Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:51:51 pm

Author Topic: 2017 AA Club - Week 4  (Read 6776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
2017 AA Club - Week 4
« on: June 16, 2017, 09:24:18 am »
+6
We're back again for the fourth instalment of the AA Club after a short hiatus whilst I suffered through uni exams; cheers to The Raven for taking over for Week 3 with his interesting piece on university defunding! Obviously, it's not Monday but shhhhh... we'll just pretend that it is.

Next update will be Monday week. Feedback from me for the last couple of weeks will be given soon (I let the ball drop a bit there, unfortunately, but I'll get around to it very soon!!!).

Quote
Background: The owners of the proposed Adani coal mine are due to make a final decision on its future after several years' delay; it was given the final approval by the Queensland state government just recently to go ahead with the mine. Concern is, however, that building it would have a disastrous effect on the environment (hellooooo, climate change!). In response to this issue, two letter to the editors were written by Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill. And because I was worried that that wasn't enough, there's also a visual this week! It's a cartoon and they're notoriously more difficult to analyse so just give it your best shot!

When a bird in the hand is not worth it

They say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But is it really worth having a job at, say, the Adani mine if those workers' children, and the rest of us, are left struggling to survive on a degraded planet, with precious little clean water to drink and no clean air to breathe? And the birds in the bush dead to boot.

Margaret Callinan, Balwyn

MPs' grandchildren not immune

Our politicians are committing a crime against humanity by supporting the Adani mine. Perhaps they believe that their children and grandchildren will be immune to the ravages of climate change! I am ashamed to be living in the Maribyrnong electorate of Bill Shorten (I was once a Labor voter). His stance on the Adani mine has been reduced to: "Me too!". Presumably he is thinking: "If I don't support Adani, I won't win the next election." But some long-term, emergency thinking is required.

Please, all politicians (leaders?): Put your ego in your back pocket and sit on it. Think of your moral responsibility and the future of humankind and the planet. Yours, ever hopefully.

Angela Gill, Moonee Ponds




Also: please keep in mind that this thread and all the other threads on this board are to be used exclusively for responses to the material given each week. If you want anything else marked, it is to be directed to the English Work Submission and Marking board here: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?board=406.0
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 09:27:09 am by HopefulLawStudent »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2017, 06:38:49 pm »
+3
It's been months since my LA SAC/the last time I thought about it, I've gotten rusty :P

---

Margaret Callinan conjures a correlation in reader's minds between the everyday banality of "having a job", and the prospect of an apocalyptic "degraded planet", which lacks even the basic human privileges of "clean water" and "air". Callinan grimly purports the ludicrousy of favouring a "job" in the wake of a consequence of such catastrophic magnitude, one that she portrays as a bringer of "[death]". Her reference to the "worker's children" encapsulates her depiction of the government's actions - adults destroying the future for their successors. Such is designed to instigate outrage and horror at the idea of our government being so wreckless as to cause detriment to the health and future of the haplessly vulnerable "children". Hence, she hopes to disincline readers from siding with the Adani approval, lest they risk being themselves considered supporters of ruined futures and a dilapidated planet.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2017, 06:00:55 pm »
+5
It's been months since my LA SAC/the last time I thought about it, I've gotten rusty :P

---

Margaret Callinan conjures a correlation in reader's minds between the everyday banality of "having a job", and the prospect of an apocalyptic "degraded planet", which lacks even the basic human privileges of "clean water" and "air"avoid quoting without analysis as much as possible as you're merely flagging missed opportunities for analysis when you do so.. So? Why does she do this?Callinan grimly purports the ludicrousy ludicrousy isn't a word; ludicrousness is the noun I think you're looking for. of favouring a "job" seems like a bit of an odd thing to quote. in the wake of a consequence of such catastrophic magnitude, one that she portrays as a bringer of "[death]". Her reference to the "worker's children" encapsulates her depiction of the government's actions - adults destroying the future for their successorsWhat do you mean by this? Seems a bit like a last minute add on but it isn't really clear how this flows on from the idea you were previously talking about within that sentence. Need to clarify the connection. . Such is designed to instigate outrage and horror at the idea of our government being so wreckless as to cause detriment to the health and future of the haplessly vulnerable "children"Is potentially too vague; specificity needed. Also "children" seems like a bit of a weird thing to quote? .... is not a sentence. Hence, she hopes to disincline readers from siding with the Adani approval, lest they risk being themselves considered supporters of ruined futures and a dilapidated planet.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2017, 12:51:52 am »
+2
Hi there,
I wrote an analysis on the picture, not sure if it's any good, but would really like to get some feed back
thank you for your time.

