2017 AA Club - Week 5

[HopefulLawStudent]

So last AA Club instalment was a little late, and this one's a little early so hopefully they all balance out. The hope is that one of these days, I'll actually manage to post on Monday. If you haven't been contributing up til now: this is as good a time as any. As of today, there are 124 days until your English exam and 124 opportunities for you to maximise your English study score and this is as good a place to start as any. Also, you guys are welcome to go back to previous weeks and post responses there. I'll get around to feedback-ing those responses as soon as I'm able.

Background: The following has been adapted from a super old past VCAA English exam (like not even joking, this material is almost as old as I am that’s how old it is). It's so old that it's highly unlikely that you'd get it as a practice exam or anything so I shouldn't have spoiled anyone's practice exam. It’s about a proposed introduction of a compulsory Medical Information Card which is like an electronic storage system of the sort of information you’d expect in a medical record that would remove the need for paper storage and allow for an individual’s medical history to basically follow them wherever they went. The following is an email response and an article from a Melbourne newspaper considering the merits of the MI card.

Pro-tip: you don't need to analyse more minor stuff like the formatting of the email cos that doesn't really count as a visual.

[Anonymous]

My language Analysis is very rusty, so apologies for the following, but thank you for any feedback. Also, I wasn't sure how long this was suppose to be and if it was suppose to function as a full essay or not so don't mind the immediate and shoddy conclusion.   

As the possibility of a mandatory Medi-info (M-I) card looms, a division in society thus ensues; asking the question of whether the card would allay issues which arise from a lack of medical information, or form the basis for new manifestations of discrimination in everyday life. These contentious views can be perceived through both, Dr. Tom Brown, who, offering a sense of ethos, champions the introduction of a mandatory M-I card in a poignant email, and Christina Singh, who vehemently condemns such an introduction as a gateway to discrimination in an opinion article posted within a Melbourne newspaper.

Brown begins his piece by ardently arguing that the introduction of a mandatory M-I card would offer "peace of mind" and enhance the ability to which he could do his job. Subsequently, Brown first draws on his ethos as a "doctor with over 35 years experience", his authoritative nature and perceived expert opinion encouraging readers to take his stance . This is accentuated by Brown's assertive nature, the rhetoric of "I know" in his first paragraph leaving the audience with no room to protest, and subsequently cajoling them to support the aforementioned implementation. Brown coalesces this authoritative  nature with an array of emotional pleas. Drawing on an anecdote about a man who suffers epileptic fits which are mistakenly recognised as inebriation, Brown elicits a sense of sympathy for the "lad" "who can no longer feel confident when he goes out", using not only the evoked sympathy, but also the endearing "lad", to position the audience to want to alleviate the man's "anxiety" and subsequently, similarly champion the implementation of an M-I card.

Conversely, Singh argues that the card would instead foster new areas for discrimination. Similar to Brown, Singh uses poignant imagery to position her audience, first drawing on the hypothetical "Ms. Hopeful" who is denied a position based purely on her M-I card; simultaneously eliciting both a sense of fear in the audience, who do not wish to lose job opportunities based on arbitrary medical conditions, and appealing to their sense of justice, as Ms. Hopeful has clearly been the victim of unfair prejudice. This portrayal is exacerbated as Singh draws on heavily connotative language such as "frightening" and "discrimination" in order to once again compel her audience, through both fear and their sense of justice, to "take a firm stand" against M-I cards.

Thus, both Brown and Singh reflect contrasting views within Melbourne society. With both Brown and Singh utilising similar techniques, such as emotive language or evocative imagery, in order to position their audience to be for or against the possibility of mandatory M-I cards. Brown's idyllic "peace of mind for everyone" and Singh's alarming future, a reflection of the contentiousness which categorises the debate. 

[HopefulLawStudent]

My language Analysis is very rusty, so apologies for the following, but thank you for any feedback. Also, I wasn't sure how long this was suppose to be and if it was suppose to function as a full essay or not so don't mind the immediate and shoddy conclusion.   

As the possibility of a mandatory Medi-info (M-I) card looms, a division in society thus ensuesWhat do you mean by this, exactly? This just seems to be unnecessarily vague and super general. ; misused the semicolon which then throws off your entire sentence. A semicolon is most commonly used to link (in a single sentence) two independent clauses that are closely related in thought. asking the question of whether the card would allay issues which arise from a lack of medical information, or form the basis for new manifestations of discrimination in everyday life. These contentious views can be perceived through both, Dr. Tom Brown, who, offering a sense of ethos, champions the introduction of a mandatory M-I card in a poignant I'd personally argue that the email isn't really poignant (poignant being "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret." email, and Christina Singh, who vehemently condemns such an introduction as a gateway to discrimination in an opinion article posted within ina Melbourne newspaper.

Brown begins his piece by ardently arguing that the introduction of a mandatory M-I card would offer "peace of mind" try and avoid quoting without analysis wherever possible and enhance the ability to which he could do his job. Subsequently, Brown first draws on his ethos as a "doctor with over 35 years experience", his authoritative nature and perceived expert opinion encouraging readers to take his stance "encouraging readers to take his stance" is arguably too general, and this sentence seems a bit clumsily worded but actual idea behind it is good.. This is accentuated by Brown's assertive nature, the rhetoric of "I know" I personally feel that it might be worth you further contextualising that quote. in his first paragraph leaving the audience with no room too informal arguably for an AA essay? to protest, and subsequently cajoling them to support the aforementioned implementation. Brown coalesces this authoritative  nature with an array of emotional pleas What do you mean by this?. Drawing on an anecdote about a man who suffers epileptic fits which are mistakenly recognised as inebriation, Brown elicits a sense of sympathy for the "lad" "who can no longer feel confident when he goes out", using not only the evoked sympathy, but also the endearing "lad", to position the audience to want to alleviate the man's "anxiety" tbh anxiety seems like a bit of a weird thing to quote here especially considering that you're just quoting here for the sake of quoting, no actual analysis of anxiety and subsequently, similarly why similarly? champion the implementation of an M-I card.

