Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that her reasons for the banning of Muslim immigration into Australia is justified <-- careful with plurality/expression and should be welcomed by the Australian public. The underlying calm yet assertive tone employed by the author in the heading aims to persuade the audience by removing any hints extremism from her claim allowing it to appear logical and coherent to the audience. The bold words, "I'm just a mum" aim to persuade the audience by provide a common ground, whereby they can appreciate the Kruger's assertion and identify with it to a greater extent than if she was not a 'concerned' why are there quotes around this? Unless you're citing from the material, you don't have to do this parent. This notion is supported by the accompanying image which displays Kruger standing confident and secure. This aims to persuade the audience by displaying the current fortunes had by Australians and the fortunes which could be lost what do you mean by this? Instead of moving beyond the material, is there anything you can say about her facial expression, body language, or even the fact that they'd choose to include an image alongside the text with the threat of weak national security elevating Krugers claims of not being a "racist" but being a concerned parent who wishes the best for Australian residents and their security.
^You kind of start to touch on this towards the end, but as a general tip for L.A. try to find these 'logical' set-ups that an author creates. In this case (if we're treating Kruger as the 'author' of this comment/quote,) it's as though she's setting up a relationship between the idea of being a 'racist' and a 'mum' - more specifically, she's implying that one can't be both (i.e. 'I can't be a racist! Look at me - I'm a mum!') Therefore, she's setting up a
dichotomy (<--another great thing to comment on in L.A. when you find it) between the pejorative word 'racism' and the positive connotations of nurture and compassion associated with being a 'mum.'
Other than that, some decent vocab on display here - it'd be great to see you closely unpack some of the language in other weeks' tasks here or maybe have a go at balancing your analysis with some longer material
Sonia Kruger attempts to disassociate herself from “racist(s)” to avoid attracting the reader’s disapproval, as individuals considered “racist” typically espouse prejudiced views which are commonly denounced in today’s society. The immediately following endearing assertion by Kruger that she is “just a mum” establishes a stark juxtaposition which when compounded with the connotations of the homespun variation of mother, “mum,” aim to engender reader’s sympathy for this “mum” who has no ulterior motives, and, she implies, is simply concerned because she is a parent <-- v. good unpacking of the suggestion here; you could do a bit more with the word 'mum' if you wanted to, as just acknowledging it as a 'homespun variation of 'mother'' doesn't really cover everything. I've also added a little qualifier to this last bit just to prevent it from teetering on the brink of evaluation, but otherwise all good Via this dichotomy, Kruger implies that her position can be justified as the current situation appears to contravene her interests as a parent, and thus ultimately her stance is simply preserving those fundamental tenets of parenthood nice, succinct summary here.
Any feedback/comments are appreciated. I would've given the other person feedback but I'm really not in a position to do so. You absolutely are! Even tentative comments like 'not sure this is clear enough' or 'maybe try using this word instead' can be useful to others, and I guarantee reading and critically thinking about other people's pieces will be useful to you!
Not much else to say beyond FallingStar's feedback; solid vocabulary and a really good grasp of the argument Kruger is making here. See also: those links posted above, if you need
The headline presents a stark contrast of the words 'racist', a negatively connotative term, and 'mum'. This serves to emphasise the notion that Sonia Krugar is simply exhibiting a point of view which is in the best interests of her children, a highly laudable attribute in Australian society this is a littly iffy; I'd let it slide, but I know other super pedantic assessors who wouldn't see this as a worthwhile addition because it's based on your external knowledge and not on the actual material/language. However, this piece is itself based on external/real-world stuff, and the exam won't be, so it's no big deal. Just be wary of referencing 'common Australian values' or anything like that in the exam, unless you've been given some specifics in the background info to work with, and to steer the readership away from the opinion that she is a racist. Consequently, the audience is positioned to view her endorsement for a ban on Muslim immigration to be justified, as they may relate to the concern for the welfare of their children why would they do this? You're right, but take me through your thinking step-by-step..
