2018 AA Club - Week 3

[scout]

  Background: American president Donald Trump has been widely criticised for his fiery, provocative language most clearly exhibited in his Twitter comments.

Nuclear words of war

Re Why Twitter Should Ban The President (Jan. 4): Someone once compared the nuclear-armed world to children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.

This seems particularly apt today, with two apparently irrational leaders, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, trading insults. One of Donald Trump's favourite matches is Twitter, on which he makes incendiary remarks. Twitter could close his account, but does not do so because he is good for its bottom line.

What kind of lunacy is this? Why is it even remotely acceptable that a corporation's profits should trump global security?

What world do the Twitter executives live in anyway? Surely even corporate executives can see that some profits are not worth the risk they entail.

- James A. Duthie, Nanaimo, B.C.

[MissSmiley]

Thanks guys! I would really appreciate some feedback!

In response to Donald Trump’s exasperating language in his Twitter comments, James A. Duthie writes a letter to the editor. By employing a condemnatory tone and expressing disapproval of Twitter, Duthie contends that Twitter executives should ban the US President’s comments to be published in public, in order to ensure global security, instead of welcoming such comments for the sake of gaining profit.

With the intent of evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their acceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.” This war-like imagery connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasise the dangerous nature of Trump’s comments which would trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising in “pool of gasoline” aims to instill feelings of insecurity in Twitter executives thorough which they are compelled to block Trump’s public tweets, for this will ensure a peaceful world where suffering is far from apparent.

Claiming that the juxtaposition seems “apt” even “today,” Duthie intends to present two seemingly important world leaders – Trump and Kim Jong-un, as criminals who have caused present day global terrors, through their “irrationality” and exchanges of “trading insults.” Peppered with negative connotations through these labels and fueled by the abruption in the connotation of the adjective “incendiary,” Duthie seeks to appeal to Twitter’s responsibility as a social media platform who must ensure threats to global security are not visible to the general public so to avoid further panicking. Using informal diction in “bottom line” to appeal finer to his readership, Duthie attempts to present Twitter as a selfish medium who is hungry for profits at the expense of global security. By attacking their reputation with a diplomatic concern, Duthie aimes to pressurise Twitter executives to ban Trump’s unfavorable tweets as they do not cater for peace-keeping.

Through Duthie’s dysphemistic portrayal of Twitter as “luna[tic]” – its connotations of madness and mental insanity – he presents Twitter as an ill-minded abettor of Trump’s threatening comments. Whilst this aims to provoke unease in Twitter executives’ minds, Duthie’s employing of the pun in the verb “trump” endeavors to seek attention to his questioning of the absurd logic in Twitter’s desire for profits in the belief that their selfishness would not impact global security. Further questioning which “world” Twitter executives “live in,” Duthie seeks to alienate the executives for their carelessness in blocking tweets that deem global insecurity, thus warning the social medium of the “risk” they are “entail[ing]” in going against its users’ expectations of a safe online space free from Trump’s menacing tweets. This aims to encourage Twitter to block such threats, Duthie’s overall message.

[sophomania]

This is my first time posting in the AA club forum, but I'll give this a shot! These are all suggestions, so you don't have to agree

Thanks guys! I would really appreciate some feedback!