Conversely, Singh argues that the card would instead foster new areas for discrimination. Similar to Brown, Singh uses poignant imagery to position her audience, first drawing on the hypothetical "Ms. Hopeful" who is denied a position based purely on her M-I card;see previous comment about semi-colons simultaneously eliciting both a sense of fear in the audience, who do not wish to lose job opportunities based on arbitrary medical conditions, and appealing to their sense of justice, as Ms. Hopeful has clearly been the victim of unfair prejudice. Is good. My only concern is that this sentence is waaaay too long.This portrayal is exacerbated as Singh draws on heavily connotative language such as "frightening" and "discrimination" cute but what are the connotations of "frightening" and "discrimination"? EXPLAIN. in order to once again compel her audience, through both fear and their sense of justice, to "take a firm stand" see previous comment about quoting without analysis.
 Like try and avoid doing it too often because what you're basically doing is flagging missed opportunities for analysis.against M-I cards.

Thus, both Brown and Singh reflect contrasting views within Melbourne society. This is the sort of vague and super general statement that you probably wouldn't want to have in your AA essay. Specificity is key here! With both Brown and Singh utilising similar techniques, such as emotive language or evocative imagery, in order to position their audience to be for or against the possibility of mandatory M-I cards. Brown's idyllic "peace of mind for everyone" and Singh's alarming future, a reflection of the contentiousness which categorises the debate.  this sentence is clumsily written and a tad too verbose. Otherwise though, good job!

Keep those responses coming, guys!

[Isla77]

Written by a medical practitioner, Dr Tom Brown, the e-mail elaborates on the significance of having Medi-Info Card, by primarily focussing on its benefits to members of the general pubilc. From the onset of his piece, the doctor puts strong emphasis on his expertise. "35 years" in the job clearly shows his decades long involvement in the field, assuring the reader of his credibility. His trust and knowledge in the medical field is reinforced by repeatedly stating  "I know", which also serves to covey his confidence in observing his patients and empathising with their "suffering", "weariness and confusion". Such revealing of his competence as a "family practitioner", someone close and trusted by the general public, shows both his ability to sympathise and understand the needs of people. Having established this reliance, he shares a story of a patient who was not able to get "the vital help" because of the absence of his Medi-Info Card. The adjective "vital" indicates the necessity of the treatment he did not receive during the unfavorable happening, highlighting on a situation where the card could have been extremely useful.

Dr Brown wishes the best for "all Australians", that they are "free from anxiety". This unconditional care reveals the generous side of him, and presents himself as a likeable person. Doing so assures the reader that someone who wishes the best for everyone is willing for them to have the Medi-Info Card. He respects the rights of patients, to "talk to their doctors" and "know their medical information", even more disclosing his good-natured character. He then explains that his job too, would benefit from the implementation of Medi-Info Card, that his work would "improve dramatically", indicating the massive impact that this simple action can bring. Only focusing on the positive aspects, the author indicates that this is a win-win situation, urging the effective use of the card. Again turning his attention back to his patients, he portrays his confidence and faith in the card, which he believes will "surely bring" safety to people. Thus, Brown positions patients as his utmost concern in signifying on the importance of having the Medi-Info Card.

In contrast, an opinion piece by Christina Singh denies the significance and importance of the Medi-Info Card. Her emotional and intense tone is equipped with her appeal to freedom and justice, she guides "all who value our free society" to have a doubt on the usage of the card. She alarms and almost frightens the reader that this ideally triggers "warning bells" from them, an emergency device only used in dangerous situations where immediate action is required. Upon elaborating on the harmful effects of the widespread usage of the card, Singh does not hesitate in using exaggerated adjectives to impose her disagreement with the change. She argues that the possibility of discrimination is "patently obvious", implying that all should predict that this is likely to occur. She explains of another possibility, of personal information being sold for malusage, as being "frightening", sharing her internal emotion and attempting to influence the reader to think in the same manner, sparking a sense of fear. All this endeavours to convince the reader that the Medi-Info Card will do more harm than good.




Any comments or corrections will be appreciated!
By the way I went to your ATARNotes English lecture a few days ago and it was very helpful! I was able to receive many tips that will be useful for me for both Unit 4 and the final exam, so thank you so much!

[amigos]

Written by a medical practitioner, Dr Tom Brown, the e-mail elaborates on the significance of having Medi-Info Card, by primarily focussing on its benefits to members of the general pubilc. From the onset of his piece, the doctor puts strong emphasis on his expertise. "35 years" in the job clearly shows his decades long involvement in the field, assuring the reader of his credibility. His trust and knowledge in the medical field is reinforced by repeatedly stating  "I know", which also serves to covey his confidence in observing his patients and empathising with their "suffering", "weariness and confusion". Such revealing of his competence as a "family practitioner", someone close and trusted by the general public, shows both his ability to sympathise and understand the needs of people. Having established this reliance, he shares a story of a patient who was not able to get "the vital help" because of the absence of his Medi-Info Card. The adjective "vital" indicates the necessity of the treatment he did not receive during the unfavorable happening, highlighting on a situation where the card could have been extremely useful.

Dr Brown wishes the best for "all Australians", that they are "free from anxiety". This unconditional care reveals the generous side of him, and presents himself as a likeable person. Doing so assures the reader that someone who wishes the best for everyone is willing for them to have the Medi-Info Card. He respects the rights of patients, to "talk to their doctors" and "know their medical information", even more disclosing his good-natured character. He then explains that his job too, would benefit from the implementation of Medi-Info Card, that his work would "improve dramatically", indicating the massive impact that this simple action can bring. Only focusing on the positive aspects, the author indicates that this is a win-win situation, urging the effective use of the card. Again turning his attention back to his patients, he portrays his confidence and faith in the card, which he believes will "surely bring" safety to people. Thus, Brown positions patients as his utmost concern in signifying on the importance of having the Medi-Info Card.

