[2016 LA Club] Week 1

[Anonymous]

Okay, so kinda late to the party but here's my attempt at language analysis (It's really basic, I know, but hey, at least I tried ):

In her passionate and disparaging letter to the editor, Nicole Barnett castigates the government’s decision to send asylum seekers requiring medical treatment in Australia back to Nauru. Barnett’s appeal to patriotism throughout the letter in associating the government’s proposition with ‘un-Australian’ values instils doubt in the reader towards the ethics of returning these refugees to Nauru. Barnett’s analogy of surf lifesavers portrays the ‘quintessential Australian’ as people who risk themselves to save others regardless of their circumstances, in stark contrast to the government’s action against the refugees. This analogy interprets the return of refugees to Nauru as ridiculous and unreasonable, which promotes audience support of Barnett’s position in condemnation of the government’s proposition. Furthermore, Barnett’s inclusive language in discussing ‘our’ lifesavers transfers responsibility to the reader and compels the audience to act upon the Australian values of fairness and compassion in opposing the government’s return of asylum seekers to Nauru. Finally, Barnett’s indignant tone gives way to one of authority when she calls for the government to act upon the alternatives presented by ‘academics, “think tanks” and lawyers’. By presenting her alternative solution as one supported by intelligent and accomplished professionals, Barnett strengthens audience approval of her seemingly fairer, more reasonable and more favourable proposition than that of the government, convincing the reader to reject the government’s actions.

I know that I have a problem with being concise in my writing and also using more extensive vocabulary, so if anyone could give me some pointers on that - or anything really - I'd be super grateful!!

[Anonymous]

Excite
First time giving feedback btw you have been warned.
Anyway, hope this helps!

Spoiler

Recent controversy has arisen over the Government’s decision to send asylum seekers who are in Australia for medical treatment to detention camps in Nauru. In her opinion piece, Lifesaving spirit lost, Nicola Barnett contends in a critical tone ( totally correct but its better to have more specific words than simply critical ) that the response of the government is “un-Australian” and suggests that they must seek “alternatives to… [the] detention and prevention” of people smuggling.

(Easily covers all the bases for an introduction )

Through a series of emotional and loaded language, Barnett suggests that the government is in favour of “denying” asylum seekers “the care and protection” they “need”. This depicts asylum seekers as vulnerable and readers are encouraged to feel sympathetic and concerned for the well-being of asylum seekers. (Repeated asylum seekers twice in the same sentence so the flow feels a bit off) In contrast, Barnett discredits the government in their denial of asylum seeker welfare and her mention of “medical professionals” suggests the incompetence of the government to undertake their responsibilities ( This part is worded strangely. Also a bit of a jump in logic. Yes, she mentions medical professionals, but how does simply this reflect incompetence in the government's actions? Maybe be more clear. ) and thus readers are compelled to view the government as cruel and uncaring. ( Spot on job identifying the techniques and the effect on the readers! However, where does the author's contention fit into this? How do these emotions lead the audience to feel about it? )

Furthermore, Barnett attempts to strengthen her argument in her analogous example of Australian surf lifesavers and the government. ( I don't think analogous example can be used like that. But to be honest I have no idea; it just sounds a little strange ) She states that if a person swam too far out at the beach and “got into serious trouble”, a lifesaver would not “let this person suffer” even though “more deaths… [could have been] prevented”. (And what does this mindset show about the government's regarding asylum seekers? ) In equating the experience of a person in trouble at the beach with asylum seekers, Barnett intends to educate (Not sure educate is the right word here. Educate about what? ) readers with a more personable and relatable experience. Moreover, Barnett links her example (Not super clear what this example is. Is it about the lifesavers? If so, why does their example lead to the government's need to change their policies? ie. Maybe focus more on the patriotic side and explore how the government is not setting a good example to fellow Australians, especially when compared to the lifesavers. ) to the governments need to “explore alternatives to… the prevention of people smuggling” and readers are left under no misapprehension to the importance of the care required by asylum seekers and the neglect of the government.
(Again, where is the effect these techniques have on the reader's opinion on the contention? This is probably the part most English students forget though, and sometimes I struggle to fit it in without sounding too clunky too. But if you can get this right, immediate boost to the examiner's impression on your essay )

