Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

July 18, 2024, 11:15:47 am

Author Topic: Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback  (Read 76036 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aphelleon

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2013, 06:14:35 pm »
0


HOLY GUACAMOLE.
Thank you so much!

This has got to be some of the most amazing feedback I have ever received on a piece of writing.

Dude, you're a lifesaver. I can't believe I had managed to miss out on the most important aspect of 'language analysis' ----> the actual emotional analysis itself.  LOL.   ;D

Nah but seriously, thank you for opening my eyes to these mistakes - I would've been doomed without your advice.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 06:17:12 pm by aphelleon »

academicbulimia

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 159
  • Respect: +4
  • School: some really crap country school
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2013, 07:40:22 pm »
0
Thank you so so so so so so much!!:D Best feedback I've gotten on my essays this year-no exaggeration is used in that sentence I assure you :P
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
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 analyzing 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. :)
Thank you!! And yeah you are so right, my ideas are like flowing in my mind when I'm writing the essay and I forget about the fact that other people need to be able to read it and understand it haha
and yeah I'll cut down on what I'm analyzing I only just did that much because me and LA have had our time apart so I was just refreshing on how to actually analyze shit haha

Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
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)
Thanks heaps , will take this on board because a picture paints 120 words ;) 

Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
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?
Haha thanks 10/10 for you :D
2012: Psychology~Biology
2013:Chem~Methods~BusinessManagment~English
[UMAT 96%tile]

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2013, 10:54:00 pm »
+2
Hahahahaha yay! You're welcome :):)
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

awesomet

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: 0
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2013, 05:58:03 pm »
0
http://mackyr12english.wikispaces.com/file/view/English_Exam_2009.chemology.pdf

The issue of felling has recently received some spotlight after the council of Avonlea decided to demolish storm-damaged elm trees. An opinion piece published on a website of a Melbourne based newspaper by Vanessa Swan, an environmental activist, contends that these trees were in fact healthy and posed no threat to public safety. By implementing a furious tone, she strives to bring fear upon the Avonlea community by notifying the heritage and environmental loses that they may face if this is to continue. By adding a sense of urgency towards the end of her article she aims to raise awareness on the issue of felling.

Swan commences her article by revising the law of Avonlea on vandalism, she then shifts her focus from vandals to what she strongly believes are the true law breakers of Avonlea, the council. By presenting the council with negative connotations such as “eco-terrorists”, the environmental activist forces her audience to visualize the council as the delinquents of the suburb and picture them as villains. Such an accusation also aids Swan in attracting her readers towards the article. Although the council justify their actions by claiming that the trees were a “threat the public safety”, Swan rebuts the council’s argument by using Samuel Hawthorne as her support. Hawthorne strongly criticises the council’s actions and in his report it is stated that none of these trees were “unsound or incapable of recovery”.  The comments made by Hawthorne further demonise the Avonlea council, as it positions the public to feel indignant about being deceived. Being an independent arborist also adds credibility to his arguments, which compels the audience to dismiss the council’s justification, making the audience feel obligated to side with Swan on the issue.

The writer then draws our attention to the importance of having trees in the community. She points out the various “physical and mental” health benefits we receive of having trees in the environment we live in. By emphasising the advantages, it forces the readers to accept the fact that trees are a vital necessity in the suburb. Accompanied with the article, Swan utilises a visual to further enhance her arguments on the significance of the demolished elms.
The large “tree of life” containing various species of fauna helps the author convey their message that various other organisms are also heavily dependant on them. Having the cartoon focusing on the man causing damage to the tree draws many animal enthusiasts; at the same time, the brutal reality portrayed in the cartoon also aims to create a sense of guilt amongst the readers. The thought of damaging an organism’s home positions the reader to feel egoistic and self- centred for failing to take any action in the issue. The guilt created by the cartoon inevitably causes the reader to agree with Swan.
   
The author also strives to create a sense of distress amongst her readers. Even before reading the article, the headline “Barking up the wrong tree” sends a menacing vibe and also demonstrates to her opponents that she is adamant in putting a stop to demolishment of trees. Swan’s persistent nature shown in the article forces the public to cooperate and support her. She then informs the public of the grave heritage loses they may face if felling was to continue. Furthermore, Swan targets many family-orientated people, informing them of the loss of natural resources for future generations. By doing so, she aims to get her audience to slip into deep thought about a future where trees are a distant memory for the younger generation of today. In doing so, she once again creates dread within the audience and positions the reader to comply with her.

