Background: Royal Life Saving Australia has reported that in the month up to and including January 1, 48 drownings were reported across the nation, an increase from 31 in the same period a year ago.Every summer I join the thousands of volunteer surf lifesavers decked out in lurid yellow and red and take part in patrols of what is generally a fairly safe beach to swim at. But even Apollo Bay beach can be dangerous in certain conditions – and adding alcohol into the mix is diabolical. So far we’ve had 12 drownings in Victoria this summer, and 50 nationally. And this is despite the attempts from various organisations to educate people about safe water use.
Question: I am unsure on how to end every body paragraph. Should I write a linking sentence? I sort of rehashed the topic sentence of each paragraph.
A rise in the number of deaths caused by drowning in Australia has stirred controversy surrounding the safety of the country’s beaches. In an adamant tone, Nicola Philip contends that beach-goers need to acknowledge the dangers of swimming in some of Australia’s shores and take greater responsibility to keep themselves and their children out of harm's way.
Philip argues that Australian beaches can hold significant dangers. A dogmatic tone is used to assert that “certain conditions” at even a “fairly safe beach” can lead to harm among swimmers and surfers. This matter-of-fact tone is underpinned by Phillip citing that Victoria had “12 drownings this summer” and Australia had “50” “drownings,” with the factual evidence granting her greater credibility among readers. Philip’s anecdotal experience as a “volunteer lifeguard” at “Apollo Bay” further aids in cementing her argument as fact, as she has witnessed firsthand the “dangerous” nature of her beach “every summer,” more so than the audience of casual beachgoers. Alongside this, Philip argues that the dangers of beaches can be so significant and indomitable through the use of the word “lurid” in describing the uniforms of “thousands” of “volunteer surf lifesavers.” This highlights the distinguishable and vivid uniforms of lifesavers and their significant presence at beaches, that, despite all, is unable to give beachgoers a “guarantee” of “security” from the dangers of the sea. This portrayal of the sea as an unstoppable force is reaffirmed by the phrase “pounding surf,” which invokes imagery of the danger and destruction that “surf beach[es]” can inflict, and thus may arouse a sense of fear among Victorian beachgoers about their safety. Essentially, the writer warns readers of the hazards that beaches can hold.
The carelessness and risk-taking behaviour of beachgoers is condemned by the writer. The tone shifts from one of firmness to frustration, with Philip now lamenting the lack of knowledge that leads many beachgoers into “trouble.” The acknowledgement that “many people” do “choose” to “increase their safety” at beaches lessens the annoyed tone of Philip, with Victorian readers that value their safety at beaches been granted appreciation. However, a dichotomy is created between the informed and misinformed, with Philip being “astounded” by other beachgoers who act recklessly. The juxtaposition of Philip not even “put[ting]” her “toe” in the beach “on certain days” due to dangerous conditions to “tourists” who “head into” the surf further exemplifies this contrast, and encourages ‘informed’ readers to look with disdain upon the ‘misinformed’ beachgoers. The exasperated tone of Philip in describing how even “attempts from various organizations” to “educate people” about “safe water use” have not succeeded also intensifies her annoyance at the ignorance of some, and may encourage readers to introspect on their own actions and knowledge of beach safety. Furthermore, the use of the word “diabolical” in describing beachgoers with “alcohol” connotes images of evilness with such actions, and invites an audience of casual beachgoers to realize the weight of such reckless behaviour. To a degree, Philip also positions herself to hold a moral high ground due to her role as a “lifesaver,” with her and other “volunteer surf lifesavers” acting to "help” when “trouble arises” due to the misinformed public. The condescending manner in which she states that “there’s a reason why” the dangerous "Johanna beach” is a “perfect surf beach” reinforces the idea that Philip’s greater knowledge of beach safety outweighs that of many of the public and readers. Ultimately, Philip admonishes the ignorance of some beachgoers towards their own safety.
Philips implores parents to take responsibility for their children at beaches. The humorous phrase of some parents using the “flags” as a “free babysitting service” highlights the ridiculousness and laziness of those that do take responsibility for their children at beaches, and thus may cause some parents reading to realize the shame in their actions. The use of the word “lulled” in describing parents that believe their children will be completely “safe” due to the “watch” of a “lifeguard” connotes ideas of naivety and innocence, and may cause an audience of younger parents to realize their ignorance. A serious tone is used by Philips to target the parental fears of readers, with her stating that “the flags” are “no guarantee” that parents’ children will be safe. Alongside this, Philip’s use of an imperative statement in demanding parents to be their “child’s primary lifeguard” further creates a sense of seriousness and directly calls upon readers to protect their children from hazards at beaches. Essentially, Philips urges parents to take greater responsibility for their children’s welfare whilst at the beach.
Ultimately, Nicola Philips ignites fear among readers surrounding the dangerous and unpredictable nature of Australia’s beaches, and thus encourage them to take greater responsibility for their own and others’ safety.
this is only the intro and bp 1
In response to a recent report regarding an increase in drownings across the nation, there has been growing discussion within the community as to the role people should play in the safety of their families and themselves at beaches. One such response comes from Nicola Philp, a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay beach. In her [i have no idea what this text type is called] comment, Philp targets beachgoers, as well as parents, suggesting that the latter be more proactive in keeping their children safe.
