Language Analysis on QAT 2016

[Springyboy]

Hi everyone,

Could someone please if possible try and mark my piece so I can see where I'm currently at with Language Analysis?

Here it is:

Give us change so smoking no longer gets into our lifestyles!

A number of months ago, there was a debate as to whether or not second hand smoking will be a detriment to people - which was further complicated by a recent legislative move to restrict smoking outdoors. Agonised and humiliated, Anna Sublet’s ominous opinion piece entitled ‘When smoke gets in your eyes, and ears, and carport and bedroom….’ (published in The Age on February 15, 2016), highlights the necessity of legislative change, to eradicate second hand smoke from being breathed onto residents by their neighbours. Conversely, Disgruntled from Brunswick’s pompous letter to the editor, denigrates Sublet’s view by instead exposing that smoking should be tolerated to prevent a nanny state from arising.

Opening apprehensively, Sublet asserts the rising consequences of excessive smokers. Her horrific title using normalising corollaries; “in your eyes” “ears” “carport”, showcases the continual intrusion of smoker use that is creeping into everyday lives. Therefore, readers are pitied at Sublet for having to deal with this, so that smoking does not get into their homes. Moreover, Sublet’s heartbreaking portrayal of her own life; where everything seems normal until the “waft of smoke drifts” and “dinner’s off”, “the game is over”, stresses upon the lack of normality that smokers breed by continuing to smoke and ruin other’s lives. Quite clearly, homeowners are obliged to feel distrust at the system of smokers crippling their everyday lives. Furthermore, her diabolical depiction that it has been “four years” since they could “eat a meal outside”, exposes the perception of smokers has been ever present, and has been disturbing her life for an extended period of time, not just recently. Hence, government officials are positioned to enact change to fix this horrendous way of life, where you cannot enjoy the great outdoors. Additionally, Sublet’s outrageous accusation of “kill yourselves but stop killing us”, highlights that smokers are complicit in this feature, as they are directly impacting upon the lives of others. Consequently, smokers are provoked to make amends and stop causing damage to others’ lives, as they are not only killing themselves, but they are indirectly killing others with their choices. Hence, Sublet elucidates the ongoing intrusion by smokers into the ordinary lives of everyday residents around them.

Much more distraught and agitated, Sublet implies the lack of recognition that government officials are paying to the epidemic of this issue. Her humiliating deduction that the government is struggling to implement the “confusing ban” on “smoking in outdoor areas” exposes the lack of knowledge that they have in dealing with this field of issue. Subsequently, government officials are positioned to look deeper into the public realm to see how to deal with this issue. Also, Sublet’s foreboding evidence from Quit Victoria; that there are “250 chemicals in second-hand smoke” that are “toxic”, including “50 that are known to cause cancer”, Sublet alludes to the growing devastation that smoking pervades on lives of its takers. From this, readers are left to feel horrified at the impact that smoking can play on their lives. This is also highlighted by the moralising image included in the piece, which depicts a man with a gas mask standing next to a woman smoking. By the man staring angrily at the camera with his arms crossed, whilst the woman keeps smoking, Sublet implies that although “people have the right to choose to smoke” - they must understand that their right to smoke “harms others”. As such, viewers of the piece are challenged to quit smoking to avoid destroying the lives of others through toxic smoke. Likewise, her poignant evidence from the “World Health Organisation” on “Tobacco Control”, which states that “second-hand smoke causes death, disease and instability”, Sublet warns that smoking provides a catalyst to further shocking issues later in life. Consequently, smokers are obliged to think about the risks that they are taking to destroying lives of themselves and others, as they are ruining lives now and in the future. Thus, Sublet advocates to the disappointing perversion of smokers on the lives of others – so that necessary change can be eventuated.

