In response to an opinion piece published in ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Radio host Tom Bollard reeeally minor point, but make sure you spell the author's name right. It'll annoy the fussy markers if you don't, and whilst they're not allowed to deduct marks for something that little, you still don't want them in a bad mood from the outset has presented an opposing view, claiming that The Daily Telegraph’s reasoning in regards to the nomination of ‘Waleed Aly’ was not due to ‘race’ and increasing cultural diversity, and that ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has misinterpreted the situation. In a mocking tone, Bollard uses capitalization of of his first sentence, ‘6 Reasons Why Daily Tele..’ to place emphasis on his opening statement, positioning the reader to feel obligated to take his views seriously you're not wrong, but I think 'capitalisation' as a technique would probably be worth avoiding unless an author was writing in ALL CAPS OMG LOOK HOW IMPORTANT THIS SEEMS! Also, if this is your intro, try not to analyse here. Just give a general overview of each piece's contention (or at least cover the main piece and mention that there are a variety of comments with different views) and let your body paragraphs do the rest. Furthermore, Bollard’s use of numerical listing aims to show that ‘The Daily Telegraphs’ contention is simplistic and narrow good!, alerting the audience of that the newspaper lacks thoughtful and logical reasoning, positiong the readers to take bit colloquial the article as disingenuous and lacking credibility. In addition, comments from Joanna Lazar, Morgan Levick and Emily O’Shannessy further scrutinize both the newspaper article and Bollard’s tweet, aiming to make the readers re-evaluate both pieces, and form their own viewpoint from holistic understanding. this is a bit generic, which would be passable for an intro, but definitely not sufficient if this were an analytical body paragraph. Concluding a point by saying 'this encourages readers to evaluate the issue and form their own holistic understanding' would be way too simple, and I know that's not exactly what you're doing here, but it still pays to be cautious when using these very general phrases.
-unfinished, but i feel like i’m doing absolutely horrible in Language Analysis, and i have a sac real soon :/ any tips? Is this essay around at least a 5/10 atm? Really struggling to express myself and talk about tones in a relevant manner to the criteria of Language Analysis ((
Thanks guys!!
I'm not sure whether this is designed to be an intro or a B.P. I know the nature of these tasks (esp. this week's material) is different to the kind of stuff you have to deal with in SACs, but it's tough to ascribe a numerical score to something in this case.
If it's an intro, there's a bit too much analysis going on in the middle.
And if it's a body paragraph, then mentioning the comments feels a bit redundant and summative.
What I'd recommend from now on (whether you still have your SAC coming up or not) is that you focus your efforts more so on body paragraphs since that's where more of the marks are. Intros tend to be fairly formulaic recaps like 'Following the recent
issue the author
name contends in his/her piece
title that
contention. Also, there are accompanying visuals/comments.' By contrast, your bodies are where the analysis happens, so using these mini-tasks to practice your process of discussing how language is used to persuade is going to be the best use of your time.
In terms of talking about tone, I find the easiest way to do is it to treat tone like its own technique which you analyse and then discuss the impact of. For example, in this week's material, both Lazar and O'Shannessy's tweets were highly sarcastic, so you could consider why they might have adopted that sarcasm in order to achieve a certain effect (e.g. mocking The Daily Tele, undermining the simplicity of its logic, bemoaning the petty nature of their complaints, etc.)