Employing a concerned(?) tone, Philp argues that parents should not rely solely on lifeguards to watch their children. She begins by immediately establishing herself as a credible source of information, through the use of the personal 'I'. Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings. In an attempt to further exploit parental inhibitions, she states that they are "no guarantee" of safety; they are only "fairly safe". Reaffirming this notion, Philp places the onus on parents. with the call to action to be their "child's primary lifeguard", thus instilling a sense of responsibility within them. As such, readers may well be inclined to heed Philp's advice, considering her insights as a lifeguard.
this is only the intro and bp 1
In response to a recent report regarding an increase in drownings across the nation, there has been growing discussion within the community as to the role people should play in the safety of their families and themselves at beaches. One such response comes from Nicola Philp, a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay beach. In her [i have no idea what this text type is called] comment, Philp targets beachgoers, as well as parents, suggesting that the latter be more proactive in keeping their children safe.
Concise which is always nice! :P However, I want you to focus more on your contention....--> see end of feedback
Employing a concerned(?) tone (I'm not that great with tonal words but I wouldn't say concerned, more along the lines of condeming), Philp argues that parents should not rely solely on lifeguards to watch their children. She begins by immediately establishing herself as a credible source of information, through the use of the personal 'I'. *1*.Philp then proceeds to discuss the [danger] of beaches, "despite" the presence of "thousands of... lifesavers". "[A]stounded]" by those who "use the flags as a free babysitting service", Philp warns parents to reconsider the ramifications of this "false sense of security", so misleading that it has resulted in a number of drownings. *2* In an attempt to further exploit parental inhibitions, she states that they are "no guarantee" of safety; they are only "fairly safe". *3* Reaffirming this notion, Philp places the onus on parents. with the call to action to be their "child's primary lifeguard", thus instilling a sense of responsibility within them . As such, readers may well be inclined to heed Philp's advice, considering her insights as a lifeguard. *4*
(Only an introduction and the first body paragraph):
An increase of fatalities on Australian beaches raises concern and awareness for the safety of the nation’s beach-goers. Whilst employing an authoritative tone, a volunteer lifeguard Nicola Philp attempts to convey their contention in their letter to the editor that beach-goers should be more vigilant and attentive when being active on beaches.
Philps argues that parents need to take the initiative to secure the safety of their children amongst the shores. Mentioning that the flags only have a use of being a “free babysitting service” attempts to emphasise that parents are too careless when it comes to supervising their children on beaches, which is seen as a major factor that contributes into the rise of deaths due to drownings. This helps to strike guilt and a sense of responsibility into parents, particularly to frequent beach-goers, and thus make readers take corrective actions to ensuring the safety of their children. Additionally, this is further complimented using direct language from the phrase “you are your child’s primary lifeguard.” The words “you” and “your” continuously reiterates the lack of awareness in parents among beaches, which ultimately seeks readers to feel more involved when it comes to preventing dangers arising to their children.
Also I would like to ask what is the key to easily finding 3 main argument points in a piece that is short as this weeks one. I always having trouble to find what to write my body paragraphs about in a short amount of time.
---Hi peachxmh!
In an opinion piece written by Nicola Philp, the issue of an increase in drownings across Australia has been raised. Technically, Nicola's piece hasn't raised the issue, she's only making a stance on the issue. These are the fine things assessors really want you to consider! Philp, herself a volunteer lifeguard at Apollo Bay, and therefore, personally affiliated with the issue, really great to mention this! However, this is great for the first body para -- on how the author 'constructs' or 'sets up' their argument. So this doesn't need to go into the intro :) contends that beachgoers should take greater responsibility for themselves, rather than completely relying onothersbeach lifesaversto ensure their safety. Targeting parents I used to say 'targeting' at the start of the year as well, but later my teacher told me it just felt really harsh haha! as if a gun or bullet targeting and shooting someone haha! So just 'She addresses parents...' would do the job just fine! ;Dwho bring their children to beaches as well as other general beachgoers, she employs a frustrated really? how about earnest or authoritative? tone to convey her concern.
