2017 AA Club - Week 6

[HopefulLawStudent]

Can it be? An AA week posted up on Monday? :O

This week’s piece (only one this week) is shorter so the emphasis will be more on the actual quality of your analysis rather than how long your analysis is or how many techniques you identify because at the end of the day, quality > quantity when it comes to scoring well here.

Background: This letter to the editor was written in response to a comment made by a sports reporter, Sally Jenkins. It's a fairly old letter to the editor but whatevs. Basically video surfaced of this NFL player Ray Rice a couple years ago striking his then fiancée in an elevator during a heated interchange. Jenkins then described this guy’s actions with the euphemism of “going all Flinstone on his wife”. Martin Kramer then chimed in with a letter to the editor basically arguing that this comparison should not have been made. Analyse the Martin Kramer piece below.

Oh yeah and "yabba dabba doo" was Fred Flinstone's catchphrase.

Giving cavemen a good name


Sally Jenkins described the reprehensible actions of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice as “going all Flinstone on his wife” in her July 29 Sports column, “Provoking debate, and disgust.” As any fan of that venerable show will tell you, Fred Flinstone had his faults but he loved and respected his wife, Wilma, often referring to her as his queen. Every day, Fred would wear out his feet driving to the rock quarry. He would then work until the whistle blew so he could slide down the back of his brontosaurus rock mover and head home to Wilma. What Mr Rice did could perhaps qualify as a stereotype of cavemen behaviour, Ms Jenkins, but yabba dabba don’t lump Fred Flinstone in with that type of behaviour.

- Martin Kramer, Takoma Park

[amigos]

Bit rusty, but here's my go.

Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’. In the letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent.

Kramer seemingly begins by contextualizing his piece through citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably true. Kramer reinforces this effect as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners.

Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such word that presents the character as almost antithetical to Rice immediately discredits Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. This willingness to go to both physical and effort extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.

[zhen]

I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.

Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife", contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter through establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, which has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections in his character. However, Kramer extol's Fred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through underscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of him. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flinstone, with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conduct, Kramer dichotomises the two individuals, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another.

[scout]

A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confronts Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone, presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character.


Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions and thus, portraying his views as impartial. However, Kramer proceeds to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the title "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority - demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner of his family. This is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressive. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent disposition.

Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviour. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitude to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women.

[clarke54321]

Bit rusty, but here's my go.

Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’Nice contextualisation. Just make sure your sentences get no longer than this.. In the 'his letter to the editor' seems to flow a bit nicer. 'The letter to the editor' is a bit detatched. letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent try not to be too speculative. This is quite an obvious assumption, but best to be on the safe side and avoid conclusive statements..

Kramer seemingly begins by contextualizing his piece throughby citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably truehmm...I'm having difficulty linking these two points. I get the general gist, but am still quite confused.. Kramer reinforces this effect as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This endeavours/seeks/aims to anger. Try not to be speculative.  angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners. I understand the point that you are trying to make. But again, it's not all that clear. I think you require more evidence to substantiate conclusions like this

Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such word be most specific with your relation. 'Kramer's use of the adjective, 'venerable,' seeks to present....' that presents the character as almost antithetical to Rice immediately discreditsI don't think this is the right verb. It's disrupting the expression of your sentence. Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. This willingness to go to both physical and effort extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.nice

Well done! To improve, just make sure you are explaining things clearly. I think you can achieve this by cutting down on sentence length. Short and sharp sentences are great! Keep up the good work 

[amigos]

Well done! To improve, just make sure you are explaining things clearly. I think you can achieve this by cutting down on sentence length. Short and sharp sentences are great! Keep up the good work 

Thanks heaps for the feedback clarke54321! I have 2 questions:
- What do you mean by not being too speculative?
- What's a more correct word I could've used instead of "discredit"? I honestly can't think of one.

[clarke54321]

Thanks heaps for the feedback clarke54321! I have 2 questions:
- What do you mean by not being too speculative?
- What's a more correct word I could've used instead of "discredit"? I honestly can't think of one.

1) Sorry. It probably wasn't too clear. What I mean is, try not to make conclusive statements. For example, it is better to say 'This endeavours to inspire a sense of anger in readers....' than 'This angers audiences.' How can you be sure that 'evidence X' would anger readers? To say that it would, would be speculative.

2) I think discredit didn't sit well because of the sentence itself. The expression was a bit off. But now I'm looking back, it probably wasn't too bad a choice. Apologies for the confusion.