Overall v nice~
I'm super picky about expression and flow and such, but other than the parts I highlighted your piece reads quite smoothly

[Marmalade]

Above was me~~

Barnett voices her thoughts on the Australian Government's recent announcement concerning the fate of asylum seekers seeking medical aid in Australia in an appalled, disgruntled tone, mainly focusing on the lack of Australian Spirit the government is displaying. She first laments their denial of ‘care and protection’ to the asylum seekers- a basic human right- and their disregard of the advice of ‘medical professionals’, thus portraying the government as morally corrupt and invalidated in their decisions. Not only does this lead the audience to lose trust in them, but also evokes emotions of outrage and disapproval towards them, degrading their credibility and urging readers to agree with the author’s contention in face of these atrocities. This is further extrapolated upon in Barnett’s following statements as she juxtaposes the unjust actions of the government to ‘our surf lifesavers’, revealing the vast dichotomy between their merits and lack thereof. Not only does the use of the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ allow the author to connect with the audience further by associating with them together as a nation, but also purposely excludes the government from this group, following their ‘un-Australian’ nature. This appeals to the patriotism of the audience, and encourages them to criticize the government as they are not living up to their responsibilities as an Australian. As a result, readers are drawn to look down upon the government and instead support the author’s contention, in accordance with their sense of patriotism.

[literally lauren]

In her passionate and disparaging letter to the editor, Nicole Barnett castigates the government’s decision to send asylum seekers requiring medical treatment in Australia back to Nauru. Barnett’s appeal to patriotism throughout the letter in associating the government’s proposition with ‘un-Australian’ awesome job at actually clarifying what the appeal to patriotism is rather than just being like 'there's an appeal to patriotism' and leaving it at that values instils doubt in the reader towards the ethics of returning these refugees to Nauru. Barnett’s analogy of surf lifesavers portrays reeeeally minor point, but the word 'portrays' only really works in the context of an active agent or person portraying something. So you can say 'The author portrays his life story,' but you can say 'His life story portrays hardships' if that makes sense. A person portrays things; things can't portray other things In this context, you could say 'Barnett portrays...' but not 'Barnett's analogy portrays...' the ‘quintessential Australian’ as people who risk themselves to save others regardless of their circumstances, in stark contrast to the government’s action against the refugees. This analogy interprets again, verb choice doesn't quite work since an analogy can't interpret things. It can convey something, or express something, so try to use more active verbs the return of refugees to Nauru as ridiculous and unreasonable, which promotes audience support of Barnett’s position in condemnation of the government’s proposition v. good! Furthermore, Barnett’s inclusive language in discussing ‘our’ lifesavers transfers responsibility to the reader and compels the audience to act upon the Australian values of fairness and compassion in opposing the government’s return of asylum seekers to Nauru. Finally, Barnett’s indignant tone this is a little bit list-y since your transitions are just like 'Furthermore, the author's >technique< in doing X leads to Y' so mixing up your sentence structure would be ideal just to prevent that sense of repetition gives way to one of authority when she calls for the government to act upon the alternatives presented by ‘academics, “think tanks” and lawyers’. By presenting her alternative solution as one supported by intelligent and accomplished professionals, Barnett strengthens audience approval of her seemingly fairer, more reasonable and more favourable proposition than that of the government, convincing the reader to reject the government’s actions. Really good discussion of the effect; you've got a great understanding of the author's intent both in terms of the argument and how he wants the readers to respond.