In contrast, an opinion piece by Christina Singh denies the significance and importance of the Medi-Info Card. Her emotional and intense tone is equipped with her appeal to freedom and justice, she guides "all who value our free society" to have a doubt on the usage of the card. She alarms and almost frightens the reader that this ideally triggers "warning bells" from them, an emergency device only used in dangerous situations where immediate action is required. Upon elaborating on the harmful effects of the widespread usage of the card, Singh does not hesitate in using exaggerated adjectives to impose her disagreement with the change. She argues that the possibility of discrimination is "patently obvious", implying that all should predict that this is likely to occur. She explains of another possibility, of personal information being sold for malusage, as being "frightening", sharing her internal emotion and attempting to influence the reader to think in the same manner, sparking a sense of fear. All this endeavours to convince the reader that the Medi-Info Card will do more harm than good.




Any comments or corrections will be appreciated!
By the way I went to your ATARNotes English lecture a few days ago and it was very helpful! I was able to receive many tips that will be useful for me for both Unit 4 and the final exam, so thank you so much!

Not HLS, but here's my feedback. 

[scout]

In an impassioned tone, Dr Tom Brown insists that the Medi-Info Card will be vital in preventing tragic, unnecessary deaths. His argument relies primarily on his personal experience, evident in his emphatic repetition of "I know" to stress his understanding of the pain suffered by victims who did not have their medical history records at hand. This, coupled with his "35 years' experience" which opens his email, positions readers to perceive that he truly understands medical patients' needs and hence, adds credibility to his views. Dr Brown seeks to augment his portrayal as a caring doctor by lamenting an unfortunate case of medical emergency, where he recalls an epileptic patient who had been neglected by "everyone around him" under the impression that "he was drunk". This ignorance of a man Dr Brown portrays as completely innocent and powerless – given the uncontrollable nature of epileptic fits – generates sympathy from readers for the utterly helpless man. Furthermore, Dr Brown's use of the endearing term "lad" to refer to the patient further amplifies the man's benign depiction, appealing to readers' sense of mateship by mobilising them to advocate for a Medi-Info Card so that the man should not suffer again. Dr Brown delves further into the preventability of the epileptic patient's torment, crying out desperately "How a Medi-Info Card would have helped him!" The hypothetical "would" compels readers to imagine the alternative possibility of the patient using his Medi-Info Card to swiftly circumvent his painful suffering; this revelation, compounded by Dr Brown's use of an exclamation mark, positions patients to realise, with a sense of urgency, that the Medi-Info Card is a practical necessity for ailing Australians.

Having established the usefulness of adopting a Medi-Info Card, Dr Brown then appeals to readers' rights to authentic, accessible healthcare, claiming that the Card is safe and will bring much-wanted medical security into its users' lives. His appeal to "all" Australians "young or old, sick or well, in the bush or in the city, close to home or far away" not only aims to present Dr Brown as having everyone's interests at heart, but also to subtly illustrate how the card will surpass any social, economic or physical barriers to bring healthcare to every single Australian. This idea of timely, easily obtainable healthcare owing to the Medi-Info Card is likely to appeal to readers who have been horrified by Dr Brown's earlier, unsettling depiction of unaddressed medical emergencies, brought about by unavailable medical records. Dr Brown aims to further garner readers' trust, by showing that he recognises readers' mutual desire for safe, stress-free medical care; he affirms that all Australians "should be allowed to live their lives free from anxiety" and "need to know that their medical information... is safe and secure." Here, his use of the emotive word "free" and the alliterated "safe and secure” – all three connoting honesty and integrity – aims to reassure readers that the Medi-Info Card is reliable. Dr Brown ends on this inspiring tone – unlike his opening frustrated tone – by confidently declaring that the Medi-Info Card will mean "peace of mind for everyone." This notion positions patients to associate the Card with an idealistic sense of serenity; a serenity that may not exist in their lives plagued by illness. Thus, enlightened readers may come to embrace the Medi-Info Card which Dr Brown portrays as the gateway to their happiness.

Christina Singh, however, adopts a more cynical tone, viewing the Medi-Info Card as a potential means to discriminate certain groups in society. Her main strategy is her use of a hypothetical scenario, in which she depicts a “Ms Hopeful” – supposedly an eager employment candidate – being denied a job by “Mr Employer” based on private information accessed from her Medi-Info Card. The use of the anonymous, status-based titles “Ms Hopeful” and “Mr Employer” perhaps emphasises how the Medi-Info Card will compel society to judge one another based on their material qualities, such as their professions, rather than their unique characters. Indeed, Mr Employer is shown demanding Ms Hopeful’s card before even asking “why [she is] interested in applying for [the] position”, an image that acts to disturb readers with the dystopian idea of a bleak, future world governed by an obsession with black and white credentials. Thus, Singh strives to alarm readers with the Medi-Info Card’s potential to extinguish individual passion and personalities, which is symbolised by “Ms Hopeful’s” very name.

Singh then proceeds to refute Dr Brown, asserting that the Medi-Info Card will undermine users’ rights to privacy and security. Her foreboding claim that more “insidious” uses of the card will “creep in” aims to horrify readers and elicit a sense of urgency, as the negative words connote the card’s criminality. Singh declares that the card has “already” lured some “gullible” people, alerting readers to the very present threat it poses and thus, deterring them from embracing a card that has been associated with exploitation. Indeed, Singh appeals to readers’ desire to not be taken advantage of by calling upon “all who value our free society” to reject the card, negating Dr Brown’s association between the card and liberty. Singh’s use of the inclusive pronoun “our” suggests that such response is a societal duty, manoeuvring readers to denounce the Medi-Info Card, which Singh has portrayed as potentially corrupt and dangerous to their community.

[clarke54321]

In response to the proposed implementation of a compulsory Medical Information Card, Robert Brown submitted an email. Employing a predominantly earnest tone, Brown contends that the M-I card will cater for easy access to medical records and fundamentally, increased safety and wellbeing for civilians. Conversely, Christina Singh disparages the prospect of the M-I card; dismissing it as a proposal that will encroach on the basic privacy rights of Australians.   

