be appreciative, but what are the connotations of swinging from trees? There are huge caveman connotations and appeals to progression and all sorts of things here. That'sw what i mean by be specific. . The phrase "bring it on" in such a positive and optimistic tone explains to the reader Voxs readiness and passion compelling others to follow suit and embrace the change.

Voxi further attempts to convince the reader that we should embrace the rapid development of technology as doubts that members of the public may have a diminished I read this sentence twice and I'm still confused at that last bit. In a effort to postion the reader, the author writes that "some people are naturally afraid of the new" and that people are too afraid to leave their "comfort zone" this allows Voxi to shame and position people to feel that their ideas about new technology are outdated and need to be changed. Voxi acknowledges apposing view points when it is explained that there is a fear that technology will "reduce human intelligence, replace human memory, displace cognitive function" punctuateby acknowledging this Voxi is presenting in a positive light as someone who is well rounded and has a logical view point.Very shallow. You could say that this reinforces his credibility, promotes trust in Voxi from the reader and subsequently makes the audience more receptive to his arguments, say it appears unbias etc etc. Go deeper! Voxi uses the rhetorical question "Why wouldn’t you want it in your life?"  when referring to "digital technology" punctuate this postions the reader to think deeply about why they would have fears about things that may be relatively new to them. Voxis contention is presented in a positive light as it considers the fear that people may have but works to diminish this. As the piece concludes people who dont use computers are referred to as a "loser" this insult appeals to the readers sense of fear as they may soon become the odd one out if they don't embrace the increasing prevalence of technology better, but could go deeper. . The piece concludes on a positive note that Voxi "pretty much like(s) [likes] instead the look" of the future punctuatethis strong positive comment is what the reader will have left in their mind, that the future will be improved with technology and?.
You need to punctuate more and analyse with my OOMPH. You're not saying how and why, or going into the complexities of the language (it will develop with practice).
Accompanying the piece is a picture of a human head imbedded with computer microchips. This image catches the readers eyes and enhances the development of technology and links in with the idea that the brain is a beautiful powerful machine that will not lose brain power because of technology as it is coming up with it.Why is this paragraphed? You have some strange structural things going on here

Both the article and accompanying image complement one another in an attempt to position the reader into viewing the development and progression of technology as something extremely beneficial to all. You aren't saying how or why. Of course the image and article will complement each other. You don't get marks for saying that, though This is done through promoting excitement in the reader about change and the degradation of the fearful and afraid opinions that people may have. As this piece was published on the internet for everyone to read, this issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to the impact of technology on the everyday lives of many people.Wait is this the conclusion? If it is, put way more analysis of the image up there ^^^ in the paragraph where you said "accompanying" and then basically do a recap of your intro for your conclusion.    

[Smiley_]

thanks so much for all your help
I redrafted

I still need a bit of help with the conclusion

also what mark do you think this would get

With the discussion over the increasing prevalence of digital technology in the media, debate has arisen over impacts that this will have on society. In response to this the an opinion piece was published on the blog "Ctrl Alt" (23/05/09), titled "Keyed In". The author of the piece is unknown as the writer uses an alias of "Voxi", Voxi uses an enthusiastic and positive tone to appeal to the audience of technological savvy people  and generally anyone who uses the internet to convince them that the increase in technology is a positive step forward.

The top of the blog contains the keyboard keys "Ctrl and "Alt". This adds interest and captures the attention of the audience straight away, drawing them into reading gthe piece and increasing the likelihood of them agreeing with the writers contention and helps to appeal to the technologically savvy members by demonstrating the knowledge that Voxi has about the workings on the technological world. The title of the piece "Keyed In" connects with the theme of the piece as the readers who view this piece will be  "Keyed In" into the latest information and opinion on the impact of digital technology.