The author uses visual persuasion to convince the audience of the wicked deeds committed by the politicians. The author displays three specific politicians that are rolling up the field and are "smoothing the covers", the author clearly attempts to make the audience feel angry and hatred towards the politicians. Moreover, the author appeals to the audience though Australia's greatest asset, The Great Barrier Reef, and links it to the well known painting of "The Scream". The painting is meant to exhibit horror and fright to the audience and make them understand the consequences of the Adani mine .The writer emphasizes death through the scream painting and the radioactivity sign on the ship that is highlighting the word "ADANI". The radioactive sign is a representation of death and danger, the author uses this iconic symbol to their advantage and elaborates the dangers of Adani. The author overall is targeting the readers national pride, the Reef and is displaying how much of a threat it is to support the politicians and the Adani mine.

again thank you for your time and sorry if there are mistakes  :(

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2017, 09:52:05 am »
+2
Hi, here is my analysis, but I didn't get to analyse the cartoon,
but if my analysis is too long you don't have to analyse the whole thing.
Also, would you be able to give some tips to be more selective with my analyses


The recent approval of the Adami Mine Coal by the Queensland government has resulted in a furore amongst the Australian public. In response to the approval, Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill both wrote condemning letter to the editors criticising the Adani mine project. Titled ‘When a bird in the hand is not worth it’ Callinan iodiomatically (or conversationally) contends the Adani coal mine will lead to environmental consequences that will have detrimental impacts on all Australians. Similarly Angela Gill disapproves of the Adami mine proposal and empathetically urges for politicians to reconsider their decision because the mine project will be a great threat to the environment. Supporting both letters, Hugh Munch’s cartoon (12/04/2017) sternly communicates the Adani Coal mine is a source of immense pressure, not only to the environment but also to the government.
Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be consequence of the Adani mine. The author begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principle. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance to socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent future. By portraying the proposal as a threat to individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion on the proposal from the outset of the letter.
Callinan’s letter primarily constitutes of a rhetorical question that establishes the denigrating approach towards the Adani mine as it is simply juxtaposed against a ‘struggling’ population that are left to survive on a ‘degraded’ planet with ‘precious’ water and ‘clean’ air. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers and appeals to their sense of safety for their children as they are described to be ‘struggling’ and portrayed as vulnerable as a result of the future worker’s job. This allows the writer to scapegoat the reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befall on the future worker, and elicit guilt for intending danger to the children. This guilt is then designed to be a stimulant for the then-impacted readers to perceive the Adami coal proposal as a threat to the future society and feel indignant towards the threatening and dangerous idea.
The demographic of the article is then broadened to include the whole readership and the writer in one plane with the use of inclusive language, ‘us,’ to accentuate that the ‘struggle’ that is shared amongst all Australians and makes the reader more receptive towards Callinan’s opinion. The use of loaded- language such as ‘precious’ and ‘clean’ intensify the value of natural resources, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet. Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds the readership to grow an appreciation for the rare entities on the planet, and dismiss the Adani Coal mine in order to protect the environment. 
Concluding her piece with reference to the proverbial birds, Callinan bitterly states the birds are ‘dead’ referring realistically to the environmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to. The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine a damaging presence for Australia.   
Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appalling letter opposing the proposal however rather than antagonising the mine itself, she attacks the politicians who have approved of the coal mine.’ She antagonises the politicians as criminals who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility of the human race juxtaposed against an action that is morally despised by the global society. Although the audience is specifically targeted towards Australians, which then shifts to politicians, the victimisation of all of mankind reaffirms the destructive element of the coal mine.
In much the same way, the author makes an appeal to the safety and wellbeing of ‘children and grandchildren,’ however chooses to target the children of the politicians. Designed to not only evoke concern and fear for the reader’s own children, this attack is also employed to illuminate the incompetence of these politicians and coax readers to evaluate the coal mine was truly a detrimental decision by these politicians. Unlike the first letter, Gill uses first person to capture the disgust and ‘[shame]’ she feels towards living under these politician’s rules. The use of a high modal verb ‘am’ indicates the beginning of an apoplectic tone which influences the Australian laymen to ponder the extremity of these politicians’ incompetence, as a fellow community member (Gill) is outraged by this decision.  The attack towards the politicians’ logic is further attacked for readers to evoke fury by describing their thinking as a ‘reduced’ and narrow passage of thought and self- absorbed traits which an important decision- maker of society should not uphold.
To conclude the letter, a virulent plea is directed towards politicians to ‘think’ of their ‘moral responsibility’ for the ‘future.’ The direct command pressures the Australian politicians to feel shame for ignoring the ethical responsibility urge them to reconsider their decision which the author attempts to portray as ego- driven.
 

