Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[Patches]

Edit: Thanks a billion Patches

No worries; your corrections were so good I felt I had to reciprocate.

[Inhibition]

Its essay time =]

Brumby’s Camps: Analysis
Prior to the 2010 election, John Brumby’s “Education for Life” program consisted of a 2-week camp experience which sparked heated debate. All three articles and cartoons featured in the Herald Sun over the week of his announcement ardently contend that his proposal is unwarranted and unnecessary. The editorial “We Need to Do more” (November 17 2010) puts forward the argument that Mr. Brumby’s plans are a desperate plea to win votes and little detail has been provided. Following suit is Greg Kasarik’s letter “Army no Dumping Ground” (November 18 2010), where he refutes Mr. Brumby’s proposal to “send students to army bases”, stressing that the Australian Army adheres to a strict code which should not be tarnished by troubled teens. The accompanying visual aid also downplays the “Education for Life” program, where Mark Knight (November 17 2010) satirically depicts Mr. Brumby’s “boot-camps”. All three articles adamantly reject Mr. Brumby’s plans, manipulating concerned parents to oppose the scheme.

The Herald Sun’s Editorial “We Need to Learn More” highlights that the crux of Mr. Brumby’s proposal is “scant on detail”. In order to outline the gratuitous nature of his plans, the editor utilizes a sarcastic medium, evident from phrases such as “looks like a winner”. Because “looks like” could be interpreted to be mocking, readers could have evoked within them feelings of doubt at Mr. Brumby’s announcement. This questioning tone is reiterated and further amplified as phrases such as “sounds like… might… looks like” are littered throughout the editorial. This is designed to denigrate Mr. Brumby’s proposal and therefore undermine his credibility. More questions could be raised within readers towards the “Education for Life” program as the writer attempts to elicit readers to respond with outrage toward the proposal. The editor is skeptical at organizations such as “Country Fire Authority… Meals on Wheels”, leaving the implication that they are of no benefit to school children, when their “2 weeks” would be more efficient spent “in the classroom”. This could arouse slight hostile feelings, specifically in parents of school children, annoyed that the program is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Moreover, the Herald Sun discloses that the program will cost “$208 million”. This staggering figure in conjunction with “scant on detail” demonizes Mr. Brumby for not giving out information to the public when it will cost so much money.  Since a majority of parents reading will be taxpayers, the appeal to the “hip pocket nerve” could make the readership oppose the program. In particular, “scant on detail” is evocative, since “scant” has the undertone that the detail being provided is miniscule, perhaps even non-existent. This could stimulate the audience into thinking that that Mr. Brumby has ulterior motives or is on a hidden agenda. The accompanying poster telling readers that the “election is 10 days to go” could introduce the notion that Mr. Brumby is proposing his plan so that he can win votes. This belief is affirmed as the editor urges Victorians to focus their attentions on how “Mr. Brumby… wrote to the Minister for Defense… for advice on his new proposal”. The Herald Sun condescendingly undermines Mr. Brumby and discredits him for acting rashly and without aforethought.
Similarly, Greg Kasarik’s authoritative and slightly venomous letter “Army no dumping Ground” condemns the idea of having year 9 students enroll into the Australian army. Kasarik’s previous occupation of “former soldier” allows him to undermine the proposal without questioning from the audience since he has had previous experience within the defense force. Phrases such as “highly demanding selection…highly professional organization” depict that the Australian Defense Force (ADF) is an organization that adheres to a strict code of conduct and is of vital significance. Therefore he implies that Mr. Brumby’s proposal of applying troubled youth into the army (in hopes of “fixing their behavioral problems”) as illogical and “silly”. As a consequence, this could incite concerned parents to generate ridicule at Mr. Brumby’s plans, thinking that Mr. Brumby has not asked for permission from the army or thought about the consequences. This derision towards Mr. Brumby is then replaced with fear as Kasarik explains that the army “has the demanding role of defending our country”. In particular, “defending our country” could elicit fear that without our army being “ready and professional”, we would be under constant attack. Thus the need for a strong and capable army is of vital importance, and should not be compromised. Akin to the Herald Sun’s editorial, Kasarik also offers an alternative, albeit in a slightly didactic tone. According to Kasarik the more beneficial thing to do is to “assist them in a civilian environment with trained instructors, who know and want to relate with kids”. “Civilian environment” suggests that children should not be placed in the army because they need to be educated properly in a safe manner. This also subtly suggests that the army is dangerous and no place for troubled teens. In addition “trained instructors who know what to do and want to do it” implies that the army personnel are not “trained” to deal with adolescents, nor do they aspire to do it in the first place. Hence, Kasarik’s clear and logically framed arguments could permeate into concerned parents, positioning them to view Mr. Brumby’s plans as outrageous.

