Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[Patches]

I really need to improve my language analysis, so please don't hold back on the criticism The article is attached as an image.

The issue of violence and poor behaviour during the annual schoolies’ week is a perennial problem. In this piece, Shannon McRae suggests that the blame has been cast unfairly on the young school leavers, with the so-called toolies responsible for much of the trouble.


By presenting schoolies week as a unique rite of passage after the trials of the VCE, the author seeks to establish the ‘point’ of schoolies to an audience of which the majority may not have participated themselves. ‘Schoolies’ week’ implies a sense of ownership over the event, and clearly indicates the unspoken rules of who is and isn’t invited. By effectively handing the week over to the schoolies, McRae presents the argument not that the toolies should be better behaved, but that they should not attend at all. The statement of ‘their time to let loose’ reinforces this sense of ownership – the toolies are ‘encroaching’ on an event they have no right to be involved in. The exclusivity that the author assigns to schoolies’ week seems to support his or her view of the week as a unique institution, which for a significant portion of students is a vital reward at the end of their final year. He or she associates schoolies week with ‘freedom from the sometimes stifling classroom’, an image of school which probably appeals to a wide spectrum of the audience. This serves to invite those who didn’t ‘do’ a schoolies week themselves, such as the parents of today’s school leavers, into the spirit of the week. By referring to schoolies’ week having ‘become’ the modern rite of passage, McRae is contributing to a broader social shift, whereby there is now a widely held expectation that all school leavers participate in one way or another. ‘No one should begrudge schoolies their right to a reward’ indicates that schoolies’ week is an extension of other privileges given to school students in their final year. By implication, McRae suggests it would be cruel to deny the school leavers what is apparently such an important part of growing up in contemporary Australia. McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies week, then, serves to lift the blame for the annual chaos from the schoolies themselves – the week is exclusively their time to ‘let loose’ with predictable consequences. To an extent, the normalisation of schoolie misbehaviour acts to shift the blame from the schoolies to the toolies, supporting the author’s contention that it is the latter who cause the trouble to escalate beyond the schoolies’ ‘celebration of freedom.’


A rite of passage is the symbolic transformation from child to adult, and McRae uses the connotations of this transformation to cast the toolies as ‘predators’. The toolies are ‘adults’ and ‘grown men’, and the schoolies are ‘teens’ and ‘young people’, but, crucially, never ‘young adults.’ This seems to suggest that McRae regards the school leavers children, despite the majority having turned eighteen and finished their formal education. Accordingly, they are still owed the special societal protection afforded for children, which makes the behaviour of the toolies particularly reprehensible. The language McRae uses creates a sense of a power imbalance between teenage schoolies and the toolies. They are ‘shady and opportunistic’ – this reinforces the author’s view of the schoolie-toolie relationship as an invariably exploitative mismatch of power. This imbalance is a product of both the physical disparity between ‘bigger, stronger’ adults and teenagers, as well as the economic fact that most schoolies ‘don’t have cars’, nor can they afford the consequences of ‘thousands of dollars’ of damage. Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of ‘young girls’, ‘luring them into the bushes’ in a depiction that seems tailored to the fears of parents. McRae, then, presents a strange view of the maturity of the schoolies. On one hand, they are given virtually free rein to indulge in the privileges of adulthood; on the other, they are the potential victims of what the author casts as predatory and implicitly paedophilic assault. The spectre of ‘parental consequences’ reinforces this view of the schoolies as being somewhere between children and adults – McRae certainly wouldn’t suggest the toolies are accountable to their parents. The week may be, as McRae styles it, a modern ‘rite of passage’ – but the language used clearly indicates it is not the beginning of adulthood.


McRae’s piece presents the schoolies as hardworking students whose special time to ‘let loose’ is invariably undermined by exploitative older men.  The piece attempts to build support in the audience for schoolies week as a modern institution, inviting those who didn’t experience it themselves to empathise with the ‘gatecrashed’ school leavers. Finally, while acknowledging the often poor behaviour of some schoolies, McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies misbehaviour seems to excuse them from the bulk of the blame.


Thankyou!

[academicbulimia]

Language Analysis I wrote up this morning. So if there's any dodgey writing blame it on lack of sleep/coffee and the fact I haven't written an LA in a like a year! hah also it'd be great if you could rate it out of 10 so I can see where I'm at!
Many thanks.
Article: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/challenge-is-to-sustain-outcry-against-horrors-20121227-2bxt0.html

Spoiler

The subject of recent media speculation, the prevailing rape culture in India, ignited after the brutal gang rape of a young girl on public transport, the resultant consequence being her death 5 days later. The Age article written by Waleed Aly “Challenge is to sustain outcry against horrors” published on the 28th December, 2012 aims to encourage readers to look past this one case of rape to wider “horror” rape has posed in society, whilst also instilling his belief that the root of the problem is social attitudes and the lack of action on such issues from the Indian government. The article is characterised by a number of tonal shifts as Aly moves from a measured and serious tone to an optimistic one, appealing to all demographics of the community. 
                      Preceding any formal introduction to the issue, the reader’s attention is immediately taken up by the visual accompanied with the article. The image compromises an enlarged sketch of man, with a woman in his palm, with a gun pointing at her and a fist raised, portraying the situation of women in Delhi who were as the cliché goes ‘in the palm of their [the men’s] hands’. Allowing Aly to imply that their mistreatment resulted because of the power (the raised fist) that was given to the men. Moreover, the author immediately encourages readers to “look past the brutal gang rape” allowing himself to detract from this one incident, to the wider issue that was “positively ghastly”, influencing readers to take notice of this issue by triggering a sense of curiosity to what could be equally significant and terrible than this case. Aly then begins recounting an incident with a two-year old girl who was with “her hands and legs tied” brutally raped in the city of Halol, which too resulted in her death. The author implements this imagery to elicit a sense of disgust in the readers, forcing them to visualize the wider reality of the problem, and it is by using this extreme case of rape with a “two-year-old girl” that he shows that the issue really has reached its full wickedness, encouraging immediate action on the issue. The extent of the issue is further exemplified with the author embedding the statistics that an “Australian woman is killed every week in an act of violence” and that there’s “a sexual assault in the US every two minutes” swaying reader’s agreement on the fact that rape is a prevailing issue in all societies, not just in the Indian one. Hence not only adding weight to the author’s argument but creating a sense of authenticity in the reader’s eyes’ that the issue is real and current one.
                    Furthermore, the author accentuates his belief that a key element of the issue was the social attitudes in India how certain “cases that go unmarked upon” by the government leaving “perpetrators unpunished”. To corroborate this Aly embeds the quote from father of the two-year-old that “No one from the government or even district administration has bothered to pay us a visit even once” implying to readers that the root of the problem was the government. Ultimately convincing reader's to be indignant at the apparent injustice of this, intending to result in readers supporting his stance on the foundation of rape culture. Likewise, Aly incorporates a degree of irony when he includes that the police commissioner of India “argued men were unsafe in Delhi” because “their pockets were picked”. The language that is used by the writer humiliates the Indian authorities, scorning them for creating a ridiculous situation where women complaining of sexual assault were treated with “disdain” while the government was more concerned about men’s pockets being “picked”.  Inciting outrage in the readers, as Aly by brings to light the corrupt and immoral nature of the government. Hence, also appealing to the readers’ humanity, that is, the desire to take care of one another as most readers don’t want themselves or others to be subjected such injustice. Consistent with this, the writer underlines that the “overarching social attitude that stigmatises the victim, rather than the attacker” is also to credit with the creation of this rape culture. He states that this is not uniquely an Indian problem as “Swaziland has just passed a law banning miniskirts on the basis that they ‘encourage rape’”. He positions the readers to share his opinion that this is absurd response to this issue, as it is by including this information about this new law that infuses a sense of indignation in readers, which is directed to the authorities and the unjust social attitudes they retain and are faultily creating.
                  In succession, the author labels that it is a “misogynist flaw” to present rape a primarily sexual. Positioning readers to agree with this notion as the loaded word “misogynist” carries extremely sinister emotional baggage, hence allowing Aly to assume the reader’s agreement as none would aim to support such flawed beings. Moreover, the writer employs the alliteration of “domination and dehumanization” to add emphasis on the violent and evil nature of rape and the crimes involved that he believes to be often disregarded. The language used also creates emotional image of the victims as being feeble in the face of these perpetrators, generating the reader’s support as it urges them to feel a sense of sympathy for the victims.  Furthermore, Aly establishes his belief that sexualised understandings of rape “come overwhelmingly from men with cultural or political authority”, allowing him to imply that this came with “power and privilege”.  Likewise, the author also utilizes this to suggest to readers that those in power were corrupt and selfish as they did what suited them, and anything that avoided any “accountability” in respect to these crimes, thus demeaning these figures in the eyes of the reader.
                  Aly shifts from here on, adopting an optimistic perspective as he believes there is a likelihood of change being brought upon society due to case of this brutal case in Delhi. The author describes that the “the voice of the disempowered” were “challenging the elite”. It is this that aims to inspire the readers to take action, as they too want their voices to be heard, allowing Aly to gain the readers support as everyone wants their freedom and rights to be satisfied. The writer then brings the issue to our doorstep by stating the cases of sexual abuse in regards to the Catholic Church and how they have been “dragged into the centre of a royal commission”. In this the author highlights the relevance to rape in Australian society, appealing to the reader’s sense of patriotism, thus manipulating them into agreeing with Aly as they feel they need to support their country in the tackling of this issue. He also exhibits justice being served to the perpetrators, leaving readers wary that with justice being served the “potential for rapid social change looks very real”. Accordingly, the writer finishes by questioning that “Will the ruling of class of India revisit the way it understands rape, rather than merely talk about tougher changes?” and that “Is this a genuine change in the nature of power, or a series of ephemeral flashpoints soon to be forgotten in an age of supersonic news?”. He implements this to leave readers skeptical that true change will occur rapidly because it requires a those it power to rethink their values and the nature they operate, however he also leaves a sense of hope that this could be the “story of 2013”.
               In “Challenge is to sustain outcry against horrors” Aly Waleed expresses the extent of the issue of rape culture in different societies by including other cases of the rape aside from the Delhi rape case, and bringing it home to the rape and violence against women that occurs in the streets of Australia. He also brings forward, through the use of language devices such as irony and alliteration to exhibit that the crux of the problem was the people in power, who refused accountability for such cases, adding to the detrimental social attitude towards women in India.  In essence, Aly leaves readers hopeful for change but doubtful for a “genuine” one.