The author argues that beachgoers need tobeincrease their awareness of the correct ways to use beaches safely. Her use of the phrase "volunteer surf lifesavers" highlights her contention you've said on the previous line what the author's contention is, so this next line about goodwill doesn't really link to the first line of your para.by drawing readers' attention to the fact that lifeguards are doing their job out of their own goodwill. This causes readers to question why parents can't take on their own responsibilities while others can. Be careful to not deviate from proving the first line of your para. how is this linked to her contention? By establishing herself as one of these " volunteer surf lifesavers", Philp also shows readers that she is a credible source of information, since she has witnessed the conditions at Australian beaches firsthand...something like 'In turn, readers are likely to take her incredulity and earnest tone seriously'...or something. Just felt a bit unfinished. She then attacks This is really strong and speculative. Don't worry, everyone does this at the start of the year! But let's aim to write things like 'she aims to condemns' or 'she aims to suggests' or other synonyms for 'aims' those who she's not attacking or criticising the people, but she's critiquing the action - drinking alcohol and swimming. I know what you mean, but this is where reading the article again comes handy! go to the beach whilst intoxicated, labelling them not the people, but the action " diabolical" and citing the dangers that can happen to even those sober. Through her inclusion of logos and statistical evidence, "12 drownings in Victoria" and "50 nationally", she backs up her assertions and gains credibility.When you see authors using numbers, a way to stand out with your analyses is look at if the numbers increase or decrease. In this case, it's a 'numerical increase.' Therefore, she's widening the intensity of the deaths - firstly from a state level then on a national level. What's the effect? Makes us feel even scared and worried! So whilst your analysis about 'backs up her assertions and credibility' is correct to some extent, make sure you think out of box and don't analyse just generally! :)That Awkward way to start a sentence. Could you go like 'By suggesting that...she aims to imply..." she suggests "various organisations" have tried to educate beachgoers about "safe water use" implies that those still not following these guidelines are simply refusing to listen. As a result, Philp alleges that people going to the beach should not only make themselves more knowledgeable on water safety issues, but also follow these rules. I like the next point here, but it would be really great if you break this sentence and then use the next point as your 'intended effect and action' sentence. So, something like: 'Beachgoers, after being reminded of a potential sense of responsibility, are likely to then take the many previously circulated public campaigns about water safety seriously.' Now you've got the intended action sentence as well, which I've mentioned later on in this feedback. But you've done a good linking sentence! (often it's forgotten by many at the end of their paras!) as from the many public campaigns previously circulated, most beachgoers should be aware of safety guidelines surrounding their use of water.
Philp then goes on to criticize parents who take advantage of lifeguards and safety measures at beaches, without thinking of their own actions. this is a bit harsh. So could you write Philp's second argument something like: 'Philp then proceeds to coax beachgoers to stay alive to dangers in the water, rather than solely relying on lifeguards.' She specifically targets those that put their children in "between the flags" to use them as a "free babysitting service" you need to continue to analyse the intended effect of this in a new sentence. Don't end with just quoting, make sure you really pull apart the effect. 'Free babysitting service' is a great quote to analyse because you can talk about connotations! Perhaps you could say that calling it this is aimed to spur anger amongst lifeguards because they're dedicating their time and efforts to ensure safety, but this is only taking place one-sided! Remember, lifeguards are also a group in Nicola's audience! You've gotta think about all the stakeholders! On the other hand, calling the flags 'free babysitting service' connotes the idea that parents are negligent and so self-absorbed that they fail to take care of their child on beach. Thus, parents are made to feel guilty. See how I've continued this thread? What --> how ----> why and shows her disapproval by saying she is "astounded" by such people. Through her description of Johanna beach's water as "pounding surf", she alerts them that the flags can give a "false sense of security", as the contrast between the domineering nature of "pounding" and the littleness of a child is significantly different. I get what you mean, however, you're jumping too quickly!! :D Just slow down and think, is there really a connection the pounding surf and children? She's saying that the surfs are dangerous for everyone! Not just children! So let's read the article really carefully and try not to make long connections from one thing to something else! Gets confusing for your teacher and assessor! The author again uses contrasting of this nature in her anecdote of avoiding putting her toe into the surf, when she references the power of the waves to "pop up and sweep" it away. Again, the powerfulness of the waves is shown to be starkly different from her toe's power to withstand them, due to its small size. By claiming that even a toe could not withstand such waves, readers are led to question why anyone would leave their child unsupervised in the water. I feel like you're over analysing things haha! Don't worry, this happens with everyone in the beginning! Don't really complicate things, and prioritise what evidence you'll quote. I've tried to write a comment about this below in blue as well. Philp's insinuation that children are extremely vulnerable in the waters at beaches is a means of discouraging parents from being overly reliant on lifeguards and flags, and not additionally supervising their children themselves. this is excellent! Wanted to see this right at the start though!! And then when you signpost this in the beginning, you'll automatically see evidence to only prove this point! That'll make sure you pick only relevant evidence! This last line is excellent, because you pinpointed one of Philp's argument! However, just like this is a linking sentence, it should also have been in your first few sentences! :)The opinion piece isNot needed. Philp concluds with the statement that whilst "no lifeguard wants anyone to drown", they cannot be solely liable for a child's safety as parents are their "child's primary lifeguard". Her concluding statement "you are your child's primary lifeguard" this is repetitive and notice how you're not analysing, but just summarising. I've written about this later. is a call to arms for parents to heed her advice, which she aims to achievesthroughappearing to aim her remarks at individual readers, via thepersonal pronouns "you" and "your" Ultimately, Philp contends that ensuring their own safety in water through adjusting their behaviour What do you mean? through being cautious? should be at the forefront of beachgoers' minds.