analysis

[fredrick]

As the title suggests-
Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 10! thanks

In his opinion piece, ‘solar sellout’, Bob Walsh asserts that charging a so called ‘greenhouse levy’ to household without solar hot water systems is “an inexcusable abuse of residents rights”. Throughout his piece Walsh displays that the idea is not a great one, by using a rather serious and annoyed tone.

Initially Walsh grabs the attention of the reader by using a persuasive technique that emphasises specific words. Words such as ”nasty” have a negative connotation associated with them, this use of language is used to grab the readers attention and make them feel sympathy towards those affected by the proposal. The use of the word “incredibly” focuses the reader to see that this was a rather unexpected proposition which again evokes a sense of sympathy to the reader.

Walsh  them appeals to hip-pocket nerve in order to sway his readers. “$200 per house, and $500 per business!”, from this statement it can be seen that Walsh  tries to persuade the reader by using money and quoting figures. The appeal to hip-pocket nerve suggests that the financial well being is threatened and positions readers to show anger that their hard earned money is being misused.

Walsh manipulates the reader by highlighting and using words that posses the ability to make the reader feel sympathetic. The loaded words such as “blatant abuse” and “innocent citizens”, provokes a sense that positions readers to see that they are being treated unfairly. Furthermore Walsh  contends that money needs to be spent on other infrastructure in Greenvale and uses the word “desperately” in order to grab the readers attention and positions them to feel that something needs to be done fast.

Walsh uses a persuasive technique in which sarcasm is involved. He contend that “he’d rather rob the residents blind”, this use of sarcasm engages the reader to share in the writer ridicule and rejection of the idea of a ‘greenhouse levy’. Additionally it invites the reader to think and ponder about what is really happening and that the citizens are being ripped off.

Walsh evokes the reader to feel further sympathy by using emotive language when he  states “they don’t like us being comfortable”, “they hate”, “they just want us to suffer” and it is also designed to evoke a sense of anger in the reader and saying that the people deserve to be heard, thus attempting to sway the readers into agreeing with his stance.
His appeal to a figure with authority and the use of statistics and figures to persuade the reader is used. Walsh asserts “according to the Australian greenhouse office, households are responsible for 17% of greenhouse emissions”. This particular use of statistics influences the reader in a way that they are positioned  to agree because convincing and reliable sources have been stated. Walsh adds an emphasis on the word “every” by indicating it in italics to further sway the reader in the next few lines by saying, “if every house installs solar hot systems greenhouse gases would only be reduced by 17% out of 30% = just 5.1%”. The language Walsh  has chosen to use by indicting “every” house and stating such minimal reduction in greenhouse gas emissions positions the reader to think is it worth all the havoc it is creating.

An appeal to common sense is followed after the use of figures. By saying, “how can one suburbs actions affect the worlds overall carbon output?”, here Walsh challenges the readers common sense as they are pressured into agreeing or else they would be viewed as someone that lacks practical intelligence and cannot see what is self-evident. Walsh continues to say “and will they really spend that money in developing renewable energy? I doubt it”. This positions the reader to ponder about what is really happening and where the hard earned money will end up.

I seem to have lost the last page of the analysis…But can you mark me on that and where i can improve cheers!
 

[fredrick]

anyone?

[psych08]

Hey, not that I;m an expert but I'll try to help. It's quite solid overall, but here are some points u mite like to consider from wat we'v tlked bout at school:

>Vary the beginning of paras slightly, n don't always explicitly state persuasive technique. I.e. Most sentences start with 'Walsh...' and this could bcome monotonous to an assesor. Also, while its fine 2 say 'the reader', stuff like

'Walsh grabs the attention of the reader by using a persuasive technique that emphasises specific words. Words such as ”nasty” have a negative connotation associated with them, this use of language is used to grab the readers attention and make them feel sympathy towards those affected by the proposal'

is a bit too much. The assessors no that they r persuasive techniques, and the audience is the reader. Instead, u could say 'this evokes sympathy by using such loaded language', just leaving out referring to the technnique and the reader, more what the effect is Otherwise, the assessor may think ur simply labelling' techniques.

>I know u have more, but u could always expand a bit more on some techniques to make them feel like u rly understand 100% how the article operates.

>Was there a picture with this? You mite also want to refer to how that persuades.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but its pretty good overall I think! I hope that makes sense. Sorry I'm no good at giving number grades, but u will be fine!
good luck

[marbs]

You're missing a Context, and one of the most important things in language Analysis an Audience.

The writer writes the piece to convince the audience doesn't he, so each technique he uses will need to persuade the particular audience, and convince them that his contention is correct. If you don't have an audience, you can't show the effect on them.

You found good techniques, and the comment on how they are used is too broad.

Overall this would probably get a 5, but a 6 with an audience and context. And a 7-8. if you find how the techniques are used to convince the reader (audience)

[fredrick]

Thanks! i mentioned how the techniques are used to convince the reader, am i suppose to elaborate more on that? and also what do you mean by im missing a context?