[aphelleon]

Hey Brenden,

Thanks so much for doing this. You're an absolute legend.

For my article analysis SAC, we've been looking at incorporating 3 articles within a single essay. However, we only know what two of them are - the third is a 'mystery' article that will be presented by our teacher on the day of the SAC.

Which is why I'm a tad concerned, because this essay is 1,017 words amidst a 900 word limit (give or take 10%). And I still have another article to incorporate! Oh dear!

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that my chosen structure doesn't seem to match up with most of the examples I've seen posted up. And yet my teacher has advised to base each paragraph on a 'idea' rather than a 'persuasive device'.


Should the topic sentence cover the overarching issue that is being discussed in the paragraph?

Ie. The query into church sanctioning has sparked fierce debate in the media.

Or should it just mention one author's viewpoint? (Allowing the paragraph to diverge to to the other perspective later).

Ie. Through imagery and appeals to fear, Smith asserts that powerful institutions should not be allowed to operate without sanction.


Also, I'm not entirely sure what a conclusion should look like. I've tried writing what seems to match up with most examples I've seen... But it just seems so... inconclusive. Shouldn't I finish with a general, thought provoking sentence? And yet how do I do that without conveying my own opinion ? (I've been marked down on this issue before)


I've included some of my thoughts throughout the essay, but if you pick out anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know! I'm aiming for a good mark, so criticism is welcome:D

Thank you!

These are the articles I have been using...
Greg Barns: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4370672.html
Simon Smart: http://publicchristianity.org/library/whatever-it-takes-sexual-abuse-and-the-church




Following recent inquisitions into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church (too many ins? How can I rephrase?) public interest has rekindled, sparking debate as to what should be done in light of recent revelations. Whilst some champion the ideals of the Royal Commission, considering it… (should I add something in the middle here?), others hope to find alternative means of victim compensation. Simon Smart, in his article published November 20, 2012 on the Centre for Public Christianity website, endorses a preventative ideal to his Christian demographic, (something sounds a bit off here) contending, in an incredulous and alarmist tone, that the Church must suffer through the Royal Commission if it hopes to “save its soul”(should I mention the immediacy of his demands, or just leave it?). Alternatively, Greg Barns, through his article published on The Drum website on the 14th of November 2012, embraces a didactic and condescending approach, asserting, to a consequentialist audience, that the Royal Commission is a waste of time and money, whilst maintaining that therapeutic justice is a superior means to victim satisfaction. 

Amidst the flurry of national debate, many have questioned whether the state should endeavour upon a preventative or curative approach in pursuit of justice for abuse victims. Through use of emotive language, Smart contends that the government must act promptly to prevent abuse reoccurring in the Church. In harnessing an indignant tone, Smart’s article is strung with poignancy, as he describes the “shocking” “betrayal” and “cruelty”, the “terrible” acts of “abuse”, permitted by an institution supposedly founded on “love” and “protection”.  In this, Smart expresses a sense of profound urgency towards the issue at hand, implying that to accept inactivity would be to approve of the “suffering of countless people” (is the link between urgency and prevention clear enough?). Thus, when Smart refers to his target audience as “good people of faith”, religious readers are driven to seek out moral righteousness, and consequently approve of that which Smart attributes as “good” . (Does this link with the argument well enough?) Conversely, through anecdote, Barns contests that society should focus its resources on aiding current victims of abuse. Near the conclusion of his article, Barns adopts a sentimental tone, describing how he has “found” therapeutic justice to be far more “healing for the participants” than the “cold uncertainty of a criminal trial”. This use of personal anecdote allows utilitarian readers to connect with the issue on an emotional level, predisposing them, therefore, to view therapeutic justice in a warm and welcoming light. Furthermore, the fact that Greg Barns is attributed as “barrister” makes use of an appeal to authority, positioning readers to associate a notion of sapiency and academic grounding to his experiences, therefore encouraging them to accept his ideals as objective truth. (Should I omit this bit about the "appeal to authority"? Does it take up unnecessary space?)

In more recent debates, some have taken a stand against the Catholic Church, seeking to expose the root of the issue at hand (Is ‘at hand’ too colloquial? Should I cut it?).  Through his article, Smart condemns the church for being more concerned with its own “self-preservation” than the lives of people entrusted under its care. Early in the second paragraph, Smart describes the “great” theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer “martyred” in his defiance against the “Nazis”. In illustrating Bonhoeffer in this manner, Smart constructs a heroic, saint-like figure, endowing him, therefore, with a sense of Biblical authority.  Thus, when Bonhoeffer demands that the Church “hasten to” the aid of the “suffering”, Christian readers are inspired to adopt his instruction as though it were divine command.(Should I expand on this?) Contrarily, Barns dismisses the importance of the Catholic Church in the face of a widespread issue. Through imagery, Barns denounces the perception of abuse as being localized, rather endorsing a holistic approach, and encouraging readers to consider the affects of abuse in all social circles. The image accompanying the article projects Cardinel Pel’s face, unflatteringly suspended mid-sentence, with eyebrows drawn low with uncertainty. To the left, he raises a sheet of paper clearly labelled ‘Sexual Abuse’.  In presenting Pel in this fashion, Barns attacks the Cardinel’s intelligence, projecting him as being oblivious to the complexity and difficulty involved in tackling the broader issue of sexual abuse. In this, readers are prompted to likewise discredit Pel’s opinion, joining Barns in his assertion that those who focus solely on sexual abuse in the church are ignorant and narrow minded.  (I need feedback on this please not quite sure whether it fits with the issue.)

Many have questioned the true value of the Royal Commission amidst the hype and controversy. Through imagery, Smart asserts that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to operate without sanction, but should, rather, have its flaws exposed to the public light (is there a better term for this?) through the Royal Commission. The photograph accompanying the article makes use of a low-angled shot, peering upward at the inside of a cathedral, whilst attendees, small and vulnerable in the foreground, gaze up in reverent fidelity. Harsh, sharp contours and orange tinting create a hot and festering atmosphere, symbolic of the hostility brewing between the Catholic Church and state legislation. (Am I allowed to evaluate the symbolism here?) Here, the low-angled shot projects the Church as a powerful and imposing entity, an unyielding challenger in the face of national constitution. Through this, Smart compels readers to vilify the Catholic Church, prompting them to perceive it as sanctimonious and manipulative, unconcerned with those who appeal to it for guidance. This further makes use of an appeal to fear, encouraging readers to oppose the unbridled power of the Vatican patriarchy, and inviting them, therefore, to attribute value to the Royal Commission as a means of protection from corruption. In contrast, Barns attests that the royal commission is a tedious and gruelling process, disputing that Australians should utilize their resources for more productive endeavours. Throughout his piece, Barns employs use of the motif of time, repeating terms such as “waiting”, “ploughing”, and “drawn out”, presenting therapeutic ideologies as a means to “fast justice”, whilst condemning the “impossibly broad” scope of the Royal Commission. In exposing this temporal factor, Barns appeals to the need for ‘instantaneous gratification’ in human psychology, (this phrase seems a bit ‘off’ here. How can I rephrase this?) provoking audiences to seek the “speedy” solution over the more difficult, strenuous, “multi-year” investigation. 

