2017 AA Club - Week 2

[HopefulLawStudent]

Background: Written in response to government's announcement that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone seeking Australian citizenship.

Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?

The majority of people come here on student visas. Prior to jetting off to Australia, and in order to get into university, they have to pass the International English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application. Although English is not my mother tongue, I support the current policy. However, the proposed new rule says that no matter how many degrees these people have, from Australia or elsewhere, they will still need to do the same English test. I am sceptical about how the government will enshrine its proposed illogical rules. I cannot understand why it has no alternative provision for people who have been working and studying well for over a decade in an English-speaking environment. I am baffled at what it means by proficiency in writing, speaking, reading, and listening.

I have been here for donkeys' years and I have witnessed how many young Australians are extremely poor spellers. (I remember people in the hospitality sector frequently asking me how to spell words like "cucumber" and "zucchini".) This new policy will only serve the country's vested political-interests, not the sacred morality upon which multiculturalism exists.

If a person is confident and competent in general conversation, they should be regarded in the same way as native English speakers. The new test should only be mandatory for those who did not come here on student visas.

- Shiva Neupane, Kensington

---

NOTE: To post in this thread, you'll first need to register an ATAR Notes account. It's free, and should take like four seconds! Then, just scroll down to the bottom of this thread, and ask your questions in the "Quick Reply" box, as shown below.

[Anonymous]

i honestly have no idea what the contention is 
i'll give it a go or else i won't have anything to write on lol 
so neupane's saying that the government should test those seeking an australian citizenship according to their fluency in English, rather than adopting a blanket approach with this test (?)
I don't understand her reasoning though?? e.g. how does talking about the cucumber and zucchini add to her argument?

[Anonymous]

Please correct it as harshly as you can!!
And if you could give me some tips, on where I can improve. THAANK YOU!! 

Shiva Neupane’s opinion piece to the government’s announcement of an English proficiency test, “Why the broad-brush approach?” contends that the English proficiency testing is redundant and should not be compulsory. Neupane’s tone is logical and reasonable, making the reader easily comply and understand the argument against the addition of the test. This opinion piece is tailored towards Australian citizens who read replies to political topics.

With the inclusion of the “International English Language Testing System”, it makes the readers believe in Neupane, as the author sounds knowledgeable of the process to enrol in an Australian university. Therefore being able to understand the redundancy of the additional English Proficiency test. That if, the students can pass an English University test, it must definitely implies that these students have the capability to speak, read, listen and write in English. Furthermore, by declaring “no matter how many degrees” the person has, Neupane emphasises the illogical implication of the test, and how it generalises the international students with immigrants and refugees with no english speaking background. This implication gives the readers a perspective of the scope of the test, and makes it sound completely unnecessary test to international students.

Neupane also argues that the test does not advantage visa holders to accustom to Australian living,  because many young Australians are incompetent english speakers, readers, writers, whom did not need to sit the test. The reader would feel as though the test is unfair to the applying english competent citizens, because even Australian citizens who have the citizenship and live in Australia, can’t even speak their own mother tongue. He includes anecdotal evidence of Neupane’s own experience with Australian citizens, where they “frequently” asked how to spell simple, everyday words. The inclusion of Neupane’s experience enables the reader to see the very common situations that occur in Australia, positioning the reader to feel disappointed and to agree that a test for english competence is not necessary to fit in and live in the Australian society.

[zhen]

The government's recent proposition to enforce a English proficiency test for those seeking an Australian citizenship has been placed under the scrutiny of the media. Shiva Neupane's letter to the editor "Why the unfair broad-brush approach?" logically contends that these proposed changes are not only superfluous in nature, but also undermine the morals of Australia.

Neupane commences her argument by establishing that students entering the country are required to "pass the International English Language Testing System", alluding to the notion that this English proficiency test is redundant as many people seeking an Australian citizenship have already completed the adequate testing necessary to establish their proficiency in English. This hence positions the reader to view this English proficiency test as a waste of time and resources. Furthermore, through labelling these changes as "illogical", which has connotations of ignorance, Neupane subtly mounts her attack on the government by insinuating that their decision is insensible. Neupane further reinforces her argument, through stressing the fact that those who have been "working and studying" in an English speaking environment are not exempt from this test. Through this, Neupane exposes the faults of the proposed rules, as this system will squander the time of those who have displayed competency in the English language, thereby manouvring the readers to view this proposed test as flawed.