Hopefully this cleared things up 

[clarke54321]

I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.

Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife"this part is a bit clunky. To be honest, I don't think it is even necessary. Especially since you're not analysing it., contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter throughby establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, whichI get that you're relating this to the word 'disgust.' But given that there are two subjects in the previous sentence, it is not all that clear. Therefore, I'd try and isolate the noun 'disgust' just for clarification purposes. has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article but how? How do the connotations lead to this?. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public good. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections inof his character.before you move on, elaborate on the evidence in the previous sentence. How does her acknowledgement of his faults and imperfections make her seem logical? However, Kramer extol's extolsFred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the seemingly misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice nice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through I think 'by' sounds smootherunderscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", a label that connotes superiority connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of himthis sentence is waay too long  I think you could break it into two! But great ideas nevertheless. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flintstone, no need for the comma.with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conductthe expression is a bit off here. Perhaps you can just rework your order of ideas, Kramer dichotomises the two individualsmaybe stop the sentence here and finish off with this conclusion----->, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another. great. You could even include the effect on readers in this last sentence. It would just reinforce author intent.

Great analysis! Just ensure that you are thoroughly teasing out evidence and linking ideas in a logical fashion. Keep up the great work 

[clarke54321]

A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone nice contextualisation. You could probably make this even more concise to avoid the extra sentence length.. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confrontsHmm...this verb doesn't sit too well. It seems a bit hostile. Perhaps addresses would work better Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone,<----- watch the flow between these two clauses -----> Not entirely clear presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character. nice intro


Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions and thus, portrayingportrays his views as impartial. Hang on... don't leave this previous sentence just yet. Why is he trying to present himself as impartial?However, Kramer proceedsBit of a jump here from the previous sentence. I get you're linking it to the topic sentence. But make the link clearer to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the possessive this title in itself can have negative ideas attached. Just make sure it doesn't conflict with your analysis---> positive connotationstitle "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority - demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner too informal and conclusiveof his family; start a new sentence instead.this is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressivelovely analysis. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent dispositiongood.

Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviourare the two qualities really independent?. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal feed more from your evidence. You've used lots of quotes, but the examiner has to make the links for you. of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitudetrue, but try not to be subjective. 'This portrayal of relentless servitude.....' to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women. nice

A very original piece of analysis. Just continue to make sure that you follow all the way through with evidence. Keep up the great work 

[HopefulLawStudent]

Very good job clarke54321 on your feedback! Would defs +1,000,000 if I could. On top of your solid feedback, I would also like to add:

Bit rusty, but here's my go.

Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’. In the letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent.

Kramer seemingly What do you mean by this? begins by contextualizing his piece through citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. What do you mean by this? In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably true. Kramer reinforces this effect clumsily worded as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners.This bit is unclear.

Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such a word that presents the character as almost antithetical How does it present the character as antithetical? EXPLAIN. to Rice immediately discredits Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement What do you mean by this? This section just seems super vague and breaks up the flow of your sentence and it's unclear what this adds to your sentence. – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. Avoid quoting without analysis. This willingness to go to both physical and effort What do you mean? extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.Clumsily worded.

I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.

Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife", contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter through establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, which has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public. unnecessary. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections in his character. However, Kramer extol's Fred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through underscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of him. Watch your sentences; they got too long-winded and rambly towards the end of this paragraph. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flinstone,no comma here with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conduct, Kramer dichotomises the two individuals, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another.So? Effect on readers?

A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confronts Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone, presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character.


Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions be careful here because you're just paraphrasing/elaborating upon the quote "had his faults". and thus, portraying his views as impartial. So? However, Kramer proceeds to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the title "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority -The dash here is unnecessary. demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner of his family. This is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressive. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent disposition. Lovely analysis but missing the bit where you explain: So? Effect on reader?

Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviour. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal Problem: you've thrown a lot of quotes at your assessor and then left me to connect the dots instead of spoonfeeding me info. of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitude too subjective? to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women.

