VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

<< < (8/42) > >>

sin0001:
Article: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bridge-bike-lane-a-blunder/story-e6frfhqo-1226604515854

Melbourne City Council’s recent proposal to lessen traffic congestion for cyclists, by closing a motorists’ lane over Princess Bridge, has evoked a critical response from Melbourne’s road-users. An opinion piece titled ‘Bridge bike lane a blunder’, appearing in the Herald Sun on 25th March; contends in a disappointed and somewhat reasonable tone, that the implementation of Melbourne council’s proposal will only lessen the safety of cyclists and that the council’s budge should be spent on building a ‘separate bicycle bridge’ instead. This piece is aimed at Melbourne’s road-users, in general.

The writer begins by attempting to convince Melbourne’s road-users that this proposal will only increase traffic congestion. A contrast is made between the council’s plan of ‘mak[ing] more room for cyclists’ and the ‘antics’ of cyclists who ride off the bridge at Melbourne’s annual Moomba festival. Through this comparison, the writer seeks to highlight the lack of thought that Melbourne’s council has put into this proposal and implies that it is ‘silly’. Next, the writer uses the alliteration: ‘car chaos’, bringing to the reader’s attention, the extent of traffic congestion that will be produced as a result of closing down a traffic lane for motorists. Subsequently, the readership, consisting of motorists, is likely to feel betrayed by Melbourne council’s plan to ‘make the city more bike-friendly’, due to the cyclists being given more preference than the motorists, also causing the reader to feel as though this may not be the most appropriate approach to ‘make more room for cyclists.’

Furthermore, the writer uses hyperboles to present the detrimental effects on traffic congestion, which will be caused by the implementation of this plan. The author states that ‘forcing traffic into a funnel will result in a ‘gridlock’. Subsequently, the reader is positioned to view the hyperbole, of traffic being ‘forced into a funnel’, as a possible consequence that may arise due to reducing road space for motorists, therefore producing a ‘gridlock’ and hence appealing to the reader’s sense of tolerance. Through mentioning the example of Swanston Street being blocked and becoming ‘impassable’ during peak time, the writer implies that Melbourne council’s proposal might produce the same result. The hyperbole- ‘impassable’- is used to exaggerate the extent of traffic blockage that may be a consequence of the council’s plan, and appeals to the reader’s sense of fear, causing the motorists to withdraw their support from the council’s plan.

The tone of the piece slightly shifts to a more reasoned one, as the writer proposes a safer alternative of building a ‘stand-alone bridge’, to free up space for cyclists.  Through the use of the statistic- ’22 cyclists were injured’- the writer seeks to highlight the dangers of motorists sharing road space with cyclists. In turn, this appeals to the reader’s, consisting of cyclists, sense of need for safety and the cyclists, using Princess Bridge, are less likely to support this plan after realising that the council has overlooked their safety. After making the readers aware of the plan’s lack of safety, the writer suggests, through a rhetorical question, that the council should build a ‘separate bicycle bridge’ instead. In doing so, the reader is most likely expected to fail in thinking of a reason why the council shouldn’t build a separate bicycle bridge, after Melbourne City’s council is shown to have a substantial budget of ‘5.6 million’, by the writer. Moreover, to add weight to the writer’s suggested alternative and concerns regarding the council’s plan, the expert opinion of RACV manager- Brian Negus- is presented, describing the council’s plan as: ‘cheap’ and ‘unacceptable’. As a result, the reader, in the form of Melbourne’s road-users, are positioned to question why the council is not spending more on a proposal that ensures the safety of cyclists, making the readership disregard the council’s plan altogether.