Vanessa Swan’s article discusses the issue of felling. By implementing a disapproving tone, the author criticizes the council’s actions of demolishing storm damaged elm trees. The writer then goes on to encourage her audience to stop future scenarios similar to that of the Avonlea community and advises them to take action “NOW”. The article also utilise a variety of sources such as a cartoon and an expert opinion to illustrate the significance of trees in the environment. In doing so, the public of Avonlea are able to be convinced that trees are a vital necessity to their community. 


just need advice on where I can improve, Thanks in advance :)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 06:21:04 pm by awesomet »

Inhibition

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • God of the new world
  • Respect: 0
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2013, 10:28:15 am »
0
Duck Shooting Comparative
As duck season looms closer the continual debate over duck hunting has reignited. Many environmentalists oppose this sport, defending the plight of wildfowl. This is in stark contrast to the duck hunting lobby who are fervent on maintaining this sport. Elizabeth Anile’s opinion piece “Duck Shooting: Unsustainable and brutal” condemns how adamantly she is opposed to duck-shooting, highlighting how Victoria “lags” behind other states. Similarly, Debbie Lustig’s letter to the editor “Dead Duck asks, why me?” follows suit; however she takes a more emotional and different approach, taking on the persona of a “dead duck”. Both pieces of prose are polar opposites to Doug’s letter “Leave us Levy” where he validates duck hunting by showing his approval of duck-shooting. Also worth noting is the accompanying image of the wetlands depicting a hunter poised for attack, possibly supporting Lustig’s and Anile’s shared views.

Anile’s confrontational opinion piece “Duck Shooting: Unsustainable and Brutal” highlights the plight of ducks, in order to urge readers to abhor duck-shooting. She questions if the ducks are “killed clean[ly]”, the subtle sarcasm denigrating duck-hunters and intended to show her sympathy. This engenders to Melbournian’s sense of fear since “cleanly” has a questioning ring to it. Furthermore, pejoratives “starvation, agonizing” are utilized to depict suffering, perhaps evoking readers to reject the gruesome image painted by Anile. In addition, she also advocates that the water birds are “killed and maimed in the name of ‘sport’”. “Killed and maimed” are laden with emotion and could incite images of gore and suffering. Not only is this designed to disgust and mortify readers, but reinforces Anile’s underlying conviction that duck shooting is inhumane. To build persuasive momentum in her arguments, “sport” is in inverted quotations; alluding to her notion that duck-hunting does not deserve the right to be labeled as a “sport”. 

Anile continues in a condescending yet controlled fashion by claiming that the government is responsible for the suffering of the ducks. The reader could be positioned to respond with affronted feelings, shocked that their government is “bowing down” to the duck hunting lobby. This shows that the Government, more specifically “Victorian Premier John Brumby” is weak to “repeatedly ignore scientific evidence”. The attack on Mr. Brumby could encourage readers to respond with hostility, swayed by Anile’s condemning tone.  Likewise, Anile denounces that this is an “echo” of the “Roy Morgan poll which found 87 percent of Victorians oppos[ing] duck shooting”. “Echo” implies that this situation has occurred before, startling readers that this issue has not yet been resolved. When coupled with the almost exaggerated statistic of “87 percent”, this could arouse readers to feel slightly angry, because it indicates that Mr. Brumby is ignoring a large majority of the public. Furthermore, Anile reinforces her disapproval of the Victorian Government by directing her audience’s attention towards other states such as “NSW, Queensland, and WA” who have all “banned recreational duck hunting”. Readers could have their hostile feelings amplified as they come to terms that “Victoria lags behind”; perhaps it is possible readers could harbor some embarrassment knowing that their state is sub-par. To subdue feelings of embarrassment, Victorians could possibly develop disparaging thoughts of the Government, vindictive that they are inferior to other states. 

The image juxtaposing the text shows a black and white photograph of the wetlands. The background is tranquil as evident from the marsh and swamp; when coupled with the ducks waddling in the foreground it emanates an aura of serenity. This is pierced by the hunter in the immediate foreground who is seen with what seems to be a bird whistle in his hands. This gesture on the hunter’s behalf could generate disgust within readers as it could be interpreted that he is luring more helpless ducks into his trap. The hunter’s protruding shotgun also punctures the blissful scene, and this could intensify the venom within readers. This menacing photograph accentuates the innocence of the ducks, possibly bolstering support for the banning of duck-shooting.

Continuing with Anile’s contention, Debbie Lustig also agrees that duck-shooting should be banned in Victoria- albeit doing so by donning the façade of a “dead duck”. The first portion of Lustig’s letter depicts what the public would assume to be as the lifecycle of a duck. Spoken in a soft tone, Lustig describes how she (as a duck) “waddled, dabbled, mated and raised ducklings.” Assonating “waddled and dabbled” paints the ducks as innocent as this alludes to them being comical and almost child-like.  This could endear to the audience’s sense of humanity since many individuals believe innocence should not be corrupted. However, the appeal to morality diminishes and is replaced with fear and gore. There is a strong appeal made to the sense of humanity, “shattered bill… broke my wing” dripping with sympathy and evocative- the innocence has been tainted. Lustig finally rhetorically asks “why was I a target” – the calm tone continues towards the end in an effort to consolidate concern and sorrow in readers.

