2017 AA Club - Week 5

[Anonymous]

In response to the recent proposal of introducing of a compulsory medical information card, fierce social discourse has ensued as to whether the increase in transparency of personal information is in people’s best interests. In his email entitled “M-I Card response,” Dr Tom Brown fervently argues in favour of the Medi-Info Card, justifying it as a tool that can be used to improve efficiency of the healthcare system, being beneficial to both doctors and patients alike. Contrastingly, Christina Singh in her newspaper publication entitled “M-I Card – or YOUR Card? Privacy the big issue” forthrightly contends that the Medi-Info Card poses a danger to both privacy and security, and on that basis should not be integrated as part of the healthcare system.

Brown commences his email by revealing his credentials, that he is a “family doctor with over 35 years’ experience.” By emphasising that he is a “family doctor,” he aims to elucidate that his stance is relevant to the debate surrounding the legitimacy of MI Cards, and that he is a figure of credibility. Furthermore, by disclosing that he specialises in the “family,” Brown strives to win over the pathos of the audience, by tapping into people’s past experiences with family doctors, which are likely to be fond memories because of their ability to cure people of illness. Thus, by associating himself with a subset of society that is venerated for their good-will, the writer’s concerns of the status quo become more valid in the eyes of the reader, and this strengthens his case that they should be implemented.

Furthermore, by underscoring the pernicious consequences that arise due to the unavailability of medical information, with its pertinence to the real world amplified through the use of personal anecdotes, Brown is able to champion MI Cards as a solution that can overcome these problems. This is exemplified when he paints a grotesque picture of older patients experiencing “weariness and confusion” in attempting to “remember all the medication they are taking”. The use of word “weariness” to describe these patients is a direct attempt by the writer to highlight the fragility of the situation, and that elderly people are incapable of monitoring their health independently. Furthermore, the writer strives to enrage the readership with the hopelessness of the situation, desiring for them to feel unsatisfied with the status quo. Thus, by illustrating to the readership that these patients need a support mechanism to help them oversee their health, Brown is able to present MI Cards as an effective solution that will rectify the current problem. 

The doctor intimates that the current system is inefficient and that people should be able to “talk to their doctors” without “wast[ing]” “time” by providing “medical histories.” By emphasising the “time” lost through this laborious process, Brown seeks to make an appeal to time consciousness, averring that patients deserve better customer service from health clinics, and that the value of their time is being neglected. Thus, by revealing that the writer is being considerate of the needs of the reader, and that his proposed solution in MI Cards will lead to a time-saving for patients, Brown aims to sway pragmatic members of the audience that have busy lives and consequently value their time highly.

Contrastingly, Singh’s opinion piece rejects the benefits of MI Card’s, rather focusing on the danger that it poses to security and privacy. She begins her piece by flagging a loophole in this healthcare reform that may be exploited by businesses, who may use it as part of their staff selection devices. By using colourful language to narrate an interview, such as there being a “gleaming office” and that the employer “smiles benignly,” Singh seeks to mock proponents of MI Card’s for their foolishness in thinking that businesses won’t exploit having access to sensitive information. Through the use of the rhetorical question, “Impossible, you say?” the media liason officer aims to shock the reader by maintaining her stance that the interview exchange could become a norm, and that the example cited wasn’t merely a figment of her imagination. Thus, the writer intends to create a perception of mistrust within the readership in regards to MI Card’s, by terrifying them with the possible practical implications of their use. Furthermore, she attempts to erode any preconceptions readers may have of this technology being innocuous, striving to make them realise the potential harm it can cause.

Furthermore, the writer posits that this “compulsory health information card” should be a concern for those that “value our free society.” Through this, Singh dichotomises the audience into two groups: those that value a free society, and those that do not. By characterising those who “value our free society” as being of high moral fibre, and implicitly arguing that those that wish to fit into this category should be in opposition to MI Card’s, the writer encourages the readership to align with his stance because of the moral high-ground it will provide them with.

The Civil Liberties lobbyist attacks those that are currently using the card on a “voluntary basis” as being “gullible”. By associating these patients with the word “gullible,” a pejorative adjective which carries connotations of being a social conformist and weak-minded, traits that are not admired within the general populous, Singh permeates a sense of fear within the readership which aims to discourage them from falling folly to the same mistake.

[clarke54321]

In response to the recent proposal of introducing of a compulsory medical information card, fierce social discoursetoo wordy has ensued as to whether the increase in transparency of personal information is in people’s best intereststhis sentence is very verbose. Remember clarity > overly sophisticated language. In his email entitled “M-I Card response,” Dr Tom Brown fervently argues in favour of the Medi-Info Card, justifying it as a tool that can be used to improve efficiency of the healthcare system, being beneficial to both doctors and patients alike. Contrastingly, Christina Singh in her newspaper publication entitled “M-I Card – or YOUR Card? Privacy the big issue” forthrightly contends that the Medi-Info Card poses a danger to both privacy and security, and on that basis should not be integrated as part of the healthcare system. <--- longer sentences are generally ok in the intro, given that they contextualise, but ensure that they don't become too wordy. If they do, you jeopardise your expression.