In a similar fashion, Mark Knight’s satirical cartoon spoofs and derides “Camp Brumby”. Parents of troubled teens could immediately feel opposed to Mr. Brumby’s camp as they take note of the line-up of adolescents in the foreground. The children are shown with unenthusiastic and slightly haughty expressions: evident from the disbelief in their eyes. Their comments range from “This sucks already” to “I’m going to seek asylum”. Not only do these remarks encompass the notion that children would most likely oppose “Camp Brumby”, but are also homage to some topical issues of that year. To the right of the teenagers, readers would see a figure many would assume as John Brumby himself, evident from his trademark “bushy eyebrows”. Because his chest is puffed out and his large strides could ensue hilarity, this casts Mr. Brumby sardonically. Therefore readers could have instilled into them the mindset that Mr. Brumby and his proposals are not to be taken seriously. Knight portrays how he views the camps are likely to look like as he draws them with barbed-wire fences and guard-towers. These high-security implementations are comparable to what is seen in a jail. Knight hints that “Camp Brumby” is unwarranted because it is more likely to be a detention centre for children rather than a camp for rehabilitation (the fencing and guard-towers implying that there is no escape). Likewise, prominent signs on the barbed-wire fence include “no play-stations, Facebook, phones…” This indicates that Brumby’s camps rob children of their freedom, generating disgust within parents since it makes an appeal to moral and human rights.  The notion of his camps being a prison is strengthened as readers focus their attentions on the bus in the background. The cloud of acrid smoke emanating from the trail of the bus could leave the implication that the teenagers are left behind, and that they are left there without second-thoughts since the bus is in a rush to leave. Overall, the image starkly depicts Mr. Brumby’s camps as malign and unjust since it could rob children of their freedom.

The crux of the two articles and cartoon denigrate Mr. Brumby’s “Education for life program”. The editorial utilizes a more emotive approach, seen from the heavy use of sarcastic attacks in order to highlight the lack of detail given. In contrast, the letter to the editor opts for a more scathing and authoritative tone, as Kasarik belittles Mr. Brumby for not considering the impact his proposal could have on the Australian Defense Force. Similarly, Mark Knight’s cartoon downplays “Camp Brumby”, envisioning that the camps are more akin to a prison rather than a rehabilitation centre. Ultimately, upon digesting the contents of all three media texts, concerned parents are likely to view Mr. Brumby’s “Education for Life program” as gratuitous and unwarranted.


What do you guys think? Too convoluted/verbose/doesn't make sense?  - These are some criticisms I have been receiving from my teacher recently...

[Smiley_]

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

i have but any feedback still would be helpful

[Patches]

Not my best by a long way, but I'd be interested in what you have to say
Article is an editorial on Bill Henson, can't find it online sorry :/

There has been a significant debate over the moral and artistic justification for the works of the Australian photographer Bill Henson, whose exhibitions frequently involve images of naked children. In this piece, the editorial team of The Australian present an initially measured yet increasingly editorial view of the issue, acknowledging the artistic merit of Henson’s work but criticising his potentially inflammatory search for models in a primary school.
The title, ‘art or exploitation’, appears to establish what is intended to be tone of neutrality – the dichotomy invites the reader to weigh the two alternatives equally. The first paragraph, however, reveals a degree of measured support for Henson’s art, leading the reader to identify more with ‘art’ than ‘exploitation.’ By referring to his art as ‘powerfully evocative’ and ‘stunningly beautiful’, and his international reputation ‘well deserved’, the editor positions the reader to view the problem as one of Henson having inadvertently overstepped murky boundaries, rather than that his works depicting children should not be produced in the first place.
The phrase ‘the era of acute awareness of the evils of child pornography and exploitation’ are an implicit criticism of the near-hysteria expressed by others regarding Henson. The word ‘era’ appeals to an adult audience who can remember a time before ‘working with children’ checks and other pieces of legislation became compulsory, which to some may appear well-intentioned but overly zealous. The editorial implies Henson may feel some uncertainty about the new ‘era’- a misunderstanding may have occurred, ‘naïve and unreasonable’ as it may appear to an audience with an ‘acute’, if not overactive, ‘awareness’ of apparent child pornography.  This is supported by the dismissive description of the controversy as ‘moral panic’- once again, the editor is appealing to an audience that may feel some degree of exasperation towards overzealous attempts to protect children from perceived harm. Henson’s description of himself as a ‘national punching bag’ supports this view of the issue as overblown – he and his work have been cast by elements of the commentariat as a scapegoat for moral scaremongering and political point scoring, a process which seems likely to further annoy those already frustrated by the heavy-handed panic over paedophilia.
The article’s second use of ‘exploitation’, in ‘the evils of child pornography and exploitation’, serves to define the word in terms of a power misbalance and a betrayal of trust, connotations which are particularly strong when paired with the unambiguous ‘child pornography.’ The editor carefully refrains from fear mongering by directly associating Henson’s work with these crimes or with any sexual intention, but there is an implicit appeal to the protective instinct of parents. The editor does not claim Henson’s images of ‘naked children’ are pornographic or exploitative, but loosely appeals to the commonly held view of the increasing sexualisation of children in advertising and in wider society. Consequently, the language describing Henson’s behaviour at the school is strongly critical. Terms such as ‘scout for talent’, ‘scanning schoolyards’, ‘eyeing off’ and Henson’s own description of ‘just wandering around’ imply an indiscriminate search, which seems hard to justify to parents . This is a characterisation of Henson as overly casual and nonplussed about the potential of his search to offend – this supports the editor’s description of the artist as ‘naïve’ rather than predatory. Implicit in these descriptions is a question as to what Henson was looking for in the children at the school. The editor invites parents to feel justified unease over the criteria by which ‘two potential subjects’, and potentially their own children, were selected by Henson.
Finally, a strong editorial tone is used to criticise Henson’s ‘arrogant’ response to criticism, whereby the artist, together with ‘apologist’ journalist David Marr, suggested ‘philistine’ Australians  have little understanding the importance of the arts. The editor’s early support for Henson’s art limits the effectiveness of this description, and the editor’s decision to include this statement from the artist is intended to cast him as elitist and insincere. Henson is portrayed, then, as an arrogant member of an art business which many in the audience likely feel to be snobbish and superior, as demonstrated in Henson’s description of the wider public as hostile or indifferent to art and culture in general. The editor assures the reader this is not the case – it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts about the artistic or moral justification of Henson’s work without being hostile to art generally.
This editorial acknowledges the artistic potential of Henson’s work while criticising his tactless search for models in a primary school. Parents are positioned to feel unease about Henson’s implicitly exploitative presence in schools, but the author stops short of, and indeed criticises, the creation of a moral panic around Henson’s perceived paedophilic intentions.

