Within the same opening paragraph, Shorten employs the use of dichotomy to contrast the “great expectation” of the people against an implicit sense of frustration at the budget “falling apart in less than 48 hours.” The anticipation Shorten builds using the repetition of similar phrases and words is discriminated against the short, concise displeasure that the final segment implies. This in effect, reinforces the proposed sentiment set up against Shorten’s own opposition, the Prime Minister, making said leader appear as a failure or an embarrassment to the audience.
The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.
Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.
Hi Eliza
What really strikes me about this is the thoughtfulness of the analysis. As I read your first body paragraph, I can largely follow a train of thought. In other words, I feel that you're connecting what's happening within the speech to its larger purpose. Nice!
In terms of an idea like this, it might be worth contemplating the way Shorten is seeking to polarise his listeners. By drawing the sharp divide between 'winners' and 'losers', he's creating (to borrow a phrase) metaphorical battlelines and suggesting that those most vulnerable, like single mothers, will ultimately 'suffer'. So not only is he putting the issue into perspective, but he's positioning himself as the voice of concern, a politician who will stand with and represent the vulnerable. In other words, he is inviting the reader to view him as a trustworthy figure and a source of unity, someone who will not allow the nation to 'fall apart' into a state of disunion and inequality. Taken together, it implies that the ALP is the solution to the problem.
Notice how I'm linking it back to what you wrote earlier and the reason he uses credibility/ethos-based arguments?
Hope that helps. Keep going for it!
In the reply speech in response to the newly published budget proposals put forward by the Australian Liberal Party, Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, contends with a mocking tone that the budget outline is illogical and unjust in the way that the rich will benefit from the proposed tax cuts more so than the poor. Shorten also suggests that the vast majority of Australians will be negatively impacted by this decision and emphasises the inefficient nature of the proposed budget.
Juxtaposing the vast length of time taken for the Liberal Party to compose and refine their budget outline and the two days it took for the budget to “[fall] apart”, Shorten adopts a disappointed tone and highlights the inadequateness of the current government. Not only this underscores the inefficiency of the Liberal Party, it also serves as a denigration, positioning the audience to lose faith in the current party. The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.
With the use of ethos based evidence, Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.
Using statistical evidence, Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services. Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.
By criticizing the various flaws and underlining the ludicrousness and unfair nature of the budget outline, Shorten seeks to demonstrate to the audience that the Liberal Party lacks the full capacity to successfully organise the national budget to an efficient and just way. Ultimately, this engenders the audience to lose faith in the current government and its budget proposal and sways them towards Shorten’s contention.
{cooked this up in a bit, I feel like my ending is a bit sloppy :| }
One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.
Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.
One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.
Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.
Overall though, it's a really good piece. There's some solid analysis going on and it looks like you've got a pretty solid understanding of the task at hand. Soooo... good job! :D
But my teacher says that if I quote something, I'll then have to add in 2-3 sentences about it's purpose in the text and it's appeals/and how it positions the audience. Do I have to do that?You're definitely right in that your essay can't solely consist of quotes from the text, otherwise there'd be little room for analysis. But it's all about striking a balance - if you only have, say, two quotes in a paragraph and you spend the rest of that time going through the purpose/appeals/positioning, then you won't be covering enough of the material. And if you don't mention anything about purpose/appeals/positioning, then you're not analysing :P
With the use of ethos based evidence, quote? Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget quote? and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, quote? Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.The reason why quotes would help in some of these cases is that your assertions don't seem to be coming directly from the article. If you say something like "[the author suggests] that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems," it'd help to have at least a word or phrase from the piece to back yourself up. That's not true of every sentence, but it's true of most of them here.
Using statistical evidence quote? Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, quote? Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services.
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.
Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.
--
Thoughts?
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that heshoulddiverges from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishesing his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.
Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.
--
Thoughts?
Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes try and incorporate background info into a sentence about the contention, ofr efficiency's sake (i.e. rather than having to say (1)This piece was a response to this event. + (2)The author contended that... you can just say 'The piece in response to this event contended...' or 'In his piece responding to this event, author Whateverhisnameis contends that...'). Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners. nice summation of his overall point
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, heand delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerationsin which he details allof the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair v.good cumulative analysis :) Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment thatthis government is lacking final point is a bit muted; it seems like you were going to build out to the idea that by positioning the budget as a failure and associating it with the party & Turnbull, the author's also eliciting contempt and dissatisfaction with the Libs and their leader. That might be a stronger point than to simply say that the govt. is "lacking," which could be seen as a bit general.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured careful with tense the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” how so? You wouldn't necessarily have to spell that out here, since your other analysis is sufficient, but it's worth thinking about the ways in which the author encourages or establishes such things to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. watch out for repeated sentence structures (His... His... His...) To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, ditto here with 'To this end...' the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party. concluding sentences are a bit prolific here (i.e. this zooming out seems to take four or five sentences where two or three should suffice), but clarity matters more and the content of your how/why statements is excellent.
Thus, try not to begin a paragraph with this. 'Thus' is a great closer; not such a great opener Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters. v. good link to the overall intent
This piece was pretty interesting to write, but I feel like my method of language analysis might be very formulaic. As in, I only included the contention sort of in the very last line of both paragraphs, but I feel like if I include it in the middle as well, it will become too repetitive. Is there a way to avoid doing this? Also any other feedback is very welcome :DYour approach of linking to the argument at the end seems very sensible to me - I wouldn't stress about trying to incorporate it mid-paragraph unless you end up writing much longer paragraphs when you have an exam size piece to deal with. Keep in mind that you can link to a part of the author's argument instead of the same contention every time if you want to avoid repetition, though. This can make your linking more precise too, which is always good :)
Shorten emphasizes the disappointing result of the budget in his speech by building up the tension through exaggerated and repeated emphasis on the effort undertaken to create it. This is particularly exemplified through thegreatdichotomy I'm not sure this is a dichotomy - it seems more like just a juxtaposition between one amount of time and another. A 'dichotomy' would be more like if the Shorten had said "this budget rewards the wealthy whilst punishing the poor" - thus creating a dichotomy between the people who benefit or are disadvantaged by the budget between 7 months of planning, and the degeneration of the budget in ‘less than 48 hours’. Shorten elucidates this notion by grouping ‘this budget, this Prime Minister, and this government when he groups them, what does he say about them? Saying that he creates a link between the three is a good start, but you'd need to do some more analysis in order to assert that this amounts to a criticism of the budget and the Libs.’ together in an attempt to funnel the public’s criticism regarding the budget onto the associated party as well. To this end, the Liberalsisare depicted as incompetent for failing to produce an acceptable budget plan despite the length of time available, suggesting a needless waste of both the taxpayer’s money and their efforts. Hence, the Labour Party appears more favourable as a result. I think it's fine that you're delving into the contention at the end of your para instead of throughout, but this last sentence is a little bit abrupt since you haven't addressed Shorten's role or his overall point yet at all. In an exam context, this is probably where your introduction would clarify things, but just be wary of linking things back to the contention without fully explaining the link itself.
