2018 AA Club - Week 15

[clarke54321]

In response to Victoria's lack of regulation over duck shooting, The Age published an editorial, outlining the cruelty associated with the 'sport.' Echoing the sentiments of The Age is a comment written by Marita Hutchinson.

It's time to stop the duck slaughter

According to the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the above-average rainfall over the past year has ''substantially improved environmental conditions'', with increased habitat for waterfowl, including game birds. This in turn has led to extensive breeding and wide dispersal of birdlife across eastern Australia's wetlands. As a result, the 2011 season will return to a full 12 weeks, and the normal regulated bag limit - 10 ducks a day, which can include two blue-winged shovelers, for each hunter - ''will provide adequate protection for game duck populations'', the department says.

All this is bad news, of course, for ducks. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with Victoria's 22,000 registered shooters allowed to shoot 10 birds a day for the next three months, the 2011 season could mark the biggest massacre of native ducks on record. RSPCA president Hugh Wirth doubts that the department's 15 wildlife officers will be enough to enforce the bag limits, and has reiterated the society's call for a ban on what he calls ''this cruel and barbaric sport''.

The Age is on the side of the RSPCA - and the ducks. The most perplexing thing about duck shooting is why it hasn't already been banned here. The West Australian government stopped it in that state in 1990, New South Wales followed in 1995 and Queensland in 2005. Yet Victoria, a proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking, remains a bastion of the duck hunter.
This is still more perplexing given all the evidence indicates that ending duck shooting would be politically popular. A Morgan poll of 637 Victorians in late 2007, for example, found 75 per cent in favour of a ban.

That the ''sport'' of duck shooting is cruel is not open to question. Hunting flocks of wildfowl with a shotgun means rare and protected species are killed, and it means some birds, which are wounded but not immediately brought down, suffer lingering and painful deaths.
The Age first advocated a ban on duck shooting in 1992. A decade later, after a recommendation by Victoria's animal welfare advisory committee to end the practice, this newspaper wrote: ''We did not expect to have to restate the case for a ban in the 21st century.'' In 2011, surely, the time has come to stop the slaughter.


How can it be called sport?

How can we stand in judgment of Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering, when our record of animal exploitation involves live exports, recently involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses in 40-degree heat, the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds. Because we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country, we do not have hunters, only killers. To shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer's foot can hardly be regarded as a sport.

Marita Hutchison, Mount Martha


Remember that you should be aiming for quality, not quantity with this task. So please do not feel obliged to write a full fledged AA. A paragraph will more than suffice 

[MissSmiley]

The Age's editorial team incredulously condemns the ongoing duck slaughtering in Victoria claiming that the state is not performing up to the 21st century standards of animal welfare, as it is for other “public policies…such as road safety and smoking.” However, RSPCA president Hugh Wirth’s and the editorial’s referencing of duck shooting as a “sport,” seems to be highly contentious for Hutchison. She purports the notion that calling animal killing a ‘sport,’ which carries connotations of a fun game where there is a winner, is merely a smokescreen to obscure the horrific truth behind animal exploitation and the gruesome listing of immoral killing – “death of 4000 sheep…killing of hundreds of kangaroos.” The editorial’s quoting of Department of Sustainability and Environment that the “regulated bag limit…will provide protection for duck populations” carries undertones of ridicule and disappointment that duck shooting is not taken seriously. Instead, negligible improvements being made such as “now allowing to shoot 10 birds a day” are aggrandised for publicity at the expense of truly trying to stop animal “lingering and painful deaths” – the adjectives used in an attempt to garner sympathy from environmentalists and animal activists and appeal to their humanitarian and wellbeing values. In turn, these activists are likely to advocate for animal protection and make sure animal welfare advisory committees prove The Age wrong, after the newspaper reprobated the need to “restate the case for a ban [to duck shooting] in the 21st century,” and in this way deemed activist organisations as outdated and not performing up to moral standards of animal protection.

In dismay of the reference to duck shooting as a “sport” Hutchison aims to instil a sense of nationalistic fear with her claim that “we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country…only killers,” and hence aims to bring humans in equity to animals, reinforcing the savagery of the human race to stupidly “shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer’s foot.” The mockery to be found in likening the size of a creature to a killer’s foot strives to make hunters and killers of birds perceive themselves as victims of their own foolishness and unintelligence in killing negligible-sized creatures. This perceived threat to their profession is likely to influence hunters and killers to stop their treacherous deaths, and in this way, Hutchison sides with The Age’s attempts to advocate for Victoria’s support in banning duck shooting, so that the state can regain its reputation of a “proud…progressive [leader].” 

