Ok second attempt at Analysis of Language

[Glockmeister]

I'll just do a paragraph by paragraph correction.
1. Expression errors immediately in the first sentence. Like I said last time, just give a very concise sentence involving 'The writer contends that...' and get straight to the point. Maybe something like...'Smith contends in a passionate tone that the liberation of the chickens by the animal activists was a justified act.' The last sentence also seems a bit speculative and vague too. Also, mention that there's a photograph accompanying the article.

2. The first thing you analyse there is a pretty weak point. Theres MUCH better stuff to be analysing rather than just something like 'The writer tells readers what she's going to be arguing', because that's pretty much what you did. Even in doing so, you haven't stated why thats persuasive (if it is at all anyway) and so it really didn't get anywhere. Your image analysis lacks use of correct metalanguage and you're making statements about its effects without actually stating WHY. Pure speculation.

3. First sentence is obsolete - you've already identified the contention. Also, don't use the word 'muck' - its clearly too informal. Also, you've identified the quotation 'fancy a free range chicken', but you haven't stated what it implies, how the language works and so on. Following this, you've pretty much fallen into the trap of merely listing technique after technique and labelling what they are - don't. Each paragraph should only have one or two groups of examples with similar effects in them which you can collectively analyse, state their purpose, and then state the potential effects on readers. Some of your analysis is slightly misguided too, but that's a hard skill to develop. For example, you say the words 'murder' and 'torture' are used to describe the people...but how does that make sense? They're more words that describe the ACT of killing chickens, and it dysphemistically presents such an act to be viewed as more of a slaughter as opposed to an industrial process from which we merely source our KFC.

4. Some very controversial statements such as 'The reader must feel some sense of sympathy or understanding, if they do not it will implicate that they are separate from the human kind and that they are no better than the farmers'. Firstly, never put readers MUST - some readers may, others might not give a shit; who knows? Just say readers may feel etcetc. Secondly, since when were farmers not human o_o Once again, with the 450 square cm quote, state WHY it gets support from the reader.

5. Too much speculation as to what readers may do in regards to the article yet again.

OVERALL: Too many grammar/puntuation/expression errors and such too which I didn't even bother mentioning before because they're just everywhere - proof read your work. Also, yet again probably too short, you need another paragraph. A general guide is 3 paragraphs on the article, and an entire paragraph devoted to the image. I feel as if your actual analysis has gotten seriously worse since the last one, so I have no idea what happened there...There's just seriously too much listing.

Anothing thing I noted is that in one of the paragraphs, it read like you had merely rewritten what the author has written, rather than actually identifying how language is used to affect the reader. This was probably, as shinjitsuzx mentioned, the listing.

I think the one take-home message is that, when it comes to writing academic essays, you should not be writing the way you would talk to your mates. There is a lot of colloquial/informal/slang language when it is spoken (English Language people would know this better than me) and that ruins the objective tone that you should be establishing in your essays, in any subject that you do.