In response to Donald Trump’s exasperating language in his Twitter comments, James A. Duthie writes a letter to the editor. By employing a condemnatory tone and expressing disapproval of Twitter, Duthie contends "contends" is a bit neutral - is there a better word? that Twitter executives should ban the US President’s comments to be published in public, in order to ensure global security, instead of welcoming such comments for the sake of gaining profit. I think you can be a bit less wordy, maybe Duthie advocates for the ban of Donald Trump's public Twitter comments in order to ensure global security and criticises the executive authorities' desire to gain profit
With the intent of Evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their quiet/docilewhat type of acceptance - I think here is a chance to include a good adjectiveacceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.” This war-like imagery connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasising the dangerous nature of Trump’s comments which would trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising I wouldn't exactly call it a hyperbole - maybe an analogy? in “pool of gasoline” aims to instils feelings of insecurity in Twitter executives through which they are compelled and hence, compelling them to block Trump’s public tweets, for this will ensure a peaceful world where suffering is far from apparent. this seems a bit random? maybe create a clearer link?
Claiming that the juxtaposition seems “apt” even “today,” Duthie intends to present two seemingly important world leaders – Trump and Kim Jong-un, as criminals whose "irrationality" and exchanges of "trading insults" have caused present day global terrors, through their “irrationality” and exchanges of “trading insults.” <-- this sentence seems more like a summary, not really an analysis Peppered with negative connotations through these labels and fueled by the abruption in the connotation of the adjective “incendiary,” really wordy Duthie seeks to appeal to Twitter’s responsibility as a social media platform who must ensure threats to global security are not visible to the general public so to avoid further panicking do not provoke further paranoid within the general public. <--this sentence seems super long so it was a bit difficult to read, maybe shorten it?Using informal diction in “bottom line” to appeal finer sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'finer' to his readership of...who is his audience?, Duthie attempts to present Twitter as a selfish medium who is hungry for profits at the expense of global security who compromises global security for monetary gain. By attacking their reputation with a diplomatic concern, Duthie aims to pressure Twitter executives to ban Trump’s unfavorable tweets as they do not cater for peace-keeping.

Through Duthie’s dysphemistic portrayal of Twitter as “luna[tic]” – its connotations of madness and mental insanity – he presents Twitter as an ill-minded abettor of Trump’s threatening comments. Whilst this aims to provoke unease in Twitter executives’ minds, Duthie’s employing of the pun in the verb “trump” endeavors to seek attention to his questioning of [bmagnifies[/b] the absurd logic in Twitter’s selfishdesire for profits in the belief that their selfishness believing that it would not impact global security.<-- sentence was a bit long Further questioning which “world” Twitter executives “live in,” Duthie seeks to alienate attacks the executives for their carelessness in blocking tweets that deem global insecurity, thus warning the social medium of the ignoring the“risk” they are “entail[ing]” in going against its users’ expectations of a safe online space free from Trump’s menacing and provocativetweets. <-- another long sentenceThis aims to encourage Twitter to block such threats, Duthie’s overall message. <-- to be honest, this sentence is a bit redundant, try add in something so that it actually contributes a bit more to your analysis

Some notes:
- you have some rather fancy language, which is pretty nice, but sometimes you're a bit wordy
- you tend to write "aims to, intends to, seeks to" etc. which demonstrates authorial intent. There is nothing wrong with this, however, it makes some of your sentences more wordy. It's okay to sometimes leave out these words and just write "the author provokes" instead of "the author attempts to provoke"
- you've focused a lot on authorial intent, which is good, so good job! However, try to incorporate a bit more of audience reaction. How is the audience likely to react? How does the author want them to react?
- you have a lot of long sentences, which may become quite wordy and complicated. Try varying your sentence length a bit more and being a bit more succinct
- in this analysis, you focused a lot on the Twitter executives, however, keeping in that the audience of this letter to the audience will also include the general public, I think you should focus more importantly on how the audience wants his actual audience i.e the general public to react. For example, you mentioned that he was trying to evoke fear and guilt in Twitter executives, however, he was also inciting fear in the public and hence, positioning the audience to condemn Twitter for permitting Trump to public inflammatory comments, which in turns compels Twitter to act. - I hope this part makes sense!

Hope this was useful!

[clarke54321]

Thanks guys! I would really appreciate some feedback!

In response to Donald Trump’s exasperatingsomething about this adjective isn't sitting well. Maybe inflammatory would work better language in his Twitter comments, James A. Duthie writes a letter to the editor. By employing a condemnatory tone and expressing disapproval of Twitter, Duthie contends that Twitter executives should ban a public disclosure ofthe US President’s comments to be published in public, in order to ensure global securitythis is absolutely correct. However, try and refrain from copying exact phrases from the piece. Show examiners that you can contextualise the issue authentically. , instead of welcoming such comments for the sake of gaining profit. lovely introduction It covers all that it should in a way that is concise and direct.