You've got the process of analysis under control, so you're probably at the stage now where you can start being a bit more confident in varying your sentence structure. You don't have to start with the effect and backtrack to the language or anything weird like that, but even something as small as altering the way you introduce a point can stop the assessors from acknowledging the pattern/formula you're using

eg. 'The author's use of X as seen in "Y" engenders readers' sense of Z'
--> The X evident in "Y" forms part of the author's attempts to engender Z
--> The author's declaration that "Y" is an example of X, which contributes to readers' sense of Z
--> X is also employed by the author in the phrase "Y" in order to engender a sense of Z
               ...and so on

Devising your own variants of the above should help you incorporate alternations in your analysis.

The other thing to look out for is your verb usage - words like 'portrays' and 'interprets' have limited applicability in Language Analysis and you'd probably be better off using the kinds of words here under the first two tabs in particular.

Let me know if that vocab explanation didn't make sense

Other than that, you definitely seem to be on top of the whole 'showing your workings' stuff and you're providing a good amount of explanation. Because this is a small scale task, it's a little tough to judge things like concise-ness, though perhaps you could afford to cut down on some of the more similar effect statements.

eg. instead of saying:
the technique A which elicits feelings of B forms part of the author's attempt to C
+ also the technique D elicits feelings of E, also contributing to the author's attempt to C

you could just say:
the technique A elicits feelings of B
+ the author also uses technique D which elicits feelings of E
--> this further strengthens the author's attempt to C

If the overall effect/intention is the same, then you can group them to prevent having to restate points or repeat yourself.

Well done

Barnett voices her thoughts on the Australian Government's recent announcement concerning the fate of asylum seekers seeking medical aid in Australia in an appalled, disgruntled tone, mainly focusing on the lack of Australian Spirit no capitalisation needed here the government is displaying. Little bit verbose; you could just say 'Barnett employs an appalled, disgruntled tone to condemn the lack of Australian spirit shown by the govt. to asylum seekers.' What you've got here at the moment is like 'The author talks about X in a tone that is Y, focusing on argument Z' but that initial 'talks about X' is a bit unnecessary. We're more interested in the author's argument than the subject matter of their argument, if that helps. But this might've just been an issue because it's a short, introduction-less piece, in which case it's totally fine She first unless the chronology is important, don't draw attention to it. The fact that she does this "first" isn't something you unpack or analyse as being persuasive, so it's basically a wasted word in this context laments their denial of ‘care and protection’ to the asylum seekers- a basic human right- and their disregard of the advice of ‘medical professionals’, thus portraying the government as morally corrupt and invalidated in their decisions phrasing is a bit clunky, but analysis is solid. Not only does this lead the audience to lose trust in them, but also evokes emotions of outrage and disapproval towards them, degrading their credibility and urging readers to agree with the author’s contention what part of their contention?? Never say this unless you're instantly going to be more specific like 'to agree with the author's contention THAT THE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESERVE BETTER TREATMENT' in face of these atrocities. This is further extrapolated upon in Barnett’s following statements as she juxtaposes the unjust actions of the government to ‘our surf lifesavers’, revealing the vast dichotomy between their merits and lack thereof I know what you're suggesting here, but grammatically, it's unclear who has merits and who lacks them. Not only does the use of the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ allow the author to connect with the audience further by associating with them together as a nation, but it also purposely excludes the government from this group, following do you mean 'because of'? Just a little unclear on the meaning here their ‘un-Australian’ nature. This appeals to the patriotism of the audience, and encourages them to criticize the government as they are not living up to their responsibilities as an Australian Australians (since you're talking about 'the government' which is an intrinsically plural noun in this context - you say '...criticise the government as they...' not 'the government as he/she/it'). As a result, readers are drawn to look down upon vocab the government and instead support the author’s contention, in accordance with their sense of patriotism. slight repetition of 'patriotism' here but otherwise okay.

Excellent discussion of how the elements of this piece combined to have cumulative effects on readers. There were a few phrases here and there that could've been refined to maximise clarity or efficiency, so watch out for your grammar and word choices.
(+see link above to Heidi's awesome vocab post!)