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2017, 08:04:22 pm »
+5
Hi there,
I wrote an analysis on the picture, not sure if it's any good, but would really like to get some feed back
thank you for your time.

The author uses visual persuasion to convince the audience of the wicked deeds committed by the politicians. The author displays three specific politicians that are rolling up the field and are "smoothing the covers",where is your link between these clauses? the author clearlyPerhaps too judgemental/decisive about what author is doing attempts to make the audience feel angry and hatred towards the politiciansHow so? What specifically is it about the action of the politicians that would evoke anger?. Moreover, the author appeals to the audience<----- Appealing to audience is the main aim of any language analysis. Try and pinpoint a more specific appeal. though Australia's greatest asset Try not to be subjective, The Great Barrier Reef, and links it to the well known painting of "The Scream". The painting is meantthe painting aims, endeavours, strives, seeks..... to exhibit horror and fright to the audience While this is right, the expression is a bit off. Perhaps the painting strives to kindle a sense of horror and fright in readers...But once more, what is it about the painting that does this? Specifics are really importantand makeMaybe reconsider verb choice. Seems a bit harsh them understand the consequences of the Adani mine .Make sure you find something that make these sentences flow on from one another. This can even come from words such as furthermore, to progressThe writer emphasizes death through the scream painting and the radioactivity sign on the ship that is highlighting the word "ADANI"Good. The radioactive sign is a representation of death and danger,Where is the link between clauses? the author uses this iconic symbol to their advantage and elaborates the dangers of Adani<---- not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The author overallSwitch these around. Overall the author.... is targeting the readers national pride, the Reef and is displaying how much of a threat it is to support the politicians and the Adani mine.

again thank you for your time and sorry if there are mistakes  :(

Well done! It's great that you're consistently linking author intention to reader effect. To improve, you should focus on being more specific with your analysis. Also, ensure that your clauses are connected with appropriate conjunctions so as to improve your expression and coherency. Keep up the good work!  :) 
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2017, 08:29:58 pm »
+5
Hi, here is my analysis, but I didn't get to analyse the cartoon,
but if my analysis is too long you don't have to analyse the whole thing.
Also, would you be able to give some tips to be more selective with my analyses


The recent approval of the Adami Mine Coal by the Queensland government has resulted in a furore amongst the Australian public. In response to the approval, Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill both wrote condemning letter to the editors criticising the Adani mine project. Titled ‘When a bird in the hand is not worth it’ Callinan iodiomatically (or conversationally)Hmm...not too sure about these. These aren't really tones. A writer can use conversational languagebut the way something is expressed is not conversational. contends the Adani coal mine will lead to environmental consequences that will have detrimental impacts on all Australians. Similarly Angela Gill disapproves of the Adami mine proposal and empathetically I'd change this to something like fervently, ardently or vehemently....urges for politicians to reconsider their decision because the mine project will be a great threat to the environment. Supporting both letters, Hugh Munch’s cartoon (12/04/2017) sternly communicates the Adani Coal mine is a source of immense pressure, not only to the environment but also to the government. Good identification of varying contentions and tones. Just watch your word choice.

Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be consequence of the Adani mineGreat outline of argument. The author begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to this is awkward expression. Reword.convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principleHow did you get to this point? You need to tease out the evidence further before moving on.. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance todefying.. socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent futureOkay. It may be doing this, but where is the evidence from the article. You must build up logical links. By portraying This was your last sentence started. Try and work on the variation. the proposal as a threat to individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely Don't think this is the right word. Perhaps implicitly urges...coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion on the proposal from the outset of the letter. Yes, but where is your evidence? Your evidence will form the foundations of your analysis.
 