Brown commences his email by revealing his credentials, that he is a “family doctor with over 35 years’ experience.” By emphasising that he is a “family doctor,” he aims to elucidate that his stance is relevant to the debate surrounding the legitimacy of MI Cards, and that he is a figure of credibilityyes, but what does this do to readers?. I get that you're about to talk about reader effect here, but it is stronger if you can say something like: These feelings of trust/assurance are further bolstered/fortified by....Furthermore, by disclosing that he specialises in the “family,” Brown strives to win over the pathos of the audience, by tapping into people’s past experiences with family doctors, which are likely to be fond memories because of their ability to cure people of illnessgood, but ensure that you don't get too subjective. Thus, by associating himself with a subset of society that is venerated for their good-will, the writer’s concerns of the status quo become more valid in the eyes of the reader, and this strengthens his case that they the MI Cardshould be implemented.

Furthermore, by underscoring the perniciousnot sure that this is the right adjective. This means pain that occurs in a slow/subtle way. Perhaps detrimental or harmful consequences that arise due to the unavailability see if you can find another word. It is disrupting your expression.of medical information, with its pertinence to the real world amplified through the use of personal anecdotes wow.....getting too long with sentence length  , Brown is able to champion MI Cards as a solution that can overcome these problems. This is exemplified when he paints a grotesque not sure that this is grotesque picture of older patients experiencing “weariness and confusion” in attempting to “remember all the medication they are taking”. The use of the word “weariness” to describe these patients is a direct attempt by the writer to highlight the fragility of the situation, and that elderly people are incapable of monitoring their health independentlygreat. What are readers inclined to think as a result?. Furthermore, the writer strives to enragedoes it enrage them? Wouldn't it be more likely to incite sympathy for the elderly? the readership with the hopelessness of the situation, desiring for them to feel unsatisfied with the status quoyou keep referring to this 'status quo' but don't really identify what it is.. Thus, by illustrating to the readership that these patients need a support mechanism to help them oversee monitertheir health, Brown is able to present MI Cards as an effective solution that will rectify the current problem. 

The doctor intimates that the current system is inefficient and that people should be able to “talk to their doctors” without “wast[ing]” “time” by providing “medical histories.” By emphasisinghow is this emphasised? the “time” lost through this laborious process, Brown seeks to make an appeal to time consciousness, averring that patients deserve better customer service from health clinics, and that the value of their time is being neglectedgood ideas, but sentence length is too long. Your ideas start to lose value when they are bogged down in too many words. Thus, by revealing that the writerdoctor? is being considerate of the needs of the reader, and that his proposed solution in MI Cards will lead to a time-saving for patients, Brown aims to sway garner the support? of.....pragmatic members of the audience that have busy lives and consequently value their time highly.

Contrastinglythis is not wrong, but I always feel as though this word is too clunky. Maybe consider in contrast, by comparison or conversely. They read nicer., Singh’s opinion piece rejects the benefits of MI Card’s, rather byfocusing on the danger that it poses to security and privacy. She begins her piece by flagging a loopholebut how? where is your evidence? in this healthcare reform that may be exploited by businesses, who may use it as part of their staff selection devices. By using colourful language such as 'gleaming office' to narrate a mock interview to narrate an interview, such as there being a “gleaming office” and that the employer “smiles benignly,” I think this sentence needs some reconstructing Singh seeks to mock proponents of MI Card’s for their foolishness in thinking that businesses won’t exploit having access to sensitive informationI'm not sure how you reached this conclusion. You need to tease out evidence further and work more closely with it. Through the use of the rhetorical question, “Impossible, you say?” the media liason officer aims to shock the reader by maintaining her stance that the interview exchange could become a norm, and that the example cited wasn’t merely a figment of her imaginationnice. Thus, the writer intends to create a perception of mistrust within the readership in regards to MI Card’s, by terrifying them with the possible practical implications of their use. Furthermore, she attempts to erode any preconceptions readers may have of this technology being innocuous, striving to make them realise the potential harm it can cause. I think you could have finished this paragraph on the previous sentence. This last one is a bit of an overkill.

Furthermore, the writer posits that this “compulsory health information card” should be a concern for those that “value our free society.” Through this, Singh dichotomises the audience into two groups: those that value a free society, and those that do not. By characterising those who “value our free society” as being of high moral fibrehow does she do this? Remember: Work closely with evidence. , and implicitly arguing that those that wish to fit into this category should be in opposition to MI Card’s, the writer encourages the readership to align with his stance because of the moral high-ground it will provide them withthis paragraph is a bit flimsy. It is important that you effectively draw out your evidence before reaching definite conclusions..