Also, make sure you're providing the right amount of information - or, more accurately, that you're hitting that balance between specificity and generalisations in the right place.

Your first sentence contains a little too much info to the point where a bit of it is kind of redundant. But that sentence where you say 'urges readers to agree with the author's contention' needs MORE!

Aside from that, you're definitely on the right track, and you've got a really solid foundation for your interpretation, so keep it up!

[Marmalade]

Thanks for the feedback Lauren!

Wow I realise that I do that really vague 'urging readers to agree with the author's contention' a lot actually xD. I'll try to work harder with that!

I just wanted to ask for a bit more clarification on what you mean by balance between specificity and generalizations. Do you mean analyzing the article and what the author is trying to say, but not assuming things about them? I'm not quite sure. 

[literally lauren]

Thanks for the feedback Lauren!

Wow I realise that I do that really vague 'urging readers to agree with the author's contention' a lot actually xD. I'll try to work harder with that!

I just wanted to ask for a bit more clarification on what you mean by balance between specificity and generalizations. Do you mean analyzing the article and what the author is trying to say, but not assuming things about them? I'm not quite sure.

No worries - the vagueness is something a lot of people struggle with, but now that you're aware of it, it should be a lot easier to spot.

Regarding that balance: basically you don't want to be too far on either side of the spectrum. So you wouldn't want to be overly/ unnecessarily specific by saying something like 'this technique would likely appeal to people who suffer from anxiety or have a nervous disposition because their perception of the government would radically shift if the author undermined their credibility' or 'the author targets people who live in Mowbray because he makes reference to John Smith who grew up in Mowbray'... that's where things get weird. But you also don't want to make things too general, as in, 'this aids the author in persuading readers of his contention' or 'thus the author seeks to drive public discourse towards his views.'

So the balance you need to strike involves talking about the target audience (when provided) and the intended effect, but not extrapolating outside the boundaries of the task and using a bunch of external knowledge to supplement your discussion. Technically everything you need to get a high score in L.A. will be on the pages in front of you, so the fact that you know that, say, the residents of Mowbray are particularly invested in the hospitality industry shouldn't be necessary unless that fact has been provided for you.

Hopefully it won't be too much of a concern, but I've found that when students are told to stop being so general/vague, then they tend to overcorrect and end up forcing those weirdly specific comments in the middle of their analysis. Just something to look out for in future

[Anonymous]

WOOPS IM REALLY LATE BUT HERE IT GOES:

Barnett makes a distinct appeal to the Australian audiences’ sense of patriotism to disparage the government’s current stance regarding asylum seekers. The situation having been specifically described as “denying people the care as advised by medical professionals” in combination with the succinct “This is un-Australian” is likely to elicit a feeling of injustice and nationalism. By distinguishing the clear lack of respect towards respected members of society and also to Australian morals, Barnett generates a sense of hatred towards the government as their position is illustrated in an inhumane manner. The act of “denying” and “denial” which is repeated twice is a repetitive employment in which Barnett links to Australian values the portrayal of the government’s injustice is also represented as intentional as if to almost indicate there is a clear motive to go against such. The sort of betrayal that the readership are manipulated to feel therefore act as a galvanizing tool to induce a sense of uproar as to fervently rally against this motion that is so clearly undermining the Australian way of life. Introducing the analogy involving a life saver, an appeal is once again made to the stereotypical Australian and the customs they abide by. The life saver to which is synonymous with Australian culture, therefore adjusts the readership to perceive the image of every Australian as tolerant, helping and friendly and to contrast the staunch difference between what the government has done and what our nation stands for. An additional element to author’s advancing contention is the engagement of the readerships sense of logic. The notion of being “prepared to let this person suffer” is intended to create a sense of bewilderment and bemusement as witnessing pain will urgently call upon any average Australian to help nevertheless a lifeguard and thus the audience are again pushed towards accepting an alternative policy as Barnett stigmatizes the current with illogicality and nonsensicality . The additional juxtaposition made between the “quintessential Australians”, “heroes” and altruistic nature of lifesavers compared to the previously unsympathetic one may incite the audience into shuddering at the continuation of the “off-shore processing policy”. That scathing tone directed towards the governments incompetence in understanding its people probes through the many flaws existing within the current process that hence prompts reconsideration in the audience to a solution far from a “detention camp in Nauru”.

