Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

May 31, 2023, 03:59:57 am

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 1  (Read 27947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
[2016 LA Club] Week 1
« on: February 24, 2016, 05:51:51 pm »
+5
Welcome to the first week of our spanking new LA Club!

As a reminder of how this is working...

1. Each Wednesday, I post a new thread with *something* for you to analyse. (That's this!)
2. You write a short analysis and post in this thread.
3. You give feedback on someone else's analysis.
4. I link your masterpieces here.

And check out this post for heaps more details, and remember to ask any questions if you're not sure how it's working!

Remember to uncheck anonymity just before posting if you're happy for people to know who you are (and want to snag some cheeky upvotes ;)).

Background: The Government has decided that 267 asylum seekers who are in Australia for medical treatment must be sent to detention camps in Nauru, to defend its offshore processing policy and thus save lives at sea.  This provoked several public rallies and protests.

Lifesaving spirit lost

The government has argued that if the 267 asylum seekers in Australia for medical treatment were allowed to stay, people smugglers would be encouraged. Essentially, therefore, the government is in favour of denying people the care and protection they need as advised by medical professionals if this denial could prevent a future tragedy at sea. This is un-Australian. If a person swam out too far at the beach and got into serious trouble, one of our surf lifesavers would not respond: "I am prepared to let this person suffer so that future swimmers will be discouraged from swimming out too far. I may have prevented more deaths, so I am comfortable with my decision."

Our surf lifesavers are heroes and we laud them as quintessential Australians because they risk themselves to save others, regardless of who that person is and what misfortune or error of judgment may have led to their predicament. The government must explore the alternatives to mandatory detention and the prevention of people smuggling that academics, "think tanks" and lawyers have presented to it for more than a decade.

- Nicola Barnett, Aspley, Qld

Look forward to reading your responses!  Reply below; who's going to be first? ;)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 06:25:13 pm by Anonymous »
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

Uni (2021-24): Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash Clayton

Work: PCA in residential aged care

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2016, 06:23:30 pm »
+4
alright this aint my best work (eating chocolate in my bed rn not even making this up) but this club seems like fun so imma hit it up

Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes, Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru. Barnett claims that the government is being 'un-Australian,' claiming that the logic implemented is 'denying people' basic human rights, ultimately infringing basic and fundamental rights. The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background. The use of 'our' positions the reader to take a stance towards the issue. Through the use of inclusive language, the author seeks to unify the audience, as they are all ultimately "Australian,' tugging on their patriarchal sense. Moreover, Barnett attempts to use the bonds earlier created to make her solutions appear more appealing. She firmly states that the government "must explore the alternatives." The use of 'must' indicates the urgent nature of this issue to the audience. She proposes that there are solutions to this that "have presented" themselves. The audience is positioned to believe that there is a way to humanely resolve this urgent issue.

Could elaborate more but I got other stuff I gotta do -- Ik this isn't that great but let me know what you think and ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL sooo hmu :) <3 ilys

FallingStar

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Be yourself and be your best self.
  • Respect: +19
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2016, 08:43:47 pm »
+4
I know that this may not be you best work. I will do my best to give you feedback.

Generally speaking, you were better at the end than the start.

Quote
Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes, Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru.

What's the effect of this? A technique (comparison) has been stated but there is no effect, or examples.

Quote
The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background.

Very good at the end of that paragraph.

I think there this is an significant appeal that is not very obvious in the piece.
Spoiler
This is an appeal to patriotism. (though I think this technique occurs throughout)

Other than that, pretty good. Also, mention the lawyers and academics. What does that imply?

Most importantly, I have been told by my teachers to focus on the effect. This is where you will get the most marks.

I hope this helps.



« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 08:59:16 pm by FallingStar »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2016, 10:05:25 pm »
+3
Ahh first time I'm posting on AN, took a while to work out how I reply... should've looked for 'REPLY' lol. Just gonna put them into dot points since I'm having trouble saying it all in a sentence that sounds good.

-Barnett contrasts the government to "quintessential" surf lifesavers and their reactions to people at sea. Ridicules Gov. by replacing the government's mindset into the lifesavers and it sounds pretty stupid = government's stupid.
-Barnett mocks the government by calling them 'un-Australian', implying that being Australian is to be like the "quintessential Australians" we call lifesavers -> be like the lifesavers who save people regardless of who they are and how they ended up like that.
-Call to action in the last sentence.
-"the government is in favour of denying people the care and protection they need as advised by medical professionals ..." this makes the gov look bad hence supporting her contention.

I think Ill just stick with identifying this kind of stuff before persuasive devices and tone :) byebye

qazser

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +23
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2016, 10:10:43 pm »
+1
Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a thought-provoking and contentious piece that urges her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent future tragedies.  She outlines that ‘267’ asylum seekers are in Australia seeking medical treatment, intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences of “allowing asylum seekers to stay” and attempts to evoke a sense of fear of what could result. Barnett reaffirms her previous sentence using repetition, reminding the reader once again of this ‘immoral’ act. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they conform to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality (Ty Anon) to the land we live in. Through the use of an analogy, Barnett aims to present her contention in another way, enticing the audience into seeing the issue as a point of view. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are part of this article through Barnett’s use of ‘our livesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language.  Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. Reaffirming her point, she imposes on her reader to reconsider their views on the issue, through the word ‘must’. Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative, challenging the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart.  (Anon just called it Call-To -Action, must make note . TY ANON :) )

I’m in Y11, no clue what a language analysis really is, so whipped this baby out. Use of repetitive words is overly common in my piece. Feel free to roast this LA, no offence will be taken 

That was me below, forgot to check username/anonymous checkbox

« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 10:22:12 pm by qazser »
AN Chat: Hop On!