The author concludes in a disappointed manner, clearly stating his contention- ‘Melbourne City Council needs to rethink what a dangerous waste of money is’. By iterating the council’s plan as a ‘waste of money’, the writer directly appeals to the reader’s hip pocket and evokes feelings of disgust from the reader in a final bid to undermine Melbourne City Council’s proposal.

papertowns:

--- Quote from: meganrobyn on April 11, 2013, 09:52:31 pm ---The solution is to *not* group your paragraphs by technique as they come up in the article. Almost every word should have its own subtle technique: it was chosen for a reason. It's therefore unrealistic to do it (and structurally there are issues). And arbitrarily combining techniques in order to get longer paragraphs? You know in your heart you need to have a coherent point or uniting 'theme' for each paragraph :)

Group your paragraphs by intended effect on the audience; or, if you prefer, by demonstrated attitude of the author towards one particular stakeholder or facet of the argument. For instance, perhaps the author is trying to make the audience indignant over some particular government policy? Do a paragraph on indignation, and include everything from the entire article, headline, image etc that expresses/evokes that indignation. Talk about *how* they each create indignation, being creative with that analysis.

So your method here is to find FOUR different intended effects - or four things/people the author expresses feelings towards (even subtly). Then you allocate one per paragraph, and chuck in everything from across the entire piece that relates to it.

--- End quote ---

That makes a lot more sense! My teacher never explained that oh my gosh.. Thank you so much! I shall try with this new approach although it will take quite a while for me to do it properly. But thanks again for taking time to help out :D

meganrobyn:

--- Quote from: papertowns on April 12, 2013, 07:35:46 pm ---That makes a lot more sense! My teacher never explained that oh my gosh.. Thank you so much! I shall try with this new approach although it will take quite a while for me to do it properly. But thanks again for taking time to help out :D

--- End quote ---

My pleasure! Hope it helps. And, yes, a good LA isn't easy *at all*!!

memarani:
Article 1: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/test-what-is-studied-dont-just-study-the-test-20120514-1ymwv.html
Article 2: http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/a-long-history-of-bigotry-20120517-1ytgn.html? (Go to Test trouble)

There has been recent debate about whether NAPLAN tests in Australia have contributed to improving children’s learning outcomes. “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test” and “Test trouble” express similar views on the issue, believing the NAPLAN tests increase pressure on students as most schools “teach to the test” and are not a sufficient way of testing students.
The editorial published in the Sydney morning herald on 15th of May, 2012, “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test”, argues that NAPLAN tests, by causing schools to bring forth “teaching to the test” in their lessons, has led to a “rubbery participation rate”. The writer informs us that principals and teachers “may advise some students to withdraw to improve their school’s performance.” The reader may now feel that NAPLAN tests haven’t achieved much in terms of improving learning and that it has gained a negative reputation as people can deem it counter-productive to a student’s learning as well as school performances.

The writer identifies the reasons students may withdraw from the tests, one being the “school is teaching to the test” or “the child has a learning difficulty” which “makes tests extremely stressful.” The reader now recognizes the factors that might have lessened participation and may be able to relate to them, leading them to agree with the writer’s point of view.
The writer concludes that if the government wants “better schools”, they should instead use NAPLAN to “guide their allocation of resources, especially teachers.” Readers are alerted to a solution to this debate which can improve the performance of schools and may give the impression that this is what needs to be done.

In Camille Thomas” letter to the editor, “Test trouble”, published in The Age on 18th of May 2012, he believes that the NAPLAN tests are not an indicator of what students like him have learned and place unwarranted stress on them. He points out that the tests “made me extremely stressed”, which can establish a sense of familiarity within the reader, as they may have also experienced this, establishing a rapport between the audience and him. Furthermore, he informs us that his school “started working on NAPLAN practice tests”, which can provoke the reader to question why there is a lot of attention being put towards NAPLAN tests, as it “doesn’t go towards our final grades.” Thomas then shares his view on the test, highlighting that the essay topic given was “stupid” and proposes a “better topic”, “with a two-sided argument.” He adds that he spent his spare time “staring out the window.”, prompting the reader to view the NAPLAN tests as a dull and bewildering experience, and useless as an indicator of student achievement.