In stark contrast to both the articles presented, Doug’s hostile letter “Leave us Levy!” undermines any who oppose the sport whilst justifying the cause of duck-hunting. The colloquial and informal style of the letter commences with the attention grabbing headline “Leave us Levy!” Not only does the exclamation deliver his annoyance at this continual debate, but juxtaposed to “Levy” places readers to think that Laurie Levy is the individual Doug is targeting. Suspicions are confirmed when Doug describes Levy as a “fascist leader”. Denouncing Levy’s authority is furthered as Doug mocks “Levy and his animal activist friends” for not having any significant input into “rejuvenating wetlands”. Readers are led to believe that the actions of Levy are incorrect and somewhat facetious. This is due to how “Levy and his animal activist friends” is similar to how a child would describe the situation. To advance his arguments and foster support for duck-hunters, Doug claims that the wildfowl, if left untreated, could result in “plague proportions” since they carry a “dangerous disease”. By drawing a comparison between the wildfowl and a contagion, he tries to manipulate readers into viewing the actions of hunters as morally correct because they “care” and eliminate the “plague”.

Since duck season is annual, the duck-shooting debate will emerge again. Anile’s compelling opinion piece in conjunction with Lustig’s heartrending letter evoke strong feelings of sympathy and outrage that this issue still exists when “other states” have already abhorred it. In stark contrast, Doug’s hostile letter “Leave us Levy” resides on the opposite side of the spectrum as he attempts to denigrate those who oppose duck-shooting by glorifying the actions of duck-hunters. It is his belief that duck hunters rid the environment of “plague proportion” wildfowl. Ultimately, since we as humans are compassionate creatures who strive to take the moral high ground, a majority of Victorians could find themselves against the issue of duck-shooting.


THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!!
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 10:31:11 am by Inhibition »
Veni, vidi, vici

English- 41
Methods-37
Japanese-33
Chemistry-42
Biology-44
Physics-39
2013 ATAR: 97.10
Dux of KDC

2014: BSci at UoM

e^1

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Respect: +25
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2013, 11:30:12 pm »
+1
Finished language analysis SAC today, but I have one trial language analysis unchecked. It's optional, but if you do get the time to check it, then I'll greatly appreciate it.

Attachments are found below -- both the article and analysis.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 11:38:33 pm by e^1 »

Patches

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Respect: +23
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2013, 07:31:22 pm »
+4
As one of the world's popular social networking sites, Facebook has instigated controversial issues as a result. This is a really awkward sentence, especially 'as a result.' Stephen Marche's “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” criticises criticises what?and claims that Facebook does not resolve the ever-growing loneliness in America and has rather exacerbated it. From an emotive to an informative tone, he first comes to elucidate the context of the issue before discussing the crux of ityeah... you're not really saying anything here. The image accompanied above the article seems to visually support Marche's argumentagain, sure. But how?, followed by the responses from various internet readers.

The title of the article “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” clearly states its context (with the word “Facebook”), which will attract 'tech-savvy' readers. as a result.What's with you and 'as a result' :P - you can cut it out and the sentence sounds better. Furthermore, the subject of this clause is inclusive, which inclines the reader to read the article as he or she is part of this huge issue and hence feels intrigued to learn more about the issue.It's fine, but why does it attract tech-savvy readers? You need to say how and, to an extent, why language is used to persuade - you've got the how but not the why

In the beginning of the article, a rather disturbing anecdotal experience of Yvette Vickers is introduced. Short clauses in describing the entrance to her home, followed by emotive and descriptive words 'barricaded', 'mummified', and 'permeating' leave the reader shaken and concerned.sure, but why? What's the author trying to achieve by choosing these words? Continuing in this emotive tone, the cause of her death is then explained, and with the two words 'lonesome death', the reader may come to strongly censure Facebook as the cause of the women's pitiful despair, which is meant to be socially gratifying and not pernicious to internet users. Moreover, 'a symbol... to exploit our most basic fears in silliest ways' juxtaposed with 'a new and different kind of horror' brings further fear to the reader that it can happen to anybody, especially those with no social contacts. Similarly, 'distant fans' may come to imply that the internet is not a reliable, if not a precarious place, and is a last resort for socialising. But whyyyyyyy? Why is the author using this kind of argument?

Switching to a more informative tone, Marche comes to clarify the magnitude of Facebook's influence. Statistical evidence, such as “845 million users and $3.7 billion in revenue” demonstrates that the writer has done research and hence can be assumed that the article is reliable. This feels like you're grasping... talk about the effect statistics have on the reader.Such statistical evidence, and a juxtaposition “the global coffee industry” with “one addiction prepared to surpass the other” suggests how easy it is to become attached to Facebookdon't really see the link between the number of uses and addiction, which may make the reader extremely concerned and powerless in how Yvette's predicament could happen to anyone. Furthermore, the words 'it is vast beyond imagination' emphatically reinforces how powerless the reader is in stopping Facebook. Combined with this and the statistics described, readers unwary of the internet dangers are also convinced to take this cyber issue seriously and vigilantly.