Callinan’s letter primarily constitutestoo wordy of a rhetorical question that establishes the denigrating approach towards the Adani mine as it is simply juxtaposed against a ‘struggling’ population that are left to survive on a ‘degraded’ planet with ‘precious’ water and ‘clean’ airOoh... this sentence is too long. Try and reduce it and be more concise.. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers of what? and appeals to their sense of safety for their children as they are described to be ‘struggling’ and portrayed as vulnerable as a result of the future worker’s jobAt the moment, you are skipping the analysis part and jumping right to the intended audience effect. It is great that you are able to understand the author's aims, but you must have more analysis/evidence.. This allows the writer to scapegoat doesn't quite work herethe reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befallHmm.. this is overly wordy. I don't understand what you're trying to say. on the future worker, and elicit guilt for intending danger to the children. This guilt is then designed to be a stimulant for the then-impacted readers to perceive the Adami coal proposal as a threat to the future society and feel indignant towards the threatening and dangerous ideaGood. But more analysis is needed. More analysis/evidence=original writing. .
The demographic of the article is then broadened to include the whole readership and the writer in one plane with the use of inclusive language, ‘us,’ to accentuate that the ‘struggle’ that is shared amongst all Australians and makes the reader more receptive towards Callinan’s opinion. The use of loaded- language such as ‘precious’ and ‘clean’ intensify the value of natural resourcesbut how? Go even further. What do these words connote?, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet?. Where is the link between these sentences?Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds the urges, coaxes...readership to grow an appreciation for the rare entities on the planet, and dismiss the Adani Coal mine in order to protect the environment. 
Concluding her piece with reference to the proverbial birds, Callinan bitterly states the birds are ‘dead’ referring realistically to the environmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to. The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine a damaging presence for Australia.   
Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appalling letter opposing the proposal however rather than antagonising the mine itself, she attacks the politicians who have approved of the coal mine.’ She antagonises the politicians as criminals who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility of the human race juxtaposed against an action that is morally despised by the global society. Although the audience is specifically targeted towards Australians, which then shifts to politicians, the victimisation of all of mankind reaffirms the destructive element of the coal mine.
In much the same way, the author makes an appeal to the safety and wellbeing of ‘children and grandchildren,’ however chooses to target the children of the politicians. Designed to not only evoke concern and fear for the reader’s own children, this attack is also employed to illuminate the incompetence of these politicians and coax readers to evaluate the coal mine was truly a detrimental decision by these politicians. Unlike the first letter, Gill uses first person to capture the disgust and ‘[shame]’ she feels towards living under these politician’s rules. The use of a high modal verb ‘am’ indicates the beginning of an apoplectic tone which influences the Australian laymen to ponder the extremity of these politicians’ incompetence, as a fellow community member (Gill) is outraged by this decision.  The attack towards the politicians’ logic is further attacked for readers to evoke fury by describing their thinking as a ‘reduced’ and narrow passage of thought and self- absorbed traits which an important decision- maker of society should not uphold.
To conclude the letter, a virulent plea is directed towards politicians to ‘think’ of their ‘moral responsibility’ for the ‘future.’ The direct command pressures the Australian politicians to feel shame for ignoring the ethical responsibility urge them to reconsider their decision which the author attempts to portray as ego- driven.
 


Good job! Your understanding of author intention is very good. However, the lack of evidence and analysis reduces the quality of your piece. If you can focus on improving this, your analysis will be very strong. Sorry I couldn't mark the whole piece.  :)
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

princessofpersia

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Respect: +16
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2017, 06:58:54 am »
+4
Thank you so much  ;D I really appreciate how you pinpointed my source of weakness, and hopefully that will help me propel forward !

btw, the long essay was mine, forget to post in-anonymously

Hannibal

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • Respect: +2
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2017, 01:37:08 pm »
+2
Note: Didn't really treat this as a comparative - sort of did each piece separately. Any feedback is welcomed :)


Margaret Callinan, through her frank letter to the editor, intimates that the perverse environmental corollaries of building the Adani mine does not justify the employment that it will bring. By commencing her letter with the adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," she strives to highlight that it is better to be content with what we have as opposed to being driven by avarice. Because of the proverbial nature of this laconic sentence, the writer encourages the readership to consider this underlying moral, and apply it to their views on the Adani mine decision. An opportunity for the reader to contemplate upon the ethicality of the decision is then presented, with Callinan asking them to question whether it is worth having jobs at the expense of having "precious little clean water to drink." This vivid imagery of society being precluded from accessing such a basic human right, is likely to alarm pragmatic members of the readership as to the magnitude of the issue, and how it could possibly affect them, permeating a sense of worry and anxiety. By using the descriptor "precious," it augments the idea that clean water is an essential resource worth protecting, attempting to appeal to the reader's defensive instincts, in order to manoeuvre them into a position in which they can see the pernicious threat that constructing the Adani mine poses. Furthermore, by conceding that the proposal does have its positives in that it will provide employment, the writer highlights that his view is well-considered and not overly biased. Callinan uses this concession as a platform for rebuttal, by juxtaposing the benefits of the scheme for workers with the tangible harm it will ensue upon the "worker's children." In comparing these two stakeholders, she seeks to underscore that children are more vulnerable than their parents, and as such of a greater priority to protect, thus conveying that on balance the harms of the proposal outweigh the benefits. This is as when the readership visualises "children" having "no clean air to breathe," Callinan strives to horrify them with the sheer repulsiveness of the thought, given many members would have children and families of their own.