[Anonymous]

The Age's editorial team incredulously I feel like incredulous is too strong a word to use here condemns the ongoing duck slaughtering in Victoria claiming that the state is not performing up to the 21st century standards could also add how there's a comparison with other states and countries of animal welfare, as it is for other “public policies…such as road safety and smoking.” here's an opportunity to analyse connotations of road safety and smoking vs those of animal wellfareHowever, RSPCA president Hugh Wirth’s and the editorial’s referencing of duck shooting as a “sport,” seems to be highly contentious for Hutchison. She purports the notion that calling animal killing a ‘sport,’ this sentence could have been joined with the last, to provide more cohesiveness as you used the quote "sport" twice within a short periodwhich carries connotations of a fun game where there is a winnernot sure if the winner part here was necessary as it detracts from the argument that they're making light of the situation, since a winner implies that there's also a loser, is merely a smokescreen vocab goalsto obscure is that really their intention? not that I know for sure either, but I think that they're simply portraying it in a different light, as a sport and tare therefore trying to change people's perceptions, not actively withholding info. but if you wanted to go deeper, you could say that the label of it being a "sport" is a front to hide more nefarious aimsthe horrific truth behind animal exploitation and the gruesome listing of immoral killing – “death of 4000 sheep…killing of hundreds of kangaroos.” nothing wrong here but you could weave quote together with sentence to make it more cohesive, instead of using a dash. where's the effect on the readers (the how's and why's)The editorial’s quoting of Department of Sustainability and Environment I'm being picky here but no need to name department - it makes the sentence drabthat the “regulated bag limit…will provide protection for duck populations” carries undertones of ridicule and disappointment that duck shooting is not taken seriouslyagain, effect on readers MIA. Instead, negligible improvements being made such as “now allowing to shoot 10 birds a day” are aggrandised adding this word into my arsenalfor publicity at the expense of truly trying to stop animal “lingering and painful deaths” – the dash the adjectives used in an attempt to garner sympathy from environmentalists and animal activists link them to readers of the Ageand appeal to their humanitarian and wellbeing valuesdoesn't guilt also play a part in this?. In turn, these activists are likely word choice is too strong, making it sound as if there's a definite effect. just add "more" in front will sufficeto advocate for animal protection bit general here. keep to duck shootingand make sure again strong choice of wordinganimal welfare advisory committees prove The Age wrongI don't get your reasoning here. Why is proving the Age wrong of import, especially towards readers?, after the newspaper reprobated I love your word bankthe need to “restate the case for a ban [to duck shooting] in the 21st century,” and in this way deemed activist organisations reconsider target audience. Is this piece aimed at people already having a knowledge of duck shooting or just the average joe?as outdated and not performing up to moral standards of animal protection.

In dismay of the reference to duck shooting as a “sport” Hutchison aims to instil a sense of nationalistic fear great phrase, although is fear the most accurate emotionwith her claim that “we do not have any dangerous and wild animals in this country…only killers,” and hence aims to bring humans in equity to animalswhile this isn't wrong, do flesh out the quote a bit more as there's more potential within it, such as who does she likens the killers to, and what effect does this have on readers, reinforcing the savagery of the human race generalisationto stupidly “shoot a flying creature no bigger than the killer’s foot.” The mockery to be found in likening the size of a creature to a killer’s foot strives to make hunters and killers of birdsunnecessary and too broad perceive themselves as victims how did the killer suddenly become the victim?of their own foolishness and unintelligence[color=red]inaccurate generalisation. shooters can still be aware of issue and hunt ducks for fun (or for any other reason)[/color] in killing negligible-sized creatures. This perceived expand on this. how is this only perceived and not a real life threatthreat to their profession is likely to influence hunters and killers to stop their treacherous why is this a betrayal, and if so, to whom?deaths, and in this way, Hutchison sides with The Age’s attempts to advocate for Victoria’s support in banning duck shooting, so that the state can regain its reputation of a “proud…progressive [leader].”  this isn't the main objective of Hutchison

Do not be alarmed. I repeat: do not be alarmed. This is the first time that I've critiqued someone else's work, and I realised that I have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a piece (or what I interpret to be negative). I tend to nitpick at the little things rather than make a holistic judgement. I also don't have the confidence to change the structure of your sentences, even though there's nothing wrong with them. I'm also a fellow year 12 student, so please bear in mind that I'm floundering here. Hopefully I didn't project my own (wrong) opinions onto to you, so don't take this to heart.