Continuing the use of using credible statistics, Marche explains the history of America's loneliness and the internetwhy why why why. “Facebook arrived in the middle of a dramatic increase... of human loneliness” is ironic with the haunting anecdote, which the reader is left perplexed as to how Facebook became counterproductiveI can't see the irony - you need to explain this link better. It is also this which arouses interest to the reader, in that knowing history may be useful in addressing the issue. Klinenberg's expert opinion, derided by jocularlythis is silly, just say sarcastic sarcastic examples of happy social recluses, repudiates and demands the reader to reconsider the common belief that 'the quality of social interaction' prevents loneliness.Good, but you need more - how does the author describe and challenge this common belief? Moreover, Marche also includes a 'longitudinal study' mentioning that loneliness is a psychological problem, which forces these readers to once more readjust the common beliefs of loneliness and its stigmas, as well as to reaffirm that a situation like Yvette's is prevalent to anyone.This is really clumsy - what are the common beliefs about the stigma of loneliness, how and why are they challenged?

As the severity of loneliness is established to the reader, the cause is ostensibly blamed on the capitalist society of America. Using a similar analogy of the Pilgrims, cowboys and astronaut to which most Americans can relate to, Marche states another matter-of-fact: 'Determination and self-reliance causes loneliness... But Americans have been willing to pay that price.' To the reader, whom at one point understands the impacts of loneliness, also comes to realise that the much-yearned success in life is part of loneliness and that Facebook is not the only one to blame. Hence, the reader is left confused and possibly demanding an answer a solution to loneliness.Whhhyyyyyyyyy? You're saying what the author is doing, you need to describe the intended effect on the audience. This is however abated by a lucid question which inclusively brings the reader to engage and question the crux of the issue: 'Is Facebook part of the separating or part of congregating?'

From here, Marche continues to deliver more questions than answers intended to engage the reader. Referencing another credible source of evidence of Carnegie Mellon, the reader is lead to another, broader question, probably intended to inform the reader about the bigger picture of the internet. Suddenly changing into a blunt tone, Marche states the benefits of Facebook as preventing 'the embarrassing reality of society'. The general examples of social embarrassment stated are all typical and uncomforting to many people, which the reader may feel a whim to neglect the negatives of Facebook for their own social good. This is further made attractive by the word 'simple'. However, Marche snaps the reader to reality that the simplicity obscures 'everything that matters'. With the reader's responsibilities being of high concern, the reader is reminded the unfairness and the reality of life, therefore causing the reader to condemn Facebook instead. Finally, in a philosophical and veraciousthis is silly tone, Marche elaborates the difference between a 'connection' and a 'bond' with short clauses designed to be candid, to which the reader is inclined to agree as a result of being reminded of reality.Reminded of reality? What does that mean? You need to be much clearer in your argument. Lastly, he castigates Facebook with an inclusiveIs there anything in any article ever that isn't meant to be 'inclusive'?, frank tone: 'Facebook denies us a pleasure whose profundity we had underestimated'. The reader is ultimately left bitter and irate about Facebook's intention of being a “social network”, and sees it clear that Facebook holds major responsibility for today's increasing social reclusion and loneliness.I think you need more on why the reader is 'left bitter' - just stating that they are is not analysis.


The image accompanied with the article depicts the a man and a women holding portable high-tech devices. The choice of having both genders has been intended to show that the loneliness of Facebook can happen to anyone.I guess - I think it says more about changed relationships. Furthermore, the man and woman have their bodies positioned abreast, with their eyes focused on their devices and the women appearing emotionless. This demonstrates that technology can have negative effectsHow? What are the negative effects implied in the picture? and underscored with the dark-blue background, the reader may feel overwhelmed and alienated by the asocial depiction figures. Hence, the reader feels inclined to oppose the Facebook, or internet's side effect of loneliness.Last sentence is really clumsy. You seem to have a lot of ..., or ...    - you'd do better to pick one of the two. Or, you could say 'oppose Facebook, and hence the internet's ...

The comments displayed below the article also seem to support Marche's contention, even if it is not explicitly stated. Douglas Roehrig, who uses a rather informal and calm toneYou can do better than that., states personally that socialising with 'real humans' is more beneficialYou've just summarised his comment - how and why is he saying this?. More importantly, the last sentence 'I refuse to be a sheep' suggests to the reader that they are not obliged to sign-up to Facebook as a social alternative.Good, but take it further! What are the connotations of being a 'sheep'? As a result of reading the article, the reader will be persuaded to avoid using Facebook. Will they be? Were you? Say something like 'the reader will be prompted to re-evaluate their use of Facebook.Similarly, Perpetual_Left supports Marche's point of view, but in an irate, acrimonious tonewhich is demonstrated where? You need some example of this, but keep it to a few words. Although it does not clearly state his point, his tone however makes it clear he opposes the use of modern technologyexample?. Younger readers, especially teenagers may feel intimidated as a result of the attack which is unsubstantiatedI don't buy this - talk about the intended effect of his irate tone, but you don't need to make generalisations about the audience. Lastly, Ben Vivo-Wachter expands the discussion of the effects of Facebook to society, and ultimately agrees that it negatively effects society. Most likely included in the article to support his arguments, the reader is therefore more likely to agree with Marche's viewpoint.