With the intent of evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their acceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches nice topic sentence set-up.” This war-like imagerythis can be interpreted as fairy vague. You need to reference specific words. Eg. "nuclear-armed," "gasoline" and "matches." Think of the compounding notion too. connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasise the dangerous nature of Trump’s commentsthe link between the juxtaposition and Trump's comments aren't entirely clear. You need to flesh out the connection more. which would remember that this is speculation. You job is to analyse intended effects. Hence, use verbs such as endeavour/attempt/strives/seeks. These are less conclusive.trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising in “pool of gasoline”<----here you need the "how" element. How do you jump from the exaggerated nature of this quote to feelings of insecurity?------> aims to instill feelings of insecurity in Twitter executives thorough which they are compelled to block Trump’s public tweets, for this will ensure a peaceful world this is subjective.where suffering is far from apparent.

Claiming that the juxtaposition seems “apt” even “today,” Duthie intends to present two seemingly important world leaders – Trump and Kim Jong-un, as criminalsit is fantastic that you have picked up on Duthie's implication. However, you must adequately justify labels as bold as "criminals." who have caused present day global terrors, through their “irrationality” and exchanges of “trading insults.” Peppered with negative connotationsbe more specific through these labels and fueled by the abruption in the connotation of the adjective “incendiary,”what is this connotation? Duthie seeks to appeal to Twitter’s responsibility as a social media platform who must ensure threats to global security are not visible to the general public so to avoid further panicking this broader "why"/zoom-out seems disjoint from the rest of your analysis. Pull out more specific intimations/suggestions. Using informal diction in “bottom line” to appeal finer to his readership"how" is this a finer appeal to audiences. Again, you must provide relevant context when quoting. Alone, "bottom line" isn't adding to a holistic interpretation of the analysis, which is a critical requirement., Duthie attempts to present Twitter as a selfish medium who is hungry for profits at the expense of global security good . By attacking their reputation with a diplomatic concern, Duthie aimes to pressurise Twitter executives to ban Trump’s unfavorable tweets as they do not cater for peace-keeping I'd use this sentence to focus on reader effect. It seems a natural progression from your previous sentence..

Through Duthie’s dysphemistic portrayal of Twitter as “luna[tic]” – its connotations of madness and mental insanity – he presents Twitter as an ill-minded abettor of Trump’s threatening comments wow...excellent presentation of argument. Whilst this aims to provoke unease in Twitter executives’ minds, Duthie’s employing of the pun in the verb “trump” great recognition endeavors to seek attention to his questioning of the absurd logic in Twitter’s desire for profits in the belief that their selfishness would not impact global security the length of this sentence is, unfortunately, drowning your insight. Try and cut it down.. Further, by questioning which “world” Twitter executives “live in,” Duthie seeks to alienate the executivestry and extend your analysis here. There is the implication that Twitter executives are acutely ignorant / blinded by commercial aspirations, and are consequently injudicious with their decision making. In the context of the piece, flesh out this ignorance further. for their carelessness in blocking tweets that deem global insecurity, thus warning the social medium of the “risk” they are “entail[ing]” in going against its users’ expectations of a safe online space free from Trump’s menacing tweets nice mention of varying expectations. With further analysis of the "world" statement, this will be made even stronger. This aims to encourage Twitter to block such threats, Duthie’s overall message. hmm....I'm not sure if this is a conclusion or not. If so, it seems a bit weak.

Well-done on your analysis and overall commitment, MissSmiley! By the end of this year, you will be in a very enviable position In comparison to your previous analyses, this piece was much more concise and varied in technique. I've noticed also that you're becoming more intimate with the language, which is always a big plus. Just continue to ensure that you are contextualising quotes, avoiding subjective statements/speculation, and making specific comments on analysis. If you can work on this (especially the contextualisation of evidence), you will keep strengthening your work. As always, please ask if anything is unclear 

[MissSmiley]

This is my first time posting in the AA club forum, but I'll give this a shot! These are all suggestions, so you don't have to agree