[brenden]

I'm sorry I didn't get this to you before your SAC, but hopefully you'll still benefit . Haven't marked a Language Analysis in a while, jimmeny-crickets!

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

With the government’s recent decision that they will begin to cut funding for universities to provide the greater funding, no commathat is recommended for schools, debate has been sparked as to the effectiveness of this decision and how this will (missing word) 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 nationgood. fullstop here, fix grammar for that --> so it's a new sentence 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”  oh, if there was a title, i'd mention it in the intro. This also seems pretty robotic and i'd encourage moving away from straight up 'this is a pun. this is the effect'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. There isn't much depth here (it would take a lot of skill to get a lot of depth from identifying a pun), you could go further with the effect, and discuss how it works which isn't attempted here
 
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 good. 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 okay, good, what could the audience feel about this?! Anger, resentment? and then how could this emotion work in persuading them?. 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 say "the author appeals to the reader's hi pocket nerve" - do it that way for anything, "the readers hip pocket nerve is appealed to" doesn't read very well for a few reasons.when the costs of this scheme and the negative effects that it will place on the state government and therefore the country are realised but how is the hip pocket nerve persuasive?. By following this information with more statistics the editorial is presented in a positive light how? 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 this is better . By acknowledging the Labor has “increased university funding” the writer’s argument is presented as more well rounded, as the writer demonstrates that..... By following this statement with the rational rationale “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. To demonstrate a perceptive analysis of the way language is being used to persuade, you need to start focusing on WHY the author is using the language they use, WHAT effect it could have on the reader, and HOW it could have that effect. you need to go deeper *inception*


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. what does this do?This positions them to question how better school students will be compared to ones studying at university how? why?. A matter of urgency is instilled in the reader when Australia is described as “among the worst in the OECD.  Good! but why?“ This reinforces into the reader mind the idea that a beneficial solution needs to be implemented to improve our student’s education, thereby strengthening the author's assertion that..... 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 but how? talk about the injustice that the word "inequality" evokes in the reader. 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 good 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.


A valiant attempt, but try to go deeper in your exam revision and actual exam

[imustbeadreamer]

Hi Brenden, I would really appreciate any feedback as I really really suck at English. Thank you in advance

Article: 'The good, the bad and the ugly' - http://mslangleysyear11englishclass.wikispaces.com/file/view/Comparative+Example+P1.pdf

In the editorial, “The good, the bad and the ugly” (published in The Daily Tribute, July 16, 2009), the writer scathingly criticizes council officials, who should be helping victims of vandalism including local businesses rather than condoning it through their inactivity. In support of the writing piece, a picture serves to attract the readers to reading the editorial. It highlights one of the tragic forms of giving locals an “eyesore”.

The writer of the editorial begins by brutally attacking the “thugs” who desecrated the wall which is a part of Patrick and Lisa’s café by introducing Lisa’s state as “heavily pregnant” and announcing that it was their “one day off” when the wall was attacked. Lisa’s condition as a mother to be conveys a sympathetic towards her heart wrenching story and manipulates the reader to agree that this should not be happening to innocent victims. Arguing that it promotes the “thorn in the side” to the struggling couple, she alliteratively describes the criminals as “ingratitude and selfish individuals”. This aims to elicit both disgust and dismay from the readers who have already been drawn into the issue with the editor’s repeated “disgrace” shown by the graffiti artists. Further, the writer’s listing of the how this has affected Lisa and Patrick, “recent entrepreneurs and dual-mortgage bearers”, positions readers to agree that vandalism is more than just an “eyesore” but it is forcing more work upon the struggling couple.

The writer’s extract from what a local had to say is supported by the visual image that precedes the writing. I the image, readers clearly see that passers-by are confronted with an “imposing mixture of lurid and tasteless sexual diagrams and obscenities”. Combined, the image and description elicit disgust and fear for a local mother, who often walks down the route with her eight-year old daughter, that her daughter may ask her the meaning of the “more colourful phrases” whilst manipulating the reader to feel horror at a mother who wouldn’t be able to explain for her daughter. The writer’s short and sharp “SEVEN HOURS.” only adds to the reader’s repulsion at how the council is unwilling to help out local businesses victimised by wreckage. Whilst the writer’s use of “the council… refused to offer any support” helps to convince readers of the veracity of the writer’s view that “council officials and local government members should be supporting the efforts of individuals like Patrick and Lisa, not passively condoning this puerile cultural vandalism.”

