2017 AA Club - Week 6

[scout]

Welcome to the AA club! (btw your analysis is not bad at all)

Here are my views on your analysis. (If you have any questions, feel free to ask  ).

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

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 can you specify Kramer's contention more? How does he portray Fred in a positive light? Or what makes views/opinions convince him to do so? to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character. Target audience?

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 the topic sentence should introduce the argument. Also, explain how 'reprehensible' = sense of practicality . He continues his attempt at making the reader feel as though they can agree with his claim be more concise - 'he positions readers to agree with him', suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” can fans also be biased? 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 this is a bit vague - in what way, exactly, is Fred 'nothing like... Rice'? And how does the quote suggest this? (e.g. you could look at the connotations of the emotive words - 'love' and 'respect') . Telling readers that Fred referred to his wife as a “queen”, a word which connotes that he idolised hergood! Just one thing: connotations are implications of ideas/feelings, so I think they can only be followed by a noun aims to further show a distance between the character and Rice this is vague. Make your link to the contention specific to the word 'queen'.. 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. make it more specific to the quote - perhaps a devoted husband?

Kramer does try to prove that he is not totally disrespecting Jenkins when he addresses her in a more understanding, educating educatedtone again, introduce with argument. By using the word “perhaps”, he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together effect?. 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 effect? link to contention?, and demands her to word choice “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.

General comment: ensure you refer to the effect on readers after each bit of analysis

[HopefulLawStudent]

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 lighttoo general to encourage readers to re-evaluate their prior thoughts of the character.

To begin his piece, Kramer aims to prove his sense of practicality What do you mean by this? 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, vague suggesting that he is as logical “as any fan” of the “venerable” show, intending to prove that the TV program ‘The Flinstones’ deserves respect. How? EXPLAIN. He then moves on to disproving Jenkins comment, suggesting that as “he loved and respected his wife,” Beware quoting without analysis. 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. How? Explain how you've gone from quote to "further emphasise K's claim...". Explanation currently missing.

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”,SOme more contextualisation of the quote probs would've been handy he aims to show that he realises why she may have categorised Rice and Fred Flintstone together.How? Missing explanation here. He then proves her wrong, as instead of ‘Flintstone,’ he qualifies Rice’s actions as “a stereotype of caveman behaviour,” which intends to depict misused "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,” COuld you be more selective re: quoting? Concerned cos this is a very long quote. showing that he wants to present Fred Flintstone as a more decent character who is not comparable to Rice.Explanation missing; you need to take us through your thinking more instead of leaving us to connect the dots ourselves.

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’ Seems like a bit of an odd thing to quote 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 What do you mean by this? by discussing Jenkins’ comments and their effect on sports fans. He includes sourced quotations, What do you mean by this? ‘Provoking debate, and disgust’, to justify and support his own disappointment in Jenkins’ exposition.So? By commencing his piece using factual information, such as...? Kramer ensures that his readers do not approach his argument with a predetermined bias. Too vague a comment to be making. Through his inclusion of deliberately cited material,evidence/quoting? Kramer is able to implicitly notion ? Think you've misused "notion"? Either that or there's a word missing. 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; No semicolon here -- misused it. 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 critiquestoo vague - be more specific.. He thus ensures that the remainder of his argument is infalliblealso too vague: be more specific.. Kramer resumes his argument, What do you mean by this? asserting that because Flinstone ‘loved and respected his wife’, Jenkins’ cannot make such a comparison between him and the abusive Rice. How have you gone from quote to effect? Missing explanation. Kramer then lists honourable traits of Flinstone, such as? supporting his declaration of the show’s ‘venerable[ness]’ to provide evidence for his readers to accept and agree with his contention too vague: be more specific; that it is immoral of Jenkins’ to associate acts of domestic violence with a family-friendly show and such an admirable character. misused semi colon. Usually semicolons used to connect two connected/related sentences. For example: My best friend and I seem to be drifting apart; he hasn't messaged me in like 24 hours. (i.e. the semicolon basically changes that sentence to: I think my best friend and I are drifting apart because he hasn't messaged me in 24 hours. Does that make sense?