Stephen Marche first comes to use an emotive anecdote to arouse the reader's attention, then coming to inform the reader the history around the time Facebook was formed.'comes' and 'coming' don't make sense here Ultimately, in a generally direct and philosophical tonedirect and philosophical tones are different, Marche states much of truths that we take for granted in order to belittle Facebook and its purpose.what do we take for granted? I don't follow Although informing the history of America and Facebook proves useful in elucidating the issue, little of this is actually used to support his main argument which is found in his final paragraphsBe careful - you're analysing the author's choice of language, not the success of his argument. Furthermore, it would have been more engaging and relevant to the reader if the faults of Facebook were explained and used as evidence to support his contention, rather than bringing up further questions which may possibly confuse or frustrate the reader.


I hope I haven't been too critical. It's good, but you need a lot more on why the author chooses particular language, and the effect it has on the audience. You've done this a bit, but it's too simply done to do much more than state the obvious. Also, don't use so many words from the thesaurus. Unless it's done well, it sticks out as clumsy. You should, for the most part, be able to express complex analysis with simple language. Just put in one or two fancy words in a piece if you must, and practice using them in future pieces rather than throwing them all in at once.

Well done though - it seems like you know the article quite well, you just need to be more precise in your analysis.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 07:34:17 pm by Patches »

e^1

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Respect: +25
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2013, 09:22:23 pm »
0
Thank you so much Patches!! :D
It wasn't critical, and I appreciate it. Anyway, I'll definitely take them on board!

If you could, I got a few more questions.

Quote
Douglas Roehrig, who uses a rather informal and calm tone You can do better than that., states personally that socialising with 'real humans' is more beneficial

Should I have worded it better? (eg. Douglas Roehrig, in a generally nonchalant tone...)

Quote
Hence, the reader is left confused and possibly demanding an answer a solution to loneliness.Whhhyyyyyyyyy? You're saying what the author is doing, you need to describe the intended effect on the audience. This is however abated by a lucid question which inclusively brings the reader to engage and question the crux of the issue: 'Is Facebook part of the separating or part of congregating?'

I stated that it makes the reader confused - should I have further elaborated about its effect? I'm not sure what you mean  :-\

Thank you!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 09:25:00 pm by e^1 »

Smiley_

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Respect: +147
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2013, 09:25:24 pm »
0
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 :) :) :) :)


Sorry to be annoying but I have a sac tomorrow

Checkmate

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Overnewton College
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2013, 11:22:56 pm »
0
A recent Australian Crime Commission report ‘Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport’ has sparked controversial discussion of the use of illicit drugs in the AFL sporting code. Most recently, Essendon coach James Hird has become the target of such controversial discussion about his role in the ‘doping scandal’ and alleged use of performance enhancing substances. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt published an opinion piece on Hird’s innocence to which he aggressively contended that Hird was the target of the ‘pack’s’ desperate ‘witch hunt’ for a ‘scape goat’. Conversely, a letter to the editor written by Mike of Victoria in response to Bolt’s belligerent article exaggeratedly directs the guilt towards Hird and succinctly demands he ‘step down’, following his involvement in the promotion of ‘a regime of injections’ and illicit substances’. Additionally, a recent graphic by cartoonist John Spooner depicts the current role of sports scientists in administering athletes with supplements to which he humorously asserts through the connotative depiction of a surreal and comically embellished experimentation lab, that sports scientists’ roles and their relation to illicit substances are becoming shadier and more shrouded in doubt.

Andrew Bolt’s confrontational opinion piece ‘Pack is driven by the Hird instinct’ commences by immediately posing Hird as the victim of a ‘pack’ whom of which have the intent to seek out a ‘scape goat’ for recent allegations of illicit drug use to what has been described as ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. Bolt aligns his readers to a perspective that illuminates Hird as a victim that is being hunted down by a ‘pack’ of ‘politicians’, in what attempts to appeal to reader’s sense of corruption by the sense that Hird is just one person being pursued by many, falsely in the name of justice. Bolt further elaborates, and by continually not mentioning directly who the people of the ‘pack’ are, Bolt allows for intrigued readers to conjecture their own image of the ’pack’ and thereby is able to implicate an image of ‘weep[ing] media critics’ and ‘politicians’ who set a ‘witch-hunt rolling’ for Hird. Bolt’s utilisation of this connotative language engages the audience on a more personal level and also aims to infuriate them, and more readily accept a narrower and direct perspective on the issue. Raising several questions through the mentioning of ‘…how Australian sport was corrupted with drug cheating.’, Bolt immediately follows up the statements with sarcastic rhetoric, citing ‘why have we seen not a single player of any code charged? Not a single drug test failed?’. Using such questions, Bolt utilises them as a means to expose the ‘Gillard Government’’s statements as being uncorroborated, but also uses them to influence the audience, prompting readers to place more credibility in Bolt’s blunt opinions.

