Insight Trial Exam Lang Analysis
Any feedback/mark would be appreciated.
------
With the latest release of the Accident Prevention Group’s (APG) report on mobile phone use on cars, debate has been sparked as to the validity of this study and to the link between a rising death toll and mobile phone use in cars. One commentator, David James, writes an opinion piece from Driver, contending that although the death toll needs to decrease, removing mobile phones is an inappropriate action to take. An image accompanies the article which supports Mr James’ contention, presenting mobile phone usage in a safe way. This issue is set to spark further conflict as it deals with not only the death toll on roads but also people’s right to their essential communication tool – the mobile phone.
Throughout his piece, David James, employs a measured rationality in an attempt to cast his opposition as misguided, in effect positioning his reader towards feeling as though their stance is one moulded with misunderstanding. By using a calm and logical tone when explaining his point of view, found in phrases such as “the police have a hard enough job as it is without requiring them to enforce a rule take looks simple in theory, but would be complicated in practice,” Mr James’ is intending to ease the reader into his piece, influencing them towards viewing his side as rational and not merely a passionate protester who has no arguments to present. This is further reinforced within James’ characterising the opposition’s views using emotive but controlled language, “…reactionary and completely unnecessary,” - an act which casts the opposition themselves as the overly passionate. In doing so, James is exposing the opposition’s side in clear contrast to his, implying that his is the most logical. In using the rhetorical question, “are we going to ban these perfectly normal activities too?” James also alludes to the notion that there is more to the issue of a rising death toll than the simplicity of blaming mobile phone usage. This logical question with an already implied answer has the intention of persuading the reader to see the opposition as lacking depth of knowledge in regards to the issue of death toll and what can be done to reduce it.
Complementing James’ characterisation of the opposition as misguided, James utilises an appeal to family values in the form of an anecdote, as a way of equalising himself to the reader, making his stance more approachable to the reader as he is ‘one of them’. His clever choice of using a seven year old child adds to his persuasive language as children, by definition, are vulnerable and need protection. James doesn’t use absolutes but subtly states, “but if it is illegal…live with the guilt of your child suffering when she most needed you,” which leaves the reader to ponder the scenario and the idea behind it – the loss of communication with one’s loved ones which James emphasises as “inconvenient and potentially distressing.” The indignation that arises from this anecdote, mainly from parents, will favour James’ side as he goes on to make a definitive statement, “the dilimena of answering a call or not would be the fate of law-abiding citizens” as readers acknowledge this new point which would be an inconvenience to them as they will be forced to make a decision between their children or not breaking the law.
Building from his stance of showing the opposition side as ridiculous and thoughtless James’ subsequently employs inclusive language to allow the reader to fully embrace his side, “we can understand…however we don’t think that…is the way to do it.” The nature of this language use invokes a response from the reader as one of acceptance or denial; that is, the reader is strongly suggested to agree as to disagree would be to go against the majority which goes against the fundamental human ideal of belonging to a group. From this position James’ then enlightens the reader with the necessity of the mobile phone, “they provide us with a sense of security and a peace of mind,” to solidify the support from the reader which James’ has hoped to have achieved by now.
Alongside the piece is an image which is placed directly under the article, portrayed in black and white. The picture depicts a woman driving in a car, zoomed in such that her upper body is the focus. The opposing colours are used to juxtapose the key elements of the picture with the hands-free mobile set on the woman’s ear in white, where the car and her body are black. Thus, the first item the reader views when faced with the picture is the hands-free set which is on a woman who is said to be “focused and in control.” The image serves the purpose of asserting James’ contention that hands-free phones are not inherently unsafe which is one final attempt to leave the reader undoubtedly persuaded that his side is the correct side.
Both James’ opinion piece and the image are designed to leave the reader feeling as though mobile phones are misunderstood as dangerous. James’ piece characterises its opposition as misunderstood, exemplifying their ridiculous proposal with a length anecdote, aimed to illustrate the potential problems that could arise from the APG’s law of banning phones. Consistently James’ uses his rational tone to expose the weaknesses in the opposing side as he strengthens his own, often using rhetorical questions which question the validity of the APG’s proposal. The debate of mobile phone usage is certain to continue as the death toll rises but James’ has quashed the opposing side, leaving the reader to accept his as the more valid and logical one.
Home
Help
Search
Login