The editorial’s embedded “... dragged its heels for weeks and then refused to offer any support” only adds to the reader’s revulsion at the council’s careless attitude. Whilst the café owners continue to “work diligently” to make deadlines for their “repayments and worked tirelessly to make their business a success” help to convince readers of the hostile council lack of understanding. Together, the Patrick and Lisa’s anecdote the writer uses draws the reader to sympathise and agree with the writer’s point of view. Further, the writer’s description of the council’s lack of consideration towards the couple, positions the readers to feel sorry and want to end this vicious act of graffiti now to help entrepreneurs such as Patrick and Lisa.

The general public as well as the local business owners do not believe this should continue and share the same view as the writer. Vandalism on the walls of local businesses “rings clear to any self-respecting citizen” that it should not happen. By the council officials and local governments doing nothing about this issue, it is saying that it is okay and should not be addressed promptly. The writer’s distressful and agonising anecdote of Patrick and Lisa is what confronts the reader and allows for a sense of emotional appeal towards the couple.

[Smiley_]

thanks

[brenden]

I'm skipping Patches ahead in the queue here because he's been helpful on this thread. I'll get to the other two shortly!

There has been a significant debate over the moral and artistic justification for the works of the Australian photographer Bill Henson, whose exhibitions frequently involve images of naked children. In this piece, the editorial team of The Australian present an initially measured yet increasingly editorial what does this mean?  view of the issue, acknowledging the artistic merit of Henson’s work but criticising his potentially inflammatory search for models in a primary school.  Nice writing, quite a short style... I can see the benefits. I'd personally recommend a longer intro (see previous pages of this thread for my recommended structure and feel free to challenge me on why that structure)
The title, ‘art or exploitation You've used little letters here and it's a title... I hope they did this in the newspaper, too.’, appears to establish what is intended to be tone of neutrality –  avoid dashes where you can in formal writing. Semi-colons are nice substitutes.the dichotomy invites the reader to weigh the two alternatives equally Okay, nice. Nice sentence. Just structurally, I found it helpful to begin my paragraphs with a line concerning the 'sub-argument' of whatever article I was writing on. They'll normally have a contention or a conclusion, and then spend the article using different sub-arguments (or premises if you want to lay it out in standard form) to reinforce that. I'd pick a subA and write on that in my TS, and then talk about the language used for that particular subA. What you've done is also nice. . The first paragraph, however, reveals a degree of measured support for Henson’s art, leading the reader to identify more with ‘art’ than ‘exploitation.’ By referring to his art as ‘powerfully evocative’ and ‘stunningly beautiful’, and his international reputation ‘well deserved’, the editor positions the reader to view the problem as one of Henson having inadvertently overstepped murky boundaries, rather than that his works depicting children should not be produced in the first place Not bad, not bad. How, though? Let's assume you had used less clauses in the previous sentence, and then we could now tack on something at the end like ", for the reiteration of positive adjectives serve to create images of breathtakingly wonderful artwork..." - You've identified what the language is doing, which is sort of the 'effect' on the reader, but you also want the EFFECT on the reader, if you feel me, homie?
Just structurally, I've scrolled down and noticed you've included what looks like four pretty short (one of them is decent length) paragraphs. Imo you'd have to be really great and know what you're doing to pull this off. I'd recommend three longer/very in depth paragraphs so you can really demonstrate a perceptive way of the way language is used to persuade. I think the few lines you leave yourself for each paragraph is a limit on your ability to demonstrate that. (until you supersede that limit?)
The phrase ‘the era of acute awareness of the evils of child pornography and exploitation’ are an implicit criticism of the near-hysteria expressed by others regarding Henson Really? I'll have to take your word for it having not read the article. . The word ‘era’ appeals to an adult audience who can remember a time before ‘working with children’ checks and other pieces of legislation became compulsory, which to some may appear well-intentioned but overly zealous.  If this is really implied in the article, all sweet, but if you're getting all this just from the line you've quoted.. Hmm, I would be slightly unsure -- look at the last part of the sentence 'evils of child pornography and exploitation' -- that doesn't seem sarcastic. In saying that second half pretty literally, it appears as if this 'era' could be a positive thing. Ofc, disregard everything I just said if the author really does imply that WWC checks are overzealous or something. Assuming you're correct, the analysis you've put down is great. The editorial implies Henson may feel some uncertainty about the new ‘era’- a misunderstanding may have occurred, ‘naïve and unreasonable’ as it may appear to an audience with an ‘acute’, if not overactive, ‘awareness’ of apparent child pornography.  Your flow is really killewd in this paragraph. It starts with the dash and it's exacerbated by the 'way' you have 'quoted' words, that make the 'reader' put a lot of 'emphasis' on words and subsequently they 'read it' pretty funny in their heads. You're also not analysing the way the things you've quoted could be used to persuade - you're just quoting them almost like a text response to show textual knowledge - which you DON'T need to do for language analysis. Sometimes it can be handy to use their own words and just not analyse if you need to save space or something like that or just reinforce what you're saying is their contention or argument, but if you're talking about the implications given by the editorial, you gotta talk about HOW they're given and what EFFECT they could have, y'know? This is supported by the dismissive description of the controversy as ‘moral panic’-  I can see another dash in this para as well, which is why I say avoid the dash. Most people really rely on it - like I do when I'm giving feedback. It's very simple and very effective, however, when you use it too much it can really stutter your flow, and there will often be better ways to articulate what you're saying. When you feel yourself about to use a dash, restructure the grammar of your sentence or something similar and try not to use it. (I was known to take a little bit of liberty with this rule - it really is wonderful to use. once again, the editor is appealing appeals -- say appeals, not is appealing. the 's' sound on the end of verbs will always sound better than the 'ing' and make your writing punchier. You won't always be able to avoid the 'ing' though, so don't beat yourself up over it. Just be awareto an audience that may feel some degree of exasperation towards overzealous attempts to protect children from perceived harm exasperation - good!. Henson’s description of himself as a ‘national punching bag’ supports this view of the issue as overblown – he and his work have been cast by elements of the commentariat as a scapegoat for moral scaremongering and political point scoring, a process which seems likely to further annoy those already frustrated by the heavy-handed panic over paedophilia. This last bit, really really great.
The article’s second use of ‘exploitation’, in ‘the evils of child pornography and exploitation’, serves to define the word in terms of a power misbalance didn't you quote this up there? if you did, find a way to discuss it up there. more sophisticated, you defs don't need a new para for this and a betrayal of trust, connotations which are particularly strong when paired with the unambiguous ‘child pornography.’ The editor carefully refrains from fear mongering by directly associating Henson’s work with these crimes or with any sexual intention, but there is an implicit appeal to the protective instinct of parents, as exploitation connotes a sense of innocence lost and..." really ramp home the emotive effect. "a discussion of emotive impact will impact your marks" . The editor does not claim Henson’s images of ‘naked children’ are pornographic or exploitative, but loosely appeals to the commonly held view of the increasing sexualisation of children in advertising and in wider society. Consequently, the language describing Henson’s behaviour at the school is strongly critical. Terms such as ‘scout for talent’, ‘scanning schoolyards’, ‘eyeing off’ and Henson’s own description of ‘just wandering around’ imply an indiscriminate search, which seems hard to justify to parents . This is a characterisation of Henson as overly casual and nonplussed about the potential of his search to offend – this supports the editor’s description of the artist as ‘naïve’ rather than predatory really great. Implicit in these descriptions is a question as to what Henson was looking for in the children at the school. The editor invites parents to feel justified unease over the criteria by which ‘two potential subjects’, and potentially their own children, were selected by Henson.
Finally, a strong editorial tone what on earth is an editorial tone? I might just be missing something here... you could be right, but I feel like there's a better word ;S is used to criticise Henson’s ‘arrogant’ response to criticism, whereby the artist, together with ‘apologist’ journalist David Marr, suggested ‘philistine’ Australians  have little understanding the importance of the arts. The editor’s early support for Henson’s art limits the effectiveness of this description, and the editor’s decision to include this statement from the artist is intended to cast him as elitist and insincere. Henson is portrayed, then, as an arrogant member of an art business which many in the audience likely feel to be snobbish and superior, as demonstrated in Henson’s description of the wider public as hostile or indifferent to art and culture in general. The editor assures the reader this is not the case – it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts about the artistic or moral justification of Henson’s work without being hostile to art generally.
This editorial acknowledges the artistic potential of Henson’s work while criticising his tactless search for models in a primary school. Parents are positioned to feel unease about Henson’s implicitly exploitative presence in schools, but the author stops short of, and indeed criticises, the creation of a moral panic around Henson’s perceived paedophilic intentions.