The writer progresses her argument by underscoring that numerous young Australians are "poor spellers". This emphasises the idea that aspects of a person's English ability which is commonly associated with tests, such as spelling, may not necessarily be an indication of their ability to live in Australia. This implies that those who may not be deemed as proficient in English according to tests, may in fact be able to live and communicate in English speaking countries, therefore prompting the reader to call into question the validity of these tests.

Neupane highlights that these tests does not serve the "sacred morality", which connotes justice, but rather serves "vested political interests", which has implications of greed and selfishness. Through juxtaposing these two diametric concepts, Neupane endeavours to demonise these proposed tests and protray them as the embodiment of egocentric behaviour. This compels the reader to perceive these tests as tools for politicians to further their selfish agendas.

I'll correct someone else's work later, since I'm feeling lazy right now  and it took every bit of motivation I had to write this up after having a bad methods SAC today.

[zhen]

My attempt:

In the letter to the editor "Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?", Shira Neupane argues against be more specific on what her actual contention is the government's recent proposal to introduce a mandatory English test to gain citizenship.

Signposting her lower proficiency in English as it "is not [her] mother tongue", Neupane establishes herself as a foreigner within Australia, and at the very least disadvantaged by this difference from the common citizen. This not only incline readers into supporting her assertions whatever they are phrasing weird here, out of sympathy and social responsibility to help those handicapped, but also leads them to infer that she would be against any form of English testing This doesn't help her case, as it portrays her as biased, so it shouldn't be mentioned . However, in contradiction, she highlights that "I support the current policy". This shock backing of the testing, which is only strengthened by the vehemence implied by the direct language of active voice, underscores the necessity and great merit of the tests as even those who might feel uncomfortable them are supportive. I feel like you misinterpreted the letter here, as I felt like she supported the current system which didn't have mandatory testing for everyone. Use of the word "current" however directs this praise exclusively to the current system, and subtly implies that the newly proposed alternative is lacking of the merit that warrants such commendation. I feel like this is an extremely minor point and is blown out of proportion. I feel like you should spend more time analysing the important stuff, rather than what I would say was a really unimportant quote. Neupane then affirms this criticism as she asserts that the potential mandatory tests will be unfair towards those who only "work...and study", I think you should unpack this more, since you provide little explanation, then jump right into the intended effect on the audience contributing nothing but good to the community. Audiences are in turn positioned to oppose the testing changes out of gratitude for these contributions, and anger that it unfairly disadvantages individuals who are clearly undeserving of so. Good analysis Neupane builds on this anger as she then insinuates, through stating that the proposed tests will benefit "only" some, that the proposals are with elitist interests at heart. Provoked that those who are already well off are receiving these benefits, this appeals to audience's sense of fairness, in that those disadvantaged should receive charity over those advantaged. Hence, they are positioned to oppose such proposals that facilitate such injustice. Good analysis

[Anonymous]

The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test on anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticism. In response, Shira Neupane’s letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” contends in a pragmatic yet disapproving manner that the proposed policy is “illogical” and should only apply to migrants who are not on student visas. Neupane’s letter targets Australian voters and the Australian government itself, primarily appealing to their democratic and national values in an attempt to reveal the policy’s flaws.

Neupane commences by arguing that those who arrive in Australia on student visas have already proven their proficiency in English, making the policy redundant for them. Her blunt, matter-of-fact voice, as she systematically outlines the application process for Australian citizenship, illustrates the repetitiveness of the continual English tests, implying to readers the futility of the policy. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her title, which encourages readers to evaluate and contest the meaningless purpose of the policy. Augmenting her rational stance, Neupane admits that she understands and endorses the government’s current policy, despite being a foreigner herself; this serves to present herself as an impartial observer of the issue. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” reaction to the proposed policy belittles the test, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty words which are reduced to mere political rhetoric.

Shifting her tone from pragmatic to sarcastic, Neupane proceeds to argue that many Australians themselves are far from the standard of English proficiency expected of foreign students. Her anecdotal reference to hospitality workers being unable to spell even work-related words – such as “cucumber” and “zucchini” – paints a satirical image of unprofessional Australian service. This, juxtaposed against the image of highly qualified and motivated migrant students, prompts readers to realise the injustice of the policy, as it thwarts the potential migrant students have to contribute to Australian society. This line of argument is substantiated by Neupane’s hyperbolic statement – that she has “donkeys’ years”’ worth of experience in this country – as it places her on the same level as her Australian readers and thus, portrays her view as truly reflective of the Australian community. Her connection to her Australian readers is strengthened by references to fairness and to the “sacred morality” of multiculturalism, which carry connotations of purity and integrity, and which present her as a woman truly aligned with Australian morals. In contrast, the government’s “vested political-interests” suggests that Australia’s leaders are driven by an egoistic, unAustralian mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion with readers’ minds towards their new policy.