[Anonymous]

Following sports commentator Sally Jenkins’ response to NFL player Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancé, Martin Kramer composes a letter to the editor, ‘Giving cavemen a good name’, addressing Jenkins’ ‘provoking’ comparison between the sports star and a well-loved cartoon character. Kramer engages with fans of the family friendly show, asserting that Jenkins’ is unjust towards the ‘venerable’ ‘Fred Flinstone’, unlawfully associating him with domestic violence.
Kramer initiates his response by discussing Jenkins’ comments and their effect on sports fans. He includes sourced quotations, ‘Provoking debate, and disgust’, to justify and support his own disappointment in Jenkins’ exposition. By commencing his piece using factual information, Kramer ensures that his readers do not approach his argument with a predetermined bias. Through his inclusion of deliberately cited material, Kramer is able to implicitly notion that even her ‘Sports column’ fans are ashamed of her unjust comparison, validating the underlying implications of his opening statement; that Jenkins’ response was inappropriate and equally ‘reprehensible’. 
Kramer continues his piece by introducing his argument; that ‘Fred Flinstone’ is above the ‘cavemen’ like behaviour of Rice. In his analysis of well-known cartoon, Kramer acknowledges that Flinstone ‘had his faults’, immediately addressing the rebuttal of any critiques. He thus ensures that the remainder of his argument is infallible. Kramer resumes his argument, asserting that because Flinstone ‘loved and respected his wife’, Jenkins’ cannot make such a comparison between him and the abusive Rice. Kramer then lists honourable traits of Flinstone, supporting his declaration of the show’s ‘venerable[ness]’ to provide evidence for his readers to accept and agree with his contention; that it is immoral of Jenkins’ to associate acts of domestic violence with a family-friendly show and such an admirable character.
Fundamentally, Kramer seeks to devalue the writing and opinion of Jenkins’ because of her comparison between ‘Fred Flinstone’ and the abusive Rice. He implies that the values of the show are in opposition to domestic violence, indicated by the commendable behaviour of Flinstone towards his wife. Ultimately, Kramer intends on convincing his readers that the association fabricated by Jenkins’ is both immoral and unjust, and that fans of the show should be opposed to her ‘Prov[ocative]’ response.

[scout]

Following sports commentator Sally Jenkins’ response to NFL player Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancé, Martin Kramer composes 'compose' is more for music or poetry. It's a bit out of place here a letter to the editor, ‘Giving cavemen a good name’, addressing Jenkins’ ‘provoking’ comparison between the sports star and a well-loved cartoon character. Kramer engages with fans of the family friendly show, asserting that Jenkins’ is unjust towards the ‘venerable’ ‘Fred Flinstone’, unlawfully associating him with domestic violence. good.

Kramer initiates his response by simplify --> 'Kramer begins by' discussing Jenkins’ comments and their effect on sports fans vague - what kind of effect? The topic sentence should establish the argument as precisely as possible, so be more specific here . He includes sourced from...? quotations, ‘Provoking debate, and disgust’, to justify and support his own disappointment in Jenkins’ exposition Since you've included a quote, try to make your analysis specific to that quote. E.g. by analysing 'disgust' or 'provoking' and the feelings it elicits. Also, include the effect on readers . By commencing his piece using factual information, Kramer ensures that his readers do not approach his argument with a predetermined bias it's correct, but is too generic. . Through his inclusion of deliberately cited material, Kramer is able to implicitly posit the notion that even her ‘Sports column’ fans are ashamed of her unjust comparison, validating the underlying implications of his opening statement explain this link a little more (i.e. how the outcry from 'sports column' fans = validation of argument); that Jenkins’ response was inappropriate and equally ‘reprehensible’don't quote without analysis..  Look more towards analysing Kramer's actual language choices in this paragraph

Kramer continues his piece by introducing his argument;simplify --> Kramer continues by arguing that that ‘Fred Flinstone’ is above the ‘cavemen’ like behaviour of Rice clumsily worded. In his analysis of well-known cartoon, unnecessary Kramer acknowledges that Flinstone ‘had his faults’, immediately addressing the rebuttal of any critiques. He thus ensures that the remainder of his argument is infallible I think using 'infallible' is too conclusive - explain how 'had his faults' = infallible argument?. Kramer resumes his argument, asserting then asserts that because Flinstone ‘loved and respected his wife’, Jenkins’ cannot make such a comparison between him and the abusive Rice. Kramer then lists honourable traits of Flinstone evidence? And analyse this evidence?, supporting his declaration of the show’s ‘venerable[ness]’ to provide evidence for his readers to accept and agree with his contention; that it is immoral of Jenkins’ to associate acts of domestic violence with a family-friendly show and such an admirable character.