Sorry I'm about to miss my bus for uni so i just skimmed.. really good, nothign too much new to say for me for hte end paragraphs except for really reinfroce the effect and go deeper!.. .scroll through the submission board and there's an essay i posted up asking people to criticise as a learning activity, there should be some good examples of analysis in there assuming i'm not a total dingbat. really great potential in you as a writer. watch dthose dashes!@

[Patches]

Cheers I'll try and limit the dashes - as you can see it's an easy habit :/

By editorial tone I meant the clear voice of the editor intruding into the piece. For instance, when they say something like 'it is the view of this paper.' Should have made it clearer though.

[brenden]

Oh okay. I'm unsure on the use of that as a tone word. I mean, you could still have an 'editorial tone' in an angry tone or something like that. Check with your teacher though, don't take my word for it considering I've never heard the term before haha.

[götze]

Naplan which is the national testing regime for students in years 3,5,7,9 has sparked a great debate on whether or not the tests are useful. The article “NAPLAN takes a heavy toll” by Jewel Topsfield adopts a scathing and dismissive tone that dismisses Naplan tests are not helpful for our children however it is a a burden and waste of time for our children. In support of Miss Topsfield the editorial Test mustn’t narrow our school focus” by Kevin Donnely also argues the same point however it adopts a more rational and calm tone. While the editorial “Merit in testing time” by Susie O Brien adapts a different stance on the issue by welcoming the testing and dismissing the critics by using a harsh and rational tone.

Miss  Topsfield commences her attack on the  Naplan testing as she deems it to be useless as it impacts on the kids negatively and it is not useful. She backs this stance up by using words such as “stress related” “vomiting” “sleeplessness” which is the technique of using emotive words. If the reader had children or young cousins eg it would concern the readers on how their normal happy child can develop these symptoms over just a normal test.  No parent wants to see their child being affected by these kinds of symptoms as they are harmful for their children in turn opposing the nature of the testing. To further support her case she uses statistics to show how wide the affect it can cause. For example “90 per cent said test made some students stress”, “62 per cent cry due to Naplan”. The use of the figures such as 90 per cent shows how much it affects people considering it’s a big number which would in turn make the readers alarmed and concerned on how it can affect a tremendous amount of children in Australia. Hence the readers are going to agree with the author due the large figures of factor relating to the Naplan testing.