Adopting a more censuring tone, Angela Gill posits that politicians are blinded by their desire for re-election, to the point where they are willing to endorse immoral proposals such as the Adani mine. By vilifying politicians as committing "crime[ s] against humanity," the writer seeks to dehumanise them as a stakeholder, with the word "crime" implying to the audience that they have done something deserving of justice. This antagonistic characterisation is continued by juxtaposing "politicians" and "(leaders?)," with the use of brackets highlighting that being a leader is what is expected of politicians, but through the question mark Gill reveals that they are failing to meet this expectation. Thus, by evincing that politicians have ulterior motives while in office, the writer strives to create a sense of suspicion around the Adani mine proposal, attempting to reveal to the readership that it is merely a political tool to gain re-election. As such, the audience is likely to react adversely to this revealing of disingenuous behaviour, resulting in them channeling this anger towards disapproving of the development of the mine altogether

Contrastingly, the cartoonist employs a more derisive tone, however remains aligned with the other two articles in that it disapproves the construction of the Adani mine. It's focus is slightly tangential however, in that it uses the environmental impact of the mine on the Great Barrier Reef as it's core persuasive device. Through a diminutive depiction of three people terrified of their surroundings, the illustrator seeks to use them as an allegorical representation of society as a whole, encouraging the audience to view the plight of these individuals as indicative of what they may be facing if the Adani mine proposal goes through. Thus, it is likely to imbue a sense of horror within the audience, which is amplified through the grotesque illustration of the Great Barrier Reef. This is as upon seeing this iconic Australian landmark shrunk into a shadow of its former self, the audience is likely to react defensively to seeing this wonder of the world in such a fleeting state, with the cartoonist averring that this is the bleak future that awaits the audience if no action is taken in stopping the Adani mine from being built.

HopefulLawStudent: I just removed the strike through that arises whenever you modify your quotes with [ s ] :)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 10:11:49 pm by HopefulLawStudent »
2018-2020: UoM Comm

clarke54321

  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Respect: +365
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2017, 08:49:25 pm »
+6
Note: Didn't really treat this as a comparative - sort of did each piece separately. Any feedback is welcomed :)


Margaret Callinan, through her frank letter to the editor, intimates that the perverse this isn't the right adjective. Perhaps injudicious/detrimentalenvironmental corollaries don't think this is the right wordof building the Adani mine does not justify the employment that it will bring. By commencing her letter with the adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," she strives to highlight that it is better to be content with what we have as opposed to being driven by avarice. Because of the proverbial nature of this laconic sentence, the writer encourages the readership to consider this underlying moral, and apply it to their views on the Adani mine decisionOkay good. But I'm not exactly sure that this is a laconic sentence. Also, what is it specifically about the proverb that makes the reader consider the moral.. An opportunity for the reader to contemplate upon the ethicality of the decision is then presented, with Callinan asking them to question whether it is worth having jobs at the expense of having "precious little clean water to drink." This vivid imagery of society being precluded from accessing such a basic human right, is likely to alarm pragmatic members of the readership as to the magnitude of the issue, and how it could possibly affect them, permeating a sense of worry and anxietyAll ideas are good here. However, the sentence is too long and it's starting to become too verbose.. By using the descriptor "precious,"you've forgot to add the subject of the sentence.Callinan augments..... it augments the idea that clean water is an essential resource worth protecting, attempting to appeal to the reader's defensive instincts, in order to manoeuvre them into a position in which they can see the pernicious threat that constructing the Adani mine posesToo wordy. Watch your expression. Furthermore, by conceding that the proposal does have its positives in that it will provide employment, the writer highlights that his view is well-considered and not overly biased. Callinan uses this concession as a platform for rebuttal, by juxtaposing the benefits of the scheme for workers with the tangible harm it will ensue upon the "worker's children." In comparing these two stakeholders, she seeks to underscore that children are more vulnerable than their parents, and as such of a greater priority to protect, thus conveying that on balance the harms of the proposal outweigh the benefits. This is as when the readership visualises <----- I'm not really sure about this sentence starter."children" having "no clean air to breathe," Callinan strives to horrify them with the sheer repulsiveness of the thought, given many members would have children and families of their own. Good ideas in this paragraph. Just make sure your sentences don't get too long/clunky as this may lead to repetition