2016:Methods[   ]

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2016, 10:19:42 pm »
+3
alright this aint my best work (eating chocolate in my bed rn not even making this up) but this club seems like fun so imma hit it up Welcome!

Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes (good), Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru. Barnett claims that the government is being 'un-Australian,' claiming that the logic implemented is 'denying people' basic human rights, ultimately infringing basic and fundamental rights. The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background. The use of 'our' positions the reader to take a stance towards the issue. Through the use of inclusive language, the author seeks to unify the audience, as they are all ultimately "Australian,' tugging on their patriarchal sense. Moreover, Barnett attempts to use the bonds earlier created to make her solutions appear more appealing. She firmly states that the government "must explore the alternatives." The use of 'must' indicates the urgent nature of this issue to the audience. She proposes that there are solutions to this that "have presented" themselves. The audience is positioned to believe that there is a way to humanely resolve this urgent issue.

Could elaborate more but I got other stuff I gotta do -- Ik this isn't that great but let me know what you think and ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL sooo hmu :) <3 ilys

Some things i took out of this,
Disclaimer: Just wrote first LA, this piece of feedback might not be logical

-Repeated repetition of 'use of' - need to find alternatives
-State full name of Author once at the start before using Surnames/pronouns after
-Too many 'Barnetts', use she or restructure sentence
-Idk how language analysis works but your written piece seems to hop from parts of Nicola Barnett's piece. Maybe(idk) try to analyse sentence by sentence in order of the her piece.


Positive Notes to take from this piece
-The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. (Great sentence, "relate" is a good alternative for inclusive language)

Sorry for such short piece of feedback, no clue what is needed in an LA :)

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2016, 03:51:56 pm »
+1
alright this aint my best work (eating chocolate in my bed rn not even making this up) but this club seems like fun so imma hit it up

Through the comparison of asylum seekers to Australian heroes, Barnett seeks to undermine the government's decision to return asylum seekers back to Nauru. Barnett claims that the government is being 'un-Australian,' claiming that the logic implemented is 'denying people' basic human rights, ultimately infringing basic and fundamental rights. The use of 'un-Australian' invites the audience to relate to the issue on a personal level, as their ethics and morals are being questioned. Barnett claims that 'our lifesavers' would not respond in this fashion, claiming that it's unreasonable as they would save people 'regardless' of their background. The use of 'our' positions the reader to take a stance towards the issue. Through the use of inclusive language, the author seeks to unify the audience, as they are all ultimately "Australian,' tugging on their patriarchal sense. Moreover, Barnett attempts to use the bonds earlier created to make her solutions appear more appealing. She firmly states that the government "must explore the alternatives." The use of 'must' indicates the urgent nature of this issue to the audience. She proposes that there are solutions to this that "have presented" themselves. The audience is positioned to believe that there is a way to humanely resolve this urgent issue.

Could elaborate more but I got other stuff I gotta do -- Ik this isn't that great but let me know what you think and ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL sooo hmu :) <3 ilys

'Claims' comes up a lot as well as 'the use of' like the other other anon said I bolded the claims and underlined the 'the use of' so you can see how much it pops up! (in the quote)

-From other anon :)


Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2016, 05:41:31 pm »
0
An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government. That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s notion denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.

For some reason, I feel like this should be at a higher standard, especially considering I'm a year 12 student and the fact that I want to do well in VCE English.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2016, 05:42:49 pm »
0
The above one was me. Please credit me for my work where plausible and necessary. I forgot to tick the stupid box.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2016, 06:36:07 pm »
0
The above one was me. Please credit me for my work where plausible and necessary. I forgot to tick the stupid box.
dude do you have a thesaurus nearby when you write or like did you swallow one coz ur vocab is on fleek -- how you do that?

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2016, 06:37:09 pm »
0
dude do you have a thesaurus nearby when you write or like did you swallow one coz ur vocab is on fleek -- how you do that?
yo shit why are my posts all anonymous

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2016, 08:16:43 pm »
+1
Under the "Attachments and other options" box, there's a "Post with your username?" bolded. If you don't want your post to be anonymous, tick the square next to it.

I can assure you I did not access a thesaurus (or a dictionary for that matter) while writing up the mini paragraph. All word-related errors are mine. I personally attribute my vocabulary to my English/Literature teacher who has a thing for expression and being articulate and eloquent. I can't say for sure if I have never swallowed a thesaurus though I did have a little bit of a thing when I was a little kid for chewing paper (no lie, my mother has the photos to prove it).

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2016, 11:31:07 pm »
0
An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government. That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s notion denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.

For some reason, I feel like this should be at a higher standard, especially considering I'm a year 12 student and the fact that I want to do well in VCE English.

I dont even understand what you said since half of those words is new to me... Damn Daniel

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2016, 10:17:02 am »
0
Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers. Barnett stated that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. She is trying to suggest that us as Australians will connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey, the government should be like those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a lifesavers.

yea.. I'm pretty bad at Language Analysis.. but i won't mind if you give me constructive criticism..
thanks :) :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 1
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2016, 01:36:51 pm »
+3
"This is evident when she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’."
Perhaps need to explore this more and the connection between "appeal to patriotism" and "un-Australian"?

"She is trying to suggest that us as Australians will connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. "
That's what an appeal to patriotism does. So? How does this position readers?

"a.k.a"
I feel as though this was used just because it isn't a formal piece of writing but just in case it wasn't... Don't write this in your sac... I imagine teachers/assessors don't like it?

First time analysing a language analysis attempt and giving criticism. I may have just screwed up giving criticism so someone correct me if my feedback is wrong. Overall, you have a whole lot of potential and clearly know your stuff. So good job! :)