Side note: Is this to do with that whole CSIRO cuts and climate change thing that was in the media a while back?
Following the rise of media coverage on climate change and subsequently climate change denial, in a short I'm being stupidly fussy here, but you don't really have to include this - it's not like any assessor is going to say 'omg, instant -5 marks for calling it short,' but since it's not really accomplishing anything, it's kind of just amounts to a few wasted seconds spent writing that word :P article titled “Please turn off the alarm”, Dieter Liebrich contends with a scathing and sarcastic tone that instead of avoiding the pressing issue of climate change, action must be taken to protect Earth. The use of a visual complements the author, promoting his point of view through a different format and fortifying his arguments bit general for an outline of the visual's point, but this is sufficient for an intro. I tended to briefly mention what the visual depicted too (i.e. 'the use of a visual depicting an individual with their head in the sand complements Liebrich's argument by suggesting that...') <-- and you could isolate a more specific way in which the visual 'fortifies' Liebrich's point here, but it's not super important, esp. since you want to keep the intro succinct to get to the analysis ASAP.Overall, great close analysis skills and you've got a good grasp of the contention. It's mainly just a few minor issues with your specificity that need work, so avoid any sentence of phrase that's general enough to apply to any L.A. piece.
By likening media coverage of climate change to that of an "alarm," just stick the quotation marks here and you won't need to Liebrich begins by mocking the situation where authorities are treating climate change asan “alarm”,something that can be turned off and in human’s control. Contrasted with wordsofthat connote/ are associated with destruction such as “burning”, “bleaching”, the author juxtaposes the everydayness and normality of an alarm clock with the devastating outcomes of climate change denial, further emphasising it’s no apostrophe here absurdity to the audience and sways them to the author’s point of view. THIS IS TOO GENERAL! It's one of the most common assessor's complaints too - students use phrases like "...which reinforces the author's contention" where they're technically right, but because they haven't been specific enough, it's hard to justify giving their analysis credit. So what facet of the author's point of view is involved here? The connotations of the phrases “drought” and “flood” paints an imageryof natural disaster, creating a sense of urgency and appealing to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that natural disaster may happen if no action is taken, whilst highlighting the direness of the situation. Good; bit repetitious towards the end there, but love your close discussion of language :)
Through the use of strong language, try to avoid this phrase - I know it's a technique that teacher's reinforce, but it's really general and not worth much. It's kind of like 'emotive language;' unless you're going to tell us which emotions are involved or in what way this language is 'strong,' it's not worth much. Liebrich continues to denigrate authority for their disbelief and reluctance to take action against climate change. The connotations ofthephrases such as “stick our heads deeper in the sand”, “useless” and “dismantle” these seem to have different connotations to the previous phrase, and when the quotes are decontextualised like this, it's tough to see how they're persuasive all suggest to the audience that the authority is incompetent and is not addressing the issue effectively. Associating the act of burying one’s head in sand with climate change denial, Liebrich attacks authorities in charge, suggesting that instead of taking appropriate action, they are avoiding the inevitable and instead worsening the crisis. Good discussion of the author's intention here :) This positions the audience to distrust authority, whilst strengthening the author’s contention. The use of a provocative question and what question would that be? packed bit colloquial. 'loaded' would be better with sarcasm also consolidates the author’s point of view, too vague! suggesting that the problem will disappear if media reportage is stopped, once again accentuating the illogicalnessnature of climate change denial.
The use of an accompanying image positions the audience to share the author’s viewpoint that avoiding and denying climate change is not a solution, simultaneously stressing the urgency of the issue. Depicting a well-dressed man in formalwear whose head is buried under sand in what is seen to be a desert, the vast and empty background evoking a sense of despair and fear in the audience. The empty desert appeals once again to the audience’s sense of fear, suggesting that there is a possibility that this may possibly be the outcome of climate change denial in the future, if no action was to be taken. The man, symbolising the government and authority, how do you know? You're right, but how do you know? is portrayed in an almost comical light, how so? which underscores the idiocy of their actions in terms of their reluctance to accept the truth.Throughout this short article, Dieter Liebrich employs a variety of language to appeal to the many different emotions of the audience. The use of a visual complements his arguments and allows the audience to see the relevance and logic of their contention.Both of these sentences are a bit too general to carry any weight. Beginning your conclusions with a sentence like 'By doing X, the author seeks to Y' might be more useful. In doing so, the audience is able to be swayed towards Liebrich’s contention an active verb would be stronger here - i.e. 'the author implies' not 'it is implied to readers by the author that...' that climate change denial is absurd and is jeopardising the future of our planet, and that action must be taken instead of avoiding the issue.