Through their articles, both Simon Smart and Greg Barns have presented their opinion in regards to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Smart maintains that the Catholic Church should accept responsibility for its actions, exploiting dire appeals to emotion and fear in order to persuade readers that powerful institutions should not go unchecked by the constitution. Barns’s article contests, depreciating the Royal Commission through derisive emotional pleas, attacks and repetition. (I am unsure as to the structure of a conclusion. Please help!)

 



1.   What is the conclusion suppose to be look like?
2.   Are my topic sentences appropriate?


 

[papertowns]

Oh my goodness, you are a god Brenden! Thank you so much! Yeah I realised how short my paragraphs were but I don't know how to group them if I'm going through the persuasive techniques as they come up in the article :/ Can I talk about a few in one paragraph? I really should read other analysises :p And hahahah you're so right, I like maths more than English because English makes me sad since I'm not great at it. I'm doing maths and science subjects so yeah.... I do do things methodically. Thanks for all your comments on how to improve! I'll keep practising

[meganrobyn]

Oh my goodness, you are a god Brenden! Thank you so much! Yeah I realised how short my paragraphs were but I don't know how to group them if I'm going through the persuasive techniques as they come up in the article :/ Can I talk about a few in one paragraph? I really should read other analysises :p And hahahah you're so right, I like maths more than English because English makes me sad since I'm not great at it. I'm doing maths and science subjects so yeah.... I do do things methodically. Thanks for all your comments on how to improve! I'll keep practising

The solution is to *not* group your paragraphs by technique as they come up in the article. Almost every word should have its own subtle technique: it was chosen for a reason. It's therefore unrealistic to do it (and structurally there are issues). And arbitrarily combining techniques in order to get longer paragraphs? You know in your heart you need to have a coherent point or uniting 'theme' for each paragraph

Group your paragraphs by intended effect on the audience; or, if you prefer, by demonstrated attitude of the author towards one particular stakeholder or facet of the argument. For instance, perhaps the author is trying to make the audience indignant over some particular government policy? Do a paragraph on indignation, and include everything from the entire article, headline, image etc that expresses/evokes that indignation. Talk about *how* they each create indignation, being creative with that analysis.

So your method here is to find FOUR different intended effects - or four things/people the author expresses feelings towards (even subtly). Then you allocate one per paragraph, and chuck in everything from across the entire piece that relates to it.

[sin0001]

Article: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bridge-bike-lane-a-blunder/story-e6frfhqo-1226604515854

Melbourne City Council’s recent proposal to lessen traffic congestion for cyclists, by closing a motorists’ lane over Princess Bridge, has evoked a critical response from Melbourne’s road-users. An opinion piece titled ‘Bridge bike lane a blunder’, appearing in the Herald Sun on 25th March; contends in a disappointed and somewhat reasonable tone, that the implementation of Melbourne council’s proposal will only lessen the safety of cyclists and that the council’s budge should be spent on building a ‘separate bicycle bridge’ instead. This piece is aimed at Melbourne’s road-users, in general.

The writer begins by attempting to convince Melbourne’s road-users that this proposal will only increase traffic congestion. A contrast is made between the council’s plan of ‘mak[ing] more room for cyclists’ and the ‘antics’ of cyclists who ride off the bridge at Melbourne’s annual Moomba festival. Through this comparison, the writer seeks to highlight the lack of thought that Melbourne’s council has put into this proposal and implies that it is ‘silly’. Next, the writer uses the alliteration: ‘car chaos’, bringing to the reader’s attention, the extent of traffic congestion that will be produced as a result of closing down a traffic lane for motorists. Subsequently, the readership, consisting of motorists, is likely to feel betrayed by Melbourne council’s plan to ‘make the city more bike-friendly’, due to the cyclists being given more preference than the motorists, also causing the reader to feel as though this may not be the most appropriate approach to ‘make more room for cyclists.’

Furthermore, the writer uses hyperboles to present the detrimental effects on traffic congestion, which will be caused by the implementation of this plan. The author states that ‘forcing traffic into a funnel will result in a ‘gridlock’. Subsequently, the reader is positioned to view the hyperbole, of traffic being ‘forced into a funnel’, as a possible consequence that may arise due to reducing road space for motorists, therefore producing a ‘gridlock’ and hence appealing to the reader’s sense of tolerance. Through mentioning the example of Swanston Street being blocked and becoming ‘impassable’ during peak time, the writer implies that Melbourne council’s proposal might produce the same result. The hyperbole- ‘impassable’- is used to exaggerate the extent of traffic blockage that may be a consequence of the council’s plan, and appeals to the reader’s sense of fear, causing the motorists to withdraw their support from the council’s plan.

The tone of the piece slightly shifts to a more reasoned one, as the writer proposes a safer alternative of building a ‘stand-alone bridge’, to free up space for cyclists.  Through the use of the statistic- ’22 cyclists were injured’- the writer seeks to highlight the dangers of motorists sharing road space with cyclists. In turn, this appeals to the reader’s, consisting of cyclists, sense of need for safety and the cyclists, using Princess Bridge, are less likely to support this plan after realising that the council has overlooked their safety. After making the readers aware of the plan’s lack of safety, the writer suggests, through a rhetorical question, that the council should build a ‘separate bicycle bridge’ instead. In doing so, the reader is most likely expected to fail in thinking of a reason why the council shouldn’t build a separate bicycle bridge, after Melbourne City’s council is shown to have a substantial budget of ‘5.6 million’, by the writer. Moreover, to add weight to the writer’s suggested alternative and concerns regarding the council’s plan, the expert opinion of RACV manager- Brian Negus- is presented, describing the council’s plan as: ‘cheap’ and ‘unacceptable’. As a result, the reader, in the form of Melbourne’s road-users, are positioned to question why the council is not spending more on a proposal that ensures the safety of cyclists, making the readership disregard the council’s plan altogether.

The author concludes in a disappointed manner, clearly stating his contention- ‘Melbourne City Council needs to rethink what a dangerous waste of money is’. By iterating the council’s plan as a ‘waste of money’, the writer directly appeals to the reader’s hip pocket and evokes feelings of disgust from the reader in a final bid to undermine Melbourne City Council’s proposal.

[papertowns]

The solution is to *not* group your paragraphs by technique as they come up in the article. Almost every word should have its own subtle technique: it was chosen for a reason. It's therefore unrealistic to do it (and structurally there are issues). And arbitrarily combining techniques in order to get longer paragraphs? You know in your heart you need to have a coherent point or uniting 'theme' for each paragraph

Group your paragraphs by intended effect on the audience; or, if you prefer, by demonstrated attitude of the author towards one particular stakeholder or facet of the argument. For instance, perhaps the author is trying to make the audience indignant over some particular government policy? Do a paragraph on indignation, and include everything from the entire article, headline, image etc that expresses/evokes that indignation. Talk about *how* they each create indignation, being creative with that analysis.

So your method here is to find FOUR different intended effects - or four things/people the author expresses feelings towards (even subtly). Then you allocate one per paragraph, and chuck in everything from across the entire piece that relates to it.

That makes a lot more sense! My teacher never explained that oh my gosh.. Thank you so much! I shall try with this new approach although it will take quite a while for me to do it properly. But thanks again for taking time to help out

[meganrobyn]

That makes a lot more sense! My teacher never explained that oh my gosh.. Thank you so much! I shall try with this new approach although it will take quite a while for me to do it properly. But thanks again for taking time to help out

My pleasure! Hope it helps. And, yes, a good LA isn't easy *at all*!!