What I can say though is that is is a strong piece overall. I can see that you have an extensive vocabulary and sound control over your language analysis techniques (just realised that I sound like a rubric). However, try to focus a bit more on how readers are prompted to respond to such stimuli. There's potential in you.

If there are any experts out there who find my critiquing skills lacking, please consider critiquing MissSmiley's piece again, as mine is in no way a substitute for yours.

[MissSmiley]

Do not be alarmed. I repeat: do not be alarmed. This is the first time that I've critiqued someone else's work, and I realised that I have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of a piece (or what I interpret to be negative). I tend to nitpick at the little things rather than make a holistic judgement. I also don't have the confidence to change the structure of your sentences, even though there's nothing wrong with them. I'm also a fellow year 12 student, so please bear in mind that I'm floundering here. Hopefully I didn't project my own (wrong) opinions onto to you, so don't take this to heart.

What I can say though is that is is a strong piece overall. I can see that you have an extensive vocabulary and sound control over your language analysis techniques (just realised that I sound like a rubric). However, try to focus a bit more on how readers are prompted to respond to such stimuli. There's potential in you.

If there are any experts out there who find my critiquing skills lacking, please consider critiquing MissSmiley's piece again, as mine is in no way a substitute for yours.

OMG OMG!!
Gotta work on things then!! - This was quite a bitter blow!!

Thank you so much for giving your time to correct this!! I know it sure takes long!

I really like picky teachers and other people who give me feedback

Just means that I've got a lot to improve

Wow!! I'm actually so stressed now!!

Looks like I got the whole contention and idea wrong, according to you.

Thanks so much!! I really appreciate your time and efforts to type up all this!!

Thanks again! 

[Anonymous]

Looks like I got the whole contention and idea wrong, according to you.

So sorry I came across that way. Interpretation in English is very fluid, so you may in fact be right, and I may just be pushing the wrong ideas onto you - in the midst of critiquing, I did get the occasional thought that a few of my comments should go into my LA piece. Obviously this is indicative of me not being able to accept other's ideas if they differ from my own (which may not be correct). The failing is on my part, not yours. I just wanted to repay your kindness when you critiqued my pieces in previous weeks, but seems like my plans backfired.

This is why I requested someone more qualified to re-critique your piece

[MissSmiley]

So sorry I came across that way. Interpretation in English is very fluid, so you may in fact be right, and I may just be pushing the wrong ideas onto you - in the midst of critiquing, I did get the occasional thought that a few of my comments should go into my LA piece. Obviously this is indicative of me not being able to accept other's ideas if they differ from my own (which may not be correct). The failing is on my part, not yours. I just wanted to repay your kindness when you critiqued my pieces in previous weeks, but seems like my plans backfired.

This is why I requested someone more qualified to re-critique your piece

Oh no, please don't be sorry!
And it was very nice of you to check my writing as well, after I checked yours
No no! Please don't feel your plans backfired!

I didn't mean to imply this at all
Don't worry - it was just me speaking to myself that I needed to improve

All good!

[Anonymous]

With duck shooting season drawing nearer, The Age has published an editorial with the assertion that "this cruel and barbaric sport" should be banned. Sparked by this, Hutchison has also made a comment in which she passionately condemns the labelling of duck shooting as a "sport".

The Age begins with the argument that the current state of duck shooting and any actions taken in relation to it are unacceptable and inadequte. In starting off with evidence of "improved environmental conditions" and the subsequent increase in duck population, the author sets readers up to be disappointed when this action is reversed by duck shooting. Compounding on this effect, the reference to how "10 ducks a day… will provide adequate protection for game duck populations" incites within readers a profound anger, as they realise the limit has little to no effect and that therefore its only purpose was to promote the idea that the killers did indeed care to some extent for the ducks. In then making the comparison between the "15 wildlife officers" and the "22,000 registered shooters", readers are urged to see how inadequate and understaffed the department is at upholding bag limits, and therefore cements the idea that the limit is moreso just for show, which would elicit distrust in duck shooting organisations. Furthermore, the potential for this season to be the "biggest massacre… on record" promotes fear within readers, as it implies a negative trend that may continue to grow. In thereby siding with "RSPCA - and the ducks", of which RSPCA is a credible source, a dichotomous relationship is created, which forces readers to choose a side, and would lean them to favour the Age, along with RSPCA. Therefore sympathisers to the cause are positioned to develop trust in the Age, especially when it claims that duck shooting is "bad news… for  the ducks". To add to this, their resolute stance since 1992 shows the level of unwavering belief they have concerning this matter and so encourages readers to do the same.