With the intent of establishing the necessity of the M-I card, Brown immediately informs readers of his ‘35 years’ experience’ as a medical professional. By providing such a statistic, Brown endeavours to imply his extensive knowledge and understanding of health matters, which is further fortified by the repeated, ‘I know.’ Given the sincere conviction of the phrase and its recurring nature, readers are thus urged to confront the notion that emergencies are widespread and frequent occurrences. Indeed, Brown continues by recalling the ‘weariness’ inflicted upon elders ‘day after day.’ With the idiom ‘day after day’ connoting a sense of tiring inexorability in itself, Brown compounds the very ‘weariness’ endured by patients. As a result of this manifestation, readers are compelled to recognise that a future without M-I cards will be overwhelmingly burdensome and exhausting.

By emphatically addressing his concern to ‘all Australians,’ Brown progresses to argue that M-I cards are relevant to all individuals. Certainly, Brown’s seemingly endless list of juxtapositions, ‘young or old’ and ‘in the bush or in the city,’ implicitly awakens readers to the idea that the M-I is not a type of luxury to be enjoyed by only some. Rather, Brown pronounces that every Australian ‘should be allowed’ to live with the M-I. Here, the verb ‘should’ further encourages readers to perceive the card as a fundamental health right for all. This sense of inclusive benefit is stressed again by Brown, who champions the card as a kind of dynamic mediator between his ‘work as a doctor’ and his ‘patients’ lives.’ By stating that the M-I will ‘dramatically’ ‘improve’ his capability as a doctor, Brown insinuates that his patients too will reap ‘[dramatic]’ benefits. This inextricable link created by Brown, thereby prompts readers to acknowledge that neither doctors or themselves will prosper and develop without the M-I card. To this end, Brown subtly passes responsibility onto readers, who are thus galvanised to invest their support in the M-I proposal for the future’s welfare.
 
Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I, by casting the card as a deceptive invention. In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern. Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains that the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thereby inclined to receive Brown’s carefree future with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities of some.

Shifting to a cautionary tone, Singh further portrays the M-I card as an impingement upon Australians’ privacy. By propounding that the card will obstruct ‘our free society,’ Singh aims to make the threat of the card more central to readers, as indicated by the inclusive ‘our.’ In doing so, readers are coerced to reflect on a future without freedom and thus endure a subsequent feeling of trepidation. This thereby seeks to erode Brown’s own appeal to liberty with the M-I card, which he avers will enable all to ‘live free from anxiety.’ That is, by inducing a sense of anxiety in readers regarding the M-I card, and thus the very feeling Brown claims will be eliminated by the proposal, Singh subtly illuminates a contradiction in Brown’s assertion. To this end, Singh urges readers to recognise that Brown’s understanding lacks thorough consideration and is thereby weak. Singh proceeds with this attack against Brown, by stridently stating that ‘possibility for discrimination’ with the M-I is ‘patently obvious.’ Given the overtones of mockery which flood the phrase, ‘patently obvious,’ Singh ardently intimates that to not acknowledge the likelihood of discrimination would be exceedingly ignorant. In turn, readers are manipulated to condemn Brown’s conclusive belief that the M-I will ‘surely bring’ security, and ultimately perceive the card as a risky proposition.

Hence, while Brown relies on his reasoned tone to present the M-I card as a logical and progressive prospect for future safety, Singh opts for a more zealous one. With this, Singh vehemently depicts the M-I as a threat to readers, and thereby forces them to question the credibility of Brown’s viewpoint.

[scout]

In response to the proposed implementation of a compulsory Medical Information Card, Robert Brown submitted an email. Employing a predominantly earnest tone, Brown contends that the M-I card will cater for easy access to medical records and fundamentally, increased safety and wellbeing for civilians. Conversely, Christina Singh disparages the prospect of the M-I card; dismissing it as a proposal that will encroach on the basic privacy rights of Australians. nice   

With the intent of establishing the necessity of the M-I card,<-- I know what you're getting at, but by itself, how does '35 years experience' = necessity of M-I card? It's a bit of a jump --> Brown immediately informs readers of his ‘35 years’ experience’ as a medical professional. By providing such a statistic, Brown endeavours to imply his extensive knowledge and understanding of health matters, which is further fortified by the repeated, ‘I know.’ Given the sincere conviction of the phrase and its recurring nature, readers are thus urged to confront the notion that emergencies are widespread and frequent occurrences not quite sure how you got to this conclusion from repetition of 'I know' - perhaps if you contextualise this quote more.... . Indeed, Brown continues by recalling the ‘weariness’ inflicted upon elders ‘day after day.’ With the idiom ‘day after day’ connoting a sense of tiring inexorability in itself, Brown compounds the very ‘weariness’ endured by patients. As a result of this manifestation, readers are compelled to recognise that a future without M-I cards will be overwhelmingly burdensome and exhausting for patients.

By emphatically addressing his concern to ‘all Australians,’ Brown progresses to argue that M-I cards are relevant to all individuals therefore...?. Certainly, Brown’s seemingly endless list of juxtapositions, ‘young or old’ and ‘in the bush or in the city,’ implicitly awakens readers to the idea that the M-I is not a type of luxury to be enjoyed by only some. Rather, Brown pronounces that every Australian ‘should be allowed’ <-- this quote relates to living a life "free from anxiety". to live with the M-I. Here, the verb ‘should’ further encourages readers to perceive the card as a fundamental health right for all. This sense of inclusive benefit is stressed again by Brown, who champions the card as a kind of dynamic mediator between his ‘work as a doctor’ and his ‘patients’ lives.’ By stating that the M-I will ‘dramatically’ ‘improve’ his capability as a doctor, Brown insinuates this verb has negative connotations that his patients too will reap ‘[dramatic]’ benefits <-- good, but you could make the card-to-doctor-to-patient flow-on effect clearer: e.g. ...Brown suggests that he and other doctors will become better equipped to provide more suitable, timely medical services to their patients owing to the M-I card. . This inextricable link created by Brown, thereby prompts readers to acknowledge that neither doctors or themselves will prosper and develop without the M-I card. To this end, Brown subtly passes responsibility onto readers, who are thus galvanised to invest their support in the M-I proposal for the future’s welfare. Can you combine this - I feel like it could be streamlined.
 
Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I, by casting the card as a deceptive invention be more specific - in what way?. In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ good pickup!
  Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern unnecessary. Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is good. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains that the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thereby inclined to receive Brown’s prediction of acarefree future alongside the M-I card with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians --> and unjustly, too. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt verbose imo (since this is LA) --> I think 'elicits doubt" should do in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool good. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities be a teensy bit more specific - e.g. if Singh suggests that even job opportunities are jeopardised - which should be completely separate to personal life - what are the implications for access to other important, non-personal resources like education, etc.?  of some.

Shifting to a cautionary tone, Singh further portrays the M-I card as an impingement upon Australians’ privacy. By propounding that the card will obstruct ‘our free society,’ Singh aims to make the threat of the card more central to readers this is a bit too general -
 if you streamline this with the next sentence, it should become more specific, as indicated by the inclusive ‘our.’ In doing so, readers are coerced to reflect on a future without freedom and thus endure a subsequent feeling of trepidation perhaps make the link b/w loss of freedom --> trepidation a tiny bit clearer using your analysis of 'our', which suggests that freedom is a mutual value shared by readers, so threatening that would be.... . . This thereby seeks to erode Brown’s own appeal to liberty with the M-I card, which he avers will enable all to ‘live free from anxiety.’ That is, by inducing a sense of anxiety in readers regarding the M-I card, and thus the very feeling Brown claims will be eliminated by the proposal, Singh subtly illuminates a contradiction in Brown’s assertion. To this end, Singh urges readers to recognise that Brown’s understanding lacks thorough consideration and is thereby weak streamline this to make the link more obvious b/w contradiction --> ill-thought . Singh proceeds with this attack against Brown, by stridently stating that ‘possibility for discrimination’ with the M-I is ‘patently obvious.’ Given the overtones of mockery yes! which flood the phrase, ‘patently obvious,’ Singh ardently intimates that to not acknowledge the likelihood of discrimination would be exceedingly ignorant good (and foolish). In turn, readers are manipulated to condemn Brown’s conclusive belief that the M-I will ‘surely bring’ security, and ultimately perceive the card as a risky proposition.

Hence, while Brown relies on his reasoned tone to present the M-I card as a logical and progressive prospect for future safety, Singh opts for a more zealous one. With this, Singh vehemently depicts the M-I as a threat to readers... to readers' _____? There were quite a few things - safety, security, freedom. Maybe a nice word that combines all of these? , and thereby forces them to question the credibility of Brown’s viewpoint....and unequivocally oppose the M-I Card - given Singh's very assertive conclusion 'we must all take a firm stand now'.

A very thoughtful piece   Overall, I think that some areas could've been more concise.

[clarke54321]

In an impassioned tone, Dr Tom Brown insists I think this verb is too forceful. Might be better to start off with something like contends, asserts, etc. that the Medi-Info Card will be vital in preventing tragic, unnecessary deaths. His argument relies primarily on his personal experiencethis phrasing is a bit odd. How does an argument rely on personal experience?, evident in his emphatic repetition of "I know" to stress his understanding of the pain suffered by victims who did not have their medical history records at hand good contextualisation, but a bit clunky.. This, coupled with his "35 years' experience" which opens his email, positions readers to perceive that he truly understands medical patients' needs and hence, adds credibility to his views. Dr Brown seeks to augment his portrayal awkward phrasingas a caring doctor by lamenting an unfortunate case of medical emergency, where he recalls an epileptic patient who had been neglected by "everyone around him" under the impression that "he was drunk". This ignorance of a man<--- awkard Dr Brown portrays as completely innocent and powerless – given the uncontrollable nature of epileptic fits – hmmm...grammatically, I don't think this is correctgenerates sympathy from readers for the utterly helpless man. Furthermore, Dr Brown's use of the endearing term "lad" to refer to the patient further amplifies the man's benign depiction, appealing to readers' sense of mateship by mobilising them to advocate for a Medi-Info Card so that the man should not suffer again watch the length of your sentences. When they become too long, your point becomes weaker.. Dr Brown delves further into the preventability of the epileptic patient's torment, crying out desperately 'desperately crying out.' I think this order works better"How a Medi-Info Card would have helped him!" The hypothetical "would" compels readers to imagine the alternative possibility of the patient using his Medi-Info Card to swiftly circumvent his painful sufferinggood; this revelation, compoundedin what way is it compounded? What idea/feeling does the exclamation mark add strength to? by Dr Brown's use of an exclamation mark, positions patients to realise, with a sense of urgency, that the Medi-Info Card is a practical necessity for ailing Australians.

Having established the usefulness of adopting a Medi-Info Card, Dr Brown then appeals to readers' rights to authentic, accessible healthcare, claiming that the Card is safe and will bring much-wanted medical security into its users' lives. His appeal to "all" Australians "young or old, sick or well, in the bush or in the city, close to home or far away" not only aims to present Dr Brown as having everyone's interests at heart, but also to subtly illustrate how the card will surpass any social, economic or physical barriers to bring healthcare to every single Australiannice. This idea of timelywhere did timeliness come from?,and easily obtainable healthcare owing to the awkward phrasingMedi-Info Card is likely to appeal to readers who have been horrified by Dr Brown's earlier, unsettling depiction of unaddressed medical emergencies, brought about by unavailable medical records. Dr Brown aims to further garner readers' trustHave you previously spoken about trust?, by showing that he recognises readers' mutual desire for safe, stress-free medical care; he affirms that all Australians "should be allowed to live their lives free from anxiety" and "need to know that their medical information... is safe and secure"<----- This evidence is too much. It would be better if you somehow linked the two clauses. This would reduce the clunkiness and improve the overall expression Here, his use of the emotive word "free" and the alliterated "safe and secure” – all three connoting honesty and integrity – again, I'm not sure about this grammar function.aims to reassure readers that the Medi-Info Card is reliable<--- this could be more specific. A greater link between the effect and the connotations would be better.. Dr Brown ends on this inspiring tone – unlike his opening frustrated tone – by confidently declaring that the Medi-Info Card will mean "peace of mind for everyone." This notion positions patients to associate the Card with an idealistic sense of serenity; a serenity that may not exist in their lives plagued by illness. Thus, enlightened readershmm this is an assumption. Readers may be inclined to feel enlightened. But you cannot assume that they are. may come to embrace the Medi-Info Card which Dr Brown portrays as the gateway to their happiness.