Liebrich mocks those who resist acknowledging climate change, suggesting such a decision would ultimately do nothing to eradicate the associated dangers. The Kingsville resident’s sombre enumerations of the effects of climate change, such as “corals bleaching” and “bush[es] burning”, confronts the audience with the potential consequences of not taking immediate action. The writer juxtaposes this with the response of those resistant to climate change which was to "stick [their] heads deeper in the sand". In doing so, the writer caustically condemns this attitude, depicting it as illogical and dangerous. To this end, she manoeuvres the reader to perceive ignoring the issue at hand will do nothing to stop it. v good :) Liebrich punctuates this with the accompanying image of a man with his head in the sand. All that can be seen in the photo is an expanse of sand and the blue sky above; in the near vicinity of the man, the audience may observe no distinctive features or signs of life. The implication is that if the audience choose to adopt a similar stance to climate change, the world as they know it will become the bland and lifeless place observed in the image. great integration and analysis of the visual She further expands on her censure of climate change resistors through the rhetorical question that closes her letter to the editor. Her question ostensibly suggests it is possible to “prohibit the media from reporting” on issues relevant to their audience, despite it being what they were supposed to do. To this end, she appeals to her audience’s reason and logic to highlight just how naïve itwaspresent tense in this case, since you're talking about an effect (though you could also use 'how naive it would be' here since it's a hypothetical, but pres. would be fine) to ignore the issue of climate change. She thus vilifies those who refuse to acknowledge climate change as a relevant issue. Unwilling to be amongst those who are so scathingly censured by Liebrich, the audience is thus inclined to seek to distance themselves from climate change naysayers. Therefore, she positions the audienceto seekto directly confront the issue of climate change instead of paying no heed to it.
In the letter to the editor, "Please turn off alarm", Liebrich addresses that this should either be 'he addresses the cimate change dilemma' or (preferably) 'he contends that the climate change dilemma should be dealt with' because you can't say he addresses that something should be dealt with' the climate change dilemma should be dealt with and not avoided. He symbolises what do you mean by this? Is he using an alarm as a symbol? Is he associating an alarm with something else? Careful with your word choice here the "alarm" as the warning signs that indicate that climate change is approaching If you're just trying to make some general statements about the arguments for an intro, try not to quote or use language that implies you're analysing. In a sarcastic and latershift to aquestioning tone, Liebrich intendsthe subject of climate change to portray as a serious matterto portray the subject of climate change as a serious matter.
Liebrich begins by pleading "somebody to turn off the alarm", whichattempt toencourages the reader to bethe person thatattentive to these warning signs of climate change. Liebrich use of words "bleaching" and "burning" when describing the corals and bushes suggest that the natural environment is under destruction. This connotation of pale and fire evokes the reader's sense of alarm and fear of the green environment turning into ashes. Great foundations here, though you kind of need one more sentence at the end here to deal with why this is aiding the author's argument! Why does he want them to care for the environment? How would the fear of losing it help him support his contention?
Liebrich's piece is accompanied byaccompanies his contention withan image of a man in a suit sticking his head in the sand which denotes that the authorities are denying the circumstances of climate changing and therefore, disregarding the issue of climate change. The blue sky scattered with the clouds insinuates that the authorities denial has made them become narrow-minded and thus, avoided their responsibility as protectors of the earth how so? How are the clouds conveying this idea? You might be right, but you need to show me you're right by taking me through your logic In an attempt to perceive the issue of climate change as an important matter, Liebrich depicts the dessert to be the outcome of neglecting climate change Again, you need to explain how this backs up her point. Why is the desert a bad thing? And how do you know?
Liebrich questions the reader "surely we can prohibit the media from reporting it all?",where the high modality "surely" implies that there is no doubt in the reader's mind that nobody can prevent the media from broadcasting the results of climate change. Hence okay, you're using this word 'hence' here but I'm not following your train of thought; he suggests the media will inevitably talk about climate change, therefore he makes readers confront climate change? The more specific you can be in getting from A to B, the easier it is for your assessor to give you marks :) Liebrich engenders the reader to confront the avoidance of climate change and to take action against it.