In stark contrast to Bolt’s illiberal view, Mike of Victoria overzealously points the blame towards James Hird and in doing so, he commences his letter to the editor by firstly generalising Hird’s behaviourisms as being ‘incompetent’ and ‘naïve at best’. Speaking hostilely, Mike succinctly barrages the audience with colloquialism, targeting the vocabulary and exploiting the level of gullibility of his fellow commenters who have just finished reading Bolt’s one-sided opinion. Mike attempts to sway his audience through attacks at Hird and elaborates on Hird’s role in ‘pumping players full of god knows what’ just so Hird could maintain his own ‘million dollar salary’. Through the agitation of the readers, Mike aims to appeal to the commenter’s own sense of monetary value and aims to ignite a refute against the selfish motives Hird has. Mike substantiates his claims through the mention of ‘evidence is mounting’ and attempts to utilise the rhetoric effect of having previously just read Bolt’s article to better deceive the audience through the just the mention of the it without actually supporting any of his claims. Mike appeals to a new subset of his audience by specifically aiming at parents through the mention of ‘allow[ing] young impressionable kids” to be by subjected to a ‘regime of injections of pigs[‘] brain extracts, tree bark etc.’. Using shocking ingredients in the ‘regime of injections’, Mike aims to induce a sense of fear for concerned parents and cause them to adopt the one-sided viewpoint of getting James Hird completely out of the sporting code picture. Mike succinctly asserts his resolution as “anyone involved in [illicit substances] should be kicked out of footy for a long time”, and abstains from excepting Hird, whose ‘disappointed and shocked’ reaction further Mike to mockingly state that ‘we are the ones who should be shocked.’ Ultimately, Mike belligerently attacks any defence for James Hird and leaves the audience with the impression that there is no need for compassion towards Hird, because the fault of the issue lies straightly with him.

Artist John Spooner’s comic graphic represents the humorous yet dark depiction of a sports scientist and his laboratory. Directed towards to an audience aware of the level of controversy surrounding sports scientists and their roles in supplement administration, Spooner offers a stereotyped and unsettling image to sports enthusiasts and athletes alike, and specifically aims at athletes with a bitter and melancholic satire. The experimentation Spooner displays, is stereotyped with infamously recognised ingredients in illicit supplements, one of which is a pig’s head submerged in a flask. Spooner utilises this well-known symbol to create the clear link to the otherwise vague issue sports fanatics may have been reading about and also to ominously give a sense of unsettlement as the audience is positioned to see a side of the sporting ground that is hidden. The sense of a hidden and concealed experimentation lab is further implied through the door’s entrance which shows the opening to the vast AFL field, showing their closeness and how immediately related the two places are. The juxtaposition of a sports field and a laboratory, contrast, implying the sense that something is foreign and oblique to the audience furthering a sense of unease. In contrast, the vocal bubbles are used give a sour humour to the issue with the false reassurance of ‘It’s just a vitamin …’ followed by ‘Vitamin X’ makes a classic example of satire and aims to situate the audience in a position where the humour of the portrayal can still be appreciated, despite the dark theme. Through numerous elements, John Spooner shows the role of sports scientist as dangerous and unknown and while communicating that primary image of concealment, Spooner’s dark humour lightens as well as driving his assertion further in.
Both authors define their position and perspective bluntly and belligerently, and with sarcasm, each target an overlapping audience. Andrew Bolt’s piece outlined the injustice of a hunt just against one man with insufficient evidence to warrant such actions, while Mike of Victoria explicitly declares James Hird as a conspirator who knowingly plays such villainous roles for the motive of keeping a sizable salary. Bolt utilises common sense, succinct statements and anecdotal evidence to spark an obligation of revolt against unjust treatment while Mike uses colloquialism and generalisations to connect with the sporting enthusiasts on a more personal level. Artist John Spooner employs dark humour, an unsettling scene and the powerful contrast provided by juxtaposition to contend the unknown and concealed nature of sports scientists.

Take your time to critique away and thanks a lot!

Sorry to be annoying but I have a sac tomorrow
I'm can't mark, but best of luck to you for tomorrow!
2013:
English, Maths Methods, Business Management, Physics, IT: Software Development

2014:
CompSci (BSc) @ The University of Melbourne

Patches

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Respect: +23
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2013, 02:44:01 pm »
+2
Thank you so much Patches!! :D
It wasn't critical, and I appreciate it. Anyway, I'll definitely take them on board!