Adopting a more censuring tone, Angela Gill posits that politicians are blinded by their desire for re-election, to the point where they are willing to endorse immoral proposals such as the Adani mineGreat identification of argument. By vilifying politicians as this is too wordy. By declaring that politicians are committing '[crimes] against humanity,' Gill castigates..... committing "crimes against humanity," the writer seeks to dehumanise them as a stakeholder, with the word "crime" implying to the audience that they have done something deserving of justiceI'm a bit lost here. I'm not sure where dehumanisation comes from.. This antagonistic characterisation is continued by juxtaposing "politicians" and "(leaders?)," with the use of brackets highlighting that being a leader is what is expected of politicians, but through the question mark Gill reveals that they are failing to meet this expectationLovely. Thus, by evincing that politicians have ulterior motives while in office, the writer strives to create a sense of suspicion around the Adani mine proposal, attempting to reveal to the readership that it is merely a political tool to gain re-election. As such, the audience is likely to react adverselythis adjective doesn't read too well for me. Hmm..maybe I'm just being picky to this revealing of disingenuous behaviour, resulting in them channeling this anger towards disapproving of the development of the mine altogether. Great analysis here

Contrastingly, the cartoonist employs a more derisive tone, this isn't the right linking word. Sentence needs reworkinghowever remains aligned with the other two articles in that it disapproves the construction of the Adani mine. It's focus is slightly tangential however, in that it uses the environmental impact of the mine on the Great Barrier Reef as it's core persuasive devicedon't go meta and talk about devices within your analysis. Through a diminutive depiction of three people terrified of their surroundings, the illustrator seeks to use them as an allegorical representation of society as a whole, encouraging the audience to view the plight of these individuals as indicative of what they may be facing if the Adani mine proposal goes throughWonderful analysis. Thus, it is likely to imbuesomeone/something is typically imbued with .... therefore I don't think it's the right verb. Perhaps engender/instil a sense of horror within the audiencereaders, which is amplified through the grotesque illustration of the Great Barrier Reef. This is as upon seeing this iconic Australian landmark shrunk into a shadow of its former self, the audience is likely to react defensively to seeing this wonder of the world in such a fleeting state, with the cartoonist averring that this is the bleak future that awaits the audience if no action is taken in stopping the Adani mine from being built.

Well done! This was a wonderful analysis. You take your analysis all the way through to reader effect. Just watch expression and sentence length. Keep up the great work!  :)
BA (Linguistics) I University of Melbourne
Tips and Tricks for VCE English [50]

Essay Marking Services in 2021 for VCE English + Essays for Sale

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2017, 09:22:51 pm »
+2
Well done! This was a wonderful analysis. You take your analysis all the way through to reader effect. Just watch expression and sentence length. Keep up the great work!  :)

I appreciate that thank you very much :)

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2017, 10:27:58 am »
+4
In a concerned tone, Margaret Callinan rejects the Adani coal mine project on the grounds that it will jeopardise Australia's future social and environmental prosperity. She bases her argument on the notion of human survival and the conservation of nature, as she envisages a planet with no basic needs such as "precious little clean water and "clean air." Such appeals to readers' innate survival instincts magnifies the issue into one that is beyond a mere political or economic affair, and thus, Callinan seeks to alarm readers with how relevant the issue is to them. Callinan heightens this effect by  forecasting a frightening future where "the rest of us" are "left struggling to survive", painting a spine-chilling image of a society divided into a social hierarchy where coal mine workers prosper in their influx of money and the innocent common people are left to scour for food and water in the remnants of a dying earth. This pessimistic outlook is designed to unsettle readers, and to subsequently mobilise them to campaign against the building of the mine for the sake of their children's and grandchildren's wellbeing. Callinan concedes that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", in order to demonstrate that she recognises the financial concerns of the politicians and mine workers. However, the idiom and rhetorical question "But is it really worth having a job at the Adani mine?" adds to the readers' doubts as to the integrity and validity of financial gain from working at the mine, when so many lives risk becoming tainted as a result. By concluding her argument with the same idiom, Callinan emphasises the ubiquitous threat that the coal mine project poses, as she bluntly states that even the "birds in the bush", which symbolise the workers' children and readers, will become "dead to boot." The brusque conclusion adds a sense of decisiveness to Callinan's argument, but also conjures an image of a bleak, lifeless future for the planet should the coal mine project proceed. Consequently, readers are manoeuvred to disapprove of the plan as they are left with the resounding impression that building the Adani coal mine will only destroy Australia.