[memarani]

Article 1: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/test-what-is-studied-dont-just-study-the-test-20120514-1ymwv.html
Article 2: http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/a-long-history-of-bigotry-20120517-1ytgn.html? (Go to Test trouble)

There has been recent debate about whether NAPLAN tests in Australia have contributed to improving children’s learning outcomes. “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test” and “Test trouble” express similar views on the issue, believing the NAPLAN tests increase pressure on students as most schools “teach to the test” and are not a sufficient way of testing students.
The editorial published in the Sydney morning herald on 15th of May, 2012, “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test”, argues that NAPLAN tests, by causing schools to bring forth “teaching to the test” in their lessons, has led to a “rubbery participation rate”. The writer informs us that principals and teachers “may advise some students to withdraw to improve their school’s performance.” The reader may now feel that NAPLAN tests haven’t achieved much in terms of improving learning and that it has gained a negative reputation as people can deem it counter-productive to a student’s learning as well as school performances.

The writer identifies the reasons students may withdraw from the tests, one being the “school is teaching to the test” or “the child has a learning difficulty” which “makes tests extremely stressful.” The reader now recognizes the factors that might have lessened participation and may be able to relate to them, leading them to agree with the writer’s point of view.
The writer concludes that if the government wants “better schools”, they should instead use NAPLAN to “guide their allocation of resources, especially teachers.” Readers are alerted to a solution to this debate which can improve the performance of schools and may give the impression that this is what needs to be done.

In Camille Thomas” letter to the editor, “Test trouble”, published in The Age on 18th of May 2012, he believes that the NAPLAN tests are not an indicator of what students like him have learned and place unwarranted stress on them. He points out that the tests “made me extremely stressed”, which can establish a sense of familiarity within the reader, as they may have also experienced this, establishing a rapport between the audience and him. Furthermore, he informs us that his school “started working on NAPLAN practice tests”, which can provoke the reader to question why there is a lot of attention being put towards NAPLAN tests, as it “doesn’t go towards our final grades.” Thomas then shares his view on the test, highlighting that the essay topic given was “stupid” and proposes a “better topic”, “with a two-sided argument.” He adds that he spent his spare time “staring out the window.”, prompting the reader to view the NAPLAN tests as a dull and bewildering experience, and useless as an indicator of student achievement.

Both articles present similar views on the same issue. Camille Thomas and the writer of the editorial believe that NAPLAN doesn’t test the student’s knowledge in a sufficient way and offer alternatives that can lead to improving school and student performance. While they both present a point of view on the issue, the editorial employs formal language and conveys a logical, reasonable tone. Such as supporting that “literacy and numeracy should be tested according to a national standard”. Thomas’ article carries a more conversational tone as it is presented as an anecdote. Their arguments are presented to establish a relationship with their audience−students and teachers, but both offer a solution or suggestion which is pointed towards the authorities to improve the NAPLAN program. However, Thomas suggests changing the tests while the editorial believes the government should use NAPLAN as a guide to allocate resources to schools.

Overall, both authors, by pointing out the errors in NAPLAN testing, persuade their audience to believe that something needs to be done to improve school performance and they both suggest a possible solution, although slightly distinguishable. While “Test trouble” and “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test” present similar views on the issue, their use of persuasive techniques are different.

[brenden]

Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]

*Almost 5am, cannot be bothered reading the article. Soz.

The issue of violence and poor behaviour during the annual schoolies’ week is a perennial problem. In this piece, Shannon McRae suggests that the blame has been cast unfairly on the young school leavers, with the so-called toolies responsible for much of the trouble. Woaaah. This intro is way too short. Refer to the start of my massive post on page two for my recommended introduction structure.


By presenting schoolies week as a unique rite of passage after the trials of the VCE, the author seeks to establish the ‘point’ is this a quote from the author? otherwise just say purpose of schoolies to an audience of which the majority may not have participated themselves. You don't specify the audience here, so there's little need to make sure you aren't definitive with words like 'may'. Your audience is your sentence. You aren't say "The audience is thirty year olds, many of which may not have participated in schoolies"... In this sentence, you NEED 'may', otherwise you're incorrect. But, in your actualy sentence - the audience is people who the majority of which may not have participated in schoolies, which makes your audience undefined, and this is strange. The audience should be "of which the majority did not participate themselves", otherwise the audience could literally be anything "the audience of which the majority may believe in unicorns" -- in not being definitive, you don't give a proper audience. ‘Schoolies’ week’  implies a sense of ownership over the event, and clearly indicates the unspoken rules of who is and isn’t invited. By effectively handing the week over to the schoolies, McRae presents the argument not that the toolies should be better behaved, but that they should not attend at all Oh - i see how this could go against my previous feedback, however, if the 'majority of [toolies] may not have been' then you should be saying the audience is toolies, and definitively, instead of providing a weaker statement that I provided feedback for above. The statement of ‘their time to let loose’ reinforces this sense of ownership – the toolies are ‘encroaching’ on an event they have no right to be involved in. But what effect could this have for the target audience? Encroaching has some nasty connotations. The exclusivity that the author assigns to schoolies’ week seems to support their his or her view of the week as a unique institution, which is a vital reward for a significant portion of graduates for a significant portion of students is a vital reward at the end of their final year. He or she associates schoolies week with ‘freedom from the sometimes stifling classroom’, an image of school which probably NO appeals to a wide spectrum of the audience. This serves to invite those who didn’t ‘do’ a schoolies week themselves, such as the parents of today’s school leavers, into the spirit of the week yeah but how? Don't skimp on the 'feels' of  whatever demographic you're talking about. By referring to schoolies’ week having ‘become’ the modern rite of passage, McRae is contributing to a broader social shift, whereby there is now a widely held expectation that all school leavers participate in one way or another This is great. But there's a sentence missing -> "Subsequently, the sympathies of older audiences are targeted, as they are positioned to empathise with the social pressure faced by youths  that was not present many years ago" (I'm talking about le feels!. ‘No one should begrudge schoolies their right to a reward’ indicates that schoolies’ week is an extension of other privileges given to school students in their final year. By implication, McRae suggests it would be cruel to deny the school leavers what is apparently such an important part of growing up in contemporary Australia and now what effect does this implication of cruelness have on the audience? . McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies week, then, serves to lift the blame for the annual chaos from the schoolies themselves – the week is exclusively their time to ‘let loose’ with predictable consequences. To an extent, the normalisation of schoolie misbehaviour acts to shift the blame from the schoolies to the toolies, supporting the author’s contention that it is the latter who cause the trouble to escalate beyond the schoolies’ ‘celebration of freedom.’ What came after my last feedback was fantastic. Excellent closer.

Shows a perceptive and sophisticated understanding of a range of ways in which the written and visual language positions readers in the context presented.

The above is the dot point that you aren't quite hitting that you need to hit. You're sort of half saying why the language is positioning the readers, but you're not going fully in depth, which draws back on your perception and sophistication.

A rite of passage is the symbolic transformation from child to adult, and McRae uses the connotations of this transformation to cast the toolies as ‘predators’.Great The toolies are ‘adults’ and ‘grown men’, and the schoolies are ‘teens’ and ‘young people’, but, crucially, never ‘young adults.’ Hm. Quoting what the author doesn't say seems quite strange to me. I think you'd be better off analysing how 'young people' creates implications of youth, as opposed to young adults. That way the basis of your writing is on what has been said instead of what hasn't said. What hasn't been said is just an offshoot of the implication This seems to suggest that McRae regards the school leavers as children, despite the majority having turned eighteen and finished their formal education. Accordingly, they are still owed the special societal protection afforded for children, which makes the behaviour of the toolies particularly reprehensible. The language McRae uses creates a sense of a power imbalance between teenage schoolies and the toolies. Instead of a full stop you should have ", in that..." -- I just think your writing seems very rigid when you're using these very definitive sentences with one piece of information often.. Also promotes formulaic writingThey are ‘shady and opportunistic’ – this reinforces the author’s view of the schoolie-toolie relationship as an invariably exploitative mismatch of power. This imbalance is a product of both the physical disparity between ‘bigger, stronger’ adults and teenagers, as well as the economic fact that most schoolies ‘don’t have cars’, nor can they afford the consequences of ‘thousands of dollars’ of damage. Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of ‘young girls’, ‘luring them into the bushes’ in a depiction that seems tailored to the fears of parents Really fantastic, except in this last sentence, be more specific on the fear of parents. What is the fear? That's what I mean but go deeper. Before that was fucking great.. McRae, then, presents a strange view of the maturity of the schoolies.semi-colon would suit better imo On one hand, they are given virtually free rein to indulge in the privileges of adulthood; on the other, they are the potential victims of what the author casts as predatory and implicitly paedophilic assault. The spectre of ‘parental consequences’ reinforces this view of the schoolies as being somewhere between children and adults – McRae certainly wouldn’t suggest the toolies are accountable to their parents. The week may be, as McRae styles it, a modern ‘rite of passage’ – but the language used clearly indicates it is not the beginning of adulthood. Strong finish, but then, how does this go back to and support the author's contention?I just realise there hasn't been much mention of this.


