First time posting here. I was wondering if someone could provide me with feedback for my Language Analysis piece, I have gotten 6/10 from my teacher for this. I would like to combine her feedback along with feedback from Atarnotes to improve my analysing skill as the English exam is creeping up!!
The article I chose was 2018 VCAA's NHT exam. If someone can provide me with feedback, I would be very grateful.
Spoiler
The rapid mainstreaming of robots and the progression to continuously improving them to be more intelligent has sparked a debate whether or not they can promote the lives of human beings. Some argue that robots are mostly beneficial to improving the lives of humans, while others state that robots are taking over the job market and may try to overthrow less ‘intelligent’ beings. A well-known writer for social concerns, John Jones, penned a feature article as a form on an opinion piece, titled, ‘Our Future with Robots’. Concerningly, he outlines that robots are taking over our lives, and will continue to do so if humans do not stand up against the rapid growth in digital technology. On the other hand, Ashley O’Hara writes a letter which was published in the same newspaper, dismaying Jones piece, as she depicts that robots improve human productivity so that individuals can spend more time with their family.
Jones begins his opinion piece by outlining how robots are advertised to the society in a positive light, which he claims to be misleading. In making this argument, Jones recognises that robots can be helpful to humans in their day to day lives as they can ‘clean offices’, ‘perform surgical procedures’, but he furthers this with, ‘[we] are constantly bombarded with information about robots’. The negative connotation, ‘bombarded’ indicates that humans are unwillingly fed this information, as it was a sales tactics to sell more robots. This may make Jones’ audience block out any unwanted information that describes the potential benefits of robots. To further reinforce his argument, he demonstrates that even though robots can ‘clean the house for us’, nothing is preventing them from stealing our private information, ‘while we are out’. That is intended to elicit fear amongst the readers as everyone desires to keep their private and personal life to themselves. He implies that the dangers of robots are not an ‘exaggerated fantasy’, coupled with a short, sharp sentence. This furthers the implication that dangers of this technology are real, and not just ‘science fiction’ or a ‘fantasy’. By advances by explaining, ‘This is the now.’, as he intends to call his audience to take immediate action so that the rapid increase in artificial beings can halt. Ultimately, he makes readers less likely to be eager or acceptive for the mainstreaming of artificial technology, by changing the perspective of potential audience who may have believed that robots beneficial to human lives.
Progressing with his piece, Jones’ delineates that robots are reducing job prospects for humans, as many ‘lower-skilled’ workers have been ‘displaced’. In making this argument, he seeks to embellish and appeal to humans about their job security, as their job may be stolen by a robot, if they do not act to stop the growth of such technology. Jones’ supports this claim through the accompanying image, which renders a picture of a metal, human-like robot with a hard hat, safety glasses, and paper board. As the robot is in the attire of a construction worker, it outlines to the audience that the construction industry is at risk of being overthrown by robots. Due to the construction being a large sector in the modern world, it provides many jobs – which may be lost if robots are not stopped. Thus, appealing to hip-pocket, as higher unemployment rates can lead to the loss of materialistic possessions, as well as financial security.
Moreover, he utilises an emotional appeal, as he states that ‘think about people who work as cleaners’, ‘what will become of them?’. Jones’ attempts to make readers feel empathetic for lower skilled jobs, as individuals who do such jobs are usually from a lower socioeconomic status, and by rising their unemployment rates, it further pushes them into poverty. This demonstrates to the readers that they should feel compassionate about preventing job loss for all individuals, especially jobs which are regarded as, ‘lower-skilled’. Near the end of the article, Jones’ labels humans as ‘going out of fashion’, as robots are causing humans to become outdated. By referring to humans becoming ‘outdated’, which is a negative connotation, he appeals to the being modern and up to date, eliciting that urgent action must be taken to prevent the obsoletion of human beings.
Conversely, through a disappointed, yet rational tone, O’Hara criticises Jones’ point of view, and even reduces his assertions to, ‘theatrical scare tactics’. She begins the letter with an attack to undermine Jones’ opinion, and to pose him in a negative light as she states he is as a ‘conservative’ and an ‘alarmist’. This paints a picture to her audience to not believe views from a ‘conservative’ person, as they are not progressive. O’Hara uses reason and logic to undermine Jones’ claims further, as she claims that false information such as ‘TV will give you square eyes’, and that ‘cars will make you lazy’, have not proved to be correct. O’Hara compares those hoaxes with artificial intelligence and reassures her audience that robots will also not have any ‘dread[ful]’ consequences. This strengthens her argument, as O’Hara outlines that Jones’ merely is fostering fear into humans, instead of basing his ideologies around facts. O’Hara continues to gain the attention of her audience, by praising them, as she refers to humans as ‘versatile’, ‘resilient’ and that humans even survived the ‘industrial revolution’. It ultimately makes the readers feel good about themselves, making them more likely to engage with O’Hara’s article. O’Hara portrays robots in a positive light, as they can do lower-skilled jobs for humans so that they do not have to do it, as they can increase human productivity which ultimately leads to much more needed, family time. By highlighting the importance of family, by stating that ‘parent’ should spend more ‘quality time with [their] child’, it leads to the audience who may previously believe that robots can only harm society, to believe that it can also benefit society in a significant way, and make the audience feel more connected in the end.
Home
Help
Search
Login