Both articles present similar views on the same issue. Camille Thomas and the writer of the editorial believe that NAPLAN doesn’t test the student’s knowledge in a sufficient way and offer alternatives that can lead to improving school and student performance. While they both present a point of view on the issue, the editorial employs formal language and conveys a logical, reasonable tone. Such as supporting that “literacy and numeracy should be tested according to a national standard”. Thomas’ article carries a more conversational tone as it is presented as an anecdote. Their arguments are presented to establish a relationship with their audience−students and teachers, but both offer a solution or suggestion which is pointed towards the authorities to improve the NAPLAN program. However, Thomas suggests changing the tests while the editorial believes the government should use NAPLAN as a guide to allocate resources to schools.

Overall, both authors, by pointing out the errors in NAPLAN testing, persuade their audience to believe that something needs to be done to improve school performance and they both suggest a possible solution, although slightly distinguishable. While “Test trouble” and “Test what is studied, don’t just study the test” present similar views on the issue, their use of persuasive techniques are different.

brenden:
Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]

*Almost 5am, cannot be bothered reading the article. Soz.

The issue of violence and poor behaviour during the annual schoolies’ week is a perennial problem. In this piece, Shannon McRae suggests that the blame has been cast unfairly on the young school leavers, with the so-called toolies responsible for much of the trouble. Woaaah. This intro is way too short. Refer to the start of my massive post on page two for my recommended introduction structure.


By presenting schoolies week as a unique rite of passage after the trials of the VCE, the author seeks to establish the ‘point’ is this a quote from the author? otherwise just say purpose of schoolies to an audience of which the majority may not have participated themselves. You don't specify the audience here, so there's little need to make sure you aren't definitive with words like 'may'. Your audience is your sentence. You aren't say "The audience is thirty year olds, many of which may not have participated in schoolies"... In this sentence, you NEED 'may', otherwise you're incorrect. But, in your actualy sentence - the audience is people who the majority of which may not have participated in schoolies, which makes your audience undefined, and this is strange. The audience should be "of which the majority did not participate themselves", otherwise the audience could literally be anything "the audience of which the majority may believe in unicorns" -- in not being definitive, you don't give a proper audience. ‘Schoolies’ week’  implies a sense of ownership over the event, and clearly indicates the unspoken rules of who is and isn’t invited. By effectively handing the week over to the schoolies, McRae presents the argument not that the toolies should be better behaved, but that they should not attend at all Oh - i see how this could go against my previous feedback, however, if the 'majority of [toolies] may not have been' then you should be saying the audience is toolies, and definitively, instead of providing a weaker statement that I provided feedback for above. The statement of ‘their time to let loose’ reinforces this sense of ownership – the toolies are ‘encroaching’ on an event they have no right to be involved in. But what effect could this have for the target audience? Encroaching has some nasty connotations. The exclusivity that the author assigns to schoolies’ week seems to support their his or her view of the week as a unique institution, which is a vital reward for a significant portion of graduates for a significant portion of students is a vital reward at the end of their final year. He or she associates schoolies week with ‘freedom from the sometimes stifling classroom’, an image of school which probably NO appeals to a wide spectrum of the audience. This serves to invite those who didn’t ‘do’ a schoolies week themselves, such as the parents of today’s school leavers, into the spirit of the week yeah but how? Don't skimp on the 'feels' of  whatever demographic you're talking about. By referring to schoolies’ week having ‘become’ the modern rite of passage, McRae is contributing to a broader social shift, whereby there is now a widely held expectation that all school leavers participate in one way or another This is great. But there's a sentence missing -> "Subsequently, the sympathies of older audiences are targeted, as they are positioned to empathise with the social pressure faced by youths  that was not present many years ago" (I'm talking about le feels!. ‘No one should begrudge schoolies their right to a reward’ indicates that schoolies’ week is an extension of other privileges given to school students in their final year. By implication, McRae suggests it would be cruel to deny the school leavers what is apparently such an important part of growing up in contemporary Australia and now what effect does this implication of cruelness have on the audience? . McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies week, then, serves to lift the blame for the annual chaos from the schoolies themselves – the week is exclusively their time to ‘let loose’ with predictable consequences. To an extent, the normalisation of schoolie misbehaviour acts to shift the blame from the schoolies to the toolies, supporting the author’s contention that it is the latter who cause the trouble to escalate beyond the schoolies’ ‘celebration of freedom.’ What came after my last feedback was fantastic. Excellent closer.