Christina Singh, however, adopts a more cynical tone, viewing the Medi-Info Card as a potential means to discriminate of discriminating againstcertain groups in society. Her main strategya bit meta. You don't want to bring 'techniques/strategies' into your actual analysis is her use of a hypothetical scenario, in which she depicts a “Ms Hopeful” – supposedly an eager employment candidate – being denied a job by “Mr Employer” based on private information accessed from her Medi-Info Carda bit lengthy. The use of the anonymous, status-based titles “Ms Hopeful” and “Mr Employer” perhaps seeks/endeavours/aims toemphasises how the Medi-Info Card will compel society to judge one another based on their material qualities, such as their professions, rather than their unique charactersgreat analysis. Indeed, Mr Employer is shown demanding Ms Hopeful’s card before even asking “why [she is] interested in applying for [the] position”, an image that acts to disturb readers with the dystopian idea of a bleak, future world governed by an obsession with black and white credentialsnice. Thus, Singh strives to alarm readers with the Medi-Info Card’s potential to extinguish individual passiondon't think it is the right word and personalities, which is symbolised by “Ms Hopeful’s” very name.good but what does this alarm then do? Follow it out thoroughly.

Singh then proceeds to refute Dr Brown, asserting that the Medi-Info Card will undermine users’ rights to privacy and security. Her foreboding claim that more “insidious” uses of the card will “creep in” aims to horrify readers and elicit a sense of urgency, as the negative words connote the card’s criminalitygood. Singh declares that the card has “already” lured some “gullible” people, alerting readers to the very present threat too wordy. Could leave it at threatit poses and thus, deterring them from embracing a card that has been associated with exploitation. Indeed, Singh appeals to readers’ desire to not be taken advantage of by calling upon “all who value our free society” to reject the card, negating Dr Brown’s association between the card and liberty<--- you need to provide evidence of this. Perhaps split into two sentences. There are already quite a few ideas in this sentence.. Singh’s use of the inclusive pronoun “our” suggests that such response is a societal duty, manoeuvring readers to denounce the Medi-Info Card, which Singh has portrayed as potentially corrupt and dangerous to their community.I think you could have expanded on the idea of societal duty further. You seem to have jumped to quick conclusion.

Well done! This was a very good piece of analysis. To improve, I'd just watch your expression and sentence length, which sometimes detract from the quality of your ideas. Keep up the good work 

[HopefulLawStudent]

Written by a medical practitioner, Dr Tom Brown, the e-mail elaborates on the significance of having Medi-Info Card, by primarily focussing on its benefits to members of the general pubilc. From the onset tbh I think "outset" works better in this context; onset is usually used re the beginning of something, typically this something is something unpleasant and while the piece may be unpleasant for poor VCE students who have to analyse it, that's neither here nor there. of his piece, the doctor puts strong emphasis on his expertise. "35 years" in the job clearly shows his decades long involvement in the field, assuring the reader of his credibility. His trust and knowledge in the medical field is reinforced by repeatedly stating  "I know", which also serves to unnecessary verbosity conveys his confidence in observing his patients and empathising with their "suffering", "weariness and confusion".Avoid: quoting without analysis. Once or twice is probably okay but otherwise avoid it because you're basically flagging stuff you didn't talk about and inviting your assessor to focus there rather than at what you actually analysed which you don't want. Such revealing of his competence as a "family practitioner"clumsily worded, someone close and trusted by the general public What do you mean by this? Also a bit iffy about the constant mention of general public cos I feel like it's a bit too general and in so doing you seem to be hinting that the target audience is the general public which it's 99% never going to be because it's too vague. , shows both his ability to sympathise and understand the needs of people. So? Having established this reliancereliability, he shares a story of a patient who was not able to get "the vital help" because of the absence of his Medi-Info Card. The adjective "vital" indicates the necessity of the treatment he did not receive during the unfavorable happeningclumsily worded , highlighting on a situation where the card could have been extremely useful.

Dr Brown wishes the best for "all Australians", that they are "free from anxiety". This unconditional care what unconditional care. How hav you jumped from quote to unconditional care. EXPLAIN. ELABORATE. BE SPECIFIC. reveals the generous side of him, and presents himself as a likeable person. Doing so assures the reader that someone who wishes the best for everyone is willing for them to have the Medi-Info CardYou need to make a clearer connection between this previous sentence and how it connects to Brown and his piece. This sentence is just a bit too vague for comfort. . He respects the rights of patients, to "talk to their doctors" and "know their medical information", even more disclosing his good-natured characterhow? EXPLAIN.. He then explains that his job too, would benefit from the implementation of Medi-Info Card, that his work would "improve dramatically", indicating the massive impact that this simple action can bring.So? Only focusing on the positive aspectsWhat positive aspects? BE SPECIFIC. , the author indicates that this is a win-win situation, urging the effective use of the card meaning what exactly?. Again turning his attention back to his patients, he portrays his confidence and faith in the card, which he believes will "surely bring" safety to people. Thus, Brown positions patients as his utmost concern in signifying on the importance of having the Medi-Info Card. A lot of quoting here, not a lot of analysis.