[literally lauren]

Barnett makes a distinct appeal to the Australian audiences’ sense of patriotism to disparage the government’s current stance regarding asylum seekers. Excellent starting sentence The situation having been specifically described as “denying people the care as advised by medical professionals” in combination with the succinct “This is un-Australian” is likely to elicit a feeling of injustice and nationalism the notion of injustice seems to be more central to your discussion here. Try and keep your analysis targeted to the most relevant effects rather than mentioning all possible options that you can extract from that language. By distinguishing the clear lack of respect who's lack of respect? towards respected members of society and also to Australian morals, Barnett generates a sense of hatred towards the government as their position is illustrated in an inhumane manner I'm being super picky here, but your choice of words implies that the author is doing this illustration in an inhumane way, as opposed to depicting their position as inhumane. The act of “denying” and “denial” which is repeated twice is a repetitive employment in which Barnett links to Australian values the portrayal of the government’s injustice bit confused as to your sentence structure here is also represented as intentional as if to almost indicate there is a clear motive to go against such this is a bit too general. The sort of betrayal that the readership are manipulated to feel therefore acts as a galvanizing tool to induce a sense of uproar as to fervently rally against this motion that is so clearly undermining the Australian way of life v good . Introducing the analogy involving a life saver, an appeal is once again made to the stereotypical Australian and the customs they abide by. The life saver to which is synonymous with Australian culture specifying that the author was equating life savers with Australian heroism rather than 'Aus culture' in general, therefore adjusts the readership to perceive the image of every Australian as tolerant, helping and friendly and to contrast the staunch difference between what the government has done and what our nation stands for excellent!! An additional element to author’s advancing contention is the engagement of the readerships sense of logic. This seems like a needlessly roundabout way of saying 'The author also employs an appeal to logic' - try and go for simpler expressions if in doubt. The notion of being “prepared to let this person suffer” is intended to create a sense of bewilderment and bemusement as witnessing pain will urgently call upon any average Australian to help nevertheless a lifeguard and thus the audience are again pushed towards bit colloquial accepting an alternative policy as Barnett stigmatizes the current with illogicality and nonsensicality. The additional juxtaposition made between the “quintessential Australians”, “heroes” and altruistic nature of lifesavers compared to the previously unsympathetic one which one? and who's nature was unsympathetic? may incite an easy way to avoid this problem of having to say 'may' or 'perhaps' is to focus on the intention of the author rather than the possible reception of the audience (which is actually more in keeping with the criteria of Language Analysis). So changing this to 'through XYZ, the author seeks to incite...' or 'XYZ is intended to incite...' will neatly bypass this issue the audience into shuddering try and concentrate more on the emotional response. What would shuddering be indicative of? at the continuation of the “off-shore processing policy”. That scathing tone directed towards the government's incompetence in understanding its people probes through the many flaws existing within the current process that hence prompts reconsideration in the audience to a solution prompts readers to consider a different solution far from a “detention camp in Nauru”.

In short, your analysis is really awesome in sections. Minor clarity issues occasionally bog this down a bit, but the main thing to focus on is your specificity! It's perfectly fine to refer back to previous points of analysis (i.e. "The author emphasises about the kindness of lifesavers. Hence, the author contrasts this kindness of lifesavers with the unsympathetic one of the govt.") <-- but that last part has to be specific in order for you to receive credit for this comparison.

Specificity is key! Aside from that, you're definitely on the right track with your analytical skills

[Anonymous]

Super super late, but could I have a go?