Angela Gill shares Calliman's belief that the Adani coal mine plan is a threat to Australia's society and environment. However, she targets the Labor Government, arguing in a condemnatory tone that politicians are skirting their "moral responsibility" by endorsing the project. Gill's main tactic is her attack at avaricious politicians, as she establishes from the outset that they have committed a "crime against humanity." Here, her allusion to international human rights legislation widens the context of the politicians' sins to a global one, in the same way that Calligan draws upon humans' rights to clean air and water. Likewise, readers may view the Adani coal mine project itself as corrupt and a breach of humans' basic rights. The appeals to their sense of moral justice may impel them to denounce the coal mine for its unethical nature and its sinister motives. Gill augments her argument by relentlessly degrading Bill Shorten for allowing his egoism to take precedence over Australia's welfare, as she claims that he was driven by the desire to "win the next election." Such portrayal of calculating reason, compounded by the fact that Gill was actually once a Labor voter, adds credibility to Gill's argument and seeks to discredit any belief in readers' minds that the politician had acted out of Australia's interests. In fact, when viewed in tow with Calliman's letter, which portrays Adani coal mine workers as overly self-concerned, readers may come to realise that the coal mine will only ruthlessly appease the money-hungry people of this country. In effect, this seeks to evoke readers' repulsion at the immorality of Australia's leaders and workers, and to generate an outcry against the plan for the good of the common Australian.

In an ominous tone, Pope's cartoon echoes Calliman and Gill's views that building the Adani coal mine will leave the environment in irreparable ruins. To sway readers to share his view, Pope relies primarily on his haunting depiction of the Great Barrier Reef which, in its unnatural colours, reinforces Calliman's fear of losing "precious little clean water." Specifically, the speech bubble "Did I hear what?" draws readers' attention towards Pope's allusion to Edvard Munch's renowned painting "The Scream"; this, coupled with the disturbing mix of abnormal colours in the water, illustrates that unspeakable cruelty of Adani coal mine supporters and implies that nature has suffered excruciating pain wrought by such vile humans. Hence, Pope suggests that any frantic attempt from the Adani coal mine stakeholders to bury their sins will not reverse the permanent damage that has already been done. Furthermore, Pope's cartoon reflects Calliman's view that the cost of the mine will spread to all corners of Australia, as it portrays the Adani coal mine submarine puffing smoke that frames the entire cartoon. With this confrontational idea in mind, readers may feel horror at the extent politicians and workers would go to satisfy their own immediate concerns, manoeuvring them to downright condemn the wickedly portrayed participants of the coal mine project.
ATAR: 99.70

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2017, 12:14:11 pm »
+5
...Continuing clarke54321's great work  :)


Hi, here is my analysis, but I didn't get to analyse the cartoon,
but if my analysis is too long you don't have to analyse the whole thing.
Also, would you be able to give some tips to be more selective with my analyses

The recent approval of the Adami Mine Coal by the Queensland government has resulted in a furore amongst the Australian public. In response to the approval, Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill both wrote condemning letter to the editors criticising the Adani mine project. Titled ‘When a bird in the hand is not worth it’ Callinan iodiomatically (or conversationally) contends the Adani coal mine will lead to environmental consequences that will have detrimental impacts on all Australians. Similarly Angela Gill disapproves of the Adami mine proposal and empathetically urges for politicians to reconsider their decision because the mine project will be a great threat to the environment. Supporting both letters, Hugh Munch’s cartoon (12/04/2017) sternly communicates the Adani Coal mine is a source of immense pressure, not only to the environment but also to the government.

Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be consequence of the Adani mine. The author begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principle. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance to socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent future. By portraying the proposal as a threat to individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion on the proposal from the outset of the letter.

Callinan’s letter primarily constitutes of a rhetorical question that establishes the denigrating approach towards the Adani mine as it is simply juxtaposed against a ‘struggling’ population that are left to survive on a ‘degraded’ planet with ‘precious’ water and ‘clean’ air. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers and appeals to their sense of safety for their children as they are described to be ‘struggling’ and portrayed as vulnerable as a result of the future worker’s job. This allows the writer to scapegoat the reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befall on the future worker, and elicit guilt for intending danger to the children. This guilt is then designed to be a stimulant for the then-impacted readers to perceive the Adami coal proposal as a threat to the future society and feel indignant towards the threatening and dangerous idea.

The demographic of the article is then broadened to include the whole readership and the writer in one plane with the use of inclusive language, ‘us,’ to accentuate that the ‘struggle’ that is shared amongst all Australians and makes the reader more receptive towards Callinan’s opinion. The use of loaded- language such as ‘precious’ and ‘clean’ intensify the value of natural resources, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet. Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds the readership to grow an appreciation for the rare entities on the planet, and dismiss the Adani Coal mine in order to protect the environment. 