To begin the piece Voxi suggests that the increase in technology is a positive step forward. By explaining that people are and should be "excited by the possibility of the unknown" in a measured and rational tone the reader is positioned to consider that the idea of the new tools and events is something that should be embraces and enjoyed. Voxi appeals to the audience's sense of admiration by referring to the invention of technology as something similar to Copernicus or Galileo the audience sense of admiration is appealed to. As technology is compared to something so great the audience is positioned to acknowledge that the invention of new things is definitely a good idea.  Voxi explains that humans can go from "homo  sapiens” to "homosuper sapiens " by exaggerating this scientific knowledge and fact the audience is able to understand how great we could become if we continue to embrace new technology this positions the reader to acknowledge their part in creating a better world.  By using positive language such as "find cures faster, find ways of preserving  the planet" and "ending war and violence" when describing the ideas that technology could lead to, Voxi positions the reader to consider that only good things can come from the continuation of the development of technology. A sense of fear is also instilled into the reader because if technology was to stop developing then these wonderful, positive things would cease to happen and we would not have the "opportunity to lead happy, safe and full filling lives".By using the rhetorical question "whats to be afraid of?". The audience is asked to consider the question not only directly but acknowledge their part in the advances of electronics and what they can do to help improve society. By listing all the activities such as "online
banking, working out the itinerary for your holiday" and "looking up Google Maps" the audience is reminded of all the wonderful things we have come to associate with the internet and how many things we would miss. As the letter progresses Voxi explains that "people who wouldn't normally go to a library actually do that" with the internet and the resources it contains. This continues to reinforce into the readers mind that the advancement of technology is a great benefit to society as it is a fantastic educational service, especially for people who may not use the library or other resources and therefore not be the best, knowledge wise, that they can be.  By stating facts such as the idea that we would "be swinging from the tress or hiding in caves" if we didn't learn to try and give new things a go allows the reader to be appreciative of everything technology has achieved. By appealing to the audiences sense of progression the reader is positioned to understand that they will become many more great changes and new things added to the world if the technology increase is to continue. The phrase "bring it on" in such a positive and optimistic tone explains to the reader Voxs readiness and passion compelling others to follow suit and embrace the change.

Voxi further attempts to convince the reader that we should embrace the rapid development of technology as doubts that members of the public may have are diminished and destroyed. In a effort to position the reader, the author writes that "some people are naturally afraid of the new" and that people are too afraid to leave their "comfort zone" this allows Voxi to shame and position people to feel that their ideas about new technology are outdated and need to be changed. Voxi acknowledges apposing view points when it is explained that there is a fear that technology will "reduce human intelligence, replace human memory, displace cognitive function",acknowledging this Voxi is presenting in a positive light as someone who is well rounded and has a logical view point.This reinforces his credibility, promotes trust in Voxi from the reader and subsequently makes the audience more receptive to his arguments as they are presented as unbiased. Go deeper! Voxi uses the rhetorical question "Why wouldn’t you want it in your life?"  when referring to "digital technology", this positions the reader to think deeply about why they would have fears about things that may be relatively new to them. Voxis contention is presented in a positive light as it considers the fear that people may have but works to diminish this. As the piece concludes people who don’t use computers are referred to as a "loser" this insult appeals to the readers sense of fear as they may soon become the odd one out if they don't embrace the increasing prevalence of technology. By referring to a specific group of readers Voxis credibility is further extended thus making the audience more receptive to the ideas presented. The piece concludes on a positive note that Voxi "pretty much like(s)the look" of the future. This strong positive comment is what the reader will have left in their mind, that the future will be improved with technology and as humane race we will be able to achieve so much more if limitless ideas of technology are to continue.
Accompanying the piece is a picture of a human head imbedded with computer microchips. This image catches the readers eyes and enhances the development of technology and links in with the idea that the brain is a beautiful powerful machine that will not lose brain power because of technology as it is coming up with it.Why is this paragraphed? You have some strange structural things going on here because I seem to anaslsye the image better in a separate paragraph.

Both the article and accompanying image complement one another in an attempt to position the reader into viewing the development and progression of technology as something extremely beneficial to all.  This is done through promoting excitement in the reader about change and the degradation of the fearful and afraid opinions that people may have. As this piece was published on the internet for everyone to read, this issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to the impact of technology on the everyday lives of many people.Wait is this the conclusion? If it is, put way more analysis of the image up there ^^^ in the paragraph where you said "accompanying" and then basically do a recap of your intro for your conclusion. 