McRae’s piece presents the schoolies as hardworking students whose special time to ‘let loose’ is invariably undermined by exploitative older men.  The piece attempts to build support in the audience for schoolies week as a modern institution, inviting those who didn’t experience it themselves to empathise with the ‘gatecrashed’ school leavers. Finally, while acknowledging the often poor behaviour of some schoolies, McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies misbehaviour seems to excuse them from the bulk of the blame. Great conclusion.

A short essay. I'd have a lengthier introduction and perhaps even another paragraph devoted to the language. In the case of another paragraph, it would be okay to slightly shorten all three.* I think you need to go deeper into how the audience feels and how this then positions them to be more likely to agree with the author's contention Your writing is very nice, I like it. I think you'd benefit with more commas, as sometimes your sentences can be quite blunt (though this isn't always a bad thing). So you're hitting the button as far as nice writing goes, but lacking on that dot point that wants perceptive/sophisticated analysis, though, some parts of this essay were extremely perceptive and impressive.

*Word count is not an important factor in and of itself. The idea of having a longer essay is to present/demonstrate your skills to the assessor more than a shorter essay can by virtue of more content.

[brenden]

Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]

*Again, too tired for article.


The subject of recent media speculation, the prevailing rape culture in India, ignited after the brutal gang rape of a young girl on public transport, the resultant consequence being her death 5 days later. This sentence is quite flawed. Those two commas mean that the rape culture is the subject of the speculation, right - however, in saying this, you're saying that the rape culture in India was ignited by the brutal gang rape. It's unclear. What you mean is, the speculation was ignited by the rape, and the speculation is concerning the rape culture. A more suitable correction follows. "Following the brutal gang rape and subsequent death of a young girl on public transport, the prevailing rape culture in india has been a prevailing subject of recent media speculation". Much clearer, no? The Age article written by Waleed Aly “Challenge is to sustain outcry against horrors” published on the 28th December, 2012 Back read on this thread on page 1/2 and find sentences like this and what i've corrected to and why etc.aims to encourage readers to look past this one case of rape to wider “horror” rape has posed in society I strongly dislike quote of articles use in introductions... I think you can demonstrate a much better understanding if you use your own words. I think quoting in the intro is cheating. Also, something you haven't mentioned that I've garnered from the title - is  the author also saying people need to maintain their feelings of outrage and not let it die out like a fad after this individual incident is forgotten? Could be completely wrong, haven't  read the article, but that's what the title seems to be saying to me. lol., whilst also instilling his belief that the root of the problem is social attitudes and the lack of action on such issues from the Indian government. The article is characterised by a number of tonal shifts as Aly moves from a measured and serious tone to an optimistic one, appealing to all demographics of the community.  Fantastic. Is there an image? If show, talk about it. "Appealing to all demographics of the community"... I call bullshit. You're cheating with this sentence. It's in the Age newspaper, that limits the demographic heavily. There's not a chance your average 13 year old boy could possibly be targeted by this article. You're gonna have to dig deeper.
                      Preceding any formal introduction to the issue, the reader’s attention is immediately taken up by the visual accompanied with the article. The image compromises an enlarged sketch of man, with a woman in his palm, with a gun pointing at her and a fist raised, portraying the situation of women in Delhi who were as the cliché goes are ‘in the palm of their [the men’s] hands’  I think you'd be hitting the criteria more if you wanted to discuss how the visual of the woman being in the palm of a man's hand has the potential to be extremely disturbing to the audience as it subverst any idea that women are equal and conveys the enormous amount of power Indian men hold overt their women - as much so that they could crush them! You should also never ever use cliches in formal writing, however, I'd suppose it is acceptable in this case as the image is quite certainly aiming for the cliche.. Allowing Aly to imply that their mistreatment resulted because of the power (the raised fist) Never use brackets. Find a better way of saying what you want to say. Rearrange the grammar etc that was given to the men It seems that this is all of your discussion of a visual that could earn you quite a lot of marks :/. . Moreover, the author immediately encourages readers to “look past the brutal gang rape” allowing himself to detract from this one incident, to the wider issue that was “positively ghastly”, influencing readers to take notice of this issue by triggering a sense of curiosity to what could be equally significant and terrible than this case Green = excellent. Aly then begins recounting an incident with a two-year old girl who was with “her hands and legs tied” brutally raped in the city of Halol, which too resulted in her death. The author implements this imagery to elicit a sense of disgust in the readers, forcing them to visualize the wider reality of the problem, and it is by using this extreme case of rape with a “two-year-old girl” that he shows that the issue really has reached its full wickedness, encouraging immediate action on the issue You'd want to be more specific here and reiterate the author's contention/what the issue. Perhaps not in this exact sentence, though, perhaps the next one.. The extent of the issue is further exemplified with the author embedding the statistics that an “Australian woman is killed every week in an act of violence” and that there’s “a sexual assault in the US every two minutes” swaying reader’s agreement on the fact that rape is a prevailing issue in all societies, not just in the Indian one but how? . Hence not only adding weight to the author’s argument but creating a sense of authenticity in the reader’s eyes’ how? that the issue is real and current one. As a general thing, I hate statistics. They're so easy to identify and almost anyone can say how they back up an argument - so I think better students are better off demonstrating how much better they are by analysing things like connotations more specifically that stats/rhetorical questions et al. However, not used badly in this instance.
Haha, you're doing different things than  other people do. Most people can be descriptive about the connotations of the evidence they provide, but never focus on the emotion of the audience. You have focused on the emotion (what i made green), but haven't focused on the actual connotations. Like, you would say "the imagery created makes them feel this way" but not "the imagery of.............. has the potential to...." -- be descriptive of both.
                    Furthermore, the author accentuates his belief that a key element of the issue was the social attitudes in India how certain really flawed sentence, needs  revision“cases that go unmarked upon” by the government leaving “perpetrators unpunished” Quit the quotes in intros/topic sentences  for aforementioned reasons. Unless you're going to analyse (and really well) the language that you've quoted, which would put a balm on the hurt you create.. To corroborate thiscomma Aly embeds the quote from father of the two-year-old that quotes the father of the two-year-old: “No one from the government or even district administration has bothered to pay us a visit even once”comma. punctuate after quotes. you've slipped a few times implying to readers that the root of the problem was the government. Ultimately convincing reader's to be indignant at the apparent injustice of this, this sentence is invalid. The second clause doesn't complete the first clause (which can't stand by itself) intending to result in readers supporting his stance on the foundation of rape culture. Likewise likewise to what? :S, Aly incorporates a degree of irony when he includes that the police commissioner of India “argued men were unsafe in Delhi” because “their pockets were picked”. The language that is used by the writer humiliates the Indian authorities, scorning them for creating a ridiculous situation where women complaining of sexual assault were treated with “disdain” while the government was more concerned about men’s pockets being “picked”. Inciting outrage in the readers, as Aly by brings to light the corrupt and immoral nature of the government. This is also invalid - same problem as before. "This incites outrage" makes it a stand alone sentence, but it's unfinished when you just say "Inciting" after a full stop Hence, also appealing to the readers’ humanity, that is, the desire to take care of one another as most readers don’t want themselves or others to be subjected such injustice. Consistent with this, the writer underlines that the “overarching social attitude that stigmatises the victim, rather than the attacker” is also to credit with the creation of this rape culture. He states that this is not uniquely an Indian problem as “Swaziland has just passed a law banning miniskirts on the basis that they ‘encourage rape’”. He positions the readers to share his opinion that this is absurd response to this issue, as it is by including this information about this new law that infuses a sense of indignation in readers, which is directed to the authorities and the unjust social attitudes they retain and are faultily creating.  Nice
                  In succession What is in succession? "Succeeding this" would seem clearer, however, I also think there are better ways to begin a paragraph than by referring to its chronology, the author labels that it is a “misogynist flaw” to present rape a primarily sexual. Positioning readers to agree with this notion as the loaded word “misogynist” carries extremely sinister emotional baggage, hence allowing Aly to assume the reader’s agreement as none would aim to be associated with support such flawed beings. Moreover, the writer employs the alliteration don't identify in this way, it's cheap. of “domination and dehumanization” to add emphasis on the violent and evil nature of rape and the crimes involved that he believes to be often disregarded. The language used also creates emotional image of the victims as being feeble in the face of these perpetrators, generating the reader’s support as it urges them to feel a sense of sympathy for the victims. Furthermore, Aly establishes his belief that sexualised understandings of rape “come overwhelmingly from men with cultural or political authority”, allowing him to imply that this came with “power and privilege” And what?.  Likewise, the author also utilizes this to suggest to readers that those in power were corrupt and selfish as they did what suited them, and anything that avoided any “accountability” in respect to these crimes, thus demeaning these figures in the eyes of the reader yeah but what does demeaning do for the purpose of the author? .
                  Aly shifts from here on, adopting an optimistic perspective as he believes there is a likelihood of change being brought upon society due to case of this brutal case in Delhi. Is his belief the reason he makes the change? What effect could this transition have on the audience, and how would this suit the author's purpose? The author describes that the “the voice of the disempowered” were “challenging the elite”. It is this that aims to inspire the readers to take action, as they too want their voices to be heard, allowing Aly to gain the readers support as everyone wants their freedom and rights to be satisfied could also talk about targeting the Australian value for the underdog or any david v goliath connotations. The writer then brings the issue to our doorstep informal and lazyby stating the cases of sexual abuse in regards to the Catholic Church and how they have been “dragged into the centre of a royal commission”. In this the author highlights the relevance to rape in Australian society, appealing to the reader’s sense of patriotism, thus manipulating them into agreeing with Aly as they feel they need to support their country in the tackling of this issue. Sense of patriotism that what? That we're making the Church accountable. Mention it. Those whole few sentences were very brief and shallow. He also exhibits justice being served to the perpetrators, leaving readers wary that with justice being served the “potential for rapid social change looks very real”. how are readers left wary? :S Accordingly, the writer finishes by questioning that “Will the ruling of class of India revisit the way it understands rape, rather than merely talk about tougher changes?” and that “Is this a genuine change in the nature of power, or a series of ephemeral flashpoints soon to be forgotten in an age of supersonic news?”. He implements this to leave readers skeptical that true change will occur rapidly because it requires a those it power to rethink their values and the nature they operate, however he also leaves a sense of hope that this could be the “story of 2013”.
               In “Challenge is to sustain outcry against horrors” Aly Waleed expresses the extent of the issue of rape culture in different societies by including other cases of the rape aside from the Delhi rape case, and bringing it home to the rape and violence against women that occurs in the streets of Australia. He also brings forward, through the use of language devices such as irony and alliteration to exhibit that the crux of the problem was the people in power, who refused accountability for such cases, adding to the detrimental social attitude towards women in India.  In essence, Aly leaves readers hopeful for change but doubtful for a “genuine” one. Cool!