Shifting from highlighting the continual devastation of second-hand smoke to asking from help from local councils, Sublet highlights the horrendous perception of smokers to fixing their woes. Her hollow portrayal of “my dad” smoking when she was a kid and they set the “whole pack on fire” of cigarettes and “steal his cigarettes”, showcases that although this is a childish way to fix the issue, there is still a lack of understanding by smokers as to how to fix their desires. As such, smokers are enticed to seek help as to how to resolve their addiction to their cigarettes. Additionally, Sublet’s morose declaration that her and her family “tried building a wall” to stop smoking from pervading within her lives but it was an “incomplete and lame attempt” at detracting the issue due to smoke still getting in, Sublet warns that smoking will always get into your lives unless the smokers themselves are stopped from taking part in their issues. Therefore, audiences are obliged to do whatever they can to stop smokers from smoking, as they are destroying their ordinary lives. Starkly opposing this, Disgruntled’s arrogant letter to the editor insinuates the agonised views of ordinary smokers at losing their privileges. His wrathful denigration that “one’s home” is a “last bastion” against this issue, highlights the annoyance that smokers face to having to give up their cigarettes. From this, ordinary residents are obliged to realise how distressing it is for smokers to give up their addictions. Furthermore, Disgruntled’s oppressive warning of “being tolerant rather than advocating intolerance” which would be “a breath of fresh air”, challenges the mindset of critics to smokers by instead wanting to be left alone to enjoy life as they choose. Subsequently, readers are enticed to help out smokers without forcing them to have to delve away from their issues. Therefore, Sublet seeks to allow neighbours to stop smoking near them, whilst also facing criticism that this system is far-fetched and denies smokers basic rights.

Overall, Anna Sublet’s polemical opinion piece exposes the challenges that smokers face with continually intruding into the lives of others, whilst also facing criticism that a prevention of smoking outdoors would turn Australia into a nanny state. Readers are compelled to attempt to assist in lobbying government officials to alter the law and stop smoking outdoors, whilst still giving smokers basic rights that they ask for.



Thanks,

James

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hey,

Do you happen to have a copy of the article(s)? Would defs help with marking.

**Assuming that that's not gonna breach copyrights or anything?

[Springyboy]

Hey,

Do you happen to have a copy of the article(s)? Would defs help with marking.


**Assuming that that's not gonna breach copyrights or anything?

I do but I'm trying to send it and it keeps saying the file is too large

EDIT:

See here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/usl3o1vydhlijfc/AABFjuSFQZqG9VAND5CsSCrRa?dl=0

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hi everyone,

Could someone please if possible try and mark my piece so I can see where I'm currently at with Language Analysis?

Here it is:

Give us change so smoking no longer gets into our lifestyles! Is this supposed to be a title? If so, ditch it. Titles are unnecessary here.

A number of months ago, there was a debate as to whether or not second hand smoking will be a detriment to people - which was further complicated by a recent legislative move to restrict smoking outdoors. Agonised and humiliated, Anna Sublet’s ominous word check; this word lacks the objectivity you would expect of an LA and I'd sorta question whether Sublet's article is "ominous". opinion piece entitled ‘When smoke gets in your eyes, and ears, and carport and bedroom….’ (published in The Age on February 15, 2016), highlights the necessity of legislative change, to eradicate second hand smoke from being breathed onto residents by their neighbours. Conversely, Disgruntled from Brunswick’s pompous letter to the editor, denigrates Sublet’s view by instead exposing word check that smoking should be tolerated to prevent a nanny state from arising.

Opening apprehensively, Sublet asserts the rising consequences of excessive smokers. Her horrific title using normalising corollaries; “in your eyes” “ears” “carport”, showcases the continual intrusion of smoker use that is creeping too informal/colloquial?into everyday lives. Therefore, readers are pitied at expression and word usage: You can't pity at someone; you pity themSublet for having to deal with this, so that smoking does not get into their homes. Moreover, Sublet’s heartbreaking BE OBJECTIVEportrayal of her own life; where everything seems normal until the “waft of smoke drifts” and “dinner’s off”, “the game is over”, stresses upon the lack of normality that smokers breed by continuing to smoke and ruin other’s lives. Quite clearly, homeowners are obliged to feel distrust at the system of smokers crippling their everyday lives. Furthermore, her diabolical depiction that it has been “four years” since they could “eat a meal outside”, exposes the perception of smokers has been ever present, and has been disturbing her life for an extended period of time, not just recently. Hence, government officials are positioned to enact change to fix this horrendous way of life, where you cannot enjoy the great outdoors. Additionally, Sublet’s outrageous accusation of “kill yourselves but stop killing us”, highlights that smokers are complicit in this feature, as they are directly impacting upon the lives of others. Consequently, smokers are provoked to make amends and stop causing damage to others’ lives, as they are not only killing themselves, but they are indirectly killing others with their choices. Hence, Sublet elucidates the ongoing intrusion by smokers into the ordinary lives of everyday residents around them.