[Anonymous]

Can't see my original post on here, so I'm going to post it again in case it didn't work:
Hey guys, I really like this idea of posting about argument analysis help on here.
I am trying to practice analysing arguments and sometimes struggle to structure an analysis on an article/opinion piece/whatever piece. I seem to try and include every single point in my argument analysis, and find it difficult to link two things together, thus making the analysis piece far too long with more than 3 body paragraphs. To get an idea of how to structure an argument analysis and persuasive techniques essay, could someone please help me to form a good analysis on this opinion piece: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/seven-reasons-not-to-celebrate-on-january-26-20170120-gtvdxs.html . I'm sure it would give me a great understanding as to how to structure an essay on this area of study for year 12. Thanks!

[HopefulLawStudent]

Can't see my original post on here, so I'm going to post it again in case it didn't work:
Hey guys, I really like this idea of posting about argument analysis help on here.
I am trying to practice analysing arguments and sometimes struggle to structure an analysis on an article/opinion piece/whatever piece. I seem to try and include every single point in my argument analysis, and find it difficult to link two things together, thus making the analysis piece far too long with more than 3 body paragraphs. To get an idea of how to structure an argument analysis and persuasive techniques essay, could someone please help me to form a good analysis on this opinion piece: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/seven-reasons-not-to-celebrate-on-january-26-20170120-gtvdxs.html . I'm sure it would give me a great understanding as to how to structure an essay on this area of study for year 12. Thanks!

Hey! So we moved your post to the general VCE English board because we're trying to keep this board specifically for the AA Club responses. You can find it here: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=171329.msg949180#new

[Anonymous]

In recent news, the government has announced that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone who is seeking an Australian citizenship. In a letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brushed approach?” Shiva Neupane logically contends that the English proficiency test should not be mandatory due to its unfair and unnecessary nature.

Shiva Neupane makes apparent that the majority of foreigners have to pass numerous English language tests prior to the English proficiency test, making it redundant. In a reasonable tone, Neupane employs an anecdote of their process as she states that “They have to pass the international English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application.” Through this, Neupane highlights the extensive testing regime to diminish the credibility that the English proficiency test should offer. This positions the reader to consider that the amount of testing is vigorous and consequently the English proficiency test should be deemed unnecessary. This notion could make the audience feel outraged on behalf of newcomers as the process is unfair and pointless. These thoughts and feelings may then also encourage the audience to reject their support for the English proficiency test.

[Anonymous]

This is 2 paragraphs comparing 2 news reports on homelessness in Victoria

Sebregts conveys that the idea that homelessness is not a choice and aims to eliminate the pre-conceived stereotypes associated with homeless people. The short documentary delves into the lifestyles of four homeless men, heavily personalizing the piece through a personal anecdote, allowing viewers to resonate and connect with the stories of; Shane, Adam, Paul and Aaron, as they learn not only their name but the turmoil they are forced to endure. Viewers are thus more likely to appeal and feel sympathetic towards the homeless, as the men are humanized. Through this distinct connection between the viewers and the homeless men in the clip with viewers being inspired to take action to influence a change to the conditions the homeless are experiencing. The clip is also highly compassionate in its approach, enabling viewers to realise that they could be a victim to homelessness, as it is not connected necessarily with ‘laziness’ or individuals being “drug addicts”, but incontrollable downfalls in life. 

In contrast to this the channel 7 news pieces presents the adverse effect, displaying homeless people as aggressive and an overall danger to society. The news reports utilizes expert opinions, and fuses these with statistics and facts, showcasing that the Victorian government have spent $616 million in creating 19,000 places for homeless people, in order to place the blame on the homeless people themselves, not the government. With the reporter referring to the individuals as “rough sleepers” rather than “homeless”  in order to once again position the viewers to believe that the individuals presented are homeless by choice, directly contrasting the rationale presented in the Sebregts documentary.

[Anonymous]

This is just my introduction! Please critique.

The issue about whether the government intends to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone seeking Australian citizenship has gained ongoing coverage in the Australian media. By acknowledging the views of the general public, Shiva’s opinion piece titled “why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” clearly advocates in a forthright and rational tone, that international students should not need the English proficiency test in order to gain citizenship to Australia.