If you could, I got a few more questions.

Should I have worded it better? (eg. Douglas Roehrig, in a generally nonchalant tone...)
Try something like
In referring to ... and ..., the author uses a calm and conciliatory tone in order to emphasise his familiarity with Facebook, and hence bolster his claim to be an authority on social networking.

That's not a great example, but you need to explain how what the author's doing contributes to his argument, not just say what he's doing.

Quote
I stated that it makes the reader confused - should I have further elaborated about its effect? I'm not sure what you mean  :-\
I think I read that sentence slightly out of context, it's fine.

Patches

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Respect: +23
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2013, 03:09:10 pm »
+4
A recent Australian Crime Commission report ‘Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport’ has sparked controversial a discussion of the controversial use of illicit drugs in the AFL sporting code. Most recently, Essendon coach James Hird has become the target of such controversial discussion about his role in the ‘doping scandal’ and alleged use of performance enhancing substances. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt published an opinion piece on Hird’s innocence to which he aggressively contended that Hird was the target of the ‘pack’s’ desperate ‘witch hunt’ for a ‘scape goat’. Conversely, a letter to the editor written by Mike of Victoria in response to Bolt’s belligerent article exaggeratedlyinstead directs the guilt towards Hird and succinctly demands he ‘step down’, following his involvement in the promotion of ‘a regime of injections’ and illicit substances’. Additionally, a recent graphic by cartoonist John Spooner depicts the current role of sports scientists in administering athletes with supplements to which he humorously asserts through the connotative depiction of a surreal and comically embellished experimentation labthis is way too wordy, that sports scientists’ roles and their relation to illicit substances are becoming shadier and more shrouded in doubt.Good introduction, but it's probably too descriptive. Just assume the marker has read the article - you can outline the context of the piece but you don't need to retell it. More about the tone and intention of the article and less about the contents.

Andrew Bolt’s confrontational opinion piece ‘Pack is driven by the Hird instinct’ commences by immediately posing Hird as the victim of a ‘pack’ whom of which have the intent to seek out a ‘scape goat’ for recent allegations of illicit drug use to what has been described as ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. You said the same thing, almost word for word, in the introduction.Bolt aligns his readers to a perspective that illuminatesreveals Hird as a victim that is being hunted down by a ‘pack’ of ‘politicians’, in what attempts to appeal to reader’s sense of corruption by the sense that Hird is just one person being pursued by many, falsely in the name of justiceGood but wordy - I think 'fairness' would be better than 'corruption', too.. Bolt further elaborates, and by continually not mentioning directly who the people of the ‘pack’ are, Bolt allows for intrigued readers to conjecture their own image of the ’pack’ and thereby is able to implicate an image of ‘weep[ing] media critics’ and ‘politicians’ who set a ‘witch-hunt rolling’ for HirdGood. Talk more about the connotations of 'pack' or mob justice. Bolt’s utilisation of this connotative language engages the audience on a more personal levelDoes it? That's what he's trying to do, but I don't think using words with particular connotations achieves this. Maybe a 'familiar' level, but it's not really an appeal to personal qualities or attributes and also aims to infuriate them, and more readily accept a narrower and direct perspective on the issueThis is a bit of a leap - you could probably tie in 'infuriating them' with the sense of corruption from earlier. Raising several questions through the mentioning ofAsking, ‘…how Australian sport was corrupted with drug cheating.’, Bolt immediately follows up the statements with sarcastic rhetoric, citing ‘why have we seen not a single player of any code charged? Not a single drug test failed?’. Using such questions, Bolt utilises them as a means to expose the ‘Gillard Government’’s statements as being uncorroborated, but also uses them to influence the audience, prompting readers to place more credibility in Bolt’s blunt opinions.Maybe this is just Bolt being Bolt, but what does the government (and specifically Gillard) have to do with this? You need to relate his use of political discussion to the rest of the article. For instance, 'by casting drug use as a political issue, Bolt intends to channel the reader's likely strong political opinion towards a seemingly separate issue.