Much more distraught and agitated, Sublet implies the lack of recognition that government officials are paying to odd phrasing the epidemic of this issue. Her humiliating deduction that the government is struggling to implement the “confusing ban” on “smoking in outdoor areas” exposes the lack of knowledge that they have in dealing with this field of issue. Some quoting to summarise here; be careful. Rule of thumb with LA is that you should generally quote only when you're analysing stuff, not to summarise.Subsequently, government officials are positioned to look deeper into the public realm to see how to deal with this issue. Also, Sublet’s foreboding evidence from Quit Victoria; that there are “250 chemicals in second-hand smoke” that are “toxic”, including “50 that are known to cause cancer”, Sublet alludes to the growing devastation that smoking pervades on lives of its takers. From this, readers are left to feel horrified at the impact that smoking can play on their lives. This is also highlighted by the moralising image included in the piece, which depicts a man with a gas mask standing next to a woman smoking. By the man staring angrily Oh? What about his posture tells you that he's angry? I'd say he's more defiant than angry tbh...at the camera with his arms crossed, whilst the woman keeps smoking, Sublet implies that although “people have the right to choose to smoke” - they must understand that their right to smoke “harms others”. As such, viewers of the piece So wait... you're saying that the audience is smokers? But just before, you implied that the audience is government officials?  are challenged to quit smoking to avoid destroying the lives of others through toxic smoke. Likewise, her poignant evidence from the “World Health Organisation” on “Tobacco Control”, which states that “second-hand smoke causes death, disease and instability”, Sublet warns that smoking provides a catalyst to further shocking issues later in life. Consequently, smokers are obliged to think about the risks that they are taking to destroying lives of themselves and others, as they are ruining lives now and in the future. Thus, Sublet advocates to the disappointing perversion of smokers on the lives of others – so that necessary change can be eventuated.

Shifting from highlighting the continual devastation of second-hand smoke to asking from help from local councils, Sublet highlights the horrendous perception of smokers to fixing their woes. Her hollow portrayal of “my dad” smoking when she was a kid and they set the “whole pack on fire” of cigarettes and “steal his cigarettes”, showcases that although this is a childish way to fix the issue, there is still a lack of understanding by smokers as to how to fix their desires Oh? How so? Some explanation required here.. As such, smokers are enticed to seek help as to how to resolve their addiction to their cigarettes. Additionally, Sublet’s morose declaration that her and her family “tried building a wall” to stop smoking from pervading within her lives but it was an “incomplete and lame attempt” at detracting the issue due to smoke still getting in, Sublet warns that smoking will always get into your lives unless the smokers themselves are stopped from taking part in their issuesYou've used this word multiple times; becoming a bit repetitive (only a bit though; it's not like you're using it in every sentence. ). Still, please find a couple of synonyms that you could use to avoid this. . Therefore, audiences are obliged to do whatever they can to stop smokers from smoking, as they are destroying their ordinary lives. Starkly opposing this, Disgruntled’s arrogant letter to the editor insinuates the agonised views of ordinary smokers at losing their privileges. His wrathful denigration that “one’s home” is a “last bastion” against this issue, highlights the annoyance that smokers face to having to give up their cigarettes. From this, ordinary residents are obliged to realise how distressing it is for smokers to give up their addictions. Furthermore, Disgruntled’s oppressive warning of “being tolerant rather than advocating intolerance” which would be “a breath of fresh air”, challenges the mindset of critics to smokers by instead wanting to be left alone to enjoy life as they choose. Subsequently, readers are enticed to help out smokers without forcing them to have to delve away from their issues. Therefore, Sublet seeks to allow neighbours to stop smoking near them, whilst also facing criticism that this system is far-fetched and denies smokers basic rights.

Overall, Anna Sublet’s polemical I've read like 5 practice essays and everyone seems to love this word v. much... just be careful you're using it right. Polemical: strongly critical or disputatious writing or speech. Is Sublet's OP really "polemical"?opinion piece exposes the challenges that smokers face  Do you mean "that smokers present"?continually intruding into the lives of others, whilst also facing criticism that a prevention of smoking outdoors would turn Australia into a nanny state.Erm some clarity needed. What exactly do you mean by this? Readers are compelled to attempt to assist in lobbying government officials to alter the law and stop smoking outdoors, whilst still giving smokers basic rights that they ask for.

Crossings out = things you say that lack the objectivity req of an LA
Underlining without comments accompanying it = word check

Good.