[zhen]

In recent news, the government has announced that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone who is seeking an Australian citizenship. In a letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brushed approach?” Shiva Neupane logically contends that the English proficiency test should not be mandatory due to its unfair and unnecessary nature. Decent introduction which introduces the issue and the piece.

Shiva Neupane makes apparent that the majority of foreigners have to pass numerous English language tests prior to the English proficiency test, making it redundant I feel like saying thus making it redundant will be a bit better. In a reasonable tone, Neupane employs an anecdote of their process as she states that I think you should avoid stuff like the writer states that and then placing a quote after. I feel like the writer highlights that... or the writer draws the reader's attention to the fact that... is better “They have to pass the international English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application.” You should shorten the quote and really only use the important parts of the quote. Through this, Neupane highlights the extensive testing regime to diminish the credibility It doesn't really diminish the credibility of the test. It just portrays it as useless that the English proficiency test should offer. This positions the reader to consider that the amount of testing is vigorous and consequently the English proficiency test should be deemed unnecessary. Good analysis This notion could I don't know about your teachers, but my teacher doesn't like such an words like could or might make the audience feel outraged on behalf of newcomers as the process is unfair and pointless. These thoughts and feelings may then also encourage the audience to reject their support for the English proficiency test. This is ok, but it's a bit generic and obvious.

This was a great effort and you've really got the fundamentals down and some great analysis in this argument analysis. There are just some minor issues that I pointed out. Anyway good job. 

[clarke54321]

 In his letter to the editor, Shiva Neupane emphatically contends that Australian proficiency tests be made obligatory only for those who settle in Australia without a student visa.

By casting the proposed legislation as an ‘unfair, broad-brushed approach,’ Neupane immediately alerts readers to the overly-generalised and consequently unfair nature of the proposition. Endeavouring for these sentiments to be met with confidence by readers, Neupane is quick to dispel questions of bias, by declaring that he ‘supports the current policy’ despite English not being his ‘mother tongue.’ In affiliating himself with those subject to the visa application and intimating that there is merit and justification within these policies, Neupane strives for readers to recognise that his views are not tarnished by bigotry. In turn, readers are coaxed to adopt Neupane’s sceptical tone and are thereby encouraged to actively scrutinise how the Government will ‘enshrine its proposed illogical rules.’ In conjunction with this scrutinising, Neupane’s use of the adjective, ‘illogical,’ which connotes ideas of irrationality and unfoundedness, assists readers in reaching the ultimate conclusion that the Government’s proposals are flawed and thereby inequitable.


Through the use of an anecdote, Neupane progresses to expose the double-standards evident in Australian society. By recalling his colleagues’ inability to accurately spell words such as ‘cucumber’ and ‘zucchini,’ Neupane urges readers to reflect on the ‘extremely poor’ language proficiency of those Australians whose mother tongue is English. To bolster the notion that this fact is not rare, but indeed common, Neupane adopts the hyperbolic idiom, ‘for donkey’s years.’ Consequently, Neupane attempts to kindle a sense of shame and disappointment in readers, who are prompted to recognise that, when contrasted to the years of ‘working and studying’ of international students, the abilities of some Australians are even lower than those who are compelled to sit English proficiency tests. To this end, readers are inclined to perceive the Government’s new changes as one predicated on ‘vested political-interests’ and one that will flush Australia of its ‘sacred morality,' given that the abilities of international persons are treated with seeming ignorance.   

Please note that my introduction would never be this short in a regular argument analysis 

[clarke54321]

The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test onfor anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticismby whom?. In response, Shira Neupane’s letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” contends in a pragmatic yet disapproving manner that the proposed policy is “illogical” and should only apply to migrants who are not on student visas. Neupane’s letter targets Australian voters and the Australian government itself, primarily appealing to their democratic and national values in an attempt to reveal the policy’s flaws. Really nice reference to target audience  . Just make sure you're not being too definite. So perhaps you could say Neupane's letter is likely to....

Neupane commences by arguing that those who arrive in Australia on student visas have already proven their proficiency in English, making the policy redundant for them. Her blunt, matter-of-fact voice, as she systematically outlines the application process for Australian citizenship, illustrates the repetitiveness of the continual English tests, implying to readers the futility Great point, but expression here is a bit clumsy of the policy. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her titleProvide evidence of this question., which encourages readers to evaluate and contest the meaningless purpose of the policy. Augmenting her rational stance, Neupane admits that she understands and endorses the government’s current policy, despite being a foreigner herself; this serves to present herself as an impartial observer of the issueWhat does this do to readers?. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” reaction to the proposed policy belittles the testGood point. But bring it back to what it does to the reader. Are they too positioned to then belittle the proposals?, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty Not sure whether lofty is the right word herewords which are reduced to mere political rhetoric.