Following the same path Mr Kevin Donnelly express his concern for Naplan testing and how it is not helping our children. He goes further on to state that the Naplan testing is flawed system due to the different capabilities. To enforce his point of view he uses expert opinion by quoting something Mr Obama said relating to the issue of testing “. All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test, and that's not going to make education interesting." By using Barrack Obama the author has used the technique of using experts. So by stating this quote if there are any readers that still unsure whether NAPLAN is helpful or not. They will be considered to agree with the author because if somebody great such as the American president doesn’t support these kind of test why should you? The author also uses inclusive language throughout the article to make sure the reader feel that they are involved by using words such as us or we. This is because the reader is simply not presenting his ideas but what Mr Donnelly perceives to be a community issue. In turn this engages the reader in the editorial and further enhances Mr Kevin Donnelly argument.

Miss Susie Obrien author of the article “Merit in testing time” commences by repudiating the opposition argument by using a rhetorical question. “So why are so many educators trying to scare parents into thinking standardised testing is bad?’ As arhetorical question has no answer because it is   usually implied and it  makes the reader feel more involved and  the reader will start thinking why do people want the Naplan scraped? So they will start going deep into the issue and and develop their own opinion not what the media spoons feeds them concerning Naplan.  To further solidify her argument she uses anecdotal evidence by using her son who is going to complete the Naplan. “He was nervous, but I thought it was good for him”. By using her son and describing his feeling towards the Naplan shows that not all children suffer from the symptoms such as vomiting described by the news outlets. It is a over exaggeration of the true situation because only  a small minority of children suffer from these symptoms . In turn this strengthens the author argument for supporting Naplan.

[jeanweasley]

Hey Yathi, I'm running short on time so I'll analyse your introduction and come back to edit the rest.


Naplan which is the national testing regime for students in years 3,5,7,9 has sparked a great debate on whether or not the tests are useful. Better worded if it was: The national testing regime for students in Years 3,5, 7 and  9 has sparked great debate on whether these tests are useful. I don't know if it's just personal choice but the word 'regime' sounds a bit awkward here. The article “NAPLAN takes a heavy toll” by Jewel Topsfield adopts a scathing and dismissive tone that dismissesYou've already used the word 'dismissive' and it's repetitive if you use 'dimisses' again. Naplan tests are not helpful for our children howeverWhat do you mean however? However is used when comparing two entirely different things. Topsfield contending that NAPLAN tests are a burden is not a different to her contention because it is what she believes so omit the however it is a a burden and waste of time for our children. You can omit the 'by Jewel Topsfield' and just say 'Jewel Topsfield's article...'In support of MissYou aren't required to give their title. Just refer to their last name. Topsfield the editorial Test mustn’t narrow our school focus” by Kevin Donnely also argues the same point however it adopts a more rational and calm tone. While the editorial “Merit in testing time” by Susie O Brien adapts adoptsa different stance on the issue by welcoming the testing and dismissing the critics by using a harsh and rational tone. You are required to give the date and source of the article. Here, the links about the author's stance on the issue and what they believe needs to be clearer. Check out the suggested rewritten version below:

NAPLAN, the national testing program for students in Years 3,5 7 and 9 has sparked a great debate on whether the tests are useful. Jewel Topsfield's opinion piece "NAPLAN takes a heavy toll" (The Age/Herald Sun/The Australian or whatever newspaper dd/mm/yy) adopts a scathing and dismissive tone contending that NAPLAN tests are not useful as it is a burden and waste of time for our children. In support of Topsfield, Kevin Donnely's letter to the editor/opinion piece/whatever text type asserts the same point in a rational tone. Whilst Susie O' Brien's editorial "Merit in testing time" (Herald Sun dd/mm/yy) adopts a different stance on the issue by welcoming the testing and dismissing the criticism of NAPLAN in a harsh and rational tone arguing that it is useful because...

Just general notes:

Whilst the use of tone is well identified, the contention of each article needs to be clear as well. Although Donnely may be in support of Topsfield, I think that his contention should still be outlined as no two contentions are ever 100% alike. Also, "harsh and rational tone" doesn't quite fit because in a sense it suggests that the author is being judgemental on the subject, yet on the other hand she is "rational" or thinking properly. Text types should also be identified and woven into the writing and the author's name, instead of being introduced after the article title can be done first in order to minimise time writing the introduction. Authors do not need to be given their titles and have to be referred to only by their last name after their full name has been introduced in the introduction. Date and source of the article, for example (Herald Sun 12/5/13) can be written as such next to the article title followed by a comma instead of writing "published on Herald Sun on May 12, 2013" as it makes the writing more fluid and easier to read. It should also be noted that whilst there is nothing wrong with saying that an author "argues", it would be better if other synonyms were used and also because persuasive articles generally argue anyway so writing that they "argue" for a purpose is kind of inefficient. Such synonyms can be: asserts, contends, disputes etc., however one can use the word "contends" twice in the introduction without changing to another synonym as this would be acceptable. In the last sentence, the contention of O'Brien needs to be identified.

Great work so far.