In contrast, an opinion piece by Christina Singh denies the significance and importance of the Medi-Info Card. Her emotional and intense tone is equipped with her appeal to freedom and justice, she guides "all who value our free society" to have a doubt on the usage of the cardClumsily worded. . She alarms and almost frightens the reader that this ideally What do you mean by this? triggers "warning bells" from them, an emergency device only used in dangerous situations where immediate action is required. Upon elaborating on the harmful effects of the widespread usage of the card, Singh does not hesitate in using exaggerated adjectives such as? to impose her disagreement with the change. She argues that the possibility of discrimination is "patently obvious", implying that all should predict that this is likely to occurclumsily worded.. She explains of another possibility, of personal information being sold for malusage, as being "frightening", sharing her internal emotion and attempting to influence the reader to think in the same manner, goes without sayingsparking a sense of fear. All this endeavours to convince the reader that the Medi-Info Card will do more harm than good. Running on the assumption that this isn't the sort of structure you'd use for a full length AA piece so refrained from commenting on structure.




Any comments or corrections will be appreciated!
By the way I went to your ATARNotes English lecture a few days ago and it was very helpful! I was able to receive many tips that will be useful for me for both Unit 4 and the final exam, so thank you so much! Glad you found it helpful and welcome to the ATARNotes' forums!

More to come, obviously.

[The Raven]

In an impassioned tone, Dr Tom Brown insists that the Medi-Info Card will be vital in preventing tragic, unnecessary deaths. His argument relies primarily on his personal experience Argument can't really 'rely' on personal experience, evident in his emphatic repetition of "I know" to stress his understanding of the pain suffered by victims who did not have their medical history records at hand. This, coupled with his "35 years' experience" which opens his email, positions readers to perceive that he truly understands medical patients' needs and hence, adds credibility to his views. Dr Brown seeks to augment his portrayal A bit awkward as a caring doctor by lamenting an unfortunate case of medical emergency, where he recalls an epileptic patient who had been neglected by "everyone around him" under the impression that "he was drunk". This ignorance of a man Dr Brown portrays Phrasing is a bit awkward here as completely innocent and powerless – given the uncontrollable nature of epileptic fits – generates sympathy from readers for the utterly helpless man. Furthermore, Dr Brown's use of the endearing term "lad" to refer to the patient further amplifies the man's benign depiction, appealing to readers' sense of mateship by mobilising them to advocate for a Medi-Info Card so that the man should not suffer again. Dr Brown delves further into the preventability of the epileptic patient's torment, crying out desperately "How a Medi-Info Card would have helped him!" The hypothetical "would" compels readers to imagine the alternative possibility of the patient using his Medi-Info Card to swiftly circumvent his painful suffering; this revelation, compounded by Dr Brown's use of an exclamation mark, positions patients to realise, with a sense of urgency, that the Medi-Info Card is a practical necessity for ailing Australians.

Having established the usefulness of adopting a Medi-Info Card, Dr Brown then appeals to readers' rights to authentic, accessible healthcare, claiming that the Card is safe and will bring much-wanted medical security into its users' lives. His appeal to "all" Australians "young or old, sick or well, in the bush or in the city, close to home or far away" not only aims to present Dr Brown as having everyone's interests at heart, but also to subtly illustrate how the card will surpass any social, economic or physical barriers to bring healthcare to every single Australian. Good!This idea of timely, easily obtainable healthcare owing to the Medi-Info Card is likely to appeal to readers who have been horrified by Dr Brown's earlier, unsettling depiction of unaddressed medical emergencies, brought about by unavailable medical records. Dr Brown aims to further garner readers' trust, by showing that he recognises readers' mutual desire for safe, stress-free medical care; he affirms that all Australians "should be allowed to live their lives free from anxiety" and "need to know that their medical information... is safe and secure." Here, his use of the emotive word "free" and the alliterated "safe and secure” – all three connoting honesty and integrity – aims to reassure readers that the Medi-Info Card is reliable. Dr Brown ends on this inspiring tone – unlike his opening frustrated tone phrasing is a bit awkward. You use the xyz - abc - xyz technique twice here and in quick succession. Try to rephrase if possible – by confidently declaring that the Medi-Info Card will mean "peace of mind for everyone." This notion positions patients to associate the Card with an idealistic sense of serenity; a serenity that may not exist in their lives plagued by illness. Thus, enlightened readers may come to embrace the Medi-Info Card which Dr Brown portrays as the gateway to their happiness.

Christina Singh, however, adopts a more cynical tone, viewing the Medi-Info Card as a potential means to discriminate against certain groups in society. Her main strategy is her use of a hypothetical scenario, in which she depicts a “Ms Hopeful” – supposedly an eager employment candidate – being denied a job by “Mr Employer” based on private information accessed from her Medi-Info Card. The use of the anonymous, status-based titles “Ms Hopeful” and “Mr Employer” perhaps emphasises how the Medi-Info Card will compel society to judge one another based on their material qualities, such as their professions, rather than their unique characters This is a bit too broad (unique characteristics / material qualities) what is specifically being judged here?. Indeed, Mr Employer is shown demanding Ms Hopeful’s card before even asking “why [she is] interested in applying for [the] position”, an image that acts to disturb readers with the dystopian idea of a bleak, future world governed by an obsession with black and white credentials. This bleak dystopia claim is probably a bit too strong Thus, Singh strives to alarm readers with the Medi-Info Card’s potential to extinguish individual passion and personalities, which is symbolised by “Ms Hopeful’s” very name. Good but the phrasing in the last sentence is a bit awkward

Singh then proceeds to refute Dr Brown, asserting that the Medi-Info Card will undermine users’ rights to privacy and security. Her foreboding claim that more “insidious” uses of the card will “creep in” aims to horrify readers and elicit a sense of urgency, as the negative words connote the card’s criminality.Phrasing is a bit awkward, criminality might not be the best word as the card itself is not 'illegal' or committing any criminal actions Singh declares that the card has “already” lured some “gullible” people, alerting readers to the very present threat it poses and thus, deterring them from embracing a card that has been associated with exploitation. Use of quote adjectives here is good but doesn't really show how they influence the reader or support the argument Indeed, Singh appeals to readers’ desire to not be taken advantage could be simpler: desire for independence / desire for autonomy of by calling upon “all who value our free society” to reject the card, negating Dr Brown’s association between the card and liberty Has Brown made a link between the card and liberty? Peace of mind =/= liberty. Singh’s use of the inclusive pronoun “our” suggests that such response is a societal duty, manoeuvring readers to denounce the Medi-Info Card, which Singh has portrayed as potentially corrupt and dangerous to their community. The card itself is not corrupt: link more to potential uses of the card

Overall great piece that touches on all major arguments and ideas. Phrasing could be tightened and there should probably be clarification about the potential criminal 'uses' of the card rather than the card itself being illegal. The suggestions made in the other feedback were useful as well. Keep up the great work!