In stark contrast to Bolt’s illiberalstrident view, Mike of Victoria overzealouslyyou don't want to make judgements on the quality of his argument points the blame towards James Hird. and in doing so, He commences his letter to the editor by firstly generalising Hird’s behaviourisms as being ‘incompetent’ and ‘naïve at best’Yeah, but what purpose do these generalisations serve?. Speaking hostilely, Mike succinctly barrages the audience with colloquialismyou're overdoing it with the adjectives here, and succinctly and barrage are almost antonyms, targeting the vocabulary and exploiting the level of gullibility of his fellow commenters who have just finished reading Bolt’s one-sided opinion. Mike attempts to sway his audience through attacks at Hird and elaborates on Hird’s role in ‘pumping players full of god knows what’ just so Hird could maintain his own ‘million dollar salary’. Good, but take it further! Why is he mentioning Hird's salary - to limit the sympathy of his readers? You do it a bit but not enough.Through the agitation of the readers, Mike aims to appeal to the commenter’s own sense of monetary value and aims to ignite a refute againstreveal the selfish motives Hird has. Mike substantiates his claims through the mention of ‘evidence is mounting’what does this suggest? That the evidence is incontrovertible? and attempts to utilise the rhetoric effect of having previously just read Bolt’s article to better deceive the audience through the just the mention of the it without actually supporting any of his claims.I don't understand this sentence. Mike appeals to a new subset of his audience by specifically aiming at parents through the mention of ‘allow[ing] young impressionable kids” to be by subjected to a ‘regime of injections of pigs[‘] brain extracts, tree bark etc.’. Using shocking ingredients in the ‘regime of injections’, Mike aims to induce a sense of fear for concerned parents Good and cause them to adopt the one-sided viewpoint of getting James Hird completely out of the sporting code picture.You lost it a bit there - ...concerned parents, positioning them to view the issue as one of safety rather than sporting integrity. Mike succinctly asserts his resolution as “anyone involved in [illicit substances] should be kicked out of footy for a long time”, and abstains from excepting Hird,including Hird whose ‘disappointed and shocked’ reaction furtherleads Mike to mockingly state that ‘we are the ones who should be shocked.’ Ultimately, Mike belligerently attacks any defence for James Hird and leaves the audience with the impression that there is no need for compassion towards Hird, because the fault of the issue lies straightly with him.That's good, but there's more in why he chose the techniques he did. How does a belligerent tone have a different effect on the audience than a friendly or didactic tone?

Artist John Spooner’s comic graphic represents the humorous yet dark depiction of a sports scientist and his laboratory. Directed towards to an audience aware of the level of controversy surrounding sports scientists and their roles in supplement administration, Spooner offers a stereotyped and unsettling image to sports enthusiasts and athletes alike, and specifically aims at athletes with a bitter and melancholic satire. The experimentation Spooner displays, is stereotyped with infamously recognised ingredients in illicit supplements, one of which is a pig’s head submerged in a flaskThis is sarcasm - surely Spooner is suggesting an element of quackery?. Spooner utilises this well-known symbol to create the clear link to the otherwise vague issue sports fanatics may have been reading about and also to ominously give a sense of unsettlement as the audience is positioned to see a side of the sporting ground that is hidden. The sense of a hidden and concealed experimentation lab is further implied through the door’s entrance which shows the opening to the vast AFL field, showing their closeness and how immediately related the two places are. The juxtaposition of a sports field and a laboratory, contrast, implying the sense that something is foreign and oblique to the audience furthering a sense of unease. In contrast, the vocal bubbles are used give a sour humour to the issue with the false reassurance of ‘It’s just a vitamin …’ followed by ‘Vitamin X’ makes a classic example of satire and aims to situate the audience in a position where the humour of the portrayal can still be appreciated, despite the dark theme. Through numerous elements, John Spooner shows the role of sports scientist as dangerous and unknown and while communicating that primary image of concealment, Spooner’s dark humour lightens as well as driving his assertion further in.That's good, but what are the connotations of the laboratory that might be unsettling to the reader?


Both authors define their position and perspective bluntly and belligerently, and with sarcasm, each target an overlapping audience. Andrew Bolt’s piece outlined the injustice of a hunt just against one man with insufficient evidence to warrant such actions, while Mike of Victoria explicitly declares James Hird as a conspirator who knowingly plays such villainous roles for the motive of keeping a sizable salary. Bolt utilises common sense, succinct statements and anecdotal evidence to spark an obligation of revolt against unjust treatment while Mike uses colloquialism and generalisations to connect with the sporting enthusiasts on a more personal level. Artist John Spooner employs dark humour, an unsettling scene and the powerful contrast provided by juxtaposition to contend the unknown and concealed nature of sports scientists.Not a bad conclusion, but you're really just rehashing what you've already said. Have a look at some other essays - you can summarise without repeating yourself, and leave space for a last bit of analysis that ties it all together.

Pretty good - just do a bit more on the reasons for the inclusion of particular language.

Checkmate

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Overnewton College
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2013, 04:43:58 pm »
0
Pretty good - just do a bit more on the reasons for the inclusion of particular language.
Thanks a lot Patches! And yeah I figured wordiness was definitely something I need to work on
2013:
English, Maths Methods, Business Management, Physics, IT: Software Development

2014:
CompSci (BSc) @ The University of Melbourne

Smiley_

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Respect: +147
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2013, 06:17:03 pm »
0
Pretty good - just do a bit more on the reasons for the inclusion of particular language.


patches your feedback is really good to you have time for one more ?

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2593
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2013, 07:21:45 pm »
+2
FnC, have you sat your SAC yet? Sorry, I haven't checked this thread in a bit. Patches going BEAST mode! Shower the kid with +votes, people.

Edit: Thanks a billion Patches :D
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️