There is a subtle allusion to the iconic scene in The Elephant Man where the protagonist screams, 'I am not an animal, I am a human being', after being cornered by a mob. Therefore, there is an implication that Krugar is being unfairly subjected to the scathing criticism of the public, eliciting sympathy from the audience. As a result, the readers are more inclined to oppose the labeling of Krugar as a 'racist' okay, I quite like that you were able to justify this, but the trouble is that this is more like you projecting meaning onto the language, rather than extracting meaning based on the author's intentions. In other words, I don't think Kruger was going for an 'Elephant Man' allusion, which makes this section of your analysis look a bit tenuous. Try not to draw too much from sources outside the material as, in the exam, everything you need to discuss will be provided to you..
I know I made a huge leap with the elephant man thing. Keep in mind i'm used to people telling me i'm wrong so don't hold back when giving feed back.
It's not that you're "wrong" exactly... it's more that what you're doing is outside the scope of the task. Tbh I'm inclined to reward this as an instance of how to justify interpretations because you do explain the link quite well. But from an L.A. perspective, you want to stick with the words you've been given as much as possible. Leave the creative use of external evidence for your Context pieces and turn your analytical/justification skills towards the L.A. material
Kruger’s blunt pronouncement she was “not a racist” dissociates her from the stereotypical “racist” who was is irrational and unreasonably xenophobic. Her calm you wouldn't have to do this here necessarily, but it's worth thinking about how you know this is a 'calm' assertion - like, what is it about language that distinguishes 'calm' statements from 'aggressive' or 'sad' etc. If you're looking to comment on tone occasionally, this kind of awareness can be really valuable, even if in most situations (like this) you don't have to delve into it delivery of this assertion challenges whatever inclinations the reader may have harboured towards dismissing her comments as those of an intolerant “racist”. By dissociating herself from this label, Kruger intimates that her concerns are legitimate and that more needs to be done toward increasing national security. Kruger seeks to justify her public support for a ban on Muslim migration into Australia for the sake of national security by reasonably indicating teensy bit evaluative here - how do you know this is a 'reasonable' indication? How does the author set this up? that she was “just a mum”. In doing so, Kruger capitalises on public concern for the safety of themselves readers and their loved ones to directs her audience’s their fear and anger following the French terror attacks to the scapegoat – Muslim migrants yes, you're absolutely right, that's exactly what she's doing, and I'm very glad people can see the illogicality of what she's saying. However, even though the examiners would never give you anything this contentious, be careful not to bring in anything too evaluative. Acknowledging something is a scapegoat or that there are flaws in the author's argument can count as evaluation, so just be wary of this - thereby implying that allowing these individuals to Australia will pose a greater security risk to this nation. This generalisation compels the reader to prioritise their own welfare and the welfare of their families and embrace Kruger’s perception that Muslim migration directly threatens the security of Australia.
V good work; pretty much all of those vocab/sentence structure concerns from ~20 weeks ago all seem to have been fixed, and the quality of your explanations is excellent. I know this material was especially contentious, but do watch out for any potentially evaluative sentences in your analysis when possible. Other than that, all good
Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that she agrees with banning Muslim migration is for there may have been a typo or two here, but this expression is quite confusing her family values but not from a racist position. The juxtaposition between “racist” describing an unreasonable prejudice and “mum” implies commitment of a mother what do you mean by this? Your pick-up of the dichotomy is good, but this last point needs a bit more explanation. Her discard of being “racist” isolates her first expression as a racist that audience will think about as in, because she says she's not racist... makes the audience think she's racist? I'm not sure what you're saying here?. The word “just” hints that her purpose is no more no less as a parent who does her best to protect her child good point. This again emphasises she does not hate Muslim migration. this is a bit outside the scope of the material. The second phrase “a mum” explains her opposition to Muslim migration is for Australian children as a parent. These appeals to parental values of protection and devotion makes her becomes positions her as an affectionate mother. This therefore, from audience’s perspective, her contention will be supported expression by parent audience who are in the same position as Sonia Kruger as they all care about their children most.
At some points, it feels like your choice of wording is holding you back a little. Some of these might be accidental errors you made whilst typing this up, in which case it's no big deal. But, if you can read through these sentences and can't tell what's wrong, let me know and I can break it down for you. It may also be worth reading through some of the resources
here if you haven't already. You've got a decent foundation for analysis going already, so keep practising throughout Unit 4 to refine those skills, and you should be cruising come exam time