Barnett encourages Australian readers to defend Australian values by opposing the Government's new proposal. Barnett creates a dichotomy between Australian supporters and dissenters of the new proposal by dubbing the act of denying medical care to asylum seekers as "un-Australian". The latter audience is positioned to cement their disapproval at the ruling as it is depicted as contradictory to Australian values, leading them to believe that it is unacceptable in our culture. However, supporters of the ruling is guided to feel threatened and shamed as they are casted off as not an Australian but as the 'other'. This readership is likely to reflect upon their opinion about the proposal as they believe themselves to be disapproved by rest of the society, and are thus more inclined to change their stance on the issue to save their reputation. Furthermore, by depicting the proposal as lacking human pathos, Barnett attempts to discourage not only Australian reader, but a broader audience. The phrase, "I am prepared to let this person suffer" creates a monotonous, matter-of-fact tone due to the simple, clear sentence structure which when contrasted with the horrific meaning, intensifies the moral degradation of what is being suggested. Thus, readers are guided to feel disgust at the government. Ultimately then, Barnett's readership is guided to feel as though the proposal contradicts their Australian pride as well as humanity, perhaps spurring them to demand for a new ruling from the government.

[literally lauren]

Barnett encourages Australian readers to defend Australian values by opposing the Government's new proposal. Barnett creates a dichotomy between Australian supporters and dissenters of the new proposal by dubbing the act of denying medical care to asylum seekers as "un-Australian". The latter audience is positioned to cement their disapproval at the ruling as it is depicted as contradictory to Australian values, leading them to believe that it is unacceptable in our avoid first person pronouns in L.A. essays, if possible. Just saying 'Australian culture' would be fine here culture. However, supporters of the ruling is are guided to feel threatened and shamed as they are casted off bit colloquial - what do you mean by this? rejected? belittled? dismissed? disregarded? etc. as not an Australian but as the 'other'. This readership is likely to reflect upon their opinion about the proposal as they believe themselves to be disapproved by rest of the society, and are thus more inclined to change their stance on the issue to save their reputation. Furthermore, by depicting the proposal as lacking human pathos, Barnett attempts to discourage not only Australian reader, but a broader audience. The phrase, "I am prepared to let this person suffer" creates a monotonous, matter-of-fact tone due to the simple, clear sentence structure which when contrasted with the horrific meaning, intensifies the moral degradation of what is being suggested like that you're unpacking the language so closely here, though be careful to always take explicit care in showing your workings for stuff like this - skipping from 'the clear sentence structure' to 'moral degredation' would be a bit of a leap otherwise'. Thus, readers are guided to feel disgust at the government. Ultimately then, Barnett's readership is guided to feel as though the proposal contradicts their Australian pride as well as humanity, could probably collapse these into one concluding statement about the effect perhaps spurring them to demand for a new ruling from the government might be a bit of a stretch; saying 'perhaps' lets you get away with this, but if in doubt, stay close to the material and just talk about what consequences the author is seeking to bring about .

[Anonymous]

Not sure if I can post on this kinda old thread ...

Um and who do I give feedback to? I’m pretty sure most people who posted are year 12s who never want to see language analysis again lol

The government’s decision to force 267 asylum seekers undergoing medical treatment in Australia back to detention camps in Nauru has sparked a furore over the exigency to save these lives. In the letter to the editor “Lifesaving spirit lost”, Nicola Barnett admonishingly contends that other alternatives to mandatory detention and the prevention of people smuggling (basically copied this from the text, is that okay?) must be considered by the government. The readers to whom the piece is directed is the government, although members of the general public may welcome it to help provide them with a clearer perspective of the ramifications for these asylum seekers, who bear the brunt of this decision.

Barnett argues that asylum seekers are in need of support. By casting asylum seekers’ plight as one predicated on “misfortune or error of judgement”, Barnett accentuates the notion that their current situation stems from bad luck or a poor decision; factors for which they should not be chastised. Readers may react with compassion to this unfortunate quandary, and thus, may castigate the government who afflict further sorrow upon them. In addition, the negative words "serious trouble" reinforce the grave issues that asylum seekers must endure, alluding to a possible danger or risk they must face. Readers are positioned to not simply disregard or dismiss their circumstances as negligible, and instead, consider its significance.

