Hey guys...starting my LA revision today...I know it's a bit late...please tell me what you think...I'm kinda lost.
This is in response to the 2010 NEAP Language Analysis part.
Cheers, Iliketurtles.
___________________________________________________________________________
As more incidents of fatal motor accidents flood in and the death road toll of young people slowly increases, media moguls, concerned youths and the general community alike have expressed discontent to such reckless behaviour. In an imploring opinion piece, titled “Driving the Highway from Destruction!” (Place of publication: Ednews, Date: unknown), an astute student, Elly heart denounces such misconceptions imposed upon young people and vehemently argues for the change in public perceptions and values. In addition to this, with the two large images embedded in her article, the opinion piece suggests a clear contention: that all drivers, both young and experienced, should take greater care in ensuring our safety on the roads.
Instantly lambasting readers with a large bolded title, reading “Driving the Highway from Destruction!”, Hart claims that there is indeed a growing trend of unsafety on our roads. By using the word “destruction!” with the commanding exclamation mark, the writer not only draws our attention to elicit a sense of immediacy, but more importantly connotes an apocalyptic image which is indeed, responsible for the “road deaths among young drivers”. By affirming that she, “like many other drivers”, have become cognisant of such a contentious issue, the writer inadvertently implores readers to step up and join her as she places herself and her stance on the issue on a higher moral ground. Complementing this idea is also the centred graphic. Depicting hazardous signs which are all too common to drivers, the image attempts to evoke a sense of responsibility in viewers. Portraying an array of safety signs, the triangular warning of pedestrians in congruence with the octagonal sign commanding for drivers to “STOP” invokes in readers an obligation to take greater care when driving. Furthermore the use of the image is then augmented further, as by placing the cumbersome image in the middle of her article, the writer suggests that these signs cannot be ignored, and must be kept in our sights at all time – not that of our peripheral vision when driving. Both Hart and the collage of hazard signs, in this way, attempt evoke a deep sense of denunciation of those who continue to compromise our safety on roads in readers and viewers alike.
In addition to this, the writer then furthers her contention by rectifying such preconceived misconceptions. Addressing the notion that all young drivers are reckless, the writer vilifies the source of such a bias – “talkback jocks”. In doing so, Hart attempts to create an intentionally forged divide between such “media presenters” as she portrays them to be insatiable point-scoring media moguls – indeed, coaxing readers into taking the ethical stance. Such a misconception is then again, attacked, as by affirming that it was indeed, “after all…young people…who showed the way…by complying with the “designated driver” idea”, the writer comes off as forthright and brazen as she vehemently portrays the youths of today to be conscientious of road safety. In doing so, the writer appeals to readers’ sense of equality as she shows stark abhorrence to such claims that all young adults are reckless – and in turn, attempts to rally for young drivers and readers alike to take a greater sense of activism in the cause.
Furthermore, the writer also suggests that creating stricter rules and regulations will not resolve the issue – and urges readers to show disapproval to such actions. Whilst making reference to “road safety expert, Ed Brown”, the writer comes off as indeed, credible and well-researched. By then condemning his intents to increase the amount of cars to be crushed as “plain stupid, the writer takes a logical and pragmatic approach. Claiming that crushing the perpetrators’ cars as a form of punishment will only act as a “totally wasteful destruction of resources”, Hard portrays the proposed change to be one that is indeed, economically and environmentally unsustainable. In doing so, the writer’s candid opinion on the matter attempts to sway readers by alluding to a more practical approach to curtail the crises of the increased road death tools.
Despite this grim reality however, Hart places a great amount of her article on devising a solution. Using her own ideas as an example to follow, Hart’s emphasis on “cooperation” and public imput by the general community exhibits a clear solution: to disseminate her message of unity and social cohesion further. By speaking in the first person, as she pleads that “I am calling for your suggestions”, the writer aims to build a rapport with the reader as she is humanised. This effect is then augmented further, as by endearing readers to “contribute your slogan and other ideas” by “[sending] them” to
[email protected], the writer provides an active outlet for public discussion. Lastly, by including her own poster, Hart is placed in a position of credibility and authenticity. Depicting an array of slogans and visual double meanings, the poster aims to elicit in the viewer a sense of hope and amelioration. By portraying two hands holding onto a steering wheel which a caption that reads “our lives in our hands”, the image’s use of inclusive language aims to unify readers into a sense of social cohesion and solidarity. Both the image and writer alike, in this way, suggests that an effective solution is one that is disseminated and promulgated far into the public opinion and consensus – strongly encouraging readers to join with writer to fight for such a cause.
Aiming to cajole readers to take greater awareness, writer Elly Hart offers a telling and didactic message to young people: that the social responsibility should be upheld at all costs. With conviction and compassion for the issue, Hart’s stance on along with her detailed visual cues is likely to leave a lasting sentiment with readers.