Some notes:
- you have some rather fancy language, which is pretty nice, but sometimes you're a bit wordy
- you tend to write "aims to, intends to, seeks to" etc. which demonstrates authorial intent. There is nothing wrong with this, however, it makes some of your sentences more wordy. It's okay to sometimes leave out these words and just write "the author provokes" instead of "the author attempts to provoke"
- you've focused a lot on authorial intent, which is good, so good job! However, try to incorporate a bit more of audience reaction. How is the audience likely to react? How does the author want them to react?
- you have a lot of long sentences, which may become quite wordy and complicated. Try varying your sentence length a bit more and being a bit more succinct
- in this analysis, you focused a lot on the Twitter executives, however, keeping in that the audience of this letter to the audience will also include the general public, I think you should focus more importantly on how the audience wants his actual audience i.e the general public to react. For example, you mentioned that he was trying to evoke fear and guilt in Twitter executives, however, he was also inciting fear in the public and hence, positioning the audience to condemn Twitter for permitting Trump to public inflammatory comments, which in turns compels Twitter to act. - I hope this part makes sense!

Hope this was useful!

Thanks a lot, sophomania! Definitely makes sense!
Thanks for the feedback, and many many congrats on your incredible ATAR and fantastic scores! 

[MissSmiley]

Well-done on your analysis and overall commitment, MissSmiley! By the end of this year, you will be in a very enviable position In comparison to your previous analyses, this piece was much more concise and varied in technique. I've noticed also that you're becoming more intimate with the language, which is always a big plus. Just continue to ensure that you are contextualising quotes, avoiding subjective statements/speculation, and making specific comments on analysis. If you can work on this (especially the contextualisation of evidence), you will keep strengthening your work. As always, please ask if anything is unclear 

Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback as always, clarke54321 !!

I just wanted to ask you about the comment on the 'compounded words' notion. I didn't understand firstly, but I had a go at writing those sentences again and also with that "pool of gasoline" imagery that you said to work on. Would you mind please checking those lines again? And have I got the compounded words interpretation right?

With the intent of evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their acceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.” The war-like imagery in the compounded lexeme “nuclear-armed” and “matches” connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasise the dangerous nature of Trump’s comments that bring about such frightening imagery reflected in the comparison. This strives to trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising in “pool of gasoline” forming an image of national land invaded by the hazardous smell of immense petrol causing congestion aims to instil feelings of fear and insecurity in Twitter executives thorough which they are compelled to block Trump’s public tweets, in order to strive for a peaceful world where suffering is far from apparent.


Thank you so much !! 

[clarke54321]

Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback as always, clarke54321 !!

I just wanted to ask you about the comment on the 'compounded words' notion. I didn't understand firstly, but I had a go at writing those sentences again and also with that "pool of gasoline" imagery that you said to work on. Would you mind please checking those lines again? And have I got the compounded words interpretation right? Apologies about this explanation. What I wanted you to consider was the close proximity of the words "nuclear-armed," "gasoline," and "matches." Because of their similar connotations- of threat and disaster- their syntactical intimacy creates an overwhelmingly painful image for readers. That is, the sentence provides no opportunity to "breathe" and escape reflections/thoughts of conflict.

With the intent of evoking fear and guilt in Twitter executives for their acceptance of Trump’s violent comments, Duthie commences by juxtaposing a “nuclear-armed world” to “children in a pool of gasoline playing with matches.” The war-like imagery in the compounded lexeme “nuclear-armed” and “matches” connotes ideas of terror and innocent suffering of children and hence allows Duthie to emphasise the dangerous nature of Trump’s comments that bring about such frightening imagery reflected in the comparisonstill a bit wordy. If you recognised this comparison as a metaphor of Trump's irrationality/ignorance it may become clearer.. This strives to trigger more anger in an already “nuclear-armed world.” The hyperbolising in “pool of gasoline” forming an image of national land invaded by the hazardous smell of immense petrol causing congestionyes, in a literal sense. However, to fully appreciate and analyse this phrase, you'd be better to read it in a more symbolic sense. Duthie implies that citizens are living in a perpetual state of peril. Trump lacks the proper perspicacity to recognise the consequence of his actions. aims to instil feelings of fear and insecurity in Twitter executives thorough which they are compelled to block Trump’s public tweets, in order to strive for a peaceful world where suffering is far from apparent.


Thank you so much !! 

Hopefully this helps

[MissSmiley]

Hopefully this helps

Thanks a lot!!