Barnett also argues that the government’s actions are abhorrent and deplorable. The negative word “deny(ing)” denotes the government’s refusal to grant their plea. By appealing to values such as equality and fairness, concerned members of the public may find their judgement morally repugnant and share Barnett’s indignation in depriving asylum seekers of the basic rights to which all humans are entitled to. Additionally, Barnett highlights the legitimacy of the asylum seekers’ health issues as they are supported by “medical professionals”. Hence, readers may take into account their implied expertise in diagnosis as regarded, reputable and unbiased professionals. In so doing, readers are challenged to consider the necessity for the asylum seekers to be granted stay in Australia for their needs are fulfilled, given their vulnerable state. Furthermore, Barnett dubs the government’s actions as “un-Australian”. This pejorative term negatively connotes their behaviour, which violates typical Australian cultural norms and fundamental values. Through this condemnation, Bennett accentuates the irony that underpins their behaviour: the government, who is purportedly patriotic, does not have the nation’s interests at heart with such a decision. Thus, Bennett attempts to instil a sense of shame in Australian readers who share the government’s resolve to turn back ill asylum seekers in need, whilst other readers may decry this choice because it undermines Australian values.

note: i haven't finished, still need to write a paragraph on how barnett depicts the surf lifesavers and the conclusion

[j.wang]

That was me, sorry!

[HopefulLawStudent]

Not sure if I can post on this kinda old thread ...

Um and who do I give feedback to? I’m pretty sure most people who posted are year 12s who never want to see language analysis again lol

Hey sorry for the late post. Don't bother giving feedback to anyone; they're probs not even checking this thread anymore. I'm fairly sure that there will be a LA club running again next year. So save your feedback for then.

The government’s decision to force 267 asylum seekers undergoing medical treatment in Australia back to detention camps in Nauru has sparked a furore over the exigency to save these lives.too evaluative? Remember the point of LA is to be as objective as possible In the letter to the editor “Lifesaving spirit lost”, Nicola Barnett admonishingly contends that other alternatives to mandatory detention and the prevention of people smuggling (basically copied this from the text, is that okay?)Yeah. Should be fine? Fairly sure a good proportion of my year level used background info almost verbatim (just like throw in some synonyms or something so that it's less obvious if you're iffy about copying fr the text must be considered by the government. The readers to whom the piece is directed is the government, although members of the general public Your audience is never never NEVER "the public" EVER may welcome it to help provide them with a clearer perspective of the ramifications for these asylum seekers, who bear the brunt of this decision.

Barnett argues that asylum seekers are in need of support. By casting asylum seekers’ plight as one predicated on “misfortune or error of judgement”, Barnett accentuates the notion that their current situation stems from bad luck or a poor decision; factors for which they should not be chastised. Readers may react with compassion to this unfortunate quandary, and thus, may castigate the government who afflict further sorrow upon them. In addition, the negative words Rule of thumb for LA (if you wanna be safe) is to just avoid stuff like "negative" words and "positive" words. I swear every time I used it, my teacher lost his marbles (and not in a good way)"serious trouble" reinforce the grave issues that asylum seekers must endure, alluding to a possible danger or risk they must face. Readers are positioned to not simply disregard or dismiss their circumstances as negligible, and instead, consider its significance.