Okay, there were parts where your writing was sort of "huh?" and that killed your flow, and you could also articulate/express yourself better in general. Some of your analysis was just fantastic and I loved it, but some could also be general/ like you've skimmed it. It's quite long? - are you aiming to 'analyse everything'? One of my friends fell in to this trap, and it caused her to spend far too long writing LAs. You don't need to analyse everything. You need to analyse until you've demonstrated that you're awesome to the assessor. Sometimes it felt like you were analysign things because you felt obligated to do so, but it wasn't really furthering your position in terms of marks. So for you, I'd want to turn this whole thing into my green writing, and make sure none of my red writing cropped up - (express yourself better and develop flow). Nice response.

I'm also not a fan of marking out of ten. I am not VCAA. I do not know what VCAA would give you. I really never mark responses out of ten because it just creates a whole bunch of questions for me --- "Should I be honest? Will giving a low mark demotivate them? Will giving a high mark make them think there's no more work to be done? What if I'm higher than the standard? What if I'm lower? What are the consequences to being wrong? Am I in any way qualified to take a guess and what this would get?" - For that's all I can do. Guess. I suppose because you've asked specifically I should make an attempt...

Oh! Also, I almost forgot! I really think you could have got way more for that image. I personally think it is a structural mistake for people to be taught to analyse the image first. I have been taught this way, but I have also been taught to do the image last, and I personally believe the criteria is more effectively targeted when you discuss the image last. It also provides more opportunity for depth. So often, people use the image as an "attention grabbing device" and then give it two sentences worth of discusion, however, you can draw so much more out of images than this, and also remark on how in intertwines with the written language of the piece, which in turns looks sophisticated as fuck and smashed out on of the 9-10/10 criteria dot points. I'd consider shifting your image paragraph to last and devoting more analysis to it (the things I mentioned as my feedback in the first paragraph you could get 120 words out of at least)

Shows an understanding of how the written and visual language seeks to position readers, with reference to the context presented.
Achieves a planned and supported response using accurate language and clear expression.

[/b]
I looked at the VCAA criteria page and I believe your essay is more suitable to these two dot points. The stuff in green would bring you up so much higher on the first dot point, however, the whole essay is not green, thus, I must conclude that you "Show and understanding" rather than "show a highly developed understanding" (even though I sort of think you did develop a high understanding, however, that brings me to the next dot point)
Your expression is the one holding you down on this one. When looking at the criteria for an 8/10, I would say you almost made it as far as your 'understanding' went, however, your expression didn't fit the criteria for an 8. Your expression was at times unclear, particularly the unfinished sentences, and some grammar flaws. Punctuation improvements could also be made. So, I gave a 7/10 for this response. That being said - what the fuck would I know?

[brenden]

Hey Brenden,
Hello Aphelleon
Thanks so much for doing this. You're an absolute legend.
You're welcome. You too!
For my article analysis SAC, we've been looking at incorporating 3 articles within a single essay.  Oooh, scary However, we only know what two of them are - the third is a 'mystery' article that will be presented by our teacher on the day of the SAC.

Which is why I'm a tad concerned, because this essay is 1,017 words amidst a 900 word limit (give or take 10%). And I still have another article to incorporate! Oh dear!
Woazers. You pretty much have to get rid of 250 words. Lol.
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that my chosen structure doesn't seem to match up with most of the examples I've seen posted up. Don't let this bother you just because it's different. You would be extremely surprised as to how many different structures there are floating around.And yet my teacher has advised to base each paragraph on a 'idea' rather than a 'persuasive device'.  Sounds like your teacher knows the happity-haps, this is exactly what you should be doing. Then discussing the persuasive language that forms the basis of the idea, of course.


Should the topic sentence cover the overarching issue that is being discussed in the paragraph?
Certainly. The topic sentence is literally used to flagpost what you will be discussing in the coming paragraph
Ie. The query into church sanctioning has sparked fierce debate in the media.
As a topic sentence, this is too broad and does not relate to the article, so isn't suitable. The idea of a topic sentence is to introduce the topic that you will be discussing in a specific, but slightly general (to give yourself scope), sense. So, if this topic sentence could easily be applied to all three of your paragraphs analysing an article, it is probably not a suitable topic sentence. Each one should be individual.
Or should it just mention one author's viewpoint? (Allowing the paragraph to diverge to to the other perspective later).

Ie. Through imagery and appeals to fear, Smith asserts that powerful institutions should not be allowed to operate without sanction.
This seems more suitable, however, "appeals to fear" seems like heavy technique identification and makes me cringe. It also seems as if Smith's assertion could be an idea that supports an overarching contention. It doesn't necessarily have to mention the author's viewpoint (although that makes a lot of sense), just mention what you will be discussing in your paragraphs. Often, I started paragraphs like "In subtly asserting the notion that 'x' with [adjective] language, the author [verb/discussion of the overarching effect/overarching idea that is specific to the area of the article currently being analysed].And then you can discuss how the language works together specifically toward the one idea.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what a conclusion should look like. I've tried writing what seems to match up with most examples I've seen... But it just seems so... inconclusive Hahahaha, I know exactly what you mean. . Shouldn't I finish with a general, thought provoking sentence? Yeah I often did this (of my own accord) just because I thought it seemed beast as fuck. More often in a text response, though - like "Thus, Rose displays the vulgar opportunities created by humanity, but reminds the audience that good men do exist" (lolwtf did I just write)... It's easier to do in a text response, because you convey your opinion about what the author is saying by proxy of analysis... I'd have to see an example of what you mean so I could more specifically help you in varying it And yet how do I do that without conveying my own opinion ? (I've been marked down on this issue before) I see you've asked what a conclusion should look like down the bottom of this post... That is where I will perhaps answer in more depth.