Shifting her tone from pragmatic to sarcastic, Neupane proceeds to argue that many Australians themselves are far from the standard of English proficiency expected of foreign students. Her anecdotal reference to hospitality workers being unable to spell even work-related words – such as “cucumber” and “zucchini” – paints a satirical image of unprofessional Australian service. This, juxtaposed against the image of highly qualified and motivated migrant students, prompts readers to realise the injustice of the policy, as it thwarts the potential migrant students have to contribute to Australian societyReally great point. Just fix up expression in the last part of this sentence. It doesn't entirely make sense.. This line of argument is substantiated by Neupane’s hyperbolic statement – that she has “donkeys’ years”’ worth of experience in this country – as it places her on the same level as her Australian readers and thus, portrays her view as truly reflective of the Australian communityHow does this make readers feel?. Her connection to her Australian readers is strengthened by references to fairness and to the “sacred morality” of multiculturalism, which carry connotations of purity and integrity, and which present her as a woman truly aligned with Australian morals. In contrast, the government’s “vested political-interests” suggests that Australia’s leaders are driven by an egoistic, unAustralianBit too informal mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion Would it be just doubt and suspicion, or something more? It could even be disgust or detestation of the Government's actions, given that they appear to be driven by mere egotism with readers’ minds towards their new policy.

This is a really good analysis. You've pulled out evidence very well. Just make sure you're always bringing it back to the reader and how they are likely to respond to the writing. Well done! 

[scout]

In his letter to the editor, Shiva Neupane emphatically contends that Australian proficiency tests be made obligatory only for those who settle in Australia without a student visa.

By casting the proposed legislation as an ‘unfair, broad-brushed approach,’ Neupane immediately alerts readers to the overly-generalised and consequently unfair <-- another word. Maybe 'insensitive', which can lead to injustice? (Otherwise it's like defining a word using that same word) nature of the proposition. Endeavouring for these sentiments to be met with confidence by readers, Neupane is quick to dispel questions of bias, by declaring that he ‘supports the current policy’ despite English not being his ‘mother tongue.’ In affiliating himself with those subject to the visa application and intimating that there is merit and justification within these policies, Neupane strives for readers to recognise that his views are not tarnished by bigotry good albeit a bit repetitive. Is 2 lines necessary for this point? . In turn, readers are coaxed to adopt Neupane’s sceptical tone and are thereby encouraged to actively scrutinise how the Government will ‘enshrine its proposed illogical rules.’ In conjunction with this scrutinising, Neupane’s use of the adjective, ‘illogical,’ which connotes ideas of irrationality and unfoundedness, assists readers in reaching the ultimate conclusion Would adding a single word lead readers --> conclusion? Perhaps expand on how Neupane demonstrates the "illogical" nature of the policy and the subsequent effect on readers, even if it's just through her language (e.g. "I cannot understand... I am baffled") that the Government’s proposals are flawed and thereby inequitable.


Through the use of an anecdote, Neupane progresses to expose the double-standards evident in Australian society. By recalling his colleagues’ inability to accurately spell words such as ‘cucumber’ and ‘zucchini,’ Neupane urges readers to reflect on the ‘extremely poor’ language proficiency of those Australians whose mother tongue is English. To bolster the notion that this fact is not rare, but indeed common, Neupane adopts the hyperbolic idiom, ‘for donkey’s years.’ Good Consequently, Neupane attempts to kindle a sense of shame and disappointment in readers, who are prompted to recognise that, when contrasted to the years of ‘working and studying’ of international students, the abilities of some Australians are even lower than those who are compelled to sit English proficiency tests. Link effect back to argument (even though this is followed by a link sentence) To this end, readers are inclined to perceive the Government’s new changes as one predicated on ‘vested political-interests’ and one that will flush Australia of its ‘sacred morality,' given that the abilities of international persons are treated with seeming ignorance.   

Please note that my introduction would never be this short in a regular argument analysis 

Good job - your analysis is perceptive and concise, which is key! And you are consistently referring to the effect on the reader, which is great. Only some separate, minor areas to clarify.     P.S Thanks for your very specific feedback on my analysis (the one before yours. Didn't tick the box...)