[Anonymous]

In response to the proposed implementation of a compulsory Medical Information Card, Robert Brown submitted an email. Sounds a bit awkward here - consider splitting the issue into one full sentence and mentioning the email in the next sentence. Employing a predominantly earnest tone, Brown earnestly contends that the M-I card will cater for easy access to medical records and fundamentally, increased safety and wellbeing for civilians. Conversely, Christina Singh disparages the prospect of the M-I card; (should be a comma here) dismissing it as a proposal that will encroach on the basic privacy rights of Australians.   

With the intent of establishing the necessity of the M-I card, Start with outlining a sub-argument in your topic sentence. Try not to include examples/quotes just yet. Brown immediately informs readers of his ‘35 years’ experience’ as a medical professional. By providing such a statistic, Brown endeavours to imply highlight his extensive knowledge and understanding of health matters, which is further fortified by the repeated, ‘I know.’ nice Given the sincere conviction of the phrase and its recurring nature, readers are thus urged to confront the notion that emergencies are widespread and frequent occurrences. If you want to make this point, you need to justify it, i.e. with evidence from the email. Indeed, Brown continues by recalling the ‘weariness’ inflicted upon elders ‘day after day.’ Great integration of quotes! With the idiom ‘day after day’ connoting a sense of tiring inexorability in itself, Brown compounds the very ‘weariness’ endured by patients. As a result of this manifestation, readers are compelled to recognise that a future without M-I cards will be overwhelmingly burdensome and exhausting.

By emphatically addressing his concern to ‘all Australians,’ Brown progresses to argue that M-I cards are relevant to all individuals. Certainly, Brown’s seemingly endless list of juxtapositions, ‘young or old’ and ‘in the bush or in the city,’ implicitly awakens readers to the idea that the M-I is not a type of luxury to be enjoyed by only some. Awesome Rather, Brown pronounces that every Australian ‘should be allowed’ to live with the M-I. Here, the verb ‘should’ further encourages readers to perceive the card as a fundamental health right for all. This sense of inclusive benefit is stressed again by Brown, who champions the card as a kind of dynamic mediator between his ‘work as a doctor’ and his ‘patients’ lives.’ By stating that the M-I will ‘dramatically’ ‘improve’ his capability as a doctor, Brown insinuates (w.c. - insinuates is usually associated with things that are negative or manipulative) that his patients too will reap ‘[dramatic]’ benefits. This inextricable link created by Brown, thereby prompts readers to acknowledge that neither doctors or themselves will prosper and develop without the M-I card. To this end, Brown subtly passes responsibility onto readers, who are thus galvanised to invest their support in the M-I proposal for the future’s welfare.
 
Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I sounds a bit awkward. Also, consider the way you phrase this,
 as Singh's piece is independent to Brown's email, not in response to., by casting the card as a deceptive invention. good In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern. i get what you are trying to say but maybe write something like simply: 'Singh emphasises the seriousness of this concern' rather than using phrases like 'engage reader's attention...' Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges again, word choice. Singh's piece is independent from Brown's piece. from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains that the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thereby inclined to receive Brown’s idealistic vision/prediction/forecast of a carefree future with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities of some.

Shifting to a cautionary tone, Singh further portrays the M-I card as an impingement upon Australians’ privacy. By propounding that the card will obstruct ‘our free society,’ Singh aims to make the threat of the card more central to readers, what do you mean by this? be more specific as indicated by the inclusive ‘our.’ In doing so, readers are coerced careful with words like this. 'coerced' means to persuade someone to do somehting using force or threats - not really the case here to reflect on a future without freedom and thus endure a subsequent feeling of trepidation. This thereby seeks to erode Brown’s own appeal to liberty with the M-I card, which he avers will enable all to ‘live free from anxiety.’ That is, by inducing a sense of anxiety in readers regarding the M-I card, and thus the very feeling Brown claims will be eliminated by the proposal, Singh subtly illuminates a contradiction in Brown’s assertion. To this end, Singh urges readers to recognise that Brown’s understanding lacks thorough consideration and is thereby weak. Singh proceeds with this attack against Brown, by stridently stating that ‘possibility for discrimination’ with the M-I is ‘patently obvious.’ Given the overtones of mockery which flood the phrase, ‘patently obvious,’ Singh ardently intimates that to not acknowledge the likelihood of discrimination would be exceedingly ignorant. In turn, readers are manipulated to condemn Brown’s conclusive belief that the M-I will ‘surely bring’ security, and ultimately perceive the card as a risky proposition. I kind of got what you were saying in this paragraph. This was a good paragraph, but some of it was a bit confusing at times and disconnected.

Hence, while Brown relies on his reasoned tone to present the M-I card as a logical and progressive prospect for future safety, Singh opts for a more zealous one. good contrast With this, Singh vehemently depicts the M-I as a threat to readers, and thereby forces (positions? prompts? encourages? you can't really force anyone to do anything - at least not in this case) them to question the credibility of Brown’s viewpoint.

Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up

[clarke54321]

Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up

Thanks very much for the correction!

I definitely agree that the fourth body paragraph is a bit disconnected and confusing. After looking back, I feel as though this comes from the sentence that starts with, 'that is,' which you've striked out. I'm trying to link the idea in this sentence back to one in the sentence before the last (feeling of trepidation). How could I have made a tighter link and one that is more concise?

Hopefully this makes sense!

[heids]

I absolutely love how everyone's helping out here, not just HLS - such AN spirit Thanks all!

[gisele]

Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up

above anon comment was me btw oops forgot to click off anonymous