The Age then goes on to contend that it's incomprehensible that duck shooting still exists today. Accompanied by the use of statistics dating back to 1995 of major states within Australia banning duck shooting, he suggests that the continuation of such a sport is archaic within Australia in the 21st century, and therefore should be abolished. In juxtaposing this with how Victoria boasts itself as a "proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking", not only does the use of alliteration "progressive public policies", due the repetition of the "p", make the statement stick in the readers' minds, but the overall phrase also unveils the hypocritical nature of Victoria, and so readers are prompted to side with RSPCA on the matter. The author targets the Victorian government when he claims that banning the sport is a politically viable option for them, as a poll found that "75% were in favour of a ban", a no. which not many would dare to dispute.

Shifting to a more adamant tone, the author's argument that duck shooting is plainly a cruel "sport" that's "not open to question", literally gives no option for readers other than to accept his opinion. The use of "cruel" and "sport" within the same sentences brings up the contradictory nature of the phrase, as one has a brighter feel and connotes a fun experience, while the other gives off a more malicious vibe. Since readers should be able to infer that the reference to duck shooting as being a sport is representative of the marketing surrounding it, in which the positive portrayal aims to affect people's perspective of it, they're more inclined to align with the ducks. The string of strong word choices that follow, and the images that they paint of "lingering and painful deaths" elicit within readers a sense of guilt and sorrow, as they have a negative connotation that alludes to a torturous experience.

This is comparable to Hutchison's comment, in which he takes on a different route to highlight other incidents of hypocrisy. The repetitive nature of the listing of Victoria's multiple exploitations "involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses… the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds" works to overwhelm readers with the magnitude of the statistics. Readers are also prompted to feel guilty when Hutchison exposes their hypocritical nature in reference to "Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering". Such negatively connotative words give the impression of barbaric acts that should be condemned, so when readers are led to apply that to duck shooting, a sense of guilt and shame ensues. Hutchison then goes on to make an association between the "sport" and "killers" instead of "hunters", which connotes a position in which one maims for food, rather than for fun. In doing so, she likens duck shooters to merciless killers of weak and defenceless animals, and thereby seeks to elicit reader's support.

Both the Age and Hutchison heavily rely on evidence to sway the audience into siding with them.  In doing so, they aim to influences readers into advocating for the banning of duck slaughtering along with them.

[clarke54321]

With duck shooting season drawing nearer, The Age has published an editorial with the assertiontry and be even more explicit by referring to this as the contention that "this cruel and barbaric sport" <-- where possible, present the contention in your own words (show your understanding of the piece as a cohesive whole) should be banned. Sparked by this, Hutchison has also made a comment in which she passionately condemns the labelling of duck shooting as a "sport". Very nice and succint. To improve, incorporate the tones of each repsective author

The Age begins with the argument that the current state of duck shooting and any actions taken in relation to it are unacceptable and inadequte nice topic sentence. To elevate it further, see if you can be even more specific. In starting off with evidence of "improved environmental conditions" and the subsequent increase in duck population, the author sets readers up to be disappointed when this action is reversed by duck shooting excellent observation, but lead the reader through the steps. Where does the author suddenly undercut this idealised prospect?. Compounding on this effect, the reference to how "10 ducks a day… will provide adequate protection for game duck populations" incites within readers a profound anger, as they realise the limit has little to no effect and that therefore its only purpose was to promote the idea that the killers did indeed care to some extent for the ducks very nice analysis. Build on this reader effect in the next sentence--->. In then making the comparison between the "15 wildlife officers" and the "22,000 registered shooters", readers are urged to see how inadequate and understaffed the department is at upholding bag limits, and therefore cements the idea that the limit is moreso just for showavoid colloquials- "on the surface" or "a mere portrayal" , which wouldseeks/endeavours/strives to (be tentative) elicit distrust in duck shooting organisations. Furthermore, the potential for this season to be the "biggest massacre… on record" promotes fear within readers, as it implies a negative trend that may continue to grow. InI'd encourage you to incorporate more of the active tense into your piece. Variation will heighten the quality of your writing. thereby siding with "RSPCA - and the ducks", of which RSPCA is a credible source how do you know this? Refrain from subjective statements, a dichotomous relationship is created, which forces readers to choose a side, and would lean them to favour the Age, along with RSPCA. Therefore sympathisers to the cause are positioned to develop trust in the Age, especially when it claims that duck shooting is "bad news… for  the ducks" <---flesh this out. Your reader should not be left to speculate (ie. join the dots). To add to this, their resolute stance since 1992 shows the level of unwavering belief they have concerning this matter and so encourages readers to do the same.Quite a nice paragraph 