I've included some of my thoughts throughout the essay, but if you pick out anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know! I'm aiming for a good mark, so criticism is welcome:D
Awesome
Thank you!
You're welcome
These are the articles I have been using...
I'm skipping
Greg Barns: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4370672.html
Simon Smart: http://publicchristianity.org/library/whatever-it-takes-sexual-abuse-and-the-church




Following recent inquisitions into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church (too many ins? How can I rephrase?)You could say "Following recent investigations concerning sexual abuse in the Catholic Church",  however, your sentence is fine enough public interest in what? has rekindled, sparking debate as to what should be done in light of recent revelations Cool. Whilst some champion the ideals of the Royal Commission, considering it… (should I add something in the middle here?), others hope to find alternative means of victim compensation Good pick up on your behalf  - I think you should "considering it [what the Royal Commission consider] - otherwise your reader doesn't know what's going on with the Royal Commission.. Simon Smart, in his article published November 20, 2012 on the Centre for Public Christianity websiteCheck p1/2 of this thread for my feedback on opening lines like this, endorses a preventative ideal to his Christian demographic, (something sounds a bit off here) You use too many commas after what you've bolded. Christian demographic is great, (well done on identifying audience), however, the commas that come after that are superfluous. I'll put a red x where they shouldn't be contending,x in an incredulous and alarmist tone,x that the Church must suffer through the Royal Commission if it hopes to “save its soul”(should I mention the immediacy of his demands, or just leave it?) I'm against quoting in the introduction (Read my above post/feedback). Re; demands - I haven't read article (7.30am haven't slept cut me some slack I'M SORRY, but, if you think it's something you will want to reference later on and have the reader know what you're talking about, mention it. If you think it's imperative to what you're going to discuss, or imperative to the way he uses language to persuade, mention it. If you don't see a point in mentioning it, or you'd just be doing it for the sake of mentioning it, don't mention it. (especially when you're trying to cut 250 words . Alternatively, Greg Barns, through his article published on The Drum website on the 14th of November 2012, same, refer p1/2 embraces a didactic and condescending approach, asserting,x to a consequentialist audience,x that the Royal Commission is a waste of time and money, whilst maintaining that therapeutic justice is a superior means to victim satisfaction.  Impressive. If there were an image(s), you'd mention it here.

Amidst the flurry of national debate, many have questioned whether the state should endeavour upon a preventative or curative approach in pursuit of justice for abuse victims. Through use of emotive language, Smart contends that the government must act promptly to prevent abuse reoccurring in the Church. This, we would call a two-sentence-topic-sentence, and it is done very well In harnessing an indignant tone, Smart’s article is strung with poignancy, as he describes the “shocking” “betrayal” and “cruelty”, the “terrible” acts of “abuse”, permitted by an institution supposedly founded on “love” and “protection”.  In this, Smart expresses a sense of profound urgency towards the issue at hand, implying that to accept inactivity would be to approve of the “suffering of countless people”  This is pretty skimpy analysis. You're sort of doing it, but you're not DOING IT. See the differences between the things i highlighted green and the things I didn't in the above post. You quote all these words and then discuss none of them. What's with that? They all have a certain interrelated connotation to them that you could discuss in relation to the target audience, but you don't. (is the link between urgency and prevention clear enough? No. And if you have to ask that question, the answer is probably no. ). Thus, when Smart refers to his target audience as “good people of faith”, religious readers are driven to seek out moral righteousness, and consequently approve of that which Smart attributes as “good” . (Does this link with the argument well enough? It links with your overall paragraph, however, the use of 'thus' is inappropriate - I think it is this that prompts your question - because what comes after 'thus' isn't really caused or related to the previous sentence, so 'thus' sort of becomes redundant) Conversely, through anecdote,this way makes it sound too much like you're identifying a technique. I'm switching it to an adjective, which hides the technique identification but also says what you'd like to say without the negative effects Barns anecdotally contests that society should focus its resources on aiding current victims of abuse. Near the conclusion of his article, Barns adopts a sentimental tone, describing how he has “found” therapeutic justice to be far more “healing for the participants” than the “cold uncertainty of a criminal trial”. This use of personal anecdote allows utilitarian readers to connect with the issue on an emotional level, therefore predisposing them, therefore, to view therapeutic justice in a warm and welcoming light. Furthermore, the fact that Greg Barns is attributed as “barrister” makes use of an appeal to authority, positioning readers to associate a notion of sapiency and academic grounding to his experiences, therefore encouraging them to accept his ideals as objective truth. (Should I omit this bit about the "appeal to authority"? Does it take up unnecessary space?)
Yeah, look, you need to cut words, and that could definitely be cut. The shift in tone is an awesome identification (seriously, analysing this stuff earns you marks quicker than being Chris Judd), however, I would've liked to see analysis of the emotional effect that the tone is intended to take, or what it could achieve for the author, or how it relates to the language that occurs after/because of the shift.
In more recent debates, some have taken a stand against the Catholic Church, seeking to expose the root of the issue at hand (Is ‘at hand’ too colloquial? Should I cut it? It isn't too colloquial, however you may as well cut it. If you can say something that means the exact same thing as something else but do it in less words, you should.).  Through his article, Smart condemns the church for being more concerned with its own “self-preservation” than the lives of people entrusted under its care. Early in the second paragraph, Smart describes the “great” theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer “martyred” in his defiance against the “Nazis”. In illustrating Bonhoeffer in this manner, Smart constructs a heroic, saint-like figure, endowing him, therefore, with a sense of Biblical authority.  See, no emotional analysis so far? Read the above post. you want some green.Thus, when Bonhoeffer demands that the Church “hasten to” the aid of the “suffering”, Christian readers are inspired to adopt his instruction as though it were divine command.(Should I expand on this? Doing so could earn you marks. 'expanding' on a lot of the things you've written coulld earn you marks, because you're skipping out on the 'why/how' in terms of the target audience's emotions) Contrarily, Barns dismisses the importance of the Catholic Church in the face of a widespread issue. Through imagery, Barns denounces the perception of abuse as being localized, rather endorsing a holistic approach, and encouraging readers to consider the affects of abuse in all social circles. The image accompanying the article projects Cardinel Pel’s face Mention the image in your intro, unflatteringly suspended mid-sentence, with eyebrows drawn low with uncertainty. To the left, he raises a sheet of paper clearly labelled ‘Sexual Abuse’.  In presenting Pel in this fashion, Barns attacks the Cardinel’s intelligence, projecting him as being oblivious to the complexity and difficulty involved in tackling the broader issue of sexual abuse. In this, readers are prompted to likewise discredit Pel’s opinion how?, joining Barns in his assertion that those who focus solely on sexual abuse in the church are ignorant and narrow minded.  (I need feedback on this please not quite sure whether it fits with the issue.) That was great and suited well, but you need to be discussing emotions of the reader!! HOWEVER - BE WARY OF THIS - you've done it in your next paragraph, too. Don't always discuss the image as a device utilised by the author. Usually, the editor will be the person choosing the image, and the author will have nothing to do with it! Sometimes you might get an entirely contradictory image and you'll be confused, as in 'why would the author use this :S' -----> discuss how the image COMPLEMENTS the written language, or speaks for itself, but not how the author uses it to speak.