Yes I understand but I don’t know how to improve

[brenden]

You're welcome


With the discussion over the increasing prevalence of digital technology in the media, debate has arisen over impacts that this will have on society. Not bad! Although, it does sound slightly strange saying debate has arisen over discussionIn response to this the an?opinion piece was published on the blog "Ctrl Alt" (23/05/09), titled "Keyed In".Good =] The author of the piece is unknown as the writer uses an alias of "Voxi",comma is way too weak here Voxi uses an enthusiastic and positive tone to appeal to the audience of technological savvy people  and generally anyone who uses the internet to convince them that the increase in technology is a positive step forward.Good! Tone and audience is good. I'd still give a little more complexity concerning the contention, at the moment you are saying that Voxi's contention is "increases in technology is a positive step forward", which is true, but give more insight. Also mention the image as the last line of your introduction. --Did you look at the structure I wrote out for you?

The top of the blog contains the keyboard keys "Ctrl and "Alt". This adds interest and captures the attention of the audience straight away, drawing them into reading gthe piece and increasing the likelihood of them agreeing with the writers contention and helps to appeal to the technologically savvy members by demonstrating the knowledge that Voxi has about the workings on the technological world. Instead of 'and helps', make it "...contention, in that it helps..."The title of the piece "Keyed In" connects with the theme of the piece as the readers who view this piece will be  "Keyed In" into the latest information and opinion on the impact of digital technology.

To begin the piece Voxi suggests that the increase in technology is a positive step forward. By explaining that people are and should be "excited by the possibility of the unknown" in a measured and rational tone the reader is positioned to consider that the idea of the new tools and events is something that should be embraces and enjoyed.But how? Voxi appeals to the audience's sense of admiration by referring to the invention of technology as something similar to Copernicus or Galileo the audience sense of admiration is appealed to.Reread this sentence. You finish the sentence exactly how you start it? It doesn't make sense. As technology is compared to something so great the audience is positioned to acknowledge that the invention of new things is definitely a good idea. coolcool Voxi explains that humans can go from "homo  sapiens” to "homosuper sapiens " by exaggerating this scientific knowledge and fact the audience is able to understand how great we could become if we continue to embrace new technology this positions the reader to acknowledge their part in creating a better world. Previous sentence needs some punctuation - read it aloud By using positive language such as "find cures faster, find ways of preserving  the planet" and "ending war and violence" when describing the ideas that technology could lead to, Voxi positions the reader to consider that only good things can come from the continuation of the development of technology.This is better! But more on the emotions the reader are positioned to feel A sense of fear is also instilled into the reader because if technology was to stop developing then these wonderful, positive things would cease to happen and we would not have the "opportunity to lead happy, safe and full filling lives". greatBy using the rhetorical question "whats to be afraid of?". The audience is asked to consider the question not only directly but acknowledge their part in the advances of electronics and what they can do to help improve society. By listing all the activities such as "online Seriously why is there paragraphed line here in the middle of a sentence
banking, working out the itinerary for your holiday" and "looking up Google Maps" the audience is reminded of all the wonderful things we have come to associate with the internet and how many things we would miss. As the letter progresses Voxi explains that "people who wouldn't normally go to a library actually do that" with the internet and the resources it contains. This continues to reinforce into the readers mind that the advancement of technology is a great benefit to society as it is a fantastic educational service, especially for people who may not use the library or other resources and therefore not be the best, knowledge wise, that they can be.  By stating facts such as the idea that we would "be swinging from the tress or hiding in caves" if we didn't learn to try and give new things a go allows the reader to be appreciative of everything technology has achieved. By appealing to the audiences sense of progression the reader is positioned to understand that they will become many more great changes and new things added to the world if the technology increase is to continue. The phrase "bring it on" in such a positive and optimistic tone explains to the reader Voxs readiness and passion compelling others to follow suit and embrace the change. Better =]

