To help prevent the spread of the Coronavirus
doesn't require capitalisation, many parts of Australia were forced into lockdown. Victoria had the toughest restrictions in the entire country,
this is pretty minor, but I think contextualising the issue could be done a little more concisely, e.g. Victoria's harshly imposed restrictions to contain the coronavirus being a contrast to the lenient approaches of other states prompted Susie Obrien... prompting Susie Obrien to write the opinion article, titled ‘What about schools? Dan’s waited too long.’ (Herald Sun, published 12th May 2020)
might be better to integrate this info without the use of brackets The author contends that the strict restrictions enforced by Daniel Andrews
again, this is minor, but you might want to mention that Dan Andrews is the premier of vic to establish his pertinence to the issue's context was ‘ridiculous,’ as it
is you've changed tenses twice here, try keep it consistently in present tense causing Victoria to
be at an face an economic crisis, which is hurting both businesses and individuals. With a blunt yet authoritative tone,
good mentioning of the tone in the intro O’Brien aims to sway Victoria’s public members into realising that Daniel Andrews is keeping restrictions
might be good to come up with synonyms to 'restrictions' at this point tight to ‘suit his own purposes.’
this might vary with teachers, but I've been taught that you shouldn't quote in your contention as the assessor's want to see your interpretation of the author's contention instead of directly restating what has already been said in the article via quotes In addition to this, Mark Knight’s cartoon also satirises the heavy restrictions
you know what I'm gonna say here 
enforced by the Government. His depiction of a range of vehicles stopped at a road supports the sentiment of the article, as Knight implies that although workers are gearing to go, they are being selfishly stopped by Andrews.
Obrien opens her article by asserting that ‘children should get back to the classroom,’ as it is stopping the economy from moving.
you haven't analysed the quote you've used The author presents expert advice from Brett Sutton, to show readers that a professional has actually said that ‘from a health point of view,’ there is no ‘problem with schools,’ reopening.
you've said what it shows readers, but not how it positions readers Obrien shows
too much repetition of the word 'show', a stronger verb will allow you to convey something more specific readers that Andrews is contradicting the advice
he is being given by medical professionals, thus positioning him to be viewed as untrustworthy and unreliable. Therefore, readers
see that Obrien’s article is supported by a professional, and her assertion that the Government should open schools is beyond a personal judgment. I would word what I've italicised a little differently, because you don't need to repeat that her article is substantiated with professional advice - you've already said this the personal judgement stuff is good! Furthermore, Obrien suggests that some teachers want
the schools to stay closed as they’ve ‘put a lot of effort into the transition of home learning.’ She implies that these teachers are being selfish, and ‘shouldn’t be calling the shots.’ As readers instinctively associate selfishness with these teachers,
the reader effect is too certain here, need to tone down modality they realise that the Premier is wrong and unjust to listen to this ‘small group.’
you could go into closer analysis - what are the connotations of the word selfish? you can also go on to talk about, for example, how it is a teacher's responsibility to act in the best interests of their students and further their education, but the fact that they deviate from what is expected from them and what they are paid to do reflects 'badly' upon their profession and positions them as apathetic to their students' learning ---> you could go on to analyse how reader groups like parents and students would feel about this if you identify them as being part of the audience of the piece in your intro The author later acknowledges that ‘teachers and students need to be protected,’ so readers can view her as understanding and caring. Readers’
no apostrophe needed here are
then more inclined to support her stance, as she
does understand
s the importance of safety. Through the example of schools, Obrien shows
this word readers that the government is being unjust and contradictory, and their strict actions are therefore unnecessary.