The Civil Liberties lobbyist attacks those that are currently using the card on a “voluntary basis” as being “gullible”. By associating these patients with the word “gullible,” a pejorative adjective which carries connotations of being a social conformist and weak-minded, traits that are not admired within the general populouslovely analysis. Just watch sentence structure., Singh permeates Not the right verb here. Perhaps engendersa sense of fear within the readership which aims to discourage them from falling folly to the same mistake.

Great job. This piece demonstrated a clear understanding of arguments and a strong understanding of context. Just ensure that that you work closely with evidence and deliver ideas in a concise way. Keep it up 

[Anonymous]

Calls from the medical profession to establish a Medical Information Card as an electronic and simple record of one’s medical history has been met with fierce opposition with those seeking to protect “our free society.” Dr. Tom Brown, in his passionate email response, contends that the introduction of the cards will result in greater safety for those who are faced with potentially harmful illnesses and a greater peace of mind for members of society who may not know how to respond to medical emergencies. Christina Singh, in her opinion piece, strongly opposes the views of Brown, staunchly asserting that the collating of one’s medical history into a simple card may actually act as a catalyst for widespread discrimination based on such information and the information itself may be misused as a disguise for its intended purpose.

Dr. Tom Brown immediately seeks to show the extent of the problem that exists in the medical profession for Doctors that are responsible for the wellbeing of the people, and how an identification card will improve the conditions greatly. Brown highlights that the problem of school children “unable” to tell the doctors the “medication that was previously prescribed” is compounded with “older patients” who also express “weariness” and “confusion” in remembering their medication. By demonstrating that the issue exists from a “local school” to “older patients” the comparison shows that the problem is not limited but it is in fact widespread and affects a vast variety of the population. Brown seeks to extend the implications of the problem at hand from simply the sufferers of illnesses to the greater population. Brown depicts a man who suffered “pain” and “distress” in a public place, where his medical condition was exacerbated because the people in his presence were “unaware” of the man’s situation and “ignored” him, implying that not only those who suffer, but everyone else in society will also benefit from the MI cards. Brown continues by characterizing the man as a “lad” who is “not confident” about “going out”, showing that “we can all sympathise with him”, with the inclusive “we” and “all” implying that an overwhelming majority of people wish to prevent such situations from re-occurring, and the Doctor’s use of his expert knowledge “I know that” he would’ve received “vital help” with the MI cards, reassures the reader that the MI card can address the issue, inclining them to side with the author’s contention. By appealing to the reader’s desire for freedom and happiness, the doctor highlights that those “young or old”, “sick or well”, should all have an equal sense of freedom to live their lives “without anxiety”, with the comparison between “young” and “old” implying the benefit that this system will have universally and “sick or well” highlighting that sick people, such as the man who suffered from the fit, have an equal right to be as happy as the healthy citizens around him, and the Doctor’s assurance that the MI card would improve his “patient’s lives” seeks to consolidate the reader’s attitude towards the change, that the card will bring the sufferers of illnesses closer to being equally “free of anxiety” as everyone, inclining the reader to advocate the writer’s beliefs.

In direct contrast to Dr. Brown, Singh staunchly disagrees with the argument that the MI cards will enhance the freedom and happiness of every individual, but rather contends the opposite: that the introduction will have a detrimental impact on society. She begins by presaging a future job interview where the “opening question” is related to the candidate’s MI card, and her mocking depiction of “Ms. Hopeful”, the candidate, implies the ominous prospect of this card becoming the focal point of the society and a basis of distinguishing people, far different to the helpful use of the card described by Brown. By describing the change as a “compulsory Identification card”, the word “compulsory” implies a sense of coercion and force, making the reader potentially feel helpless to this card permeating the “student selection” and “prospective employment” processes. Singh continues her portrayal of the card as symbol of evil in the lives of everyday people by showing the potential for the card to be used for several other causes, that may not all be as noble as Dr. Brown’s intentions. By highlighting that “unscrupulous groups” can access a “bank of information”, Singh seeks to demonstrate through the use of the word “unscrupulous” that various institutions will be acting on their own personal and monetary incentive, the word “bank” also implying the financial incentive that overcomes any moral responsibility for certain people. By highlighting these potential dangers, Singh shows that there are “too many risks” associated with this “seemingly innocuous card”, implying that that the overall risks for society may not be able to be seen at first glance by some, perhaps referring to Dr. Brown and his fervent support for the MI card as misguided and one-sided, positioning the reader to favour her cynical portrayal of the card.