Voxi further attempts to convince the reader that we should embrace the rapid development of technology as doubts that members of the public may have are diminished and destroyed. makes more senseIn a effort to position the reader, the author writes that "some people are naturally afraid of the new" and that people are too afraid to leave their "comfort zone" punctuate this allows Voxi to shame and position people to feel that their ideas about new technology are outdated and need to be changed. Voxi acknowledges apposing opposing, not apposing view points when it is explained that there is a fear that technology will "reduce human intelligence, replace human memory, displace cognitive function",acknowledging this Voxi is presenting in a positive light as someone who is well rounded and has a logical view point.This reinforces his credibility, promotes trust in Voxi from the reader and subsequently makes the audience more receptive to his arguments as they are presented as unbiased.  Voxi uses the rhetorical question "Why wouldn’t you want it in your life?"  when referring to "digital technology", this positions the reader to think deeply about why they would have fears about things that may be relatively new to them. Second time youve individually identified rhetorical question, it is shallow analysis. Perhaps devote one small piece of prose to rhetorical questions throughout the article instead of analsying them individually Voxis contention is presented in a positive light as it considers the fear that people may have but works to diminish this. As the piece concludes people who don’t use computers are referred to as a "loser" punctuate this insult appeals to the readers sense of fear as they may soon become the odd one out if they don't embrace the increasing prevalence of technology. By referring to a specific group of readers Voxipossessive apostrophes credibility is further extended thus making the audience more receptive to the ideas presented.how? The piece concludes on a positive note that Voxi "pretty much like(s)the look" of the future. This strong positive comment is what the reader will have left in their mind, that the future will be improved with technology and as humane race we will be able to achieve so much more if limitless ideas of technology are to continue.
Accompanying the piece is a picture of a human head imbedded with computer microchips. This image catches the readers eyes and enhances the development of technology and links in with the idea that the brain is a beautiful powerful machine that will not lose brain power because of technology as it is coming up with it.Why is this paragraphed? You have some strange structural things going on here because I seem to anaslsye the image better in a separate paragraph.
I meant more, why is it paragraphed when it is only two lines? If you want to analyse the image separate to another paragraph you have to make it a paragraph. When you only use one or two lines it may as well be tagged onto your last paragraph.

Both the article and accompanying image complement one another in an attempt to position the reader into viewing the development and progression of technology as something extremely beneficial to all.  This is done through promoting excitement in the reader about change and the degradation of the fearful and afraid opinions that people may have. As this piece was published on the internet for everyone to read, this issue is certain to provoke further discussion due to the impact of technology on the everyday lives of many people.Wait is this the conclusion? If it is, put way more analysis of the image up there ^^^ in the paragraph where you said "accompanying" and then basically do a recap of your intro for your conclusion.
Conclusion (50 – 100 words)
- Neat summary of writer’s main contention and techniques (don’t just repeat yourself, paraphrase it)
- Has a biased or balanced viewpoint been presented?
- Comment on the article’s effectiveness, particularly in regards to the intended audience
Try that =]


 

[sin0001]

I've attached the two articles

Following the ongoing graffiti by vandals in local communities, debate has arisen over whether the councils should take more action against the vandals that ‘desecrate’ local properties. An anonymous editorial titled, ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ in the Daily Tribute, contends, in a strongly disappointed tone of voice, that councils should  be more helpful to the victims of graffiti and that these councils should not be encouraging graffiti as an art. Accompanying the editorial is a visual portraying the vulgarity of graffiti vandalism. However, in reply to this editorial, Michaela Whitehouse writes a letter to the editor in which she critically contends that it is the council’s responsibility to improve the behaviour of graffiti vandals by embracing the aspect of ‘culturally accepted art’, also dismissing the allegation that her local council is not making an effort to help out the victims of ‘puerile vandalism’. The editorial is aimed at local residents, who are also furious at the vandals and local council, whereas the letter to the editor defends the actions of the council to its local residents.

In the, ‘The good, the bad, and the ugly’, the ‘good’ describes the respectable citizens who are being unfairly affected by graffiti, such as the Bergers. Whereas the ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ refer the thugs and the graffiti they produce, respectively. The reader is indirectly caused to associate themselves with the ‘good’ portion of society, and distant themselves ‘bad’, representing the vandals.
The writer aims to gain the sympathy of the readers through emotive imagery. By presenting an anecdote concerning ‘Patrick and his heavily pregnant wife’ restoring the condition of their café wall, the writer provokes emotions of disgust, directed towards vandals. The use of the word, ‘heavily’, describing the condition of the ‘pregnant wife’ causes the audience to further empathise with the couple’s situation and to deem the doings of the vandals as reckless and stupid. The condition of the wall is described as being an ‘eyesore’ and a ‘disgrace’ to locals, as the writer seeks to present the work of vandals in a vulgar manner. Such words evoke feelings of utter disgust, regarding the graffiti, from the reader. The author goes on to negatively connote the work of vandals as ‘tasteless’ and ‘foul-mouthed’, also including an anecdote regarding a young mother ‘taking a longer route’ to her daughter’s school, as she would not have the ‘fortitude’ to answer if her daughter is to ask her about the ‘sexual diagrams’. This is done to further antagonize