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.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

[Anonymous]

In his scathing letter to the editor entitled ‘Giving cavemen a good name,’ Martin Kramer condemns sports reporter Sally Jenkins for linking an NFL player’s violent behaviour with that of the iconic television character Fred Flinstone. He fervently contends that the reporter’s euphemism of Pay Rice’s misconduct hides the malevolent nature of his crime. 

The writer makes his position clear from the onset of the piece, portraying the actions of “Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice” as “reprehensible.” This is then contrasted with his illustration of Flinstone as being a character who “loved and respected his wife.” Through this juxtaposition of pejorative language such as “reprehensible” to describe Pay Rice, with the association of high modality traits such as “lov[ing] and respect[ing]” to Fred Flinstone, the writer is able to underscore the difference in these people’s attitudes towards women. From this, Kramer attempts to manoeuvre the reader into recognising that the comparison made by sports reporter Sally Jenkins in regards to Rice and Flinstone was not accurate, and rather that it did a disservice to society by understating the NFL player’s atrocious treatment of women.

Kramer concedes however that “Fred Flinstone” still “had his faults.” By using the word “faults,” the writer recognises that the icon was not perfect in his behaviour, highlighting that he is not blinded by his status as a fan, and that his views are well-considered and the product of much cogitation. Thus, he attempts to avoid isolating his audience with an overly biased view, by reassuring them that he is aware of both sides of Flintstones’ personality, and as such the readership is more likely to agree with him on his stance of Sally Jenkins.

[clarke54321]

In his scathing letter to the editor entitledtitled ‘Giving cavemen a good name,’ Martin Kramer condemns sports reporter Sally Jenkins for linking an NFL player’s violent behaviour with that of the iconic television character Fred Flinstone. He fervently contends that the reporter’s euphemism of Pay Rice’s misconduct hides the malevolent nature of his crime.  nice contextualisation and identification of contention

The writer makes his position clear from the onset of the piece, portraying the actions of “Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice” as “reprehensible.” the jump between these two sentences is a bit abrupt. I understand where you're going, but perhaps find a smoother link between the two. For example, you could go on to analyse the connotations attached to the adjective 'reprehensible' and then move onto the juxtaposition.This is then contrasted with his illustration of Flinstone as being a character who “loved and respected his wife.” Through this juxtaposition of pejorative language such as “reprehensible” to describe Pay Rice, with the association of high modality traitsI'm not sure that these are high modality traits. High modality refers to how sure we are about something. such as “lov[ing] and respect[ing]” to Fred Flinstone, the writer is able to underscore the difference in these people’s attitudes towards womengood contrasting. But I feel as though you could have teased out the connotations behind these adjectives to a greater extent. From this, Kramer attempts to manoeuvre the reader into recognising that the comparison made by sports reporter Sally Jenkins in regards to Rice and Flinstone was not accurate, and rather that it did a disservice to society by understating the NFL player’s atrocious treatment of women.watch the length of this sentence. The expression is becoming a bit disjointed/clunky

Kramer concedes however that “Fred Flinstone” still “had his faults.” By using the word “faults,” the writer recognises that the icon was not perfect in his behaviour, highlighting that he is not blinded by his status as a fan, and that his views are well-considered and the product of much cogitationgood. Thus, he attempts to avoid isolating his audience with an overly biased view, by reassuring them that he is aware of both sides of Flintstones’ personality, and as such the readership is more likely to agree with him on his stance of Sally Jenkins. Although this last part is a bit generic, it is a good identification of reader effect

Nice job! You picked out evidence that helped you effectively identify author intent / reader response. To improve, ensure that your topic sentences identify a particular argument and that you are fully teasing out evidence. Keep up the great work 

[Anonymous]

Nice job! You picked out evidence that helped you effectively identify author intent / reader response. To improve, ensure that your topic sentences identify a particular argument and that you are fully teasing out evidence. Keep up the great work 

Thank you so much

[Anonymous]

I haven't done language analysis in ages, and my analysis is really poor. Anyway, how can I improve?