[scout]

Calls from the medical profession to establish a Medical Information Card as an electronic and simple I'd say it's better to be neutral in the intro record of one’s medical history has been met with fierce opposition with from those seeking to protect “our free society.” Dr. Tom Brown, in his passionate email response, contends that the introduction of the cards will result in greater safety for those who are faced with face potentially harmful illnesses and a greater peace of mind for members of society who may not know how to respond to medical emergencies. Christina Singh, in her opinion piece (title?), strongly opposes the views of Brown, staunchly asserting that the collating of one’s medical history into a simple card may actually act as a catalyst for widespread discrimination based on such information and the information itself may be misused as a disguise for its intended purpose. could condense --> e.g. Singh asserts that the card could be misused, such as to unjustly discriminate people based on their personal, medical information.

Dr. Tom Brown immediately seeks to show the extent of the problem <-- what problem? that exists in the medical profession for doctors that are responsible for the wellbeing of the people, and how an identification card will improve the conditions greatly could condense this --> e.g.Tom Brown argues that a medical information card will greatly help doctors provide timely and quality care to those who require urgent medical attention.. Brown highlights that the problem of school children “unable” to tell the doctors the “medication that was previously prescribed” is compounded what do you mean? Clarify grammatical structurewith “older patients” who also express “weariness” and “confusion” in remembering their medication. You haven't analysed "unable" and "medication that was previously prescribed" By demonstrating that the issue exists from a “local school” to “older patients” the comparison shows that the problem is not limited but it is in fact widespread and affects a vast variety of the population a bit vague. Link this bit to Brown's argument. Brown seeks to extend the implications of the problem at hand from simply the sufferers of illnesses to the greater population . Brown depicts a man who suffered “pain” and “distress” in a public place, where his medical condition was exacerbated because the people in his presence were “unaware” of the man’s situation and “ignored” him, implying that not only those who suffer, but everyone else in society will also benefit from the MI cards elucidate this a bit. Brown continues by characterizing the man as a “lad” who is “not confident” about “going out”, showing that “we can all sympathise with him”, with the inclusive “we” and “all” implying that an overwhelming majority of people wish to prevent such situations from re-occurring link this to Brown's argument, and the Doctor’s use of his expert knowledge “I know that” he would’ve received “vital help” with the MI cards, reassures the reader that the MI card can address the issue <-- How? Be specific, inclining them to side with the author’s contention. By appealing To appeal to the reader’s desire for freedom and happiness, the doctor highlights that those “young or old”, “sick or well”, should all have an equal sense of freedom to live their lives “without anxiety”, with the comparison between “young” and “old” implying the benefit that this system will have universally and “sick or well” highlighting that sick people, such as the man who suffered from the fit, have an equal right to be as happy as the healthy citizens around him good, and the Doctor’s assurance that the MI card would improve his “patient’s lives” seeks to consolidate the reader’s attitude towards the change, that the card will bring the sufferers of illnesses closer to being equally “free of anxiety” as everyone, inclining the reader to advocate the writer’s beliefs. Watch out for sentence length! 

In direct contrast to Dr. Brown, Singh staunchly disagrees with the argument that the MI cards will enhance the freedom and happiness of every individual, but rather contends the opposite this is already indicated by "in direct contrast": that the introduction will have a detrimental impact what kind of impact, in particular? (Be specific like in your intro) on society. She begins by presaging a potential future job interview where the “opening question” is related to the candidate’s MI card, and her mocking depiction of “Ms. Hopeful”, the candidate, implies the ominous prospect of this card more the private medical information found from patients' cardbecoming the focal point of the society and a basis of distinguishing people, far different to the helpful use of the card described by Brown <-- the point you're making here is correct, but maybe contextualise the quote "Ms Hopeful" more, or choose another quote b/c I can't quite see the link b/w your quote and your analysis.. By describing the change as a “compulsory Identification card”, the word “compulsory” implies a sense of coercion and force yes!, making the reader potentially feel helpless to this card permeating the “student selection” and “prospective employment” processes and so...? What does this say about the card?. Singh continues her portrayal of the card as symbol of evil in the lives of everyday people by showing the potential for the card to be used for several other causes, that may not all be as noble as Dr. Brown’s intentions Is this necessary, or can you merge it with your next bit of analysis? Try to be as concise as possible.. By highlighting that “unscrupulous groups” can access a “bank of information”, Singh seeks to demonstrate through the use of the word “unscrupulous” that various institutions will be acting on their own personal and monetary incentive good, the word “bank” also implying the financial incentive that overcomes any moral responsibility for certain people interesting pt. By highlighting these potential dangers, Singh shows that there are “too many risks” associated with this “seemingly innocuous card”, implying that that the overall risks for society may not be able to be seen at first glance by some, perhaps referring to portraying Dr. Brown and his fervent support for the MI card as misguided and one-sided good, positioning the reader to favour her cynical portrayal of the card.

Some interesting analysis there   Just ensure that you have the writers' arguments in mind when analysing evidence. Keep it up!