Furthermore, Shorten appeals to the wider public, particularly thosewho are family mindedwith families( - might be a more natural way to phrase this?), as he juxtaposes the effect of the budget upon a ‘working mum’, to that of upon a millionaire who is not in need of money. The former figure isone ofa disadvantaged member of society who has given much to their community how do you know? What evidence is there in the piece that supports this?, and thus the speaker attempts to elicit outrage at this injustice from readers, given that they are not compensated fairly for their contributions by the government. It is intimated that could do more to link these two points of analysis together. (not required, but would be good to do occasionally; it'd get problematic if every single paragraph just went from one point to the next without any link at all, though obvs in moderation this is totally permissible) the reason the Treasurer ‘didn’t want to talk about ‘winners’ and ‘losers’’ is because they are trying to avoiding acknowledging this injustice true, but how is this intimated? What is Shorten saying that gives you this impression? You're right, but show me evidence that you're right!, thereby hiding their guilt which only serves to further their apparent dishonesty concerning the benefits of the budget. This portrays thelabourLiberal party as ostensibly one who does not cater to the needs of its people, exacerbated by the cuts to incredibly vital services such as schools and hospitals that ‘people rely on’. Accordingly, Shorten sways the public to seek other alternatives, namely the Labour Party, for the other’s blatant shirking of responsibilities good para conclusion!.
Feedback will be greatly appreciated for this very late piece :)
In response to the budget proposed by the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition Party, Bill Shorten, disparaged its propositions by proclaiming that its unfairnessin benefitingbenefits the well-off rather than the needy. Shorten mostly adopts an outraged and disparaging tone to contribute to his overall efforts in evoking similar feelings in the audience. good intro, though remember you don't have to talk about tone if you don't want to. It's more important that you're able to bring it up within body paragraphs and analyse it like you would any other technique.
Shorten draws attention to the longevity of the making of the budget utilising repetition of the word ‘after’. In particular, he points out the ‘apprehension and great expectation’ of those awaiting its being published to enhance his attack on the fact that it had ‘fallen apart in less than 48 hrs’ to highlight his stance that the budget is a great disappointment to the nation. This is quite a long sentence with a lot going on - don't cram too much in one go! The reader is encouragedthe readerto agree that a better budget plan could have been produced given the time and supposed efforts this is a very valid statement of the effect, but because you've got so much language in the previous sentence, I'm not sure where specifically this idea is coming from i.e. what words/phrases/techniques in particular are leading you to conclude that the author is inferring the budget was underwhelming? The contrast in the anticipation at the start of the sentence and the thorough disappointment Shorten conjures at the end forms an attack on the Liberal Party by implying that they have failed their job. good, though as a para conclusion this feels somewhat incomplete. Consider taking this back to the author's overall argument to strengthen this point.
Employing an assertive and matter-of-fact tone, Shorten seeks to depict the budget in an extremely negative light by contrasting its effects on a ‘working mum’ with two kids and ‘someone on a million dollars’. The example of a single mother plays on the audience’s sympathy, as the mother is preconceived to struggle financially and thus deserving of the government’s help. Thus, the audience is likely to be appalled at the fact that she would be ‘$4700 worse off’, and thus brand the budget as uncaring to the lower class.Likewise, the example of ‘someone on a million dollars’ is designed to represent the extremely wealthy. The audience is set up to resent any increase in income in their part, especially a ‘$17,000’ as disclosed by Shorten.Probably don't need to explain this part; your previous analysis has basically solidified this point already, though I like that you're showing your full workings here for clarity :) Thus, Shorten attempts to depict the budget to be unfair and thus deserving of reproval. Similarly, Shorten’s assertion that ‘three-quarters of Australian workers’ would ‘suffer” from cuts in the budgetsinfluences the audience to draw the conclusionsuggests (--never use seven words when one would do ;) ) that the new budget hurt the interest of the majority. The word ‘suffer’ portrays the Liberals’ as cold-hearted towards the working class. The adjective ‘disproportionately’ further highlights the unfairness of the situation and is likely to engender outrage in the audience, prompting them to utterly dismiss the budget as a functional one. Moreover, coupled with his credentials as an authoritative figure, Shorten’s usage of the word ‘fact’ and statistics throughout his speech lends weight to his argument as the audience is positioned to believe that the conclusion he draws are based on sound facts. this final point is a little generic; 'use of statistics = credibility' is a rather pedestrian point and most low/mid-range essays will tread that ground repeatedly, but your close analysis of various connotations and other language features was excellent.