In response to sports reporter Sally Jenkins’ comment on the Ray Rice assault, Martin Kramer condemns the Flinstone labelling, defending Fred Flinstone’s name. Kramer contends that Flinstone is a respectable character and should not be mixed with the “reprehensible actions” of Rice. Kramer demonstrates his experience in watching Flinstone by insinuating that he is a fan of the “venerable show”. This grants him authority in his opinion of whether Rice should be labelled with “going all Flinstone” because he has the expertise to determine whether their characteristics match. The description of the show as “venerable” attempts to alienate the audience from Jenkin’s description and invites them to question whether her description is accurate. Further attributions of Fred being a husband who “loved and respected his wife”  and referred “to her as his queen” positions the audience to respect Fred, which only invites them to question whether Kramer’s brutality against his wife reflects the respect that Fred has for his. Kramer utilises vivid imagery of Fred wearing “out his feet” and working until “the whistle blew” to appeal to compassion of the audience. The audience is positioned to see Fred as a hard working husband, and so develops a sense of respect for him which Kramer says should not be affiliated with Rice’s attack. The attack is described as more savage and despicable than “a stereotype of cavemen behaviour” which positions the audience to further condemn the actions of Rice. Kramer concludes by quoting Fred’s iconic catch phrase of “yabba dabba” to humorously reinforce his argument that Fred Flinstone is a respectable character who should not be compared to the degenerative acts of Ray Rice.

[clarke54321]

I haven't done language analysis in ages, and my analysis is really poor. Anyway, how can I improve?

In response to sports reporter Sally Jenkins’ comment on the Ray Rice assault, Martin Kramer condemns the Flinstone labelling, defending Fred Flinstone’s name. Kramer contends that Flinstone is a respectable character and should not be mixed perhaps find a more sophisticated verb- associated/affiliated?with the “reprehensible actions” of Rice. Kramer demonstrates his experience in watching Flinstonethe expression here is somewhat awkward. I understand what you're saying, but it is not entirely clear. by insinuatinginsinuate means to suggest something of an unpleasant kind. He's not embarrassed about being a fan. So maybe consider a verb like indicates/suggests that he is a fan of the “venerable show”. This grants him authority in his opinion of whether Rice should be labelled with “going all Flinstone” because he has the expertise to determine whether their characteristics matchgood explanation of evidence. How does this make the reader feel in turn? Go further with the idea of authority and what this means.. The description of the show as “venerable” attempts to alienate the audience from Jenkin’s description and invites them to question whether her description is accuratewhy does it do this? What are the connotations of the adjective 'venerable' that would provoke this reaction?. Further attributions of Fred being a husband who “loved and respected his wife”  and referred “to her as his queen” positions the audience to respect Fredwhy? What does this indicate about his character?, which only invites them to question whether Kramer’s brutality against his wife reflects the respect that Fred has for hisgood. Kramer utilises vivid imagery of Fred wearing “out his feet” and working until “the whistle blew” to appeal to compassion of the audienceto appeal to his audiences' sense of compassion. The audience is positioned to see Fred as a hard working husbandtry and make the link between the imagery and this idea of a hard-working husband more explicit., and so develops a sense of respect for him which Kramer says should not be affiliated with Rice’s attack. The attack is described as more savage and despicable than “a stereotype of cavemen behaviour” which positions the audience to further condemn the actions of Ricewhy? You must tease out the evidence before coming to a conclusion.. Kramer concludes by quoting Fred’s iconic catch phrase of “yabba dabba” to humorously reinforce his argument that Fred Flinstone is a respectable character who should not be compared to the degenerative acts of Ray Rice.

Well done! You have a clear understanding of persuasive devices and their technique on audiences. However, the intermediate step is lacking. That is, you identify the device but don't tease out/analyse the evidence enough to reach a well-justified conclusion of audience reaction. If you can work on this, your analysis will improve greatly. Keep up the great work!