Since the introduction of the Labor government’s boat laws, there has been a significant increase in people seeking refuge in Australia. These laws have encouraged many to endanger their lives resulting in fatal consequences, and in some cases, death. The Gillard Government has been quick to pass the blame, sparking fury within the community.
Huh? Weave your first and second paragraph together. Why did you make a paragraph? it seems purposeless now...The contextualizing is there just to engage the audience... I don't get the purpose of this paragraph.... Even the issue seems issueless because the two paragraphs aren't weaved ):Andrew Bolt’s opinion piece, published in the Herald Sun on December 17, 2010 contends that the Government’s ‘soft policies’ have lead to the deaths of refugees at sea. The piece, entitled ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ suggests that the Gillard Government is solely to blame for this debacle, and that these ‘weak laws’ should be rectified before causing more harm. This piece is targeted at anyone who is interested in politics or Government policies.
Tautology here, whats the difference between policies and government policies? They are the same thing. Stick with one! I also have mixed feeling about the "intended" audience. Is it really people who are interested in policies? It just doesn't sound rightThe tone of the piece is attacking, satirical, and at times conversational. Rhetoric questions are employed in the opening sentences, ‘But why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ These questions position the reader to doubt the flimsy logic that it is ‘too early’ to blame the Government for the Christmas Island deaths. Additionally, the rhetoric questions promote a feeling of urgency within the reader, suggesting that Gillard’s policies have already caused harm to many, further supporting Bolt’s contention that Gillard’s Government must take action now to change these ‘reckless’ laws.
Your rheotoric questions and your tone seem out of place with one another.You talk about tone in your first sentence, then you talk about your technique in your second. Your tone is the raison de tre of your paragraph. SO TALK ABOUT IT!. Talk about how it affects the piece as a whole, how the tone positions the reader and the author. Use quotes that illustrates the tone's effect but does not encompass too much technique.Bolt’s use of hard evidence adds credibility to his contention. Statistics, such as ‘latest 28 or more people to drown’, ‘170 others’ and ’19 Afgans’ alert the reader to the seriousness of this problem. The statistics appeal to the readers’ sense of logic,
New sentence.these figures help the reader to put the situation in perspective, and to seriously
You said serious once already, perhaps, consider? evaluate the magnitude of issue. Further evidence is provided by
The credentials of a recognized humanitarium organization ..... ‘Ian Rintoul, of the Refugee Action Collective’ espousing Bolt’s belief that the ‘Government anti-refugee policy is responsible for the tragedy’. This appeals to the readers sense of authority, authoritative figures add validity to the information provided, inspiring confidence, and ensuring the reader accepts this evidence as proof the Government is to blame.
Bolt’s implementation of repetition emphasizes important messages in the readers’ minds
What messages? The reader doesn't know what messages. You mean his contention?. The phrases ‘They lie’, ‘It’s never’ and ‘too soon’ are repeated several times to assert Bolt’s argument. These phrases refer to the government’s unwillingness to accept blame and any deceptive statements they have made about the Christmas Island deaths. This pushes the reader associate the Government with ‘liars’. The continuous repetition of these phrases reinforces Bolt’s main contention and causes readers to believe the Government are untrustworthy and unreliable.
Okay!Second-hand anecdotal evidence is
strategically employed to prove the new policies have changed the attitudes in refugees.
Why did you put a statistic in a sentence, and yet have no explaination or whatever? I"m abit lost. Its like saying. The egyptians appreciated cats both in its metaphorical and physical aspect. "I like cat." da da da da.-- See it doesn't make sense? ‘The Government has changed now. It’s good for refugees here.’ ‘If I go to Australia now, different.’ Because of the new policies, refugees are encouraged to venture on a perilous journey to Australia, potentially risking the lives of many men, women and children. Evidence from the refugees demonstrates the ‘weakened’ nature of the laws that have taken the lives of many.
Effect on the reader? What emotions does it stir? How does it position the author/ reader ? etc...Accompanying the opinion piece is a photograph, depicting a large refugee boat crashing to the shores. This image evokes feelings of sympathy within the audience, drawing the reader’s attention to the reality of the situation. Bolt’s use of strong emotive language such as the word ‘smashed’ to describe the ill fate of the boats, conjures horrifying images in the reader’s mind. Bolt’s choice of language, accompanied by an eye-opening photograph
Quote?, elicits feelings of distress in the reader, again suggesting something must be done to repair
You need a more urgent word than the dull "repair" the situation, proving Gillard’s Government is to blame
Abit awkward here cause of lumping of ideas. How about. By stirring provocative emotions, the author positions the the reader to side with him and to recognize, that in fact, the Gillard's government is at fault for this catastrophe..
The conversational tone occasionally employed by Bolt draws the reader to take part in the debate
I"m abit confused here, didn't you just talk about tone , few paragraphs before?. ‘Yes, you read that rightly. Unless we encourage yet more people to take the boats…’Furthermore, the mockery employed in this piece exposes the inadequacies of the Government’s arguments. ‘Those laws must not even be discussed, or at least not while we can still see their grim consequences, being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island.’ The sarcasm reveals fatal flaws in the argument, while humouring the audience.
This was an unncessary paragraph, half of it in fact was built up through quotes. That is bad.In a scathing attack on the Labor Government, Bolt critical opinion piece discusses the many issues surrounding the Christmas Island deaths. Through the use of strong evidence and emotional appeals, Bolt explicitly underlines the key faults in Gillard’s policies, and casts undeniable doubts on the Labor party’s ability to accept blame.
Overall Comment: You appear to understand the basic structure of a language analysis Your next step here is to add a level of sophistication in your essay and to your writing. At the moment, your structure of TEE sticks out like dog's balls. The examiner knows that the essay form is formulaic, so its your job to cloy it. This can be done in a number of ways by like grouping your paragraphs together, transitioning from one technique to another smoothly in one paragraph or analyzing one technique in specific detail. The examiner will rather prefer that you understand one technique in depth, than many, which appears to be what has happened in your essay. Try and not add too much quotes. You want to limit it to a few words only that conveys your points. This is what the examiner is looking for. Lastly, try and weave your quotes in your explainations
Overall Score; 6
Home
Help
Search
Login
