[2016 LA Club] Week 5

[Anonymous]

O'Malley firmly asserts the need for strong government action, foregrounding the atrocious nature of the gang brawls in an attempt to incite fear within readers of law-abiding Melbourne residents. The use of succinct sentences intimates a rigidity to his article, thus compelling the readership to adopt a similarly unyielding stance on the need for safer public spaces. Using negatively connotative words such as "brawling" and "marauding", connoting the danger, disturbance and harassment caused by these gangs, the author endeavours to engender hatred and frustration amongst the public. In conjuction with his characterisation of the criminal's behaviour as "abhorrent", suggesting their actions transgress the social law of common respect, he aims to also diminish any sympathy held by the public and therefore position them to embrace his proposal of harsher penalties. Having done so, O'Malley proposes the need to "stamp out" the delinquent behaviour, thus declaring the need for more aggressive measures to counter the criminal activity. The author's use of the idiom "the line in the sand" accentuates the tough stance he is proposing; suggesting that law makers must put in place a limit to this activity that, once crossed, bears severe and irreversible consequences. Indeed, the article insists upon such stringent measures as "deportation", underscoring the severity of the punishment that is expected for those who breach public codes of decency.


I'm sorry if I shouldn't have opened up this thread again I am happy to delete if that its a problem

[literally lauren]

O'Malley firmly asserts the need for strong government action, foregrounding (great word ) the atrocious nature of the gang brawls in an attempt to incite fear within readers of law-abiding Melbourne residents. (good that you're being more specific about WHO the audience is! It's also fine to sometimes just say 'the readers', but being more specific at least once per paragraph is a good strategy.) The use of succinct sentences intimates a rigidity to his article, thus compelling the readership to adopt a similarly unyielding stance on the need for safer public spaces. (great point! Most students never think to analyse the author's structure/construction, so this is guaranteed to make you stand out!) Using negatively connotative (redundant since you explain what the connotations are next. However, optionally, you could comment on the assonant 'augh' sounds in 'brawling' and 'marauding' that create an almost gutteral effect. Definitely not essential and tbh, most of the time alliteration/assonance is not important, but it can be interesting to point out in addition to unpacking connotations like you have here) words such as "brawling" and "marauding", connoting the danger, disturbance and harassment caused by these gangs, the author endeavours to engender hatred and frustration amongst the public. In conjuction with his characterisation of the criminal's behaviour as "abhorrent", suggesting their actions transgress the social law of common respect, he aims to also diminish any sympathy held by the public and therefore position them to embrace his proposal of harsher penalties. (FANTASTIC 'why' explanation!!! This sentence is like a distillation of everything you're meant to do in Analysing Argument ) Having done so, O'Malley proposes the need to "stamp out" the delinquent behaviour, thus declaring the need for more aggressive measures to counter the criminal activity. The author's use of the idiom "the line in the sand" accentuates the tough stance he is proposing; suggesting that law makers must put in place a limit to this activity that, once crossed, bears severe and irreversible consequences. (Also great to see you explain your train of thought, i.e. not just saying 'the idiom "line in the sand" implies there should be harsh punishments'.) Indeed, the article insists upon such stringent measures as "deportation", underscoring the severity of the punishment that is expected for those who breach public codes of decency.

Amazing work overall! Your written expression is excellent, and you clearly have a strong grasp of what's required in AA. I'm especially impressed by your 'how'/'why' statements as this tends to be where students struggle, but you've thoroughly dissected and (more importantly) clearly explained your logic!

My only advice would be to look out for recurring words and techniques as this can help make your analysis more efficient. Obviously this is just a practice exercise and I know you wouldn't necessarily write this much on a tiny paragraph of an article in the exam, but since your analysis is really solid, you can start thinking about how best to cover the breadth of the material.

For example, this letter to the editor included a lot of high modal language (e.g. 'must' 'no place here' 'strong, decisive action') - in particular, the word 'must' is used 5 times, obviously heightening the sense of urgency as well as the moral absolutism of the author's stance. Therefore, writing one quick sentence like:

The author's repeated use of the high modal adverb "must" intensifies the author's urgent, definitive, and authoritative call for action...

allows you to pull together evidence from across the piece and analyse the general ~vibe~ as well as a specific instance of language use.

That said, analysing "must" wasn't a requirement here - the assessors don't keep a shortlist of quotes you must discuss. So I think your challenge will be identifying the best possible opportunities to make your analysis shine in the material. Don't stress about covering everything - just keep being selective and make active choices about what to analyse out of all the options you see.


Great work overall! Hope that helps and best of luck for the exam

[Anonymous]

Thank you so much - that is really helpful feedback

going a bit mad practicing for exam 2 days out but better late than never I guess...

is it ok if I post some practice stuff on these LA pieces because I find the short ones super helpful - it's ok if you'd rather I didn't open up these chats again but I just thought I would ask

[literally lauren]

No worries! Feel free to post in these old club threads - they're all still relevant, and it's a good time to bump them for everyone else doing pre-exam cramming. I'll do my best to give feedback here this week

[Commercekid2050]

Hi. First wanted to say thanks for this post. It would be really helpful.

Recently due to  increase number of gang violence in Melbourne, Peter O'Malley a concerned member of public wrote a letter to editor expressing his fear for current increase incidents of violence in Melbourne. .

From start, O'Malley tries to appeal to concerning population by stating how "families should be able to enjoy our city without fear", stating this he is trying emphasize how the city has slowly begun to be unsafe for family to even travel. By trying to talk about family he is also trying to make individual realize how them and their kids could be unsafe due to current situation n CBD.

