Hi all. I have just done this language analysis to last year's exam in 1/2 an hour (which I will likely plan to do in the actual exam). I inadvertently left out any mentioning of tone (I tend to forget these things under pressure).
Articles: (Happiness) 2 required to be analysed:
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/pastexams/2006english-w-cpr.pdfCould people give me some praise or criticism on my piece please?
===============================================
The issue in relation to the ability of money to provide one's happiness has caused a heated debate amongst the community. Worthy opinions are being revealed by many people who believe that their thoughts are well substantiated.
In the article titled 'Making Money Work for you', the writer contends that money can indeed provide a person with happiness through possessions. By asking the question, 'Now you've got some money, why not make your money work for you?', the writer instigates that money can be used to a person's advantage. The readers are inclined to believe that their lives can become more prosperous by simply using some of their money. Stating that 'all you need is $1000 to get you going', the easy manner in which such happiness is achievable is highlighted by the writer. This subtle statement suggests to readers that this method requires very little financial support to get going.
By listing certain possessions that are acquirable through this "money making scheme", the possible sources of happiness are made apparent, with an 'iPod' being one possession which will likely bring a smile to someone's face. The readers are therefore convinced that it would be a wise idea to become involved in such a scheme since this is surely an easy source of happiness. Finally, by exclaiming that 'it might cost a little bit now', any negative connotations towards the scheme become unsubstantiated. Being guaranteed to bring happiness, readers accept that they need to make sacrifices now in order to reap the benefits later.
Unlike the "Starting Out" article, the editorial titled 'There's more to happiness than money...' argues that happiness cannot be thought of as being directly proportional to money. The writer brings up research that 'data shows there is little relationship between the level of income and happiness' to explicitly state that any claims that say happiness is related to money are simply untrue. As a result, the readers are swayed into believing that money is certainly not the key to gaining happiness. Additionally, by going on to say that 'people in Mexico are on average happier than people in Australia', the real-life situation is brought forward to dismiss the "money leading to happiness" claims. Readers are again convinced that there is validated research to exemplify the point.
The point that 'individuals adapt to higher incomes' reflects the writer's belief that a person will become accustomed to their income, and money therefore does not provide a permanent state of happiness. The readers are encouraged to agree that this temporary 'satisfaction' will "wear off" over time. By going on to say that 'individuals tend to make social comparisons', the subjective nature of a person's satisfiable income is introduced, making readers feel that unhappiness can be caused by comparisons between peers. Finally, by stating that 'one should be content to count one's blessings', the importance of other things of non-possessive nature is highlighted. Readers are manipulated into believing people should gain happiness from the other things in their life which make them happy.
==============================================
Home
Help
Search
Login