I feel this conclusion is a bit out of the blue - you haven't really analysed throughout your para how the government has been positioned so it might be good to link it a little more. I get why the government is made to feel this way, but a little more connection would be really good here I thinkThe author further argues that Andrews is being ‘too cautious’ in implementing restrictions. Obrien uses statistical evidence,
no comma needed here that ‘161,000 people….have been tested,’ and ‘only 30….cases have been found,’ to enhance this argument. She aims to assure readers that Coronavirus isn’t spreading as rapidly as they might think, and therefore, the Government’s strict restrictions are unjustifiable.
how does this go on to position the government? (not just their restrictions?) --> for example, you might say she positions the government as unnecessarily prudent, which precludes them from making the right decision for their state (I'm making this up since I haven't read the article haha) Similarly, Mark Knight’s cartoon
humorously reflects this idea
in a humorous way. By drawing Andrews with the gear of a lollipop man, Knight reflects his commanding attitudes and his reluctancy to
let allow workers
to resume their normal lives. In this case, the uniform has negative connotations of inducing power and showing authority, making the reader associate such qualities with the Premier,
too certain with reader effect as well as the idea that Andrews role as Premier has ‘[gone] to his head.’ The parked cars in front of the crossing metaphorically
expresses express that traffic has stopped, but Andrews is the only one stopping the flow. By sarcastically depicting Victoria’s ‘road back to normality,’ as halted, Knight aims to show viewers that the Premier is
not willing unwilling to compromise, and is keeping restrictions for his own benefit. The colours used in the cartoon are desaturated and dismal, which symbolises the distress and hardships workers are struggling through financially.
good! Along with this, the annoyed faces of the drives
attempt to evoke feelings of sympathy from the reader, as it is evident that the restrictions aren’t helping any of these people.
It is further suggested by the author that there is no unity between Victoria and Australia’s lockdown measures, and this is unjustifiable.
I feel you've repeated 'unjustifiable' too many times By comparing AFL footballers that ‘are allowed to train,’ to the inability to let a child play at a park, O’Brien pinpoints the contradictory actions taken by Victoria’s Government. This inclines readers to feel disappointed, as there is no middle line between the restrictions being placed. Moreover, the author references that ‘politicking,’ has resumed, to show
hmmm readers that the Government has moved on from public safety,
as and? is now tightening restrictions as a game.
you can go further with this! what are the implications? how is the reader inclined to feel? e.g. the fact that they see it as a game ---> government is ignoring their moral duty to serve the people ----> games often carry connotations of lighthearted fun so the government isn't seeing this seriously anymore By contrasting Andrews with Annastacia Palaszczuk who ‘followed the lead of the Liberal Prime Minister,’ O’Brien shows
:O that Andrews is not a team player, thus making readers realise
too certain that O’Brien is reasonable in her opinion. The audience is positioned to
further feel
more unsupported, as the Government is rather using Coronavirus to play politics. Additionally, O’Brien praises Victoria’s ‘testing regimen,’ to make readers realise that Victoria is in a good position. This makes the author seem reasonable, as her contention is supported with evidence.
I feel like you've used this technique (statistics + evidence) enough already, try not to analyse the same techniques over and over In conjunction with this, she uses repetition with the rule of three, (‘identify, isolate, contain,’)
again, I don't think it is a good idea to use brackets in your essay to add a memorable aspect of the argument to readers.
O’Brien
ends her article insultingly by condescending condescendingly insults the Premier
at the end of her article by suggesting that he is on an ‘egocentric power trip.’
analyse this quote By ending with this, readers are set to reflect on Andrews real morals, and therefore accept the authors stance on this issue.
By pinpointing the weaknesses of the Victorian Government in relation to Coronavirus restrictions, O’Brien aims to persuade readers that the strict restrictions are mostly unnecessary.
overused vocab By primarily drawing attention to school closures the author shows
:OOO that Victoria’s economy is hurting due to this. In addition to the article, Mark Knight’s cartoons mocks the strict restrictions placed by Andrews, and his reluctancy to let industry move back into work.
Analysis of that small visual – not really sure where to place in this essay……The added visual aims to balance out the stern nature of the article. Through a word play on ‘the good, the bad, the ugly,’ it presents a recap of the past week. The bright, bold colours are intended to attract the readers eye, and the cartoon faces give a playful aspect to the article.
you can add the analysis wherever you see fit. might be worth it to spend some time modifying a part of your essay so you can smoothly integrate this analysis in
Home
Help
Search
Login