O'Malley calls for action from the government by stating how "we need strong action from government" , through this he is trying to urge the people in power to take more harsher or stronger action so that the events such as the above one would not be repeated again.

From start O'Malley had strong language through which he was trying to make the reader realise the problem and trying to emphasise the importance for change that must be taken.  In end his tone becomes calmer where he again tries to urge his reader to take action as he talks about how it is their right to be "respected" and have a better life.

(Just wanted to again say thanks for this threat)

[literally lauren]

Recently due to increase number of gang violence (be careful with phrasing here; 'an increase in gang violence' would be an easier way to say this. Try to make your writing as clear as possible, as this makes it easier for your assessor to read!) in Melbourne, Peter O'Malley a concerned member of public wrote a letter to editor expressing his fear for current increase incidents of violence in Melbourne. This is a good start, though you could be more specific about the contention. This sentence only really identifies the issue, so ask yourself: what does the author want to happen? In this case, that's probably something like: '... and thus O'Malley calls for urgent and aggressive action from the government against anyone involved in gang violence' (since his piece is very angry and calls for a 'line in the sand' to put a stop to the violence).

From start, O'Malley tries to appeal to concerning population (do you mean 'concerned readers'? Or do you want to say that he tries to make readers feel more concerned? If it's the second one, you can use a word like 'evoke' which means 'to bring an emotion out of someone.' For example, 'From the start, OMalley evokes feelings of concern in readers...' by stating how "families should be able to enjoy our city without fear", stating this he is trying emphasize how the city has slowly begun to be unsafe for family to even travel. By trying to talk about family he is also trying to make individual realize how them and their kids could be unsafe due to current situation n CBD. Good explanation. Now take this back to the main argument. If readers feel afraid for their own families, why are they more likely to support the author's contention? How does this help his argument? (This is the hardest part of Analysing Argument, and you don't have to do it for every piece of analysis, but try and demonstrate this at least once per paragraph!)

O'Malley calls for action from the government by stating how "we need strong action from government" , through this he is trying to urge the people in power to take more harsher or stronger action so that the events such as the above one would not be repeated again. This is good, but try to be more specific about the language. Sometimes you don't need to talk about a technique - you can just talk about why the author might have used particular words. E.g. 'The author states how "we need strong action from the government." In particular, the word "strong" suggests that this action must be forceful, which compels readers to view this as a serious problem that requires a powerful response.'

From start (I know it's a short piece, but try not to repeat your linking phrases like this! There are lots of others you can use: Furthermore... Moreover... Similarly... Likewise... Throughout the piece... etc.) O'Malley had strong language (what are some more examples of this? There's more you could analyse here!) through which he was trying to make the reader realise the problem and trying to emphasise the importance for change that must be taken. You're right, but this is too general. 'Making readers see the importance for change that must be taken' could be a sentence you write in ANY essay. Unfortunately, you won't get marks unless you're more specific. So make sure you avoid using phrases like 'this makes the readers agree with the contention' or 'therefore the audience is persuaded to agree with the author's point of view.' Instead, TELL ME what the contention or solution is. In this case, you could say '...trying to emphasise the importance for taking action to stamp out gang violence and remove violent people from society.'  In end his tone becomes calmer where he again tries to urge his reader to take action as he talks about how it is their right to be "respected" and have a better life. Although the tone is calmer here, I'd say the author is still being pretty aggressive. When he says 'our expectations for respect must be made clear,' what he's really saying is 'we need to FORCE other people to obey our laws!'

You've got a good grasp of the argument here, which is always the most important thing! However, there are some places where the analysis wasn't very specific. Don't worry, this is easy to fix! Just make sure that when talking about the effect on the reader, you talk about the specific issue in the article.

For example, a sentence like:

'The author makes readers understanding things from his point of view, and this makes the readers more likely to agree with the author and support his stance that something must be done to address this problem.'

...would basically be worth 0 marks. It's too generic, and it could apply to any persuasive piece ever!

Instead, you want to be specific and tie things to the issue and argument in detail:

'The author positions readers to view gang violence as indimidating and a threat to their lives. By appealing to a fear for their safety, the author therefore compels readers to agree that urgent action must be taken in order to keep law-abiding families safe and secure.'

This obviously takes longer, but it's guaranteed to get you more marks!!

Beyond that, try to also be specific when picking a quote or technique to analyse. Language should always be your starting point as you don't want to just be summarising the author's points.

Let me know if you have questions about any of this, and best of luck for the exam!! 

[Commercekid2050]

You've got a good grasp of the argument here, which is always the most important thing! However, there are some places where the analysis wasn't very specific. Don't worry, this is easy to fix! Just make sure that when talking about the effect on the reader, you talk about the specific issue in the article.

For example, a sentence like:

'The author makes readers understanding things from his point of view, and this makes the readers more likely to agree with the author and support his stance that something must be done to address this problem.'

...would basically be worth 0 marks. It's too generic, and it could apply to any persuasive piece ever!

Instead, you want to be specific and tie things to the issue and argument in detail:

'The author positions readers to view gang violence as indimidating and a threat to their lives. By appealing to a fear for their safety, the author therefore compels readers to agree that urgent action must be taken in order to keep law-abiding families safe and secure.'

This obviously takes longer, but it's guaranteed to get you more marks!!

Beyond that, try to also be specific when picking a quote or technique to analyse. Language should always be your starting point as you don't want to just be summarising the author's points.

Let me know if you have questions about any of this, and best of luck for the exam!! 

Hi thanks for this. It would be really helpful. I would also be looking at improving and trying to focus more on the specific audience.

Thank you