Barnett also argues that the government’s actions are abhorrent and deplorable. The negative word “deny(ing)” denotes the government’s refusal to grant their plea. By appealing to values such as equality and fairness, concerned members of the public may find their judgement morally repugnant and share Barnett’s indignation in depriving asylum seekers of the basic rights to which all humans are entitled to. Additionally, Barnett highlights the legitimacy of the asylum seekers’ health issues Too evaluative. You probs need a qualifier like "Barnett highlights the perceived legitimacy..."as they are supported by “medical professionals”. Hence, readers may take into account their implied expertise in diagnosis as regarded, reputable and unbiased professionals. In so doing, readers are challenged to consider the necessity for the asylum seekers to be granted stay in Australia for their needs are fulfilled, given their vulnerable state. Furthermore, Barnett dubs the government’s actions as “un-Australian”. This pejorative term negatively connotes their behaviour, which violates typical Australian cultural norms and fundamental values. Through this condemnation, Bennett accentuates the irony that underpins their behaviour: the government, who is purportedly patriotic, does not have the nation’s interests at heart with such a decision. Clumsy. And seems unnecessarily verbose. Thus, Bennett attempts to instil a sense of shame in Australian readers So you're saying the audience is Australian readers? (Please don't, it's like saying the audience is the public.) Pick an audience and stick by it; don't start changing up who the audience might be mid essaywho share the government’s resolve to turn back ill asylum seekers in need, whilst other readers may decry this choice because it undermines Australian values.

note: i haven't finished, still need to write a paragraph on how barnett depicts the surf lifesavers and the conclusion

[Gogo14]

Bit late to the party, but oh well...

Following the controversial decision of the Government to ship asylum seekers requiring medical assistance to Nauru, Nicola Barnett condemns the justification of the government’s motives in her condescending article “Lifesaving spirit lost”. She adopts a belligerent tone by juxtaposing the government to a undutiful lifesaver analogous to the context of saving asylum seekers by granting “ the care and protection they need”.

Barnett disparages upon the credibility and liability of the government to draw prudent decisions in this affair by asserting that their decision opposes the advisory of “of medical professionals”. As such, the government is portrayed to be deliberately opposing an expert opinion, who have the credentials to make the best informed decisions in this dilemma. Hence the audience is positioned to perceive the government’s action to be irrational and not in the best benefit of everyone. Furthermore, this notion of irrationality is accentuated by the analogy of the Government being selfish lifesavers who is “prepared to let this [asylum seeker] suffer” . The analogy serves to illustrate the government’s defence of “[preventing] a future tragedy at sea” to be logically flawed as the irony of lifesavers deliberately letting swimmers drown allows the readers to question the lifeguard’s decision to be inhumane, rash and poor. As the title implies, the “lifesaving spirit lost” in the analogy juxtaposes with the poor decision making of the government.

Also, Barnett appeals to Australian’s sense of nationalism by not only using an analogy which epitomises Australian culture, but the stark word “un-Australian” isolates the government figure to not be Australian. This segregation manipulates readers to believe that the decision of the government contradicts the virtues of Australia, thus stripping them of their national identity . Furthermore, connective pronouns like “our” and “we” groups the readers to find common ground with the author as are both Australian. Therefore, the audience is aligned to have a sense of pride and communal integrity as they recognise that the “heroes” are “Australians”. Ultimately this appeal to nationalism isolates the government to be unconstitutional and the readers to possess a shared viewpoint of the situation.
Barnett saturates the article with connotative words in attempt to collimate the reader with her stance. Lifesavers are depicted as “heroes” and are “[lauded] as quintessential Australians” . the word “hero” reconnects the readers to themes of self sacrifice, bravery and nobility, thus implying that these are quintessential characteristics of Australians. This connotes lifesavers to be an embodiment of these characteristics, therefore leading the audience to believe that the situation should be approached with these values. In contrast to the government’s decision,  Bartnett is implying that Australians should rather “risk themselves to save others” and ultimately grant asylum seekers requiring medical needs access to Australia. This alternative is reinstated by an imperative “must” adding urgency to the situation to position the audience to believe that the Government has belittle the issue.
Barnett initially disparages the decision through her analogy and appeal to nationalism, but then unites with the audience by using connotative words and pronouns to urge the government to seek an alternative that is more constitutional of Australia’s values.

[Anonymous]

Its back ❤