Next, the editorial shifts its blame towards the inability of the East Park council to help out its residents. Another anecdote concerns the Bergers’ ‘tireless’ plea for help, to the local council. Words such as ‘tireless’ and ‘diligent’, used to describe the Bergers’ daily struggle to keep up with their finances, make the reader realise that the Bergers are earnest and hard-working. This also forces the reader to question why the council has been ‘dragg[ing] its heels for months’ and have not yet helped the Bergers out, appealing to their sense of compassion and making the council seem as if it is of no use to its residents.

The editorial concludes by highlighting the ignorant attitude of ‘individuals…defacing other people’s’ ‘hard-earned bricks and mortar’. The author seeks to victimise the citizens affected by vandalism and includes a hyperbole, ‘hard-earned bricks…’, to exaggerate the worth of the properties defaced by graffiti, implying that every single brick and mortar matters. Consequently, the reader is positioned to feel utterly disgusted at the selfish nature of vandals, making it hard for them to believe that the council is condoning ‘cultural vandalism’ and giving these vandals a chance.
Accompanied with the editorial is a visual portraying bland and inelegant graffiti, which obscures the artistic aspect of vandalism, as the image is only focussed at a small portion of the graffiti. The reader is forced to question whether graffitists actually care about the public’s interpretation of their work, again reinforcing the author’s contention in their minds, that the council shouldn’t be supporting this as a form of art.

Whitehouse’s reply to the editorial, in her letter to the editor, is scathing at times, it is written in a rational tone of voice.

Whitehouse commences by downplaying the opinions presented in the editorial, as being ‘dismissive’, already giving her a sense of mindfulness. Also, the ‘summation’ of the Bergers situation presented in the editorial is implied to be incorrect by the writer, which in turn causes the reader to disregard the original assessment of the issue of vandalism, in the editorial.
The writer fires a series of rhetorical questions, asking the reader to ‘imagine the blow-out’ of the council’s budget if they were to help property owners. The editorial portrays the Bergers to be in poor condition, whereas Whitehouse shows them to be in an ‘enviable’ one, as they are better off than ‘hundreds of lease holders’. Whitehouse further refutes the claim that the council ‘dragged its heels’ when the Bergers received ‘written correspondence’ in a few weeks’ time. In doing so, Whitehouse intends to portray the claims in the editorial, to be as misleading as possible. In turn, this makes the readers realise the extent of the exaggeration of claims, presented in the editorial. Finally, she clears up the council’s intentions behind condoning vandalism in a measured mannered, stating that the council has a responsibility to ‘cater’ for the ‘disaffected younger generation’, the word ‘disaffected’ connotes a sense of innocence to the youth, and reader is able to realise why the youth might feel the need to partake in vandalism.

The letter to the editorial finishes scathingly, criticising the attitude of the writer of the editorial as ‘narrow-minded’, claiming that ‘most of us don’t like to see supposedly ‘responsible’ publications like [the editorial]’ encouraging ‘anti-establishment behaviour’. The use of inclusive language makes the reader think as if the issue of graffiti is personally affecting their local community. Again, the audience is positioned to view Whitehouse to be mindful unlike the writer of the editorial, therefore making the council’s actions seem well thought out.

The editorial, through the frequent use of emotive language and anecdotal evidence, is presented in a strongly disappointed tone of voice. Whereas, Whitehouse’s letter to the editor takes on a more measured and reasoned approach, gently refuting the flawed claims from the editorial. As a result of Whitehouse’s direct explanations of the actions taken by the East Park council to combat the issue of vandalism, this issue is only slightly likely to continue to provoke further discussion.