Concluding her piece with reference to the proverbial birds, Callinan bitterly states the birds are ‘dead’ referring realistically to the potentialenvironmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to result in. The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind also, what does it appeal to? What human instincts?, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine as a damaging presence for Australia.   

Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appalling letter in an appalled tone opposing the proposal however rather than antagonising the mine itself, she attacks the politicians who have approved of the coal mine.’ She antagonises the politicians as criminals Look more at the implications of "crime against humanity" - e.g. injustice, immorality, etc. --> then, what does that appeal to?who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ good that you've pin-pointed 'humanity'  :) heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility not always innocent or fragile  :P. 'Humanity' = common, universal - regardless of gender/race/age/etc. (you do kind of say this next) of the human race juxtaposed against an action that is morally despised by the global society. Although the audience is specifically targeted towards Australians, which then shifts to politicians, the victimisation of all of mankind reaffirms the destructive element Be a bit more specific. Gill could have done this by targeting Australians only. So why exactly does she target everyone, worldwide? E.g. if she shifts from Australians --> world, maybe the issue is also Australian --> global and therefore minor --> major (from a global perspective).  of the coal mine.

In much the same way, the author makes an appeal to the safety and wellbeing of ‘children and grandchildren,’ however chooses to target the children of the politicians good . Designed to not only evoke concern and fear for the reader’s own children, this attack is also employed to illuminate the incompetence of these politicians ...and? Why the children of politicians, in particular? E.g. they've already failed their duty to country. Now they're failing parental duties too = they are utterly selfish. and coax readers to evaluate the coal mine was truly a detrimental decision by these politicians. Unlike the first letter, Gill uses first person to capture the disgust and ‘[shame]’ she feels towards living under these politician’s rules. The use of a high modal verb ‘am’ indicates the beginning of an apoplectic tone which influences the Australian laymen to ponder the extremity of these politicians’ incompetence, as a fellow community member (Gill) is outraged by this decision.  The attack towards the politicians’ logic is further attacked for readers to evoke fury word choice. Perhaps shame/disappointment at politiciansby describing their thinking as a ‘reduced’ and narrow passage of thought and self- absorbed traits which an important decision- maker of society should not uphold.

To conclude the letter, a virulent plea is directed towards politicians to ‘think’ of their ‘moral responsibility’ for the ‘future.’ The direct command pressures the Australian politicians to feel shame for ignoring the ethical responsibility urge them to reconsider their decision which the author attempts to portray as ego- driven.
 
ATAR: 99.70

scout

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: +38
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2017, 08:33:37 pm »
+4
Quick and brief one this week.  :)

Margaret Callinan entreats her audience to imagine a “struggling … degraded planet” with limited “precious … clean water” and “air to breathe” Nice, you analyse the key technique first. This bleak, pessimistic foresight is designed to mitigate not just that, but more powerfully to negate the benefits ;) the potential benefits that may come from allowing the Adani mine to go ahead now, effect?. Callinan’s argument is however not entirely bleak, as her casual tone casual is a bit too positive - consider 'contemplative', most evident in her conversational use of the word “say”, suggests that this desolate depiction is mostly hypothetical and therefore preventable (state this because it's your analysis, even though you say it next in the effect). <-- these two are good  :) --> Audiences, seeing that they are able to avoid such outcome, are hence prompted to oppose the mine. So here, you've mentioned how readers feel capable of effecting change. You could add to this by stating why they may feel so (this would tie in with your 1st analysis of "struggling planet" and "clean water and air")
 
Angela Gill extends on Callinan’s stance as she additionally argues that politicians who support the mine should think of interests what interests? Monetary? Health-related?... other than of their own. Insinuating that Bill Shorten, and by extension politicians, are selfish in their reasoning through the pronouns “I” and “me” include extra quotes/phrases to give context around these pronouns, audiences are led to deduce that the Adani mine is not within their interests ...and therefore? --> link more explicitly to argument - e.g. do they now view the mine solely as a commercial enterprise? Or even worse, as a political device, etc.
 

Hi remi, this is short and sweet  :). I love how you get your point across in so few words. An enviable skill. Don't forget to finish your hard work with effect  ;)
ATAR: 99.70

lovelyperson

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Respect: +31
Re: 2017 AA Club - Week 4
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2017, 08:39:26 pm »
+2
Hi remi, this is short and sweet  :). I love how you get your point across in so few words. An enviable skill. Don't forget to finish your hard work with effect  ;)

Thank you! I'm actually kind of jealous of how you write to be honest hahaha. It's so flow-y and eloquent; any tips on how to achieve that in my own?

« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:46:23 pm by remi »