Many have questioned the true value of the Royal Commission amidst the hype and controversy. Through imagery, Smart asserts that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to operate without sanction, but should, rather, have its flaws exposed to the public light (is there a better term for this? public scrutiny ) through the Royal Commission. The photograph accompanying the article makes use of a low-angled shot, peering upward at the inside of a cathedral, whilst attendees, small and vulnerable in the foreground, gaze up in reverent fidelity. Harsh, sharp contours and orange tinting create a hot and festering atmosphere, symbolic of the hostility brewing between the Catholic Church and state legislation. (Am I allowed to evaluate the symbolism here? Yeah, absolutely! But you should be evaluating it in relation to the audience's emotions!!!!!!!!!!! Your image discussion is descriptive thus far, but not analytical. ) Here, the low-angled shot projects the Church as a powerful and imposing entity, an unyielding challenger in the face of national constitution. Through this, Smart compels readers to vilify the Catholic Church, prompting them to perceive it as sanctimonious and manipulative, unconcerned with those who appeal to it for guidance. This further makes use of an appeal to fear, encouraging readers to oppose the unbridled power of the Vatican patriarchy, and inviting them, therefore, to attribute value to the Royal Commission as a means of protection from corruption. In contrast, Barns attests that the royal commission is a tedious and gruelling process, disputing that Australians should utilize their resources for more productive endeavours. Throughout his piece, Barns employs use of the motif of time, repeating terms such as “waiting”, “ploughing”, and “drawn out”, presenting therapeutic ideologies as a means to “fast justice”, whilst condemning the “impossibly broad” scope of the Royal Commission why? in detail, your next sentence already seems skimpy. In exposing this temporal factor, Barns appeals to the need for ‘instantaneous gratification’ in human psychology, (this phrase seems a bit ‘off’ here. How can I rephrase this?) provoking audiences to seek the “speedy” solution over the more difficult, strenuous, “multi-year” investigation.  Damnit, I can only think of preference utilitarianism right now and the 'fulfilment of preferences' and it's making rephrasing so difficult hahaha.  Even if you changed human psychology to 'society', it would sound much better. It's the 'human psychology' that sounds demented hahaha. You're writing is so wonderful to read, you're just cheating yourself so badly on the emotional analysis. This writing is pretty much 10/10 expression, but the analysis is too shallow for my personal liking. Really use you empathy and logic at the same time and analyse the purpose the author has in causing the emotion he's intending to feel and why that works.

Through their articles, both Simon Smart and Greg Barns have presented their opinion in regards to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Smart maintains that the Catholic Church should accept responsibility for its actions, exploiting dire appeals to emotion and fear in order to persuade readers that powerful institutions should not go unchecked by the constitution. Barns’s article contests, depreciating the Royal Commission through derisive emotional pleas, attacks and repetition. (I am unsure as to the structure of a conclusion. Please help!)

 



1.   What is the conclusion suppose to be look like?
The conclusion is a place to super-summarise your essay. Basically, give a brief overview of what the authors have argued/what you have discussed. You aren't far off, however, you talk about the appeals the author is exploiting which detracts from the substance of the conclusion (as opposed to 'ideas' or arguments). See the first post I made today, the post above the post above this post.

2. Are my topic sentences appropriate?
Your topic sentences are fine, however, I think they could be improved by being less general and more specific to the contents of your paragraphs.


This is almost a fantastic response. Your writing is very controlled and well done (I'm also impressed and how you've been critical with your own writing --- this is extremely valuable --- the reason I mark essays well for people now is because in Year 12, when writing my essays, I got into the habit of thinking "what would my teacher say", and that translated into marking), however, I think you just go far too shallow/afraid to get your hands dirty in terms of really analysing the emotional grit of the piece. It's too 'pretty' and 'clipped'.
"Discussion of impact will impact your marks!"

[Patches]

(To keep the post short I won't quote your post.)
Thank you very much , your comments are really helpful.

I'll definitely spend more time on how the language positions the reader - I wasn't really sure how to do it without (generally) stating the obvious, so I did leave most of it out in the end.
For instance, where I say 'Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of ‘young girls’, ‘luring them into the bushes’ in a depiction that seems tailored to the fears of parents'
- what more could I say about the specific fears of parents that isn't clear in that sentence?

With the introduction, my teacher is an examiner and told us to keep it as short as possible, but I wasn't sure about it either. I normally would write a bit more but I thought I'd do what he suggested this time.

And yeah, it was a bit short - in a sac or exam I'd write an extra paragraph.

Thankyou very much

[brenden]

You're welcome man

"For instance, where I say 'Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of ‘young girls’, ‘luring them into the bushes’ in a depiction that seems tailored to the fears of parents'"

Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of 'young girls', 'luring them into the bushes' in a stereotypical depiction of society's most sinister act; the connotations of 'luring' forces parents to feel the sickened feeling associated with the violation of trust and innocence that accompanies paedophillia. Subsequently, parents could potentially make an association with toolies and that sickening feelings, positioning them to be more likely to agree with the author's contention.


That last sentence was extremely lazy of me, but unnecessary for the example - I'm sure you could fix that by yourself.

Ah :/, fair enough. Look, to be honest, essays are not checklists. Essay conventions are NOT apart of the criteria, and regardless of what an essay features, so long as it is well written and shows a perceptive analysis of written and visual language, it can score full marks. I've met many teachers in my time who just loooooooooove to spout the bullshit "You need to do x to score full marks!", but unless 'x' is substituted with a criteria dot point, you don't need it for shit. English teachers/students/tutors can be extremely sensitive with the way essays 'should' be written, but really, it's all relative. Everything I tell my kids to write is because I believe that those things are best suited to shape an essay into one that hits the criteria. To be honest, I think that a longer conclusion has more opportunity to shape an essay into a high-scoring one than a short introduction (I'm a very big fan of introductions for both Section A and B, I always allocated close to 13 minutes on to an intro!), but you need to do what your teacher says to a T in the SACs. Once SWOTVAC hits, you can do whatever the fuck you like, and if you decide that you'd like a longer intro, it will be very quick/simple/easy to learn - just hit me up

You're welcome

[Smiley_]

Here is a LA is have completed. I have a SAC next week so any feedback would be helpful Thanks

This is a link to the article

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/clock-is-ticking-on-school-funding-reform-20130415-2hwi4.html


With the government’s recent decision that they will begin to cut funding for universities to provide the greater funding, that is recommended for schools, debate has been sparked as to the effectiveness of this decision and how this will our country. In response to this, an editorial was published in “The Age” on the 17th of April 2013 contending in a concerned but rational tone that a decision needs to be made about school and university funding that will benefit the nation appealing to the audience of government officials and members of the public effected by these cuts and increases.

The title of the piece “Clock is ticking on school funding reform” is a pun reminding the audience that time is up with regards to the school funding decision and a decision that will benefit the whole nation must be reached. This creates an image in the reader’s mind of politicians being under the pump to “get their act together” and work something out. This enforces into the readers mind the urgency of the situation and the idea that something needs to be done soon.
 
Throughout the piece a concerned tone is employed, in an attempt to position the reader that a fair decision needs to be made because our country deserves better. By stating that the problem is not the increase in funding that the Gonski review recommends, it is the “prospect of election defeat” that Julia may be facing in five months time. The audience is invited to consider the idea that what the Prime Minister is doing is less about what is going to be most beneficial for the country and more about what will give her an advance in the polls. Through the use of statistics such as an “extra $9.4 billion in federal funding” and that the state governments must contribute “$5.1 billion” the readers hip to pocket nerve is appealed to when the costs of this scheme and the negative effects that it will place on the state government and therefore the country are realised. By following this information with more statistics the editorial is presented in a positive light and therefore the audience may become more likely to agree with the writers contention.  By using the saying “robbing Peter to pay Paul” when referring to the governments funding cuts and increases, the audience is given an image of the government just taking from one area to increase funding to the other instead of having both groups benefit. Through this the reader is positioned to view the governments plans as selfish and not really doing what they should be for our country. By acknowledging the Labor has “increased university funding” the writer’s argument is presented as more well rounded. By following this statement with the rational “but university enrolments have soared” the readers are able to see that what the government presented as something positive was not as generous and kind as first thought. As the piece continues the government’s election battle is referred to as “a lopsided political contest.” This descriptive language refers to the debate that is surrounding the political funding and that is constantly in the media. The audiences sense of justice is appealed to when they are positioned to acknowledge that this “contest” is taking place when our university students are losing funding and question the idea that is this really what is best for our country.


The editor continues the piece by suggesting that a decision needs to be made because our students deserve better. By alerting the readers to the fact that most of the cuts come from “HECSs discounts, scholarships and tax deduction the editor appeals to the readers hip-to-pocket nerve. This positions them to question how better school students will be compared to ones studying at university. A matter of urgency is instilled in the reader when Australia is described as “among the worst in the OECD. “ This reinforces into the reader mind the idea that a beneficial solution needs to be implemented to improve our student’s education. Appealing to the reader’s sense of justice “the inequality in our schools” is described, this positions them acknowledge that more can and should be done to help our students especially those who are disadvantaged. To conclude the piece the editor ends with the firm remark that it “is essential to ensure every Australian student gets a fair go. “  A sense of patriotism is appealed to in the reader as they are able to see that if there the funding for schools was a more thought out decision the future of out children would be improve with would in turn improve the country and its economy.

The editorial incorporates a combination of appeals, statistic and facts, which would appeal to the writers intended audience. The use of formal language degrades the government’s plans while presenting the editor in a positive manner. As this plan has not been implemented the debate is likely  to promote further discussion in this budget conscious world.


Thanks