--- Quote ---Shows a perceptive and sophisticated understanding of a range of ways in which the written and visual language positions readers in the context presented.
--- End quote ---
The above is the dot point that you aren't quite hitting that you need to hit. You're sort of half saying why the language is positioning the readers, but you're not going fully in depth, which draws back on your perception and sophistication.

A rite of passage is the symbolic transformation from child to adult, and McRae uses the connotations of this transformation to cast the toolies as ‘predators’.Great The toolies are ‘adults’ and ‘grown men’, and the schoolies are ‘teens’ and ‘young people’, but, crucially, never ‘young adults.’ Hm. Quoting what the author doesn't say seems quite strange to me. I think you'd be better off analysing how 'young people' creates implications of youth, as opposed to young adults. That way the basis of your writing is on what has been said instead of what hasn't said. What hasn't been said is just an offshoot of the implication This seems to suggest that McRae regards the school leavers as children, despite the majority having turned eighteen and finished their formal education. Accordingly, they are still owed the special societal protection afforded for children, which makes the behaviour of the toolies particularly reprehensible. The language McRae uses creates a sense of a power imbalance between teenage schoolies and the toolies. Instead of a full stop you should have ", in that..." -- I just think your writing seems very rigid when you're using these very definitive sentences with one piece of information often.. Also promotes formulaic writingThey are ‘shady and opportunistic’ – this reinforces the author’s view of the schoolie-toolie relationship as an invariably exploitative mismatch of power. This imbalance is a product of both the physical disparity between ‘bigger, stronger’ adults and teenagers, as well as the economic fact that most schoolies ‘don’t have cars’, nor can they afford the consequences of ‘thousands of dollars’ of damage. Most vividly, this mismatch is portrayed as the attempts by older men to take advantage of ‘young girls’, ‘luring them into the bushes’ in a depiction that seems tailored to the fears of parents Really fantastic, except in this last sentence, be more specific on the fear of parents. What is the fear? That's what I mean but go deeper. Before that was fucking great.. McRae, then, presents a strange view of the maturity of the schoolies.semi-colon would suit better imo On one hand, they are given virtually free rein to indulge in the privileges of adulthood; on the other, they are the potential victims of what the author casts as predatory and implicitly paedophilic assault. The spectre of ‘parental consequences’ reinforces this view of the schoolies as being somewhere between children and adults – McRae certainly wouldn’t suggest the toolies are accountable to their parents. The week may be, as McRae styles it, a modern ‘rite of passage’ – but the language used clearly indicates it is not the beginning of adulthood. Strong finish, but then, how does this go back to and support the author's contention?I just realise there hasn't been much mention of this.


McRae’s piece presents the schoolies as hardworking students whose special time to ‘let loose’ is invariably undermined by exploitative older men.  The piece attempts to build support in the audience for schoolies week as a modern institution, inviting those who didn’t experience it themselves to empathise with the ‘gatecrashed’ school leavers. Finally, while acknowledging the often poor behaviour of some schoolies, McRae’s ‘normalisation’ of schoolies misbehaviour seems to excuse them from the bulk of the blame. Great conclusion.

A short essay. I'd have a lengthier introduction and perhaps even another paragraph devoted to the language. In the case of another paragraph, it would be okay to slightly shorten all three.* I think you need to go deeper into how the audience feels and how this then positions them to be more likely to agree with the author's contention Your writing is very nice, I like it. I think you'd benefit with more commas, as sometimes your sentences can be quite blunt (though this isn't always a bad thing). So you're hitting the button as far as nice writing goes, but lacking on that dot point that wants perceptive/sophisticated analysis, though, some parts of this essay were extremely perceptive and impressive.

*Word count is not an important factor in and of itself. The idea of having a longer essay is to present/demonstrate your skills to the assessor more than a shorter essay can by virtue of more content.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page