[Eugenet17]

Only my second language analysis this year, still rusty and unsure about some stuff. It's regarding euthanasia

The issue of euthanasia and its place in society has caused heavy controversies over the years, as a result debate surrounding the legalization of euthanasia has become increasingly evident. In response to the issue, an opinion article written by Craig Wallace entitled ‘Euthanasia: let’s look at the bigger picture’ was published by ABC’s RampUp on the 21st of January,2013 in which Wallace contends in a condemning and antagonistic tone that euthanasia should not be legalized, stating that it is essentially “suicide” and hence should not be condoned by society. In contrast, another opinion article entitled “Why is it so hard to grant the wish to die in peace?” in the 16th of May issue of the Age, an anonymous doctor controverts in a logical and controlled tone that euthanasia should be legalized to help doctors realize that “advanced care” isn’t always the solution, and to instead help grant the wish of terminally ill patients to  “die peacefully”. Wallace’s article incorporates heavy use of rhetorical questioning and is primarily targeted at supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media whom he believes differentiates suicide and euthanasia due to the factor of disability. The anonymous author utilities inclusive language to encourage responsibility in the reader, as it is targeted at medical professionals who oppose the use of euthanasia.

Wallace’s article contends that euthanasia is simply another form of suicide and therefore should not be legalized. Wallace adopts a combative and condemning tone to project a sense of superiority and intelligence towards the reader. Throughout the article, the author enforces the concept of euthanasia being “suicide” multiple times through the repeated usage of rhetorical questions, suggesting that if suicide is a “gift: for a specific group of people who find their lives unbearable, “why not” everyone else?  Wallace asserts this point once more when he questions the legitimacy of granting the right of euthanasia to one group but “not another”. The author subsequently encourages the reader to accept his point of view by indicating that those who disagree are foolish. Wallace generalizes the community by stating that everyone goes through “unbearable pain” in different forms in their lives in order to reinforce that suicide shouldn’t be allowed simply because of disability. The author is able to validate his opinion dubiously and allow the reader to relate themselves to the issue. Wallace employs evidence in the form of the UN Convention’s regulations regarding the Rights of the Disabled, which affirms that everyone has the “inherent right” to life in order to restate his position on the issue once more. As a result, the author gains credibility in his arguments, increasing the urge in the reader to accept his position. The author concludes his article by exaggerating legal euthanasia  by comparing it to a “door to hell”, confronting the reader with shock in order to further emphasise that euthanasia has no place in our society. The article is accompanied with an image of a syringe and a bottle labeled with a skull. As an image of a skull symbolizes imminent death, it contrasts with the idea that euthanasia is a “gift” and instead signifies that euthanasia is essentially nothing more than suicide.
Conversely, the article written by an anonymous doctor contends that euthanasia should be legalized to allow the terminally ill to die in peace and help doctors realize that care isn’t always the solution for patients. The article assumes a rational and logical tone, placing the readers who oppose euthanasia in a position of self-doubt. The title of the article immediately captures the reader’s attention and solidifies the author’s contention through the use of a rhetorical question, subtly encouraging the reader to consider the issue by implying that those who disagree are illogical. Upon the beginning of the article, the author utilises an anecdote of a man known as “the miracle man” who was denied death and instead continues to live a life filled with daily hardships. The author is therefore able to establish credibility in the need for euthanasia as well as evoking a sense of commiseration in the reader for terminally ill patients. Being a doctor himself, the author uses inclusive language repeatedly throughout the article to relate with his audience of medical professionals by stating that “we” think advance care is the solution and that “we” are very clever with our treatments. The author is able to encourage a sense of responsibility and duty in a doctor, and emphasizes a need for doctors to accept a patient’s refusal for treatment. The author appeals to the emotions of the reader when he depicts life as a typical terminally ill patient who is “frail”, “incontinent” and unable to “walk without help”. The author forces the reader to feel sympathetic towards all terminally ill patients, further demonstrating the need for euthanasia. Once more, the author targets medical professionals through the use of rhetorical questioning when he concludes the anecdote of the “miracle man”, by inquiring if it proved a “triumph” in modern medical care, consequently belittling the medical professionals by deeming them foolish for opposing euthanasia and constantly focusing on providing patients with “burdensome treatments”.

When compared with one another, both articles have distinct similarities in terms of intended effect on the reader. Wallace and the anonymous doctor both establish their authorities during the beginning stages of their articles, albeit with different methods. Wallace conducts an attack towards an outside article which didn’t discourage suicide but instead considering a case of euthanasia as a “relief”, resulting in disparaging the media and instigating a sense of compliance in the reader to place their beliefs in his point of views. Contrastingly, the anonymous doctor simply stated that he was a GP for “25 years”, which establishes a form of trust and avoids any form of alienation with his targeted audience, also proving that he is an expert within the field.  Both articles denigrate the subjects through the use of sarcasm in which Wallace states his concern for the interpretation of “voluntary” in a world that isn’t the ideal world of “crystal clarity” whilst the doctor concludes his article by suggesting that medical professional stops the “treatment merry-go-round”. Both authors are subsequently able to project a sense of superiority over those who oppose their view, gaining validity in the reader towards their respective contentions. Both authors distinctly state the consequences of euthanasia, where Wallace dramatically states that there is no “undo button” in death, inferring onto the finality of euthanasia whereas the doctor depicts the life of terminally ill patients, referring to them as having brains and bodies which are on a “downward spiral” and being “run ragged” due to being denied a peaceful death. As a result, both articles are able to confront the reader by triggering a sympathetic response and increasing the reader’s sense of empathy, further strengthening their initial contentions.

