VCAA 2007 exam- language analysis

[soccerboi]

Hello, if anyone has spare time can you kindly have a read of my language analysis and provide your thoughts on it and a mark out of 10 if possible.
Thanks 

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/pastexams/2007english.pdf
Pages 14&15 of the exam paper

Yr 12 Language Analysis- VCAA 2007: “Are we overprotected” 

                                                               
Over recent years, it has been argued that overprotective parenting styles are having adverse effects on children. One written response to this, “Overprotective parents stifle growth,” an opinion piece by retired principal Jane Brown contends that “mollycoddling” the young will ultimately create “defenceless young people unable to cope with future challenges.” In contrast, an opinion piece written by Jack Lee, a father, argues against Brown, claiming that “the world has changed” and that “unsupervised is unsafe.” An image presented between the two opinion pieces supports Brown’s views, presenting the possibility of stifled development. This issue is set to spark further conflict, primarily due to the fact that these children are the future adults of society.

Brown uses her professional role in an attempt to soothe the reader into submission in order to allow them to better empathise with the view presented within the piece. By utilising a responsible and sensible tone, found in phrases such as “nothing could be clearer to me” invites the reader to see that Brown is arguing for the wellbeing of the future generation and not out of self vested interest. This feeling of trust is further developed by her mentioning of herself “as a professional” and “a retired principal,” which demonstrates that she has seen and possibly experienced the hampering of child development due to overprotection. Following this with absolute phrases, stating that “parents are so afraid their children will be hurt or abducted” and “too often are parents willing to step in” insinuates the notion that parents are blinded from reality due to their attachment to their “precious offspring.” This idea of parents becoming their children’s slaves is further emphasised through the infusion of derogatory connotations such as “parents provide a continuous taxi service” and “they obediently bring lunch when it is forgotten” acts as a reality check to all parents, highlighting their most fatal flaw.

To complement the rationality of the piece, Brown invites the reader to see the pernicious effects of being at a child’s “beck and call” through the presentation of facts and evidence. The fact that Children’s Society in Britain has conducted research points out that this has become an international issue, evoking a sense of fear from parents due to the abrupt realisation of its severity. This fear is immediately magnified by claiming that the research has shown that “cosseted youngsters” can potentially become “lonely and isolated.” Stating that research has also shown that isolated children “are at greater risk becoming depressed, overaggressive, antisocial and delinquent” provides parents with more fears and worries. This endless list urges them to think about their attitude and behaviour towards their children and consider the potential deprivation of skills required for adulthood. Concluding with the phrase “there is a mountain of evidence” alludes to the idea that many people have taken time to focus on this issue and thus it must be of great importance.
 
Like Brown’s opinion piece, the image of a young boy lying in a massive dump of what appears to be wool delves heavily into the reader’s psychology by appealing towards their fear for children’s potential loss of “ability to develop the skills to become fully functional adults.”  This innocent looking boy appears to be safe and protected from the “stark realities” and dangers of life. Being in the middle is considered to be the safest spot and this is emphasised by the boys positioning in the image as well as the positioning of the entire image on the page. The “handle with care” sign sends a clear message that the boy is being treated more like and object than a human being. His fragility in life is implied through the whiteness of the wool, unaware of life’s challenges. This whiteness can also be seen as heavenly clouds, suggesting that overprotected children will be mentally trapped in a child’s mind as they enter adulthood and even during their afterlife. The phrase on the sign “a generation of sooks” lightens the mood enough to expose the silliness of the unnecessary care given by parents. Parents are left to feel shocked at their blindness and inability to perceive the dangers of their protection.

In contrast to the reasoned approach Brown takes, Lee’s opinion piece “Reality Check” adopts a more personal approach by involving his family. He begins calmly with an anecdote of his grandad to promulgate the notion that playing in the “street till dark” was considered safe in the “old days.” This links with the title and provides a “reality check” to those who are still thinking of the past. He mentions his family and that he is a father to point out that he can relate to the issue as he has young children of his own. He combines generalisations with emotive words such as “everywhere” and “danger” to inject fear into the readers mind and suggest that children are not yet prepared to face the danger of reality. Lee shifts to a more serious tone as he begins to address the dangers of society. He bombards the audience with a litany of emotive words and phrases such as “lethal weapons with hoons at the wheel” which creates a ghastly image of danger and attempts to make parents feel that society is an unsafe place for young children. Continuation of this listing of strong language such as “…tragedy and evil…scenes of carnage… suicide bombers…bloodiest massacre” further emphasises the dangers in reality and supports his contention that “unsupervised is unsafe.” Lee ends by reminding the audience of “this crazy world” in an attempt to engrave upon the reader’s mind the unpredictable nature of reality and leaves them thinking about what could be “worse” than a “traumatised” child.

Both opinion pieces begin by positioning the audience to see where each writer is coming from; Brown as a professional and Lee as a father. Lee’s opinion piece primarily focuses on painting the looming dangers our world poses to young children; in contrast, Brown’s piece acts to raise awareness of the flaws in parenting styles and point out the potential stifling of child development. The approach of the latter is also taken up by the image, which works to create the notion that parents are treating their children like some fragile inanimate object. This serves as a “reality check” to parents and attempts to free them from their blindness. As shown by the diversity of these arguments, the issue of overprotective parents is likely to provoke further debate over coming years.