The Age then goes on to contendleave this kind of language to the intro. Perhaps declares/states/avers/argues that it's incomprehensible that duck shooting still exists today. Accompanied by the use of statisticsyou must include these in your analysis dating back to 1995 of major states within Australia banning duck shooting, he suggests that the continuation of such a sport is archaic within Australia in the 21st century, and therefore should be abolished. In juxtaposing this with how Victoria boasts itself as a "proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking", not only does the use of alliteration "progressive public policies", due the repetition of the "p", make the statement stick in the readers' minds, but the overall phrase also unveils the hypocritical nature of Victoria, and so readers are prompted to side with RSPCA on the matter woah  Very long sentence! Try and split your ideas up. And just as a reminder, try and be original when elaborating on the impact of alliteration..<---you could strengthen your writing by x10 if you linked every sentence  ---> The author targets the Victorian government when he claims that banning the sport is a politically viable option for them, as a poll found that "75% were in favour of a ban", a no. which not many would dare tobe likely to dispute.

Shifting to a more adamant tone, the author's argument that duck shooting is plainly a cruel "sport" that's "not open to question", literally gives no option for readers other than to accept his opinion leave this type of analysis to the crux of the body paragraph. The topic sentence should really only encompass a main argument (and maybe a corresponding technique that you believe is pertinent) . The use of "cruel" and "sport" within the same sentences brings up the contradictory nature of the phrase, as one hasthe latter (direct your readers) a brighter feel and connotes a fun experience, while the other gives off a more malicious vibe and so what are readers asked to do? Understand the contrived nature of the sport? Tease it out!. Since readers should be able to infer that the reference to duck shooting as being a sport is representative of the marketing surrounding it, in which the positive portrayal aims to affect people's perspective of it, they're more inclined to align with the ducks. The string of strong word choices that follow, and the images that they paint of "lingering and painful deaths" elicit within readers a sense of guilt and sorrow, as they have a negative connotationyou've only just mentioned connotations- be more versatile. You could even say this provokes an image of a torturous experience or animates this. that alludes to a torturous experience.

This what is "this" referring to?is comparable to Hutchison's comment, in which he takes on a different route to highlight other incidents of hypocrisy this is a nice comparative TS, but again, try and be more specific. The repetitive nature of the listing of Victoria's multiple exploitations "involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses… the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds" works to overwhelm readers with the magnitude of the statistics absolutely.. it creates the idea of inexorable oppression. How are readers supposed to react? If you can elaborate on reader effect more, I think you'll find it easier to link the sentences.. Readers are alsoyou needed to mention this intended effect in the previous sentence. prompted to feel guilty when Hutchison exposes their hypocritical nature in reference to "Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering". Such negatively connotative words give the impression of barbaric acts that should be condemned, so when readers are led to apply that to duck shooting, a sense of guilt and shame ensues. Hutchison then goes on to make an association between the "sport" and "killers" instead of "hunters", which connotes a positiontry not to capitalise too much on connotations. Instead, look to appeals or implicit allusions. in which one maims for food, rather than for fun. In doing so, she likens duck shooters to merciless killers of weak and defenceless animals, and thereby seeks to elicit reader's support.

Both the Age and Hutchison heavily rely on evidence to sway the audience into siding with themplease avoid this type of language. It is very vague. Always aim to produce an authentic analysis..  In doing so, they aim to influences readers into advocating for the banning of duck slaughtering along with them.

Very nice effort! Please don't hesitate to clarify any concerns