Wallace’s opinion article uses a condemning and antagonistic tone to consolidate his point of view that euthanasia should not be legalized as it is merely a form of “suicide”. Wallace constantly uses rhetorical questions to degrade his opposition and is therefore targeted towards supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media. The anonymous doctor’s opinion piece employs a logical and reasonable tone to place the reader in a position of self-doubt, enforcing his contention that euthanasia should be legalized for patients to die peacefully and to avoid medical professionals forcing active treatment upon them against their wishes. The author substantially uses anecdotal evidence and inclusive language to emphasise his arguments, targeted specifically at the medical professionals amongst those who defy euthanasia.

[brenden]

Letting you guys know that  the chances of essays being marked for the next three and a half weeks are pretty low (my last exam is on the 21st of June). When I'm done with exams, I'll come back and mark every essay in this thread. Sorry guys! I'm also leaving this thread open (unlike TR) because there's obviously a lot left to mark: I'd encourage everyone to be brave and give marking a go - it's an extremely effective method of studying for English, second only to receiving feedback on one of your own essays imo.

[Eugenet17]

I know there's gonna be a while till this gets marked, just posting so i don't have to do it later
( LA on the 2010 English exam's speech regarding Biodiversity)

In 2002, countries worldwide pledged to reduce the destruction of life on Earth, aiming to preserve our species and diminish the alarming growth of poverty. In response, a speaker's speech during the 2010 International Biodiversity Conference contends in an initally controlled and formal tone that despite the United Nation's description of 2010 as a "celebration of life", the rate of biodiversity loss is invariably evident and requires immediate action. Through the constant use of inclusive language, the speaker distinctly encourages his targeted audience of educated leaders of biodiversity to claim responsibility on the issue, in the hopes of "preserving" life on Earth and alleviating poverty.

During the initial stages of the speech, the speaker opens to his audience in a controlled and formal tone, instigating that 2012 is a year of "vital significance" to our world. The speaker seeks to emphaise the lack of support over life on Earth and the need to "re-establish" and "strenghten' their goals regarding biodiversity. In conjunction with his status as a prominent leader, the speaker's tone establishes a form of trust within the audience and complies them to consider his arguments. However, upon enforcing his contention, the speaker shifts into an accusatory and passionate tone in order to confront the reader with a sense of guilt. The speaker essentially declares that his fellow conference members have failed to take "serious action", accusing them of allowing the increasing the growth of poverty and loss of life to occur. Consequently, the speaker induces guilt in his audience, forcing them to take a stand in order to preserve their self moral values.

Throughout the speech, the speaker employs heavy inclusive language being a leader of biodiversity himself. The speaker concedes that we are in "the grip" of a species extinction and states that we have "no excuse" for inaction, avoiding any form of alienation between himself and the audience and instead establishing a sense of unity.Additionally, the audience is encouraged to claim responsibility over the issue as the speaker emphasises their positions leaders of biodiversity. The speaker utilises confronting statistics throughout his speech, declaring that of the IUCN Red list, 38% are "today threatened" and 804 are already extinct. Furthermore, the speaker also states that more than 1.1 billion people remain in "extreme poverty". As a result, the speaker gains immense credibility in his arguments by shocking the audience with the consequences of the lack of progress in biodiversity rates, hence further signifying the need for action. Immediately after shifting into an accusing and passionate tone, the speaker satirically depicts the lack of action bystating that "wonderful words", "glossy brochures" and "inspiring documentaries" are no substitute for real action. The speaker then proceeds to mock the audience by nothing that they are "mouth platitudes" in the comfort of a "sumptuously catered" conference who have lacked results. Through the combination of satire along with connotative language, the speaker heavily implies that the audience is not doing what is necessary to resolve the issue by blatantly stating their former ineffective attempts to do so and their clear lack of success, consequently inducing a sense of irresponsibility and failure in the audience. The speaker states that the "dependance" of the poor in biodiversity is "crucial", followed by a declaration that poverty eradication is "crucial" to a global action plan. Hence,the speaker signifies the immediate need for action for the sake of sufferers of poverty. The speaker proceeds to identify himself and the audience as "economic giants", evoking a sense of shame in the audience for their precedency and once more encouraging the audience to take action.

The speech is accompanied by a highly suggestive image, consisting of a hand holding a miniscule earth in his palms. The image indicates that the hand, symbolising the audience, literally has the world in their hands and hence have the power to make a difference, supporting the speaker's urge for the audience to take action. The "white" hand held the earth with Africa facing towards the front, being the epitome of poverty. The conjunction of Africa and the white hand enforces the concept of diversity in which the audience are morally obliged to use their power as privelleged leaders in order to help those suffering from the hardships of poverty. Conclusively, the image strengthens the speaker's argument and subtly urges the audience to strive to take vital action to "safeguard" biodiversity, before it is too late.

Throughout the speech, the speaker contends that there has been no progress in the improvement of the rates of biodiversity loss, urging for immediate action. The speaker initially adopts a controlled and formal tone in order to introduce the issue, before shifting into an accusing and passionate tone in order to blatantly enforce the need for action in the audience. The speaker repeatedly utilises inclusive language throughout the speech, establishing a sense of trust within his targeted audience of biodiversity leaders and consequently encourages them to take responsibility and strive for a true "celebration of life" on Earth.