In a sardonic, cynical tone, Liebrich ridicules the stance of inactivity and avoidance the government has taken towards important issues in our society such as ‘corals bleaching,... bush burning,... droughts or floods,... and so on’. probably no need to quote this; this is one of those cases where paraphrasing the author's argument instead of directly quoting would probably be easier and more efficient. The feigned disinterested and flippant tone he assumes while listing these disasters implies a lack of care that the government holds towards them expression. you don't really 'hold care towards' something. This is exacerbated by the author’s mock pleads for somebody else to ‘please shut off the alarm’, revealing the government’s hesitancy in deal with the issues themselves. These examples serve to evoke emotions of outrage and incredulity in the audience towards the attitude the government has taken in regards to these problems which readers know as critically important this is a bit clunky; I know you mentioned the climate change connection wasn't too obvious to you, but this is the place in your analysis where it would be useful to tie it in, suggesting that they are unfit to lead the country due to this shirking of responsibility. The author reinforces these notions by including an image depicting a man in a business suit - the symbol of formality and importance- with his head buried ‘in the sand’ as he suggests the government to do themselves. This plays off the preconception of children or ostriches ostriches I get, but children? :P Are they renowned for sticking their heads in the sand? Overall, really good visual analysis though - you've spelled out the connections really clearly instead of just saying 'the visual depicts X which suggests Y' so this is an obvious strength for you with little self- awareness conducting similar behaviour, and thus reveals the illogicality to the government’s actions; as if they believe that the problems will disappear, simply because they are not facing them. However to the audience, the foolishness of this image and conduct is obvious, and only further dislodges the credibility of the government in the public’s opinion. v good :) Liebrich additionally extrapolates upon this by insinuating that they are attempting to this is okay in moderation, but try not to make your linking phrases too lengthy ‘prohibit the media from reporting on it all’ - hiding their shortcomings and metaphorically burying their heads in the sand- by concentrating on ‘useless coal mining’ and ‘[dismantling] scientific evidence’. To thisYour 'zooming out'/ 'why is this helping the author's argument?' statements are excellent; you just have to be a bit more specific when dealing with the issue. On the exam, you'll be given a little paragraph of background information which should give you everything you need, but just keep in mind that using the words 'the issue' in your piece should be avoided, just like saying 'the argument' or 'the author's main point' - don't use those phrases because they're missed opportunities to be more specific and thus get more marks! Quality of analysis is solid; just watch out for vocab usage and the specificity of your statements about the author's overall intent :)degreeend, the author portrays them as dishonest, and subsequently garners further anger from readers, as the government is wasting time and resources on meaningless problems, rather than focussing on important issues such as highlighted previously. again, this is a little bit too vague.
Liebrich argues in a sarcastic tone that people are being ignorant about climate change and its consequences. This tone is shown through the statements such as "approve more useless coal mining," mocking the climate change deniers. This is intended toevokeundermine the credibility of the opponentBe more specific. What opponent? Who/What group?, generating Consider an alternate verb. "Generate" doesn't seem to fit here and has connotations with electrical production/creating stuff rather than feelings imo distrust of the climate change deniers. The accompanying photo, which... missing stuff here... Furthermore, he uses the phrases "can somebody please shut off the alarm," implying that the people who do not believe in climate change are ignoring the problems, appealing to the reader's desires to have a problem to be seen as resolved Don't quite get what you mean here. You're saying that the writer's implying climate change is being ignored, appealing to the reader's desire to see the problem resolved. How are these two ideas interlinked? sounds like two separate ideas mashed into one sentence. Also: so? What's the effect on the reader?. Reader, Do you mean something like "The reader who is likely to..."who are likely to believe in climate change, are likely to critical about the climate sceptics who are not doing anything to resolve the issue at hand. So? What's your point. How does their being critical of climate change skeptics link to the writer appealing to their desire to see the problem resolved? You need to make your thinking obvious cuz the ideas are there, you just need to ensure that the assessor can follow your logic from A to B so that they can give you marks for it.The image refers to the phrase "let's stick our heads deeper in the sand," good.a statement that implies people hiding from the truth rather than facing it. Readers of this letter are likely to believe that climate change is real and needs to be resolved. You are reiterating something that you've already previously mentioned. How does this add to your analysis though? An implication as such I have no idea what you mean by "An implication as such"... would therefore mean that the issue is left unresolved, frustrating the readers. Readers may act upon that frustration to demand action for climate change.