This is the lang. analysis for "mobile concerns"
If someone could please give any feedback/help out, that would be great. Thank you in advance
In his article “Mobile Concerns”, the President of the magazine of National Organization of Drivers responds to the recent debate on whether drivers should be banned from using all forms of mobile phone technology. He attempts to persuade his audience of middle aged motorists that while the road toll may be rising, banning all drivers from using all forms of mobile phones is not the way to solve the issue.
The heading itself works as a pun, “mobile” referring to phones, as well as moving, suggesting that the concerns about the use of the phones have been ongoing. Beginning with a somewhat sarcastic tone, James attempts to portray the Accident Prevention Group as being somewhat overzealous, by “insisting” that mobile phones should be banned, attempting to make the audience feel that they have been pressured into accepting something that they did not wish to believe. He goes on to dismiss the report, through the weak “Grey claims…phone use arguably contributed”, suggesting that the report is not based on solid evidence, but rather “claims” and is the data is “arguable”. The sarcastic “Grey contends that this is eight percent is too many accidents and believes that all forms of…need to be banned” suggests an over-reaction by combining “eight percent” with “all forms”. The use of “we” works to alienate Dr Gray, separating the views of his report from the readers.
He then moves to a more reasoned tone, suggesting that it is “understandable” that the report has caused “some consternation”, making sure not to alienate the readers who did believe the report was cause for alarm. By following up with “our own position at Driver”, James attempts to elevate the views of the magazine as being more reasonable than the “reactionary” and “completely unnecessary” contention of the APG. The use of “reactionary” and “completely unnecessary” also suggest that the APG has acted without thought, further diminishing their importance. By suggesting that there “will be some” who call for a ban, he attempts to suggest that the proponents of this action are in the minority and therefore discourage readers from joining them.
By suggesting that “It doesn’t take much to think of a scenario” where the bill could be both “inconvenient and potentially distressing”, James attempts to invoke alarm in the readers in that the law will actually cause harm in many scenarios. The vivid vignette particularly appeals to the middle-aged audience, many of them who would be likely to have children who play sport. The invocation of short, sharp sentences, “She rings once. She rings again….And she rings again” builds tension in the minds of the readers, through the repetitive “rings again”. The pejorative “live with the guilt”, “suffering”, “what parent would want that” attempts to invoke a sense of fear in the audience who would not want this to happen to them, distancing them from the bill.
The threat that the ban would leave the drivers in a “dilemma” about their “fate”, James enlarges the problem, the negatively connoted “dilemma” suggesting a serious moral quandary. He goes onto suggest that the law would have serious implications for the police, particularly through the earnest rhetorical question which attempts to position readers to see that while the “rule looks simple in theory”, the APG has not considered how difficult it would be to practice, further distancing the APG.
The much more gentle “we can understand” prevents Mobile Concerns from sounding too harsh in their judgement of the report, and therefore avoid offending anyone who may think that it is serious. Moving to a much more authoritative “we don’t think…banning mobile phones is the way to do it”, he elevates his focus, the inclusive “we” referring to the whole staff at driver and preventing the article from seeming like it represents only his views. By offering a suggestion on a “more logical” alternative, James not only takes a final jab at the APG by suggesting that they have not been logical, but he also prevents the article from sounding like one big complaint. Evoking the mental imagery of country “pot holes” and “poor shoulders about” which make “driving treacherous”, James seeks to show that there are other things that are equally dangerous and worthy of immediate attention. He appeals further to the financial affairs of the target audience by suggesting that “fixing the road costs the state” but “the ban would actually make money for the state through fines”, he draws on the much-hated concept of fines and shows that the ban would leave readers further out of pocket. The pun “it is the price we must pay if our roads are to be safe” plays on the words “price”, suggesting that it is both the monetary value and the consequence of paying for better roads. Furthermore, the inclusive language “our” finally connects the readers with James and elevating himself, and by showing that the readers pay for making the roads safe, he attempts to invoke a sense of responsibility as their contribution could lead to fewer deaths.
By ending the piece with the positively connoted “sense of security”, “peace of mind” and “maintain contact”, James attempts to advocate the benefits of mobile phones, further showing that they are a part of life that is a right, through the metaphoric “part of the parcel”. The phrase “any desire…is admirable” is almost condescending towards the APG by suggesting that they have the right intentions but not the right ideas. By ending with the strong and irrefutable “banning mobile phones is not going to help anyone”, James attempts to impress on the minds of the readers his contention, the last thing that they read.
By finishing with an enlarged cartoon, he immediately draws attention to the visual depiction of his claims. The black-and-white nature of the cartoon suggests that his views, too, are evident. The silhouette of the driver whose face the reader cannot see attempts to further emphasize that any driver who uses the appropriate hands-free function will be “focused and in control”, further heightened by the posture of the female. She stares straight forward, with only one hand on the wheel, suggesting that she is powerful and “in control” of the vehicle.
Home
Help
Search
Login