Fundamentally, Kramer seeks to devalue the writing and opinion of Jenkins’ because of her comparison between ‘Fred Flinstone’ and the abusive Rice. He implies that the values of the show are in opposition to domestic violence, indicated by the commendable behaviour of Flinstone towards his wife. You could combine the 2 sentences to be more concise Ultimately, Kramer intends on convincing to convince his readers that the association fabricated by Jenkins’ is both immoral and unjust, and that fans of the show should be opposed to her ‘Prov[ocative]’ response.

[scout]

Very good job clarke54321 on your feedback! Would defs +1,000,000 if I could. On top of your solid feedback, I would also like to add:

Hi HopefulLawStudent, as always, thanks so much for your feedback! It always gives me a new mission to go on .

1 question - how would you have analysed the pun: "but yabba dabba don’t lump Fred Flinstone in with that type of behaviour."

[Anonymous]

First ever AA club analysis! Hope it's not too bad

Sally Jenkins’ comment regarding a heavily debated video that surfaced of NFL player Ray Rice striking his fiancée, describing him as akin to “going all Flinstone on his wife,’. Martin Kramers’ letter to the editor aims to reject this claim, discrediting Jenkins’ claims by painting Fred Flintstone in a positive light to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character.

To begin his piece, Kramer aims to prove his sense of practicality regarding what Rice did, describing his actions as ‘reprehensible’ as a way of showing readers that he too, condemns his actions as unacceptable. He continues his attempt at making the reader feel as though they can agree with his claim, suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” of the “venerable” show, intending to prove that the TV program ‘The Flinstones’ deserves respect. He then moves on to disproving Jenkins comment, suggesting that as “he loved and respected his wife,” Fred Flintstone is nothing like the quite unacceptable actions of Rice. Telling readers that Fred referred to his wife as a “queen”, a word which connotes that he idolised her aims to further show a distance between the character and Rice. He reminds readers that Fred Flintstone was a man who worked for his wife, and by saying that he “worked until the whistle blew so he could…return home to Wilma” is used to further emphasise Kramer’s claim that Fred was a loving, decent man.

Kramer does try to prove that he is not totally disrespecting Jenkins when he addresses her in a more understanding, educating tone. By using the word “perhaps”, he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together. He then proves her wrong, as instead of ‘Flintstone,’ he qualifies Rice’s actions as “a stereotype of caveman behaviour,” which intends to depict to readers an image of rough, indecent actions akin to cavemen, and demands her to “yabba yabba don’t lump Fred Flintstone in with that type of behaviour,” showing that he wants to present Fred Flintstone as a more decent character who is not comparable to Rice.

[Anonymous]

First ever AA club analysis! Hope it's not too bad

Sally Jenkins’ comment regarding a heavily debated video that surfaced of NFL player Ray Rice striking his fiancée, described him as akin to “going all Flinstone on his wife,. Martin Kramers’ letter to the editor aims to reject this claim, discrediting Jenkins’ claims by painting Fred Flintstone in a positive light to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character.

To begin his piece, Kramer aims to prove his sense of practicality regarding what Rice did, describing his actions as ‘reprehensible’ as a way of showing readers that he too, condemns his actions as unacceptable. He continues his attempt at making the reader feel as though they can agree with his claim, suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” of the “venerable” show, intending to prove that the TV program ‘The Flinstones’ deserves respect. He then moves on to disproving Jenkins comment, suggesting that as “he loved and respected his wife,” Fred Flintstone is nothing like the quite unacceptable actions of Rice. Telling readers that Fred referred to his wife as a “queen”, a word which connotes that he idolised her aims to further show a distance between the character and Rice. He reminds readers that Fred Flintstone was a man who worked for his wife, and by saying that he “worked until the whistle blew so he could…return home to Wilma” is used to further emphasise Kramer’s claim that Fred was a loving, decent man.

Kramer does try to prove that he is not totally disrespecting Jenkins when he addresses her in a more understanding, educating tone. By using the word “perhaps”, he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together. He then proves her wrong, as instead of ‘Flintstone,’ he qualifies Rice’s actions as “a stereotype of caveman behaviour,” which intends to depict to readers an image of rough, indecent actions akin to cavemen, and demands her to “yabba yabba don’t lump Fred Flintstone in with that type of behaviour,” showing that he wants to present Fred Flintstone as a more decent character who is not comparable to Rice.

Don't know why this published anonymously! I also just made a quick edit, so read this one please