Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[Limista]

I know there's gonna be a while till this gets marked, just posting so i don't have to do it later
( LA on the 2010 English exam's speech regarding Biodiversity)

In 2002, countries worldwide pledged to reduce the destruction of life on Earth, aiming to preserve our species and diminish the alarming growth of poverty. In response, a speaker's speech speaker's speech? That sounds awkward during the 2010 International Biodiversity Conference contends in an initally controlled and formal tone that despite the United Nation's description of 2010 as a "celebration of life", the rate of biodiversity loss is invariably unequivocally is a synonym if you ever want to use it evident and requires immediate action. Through the constant use of inclusive language avoid writing about persuasive techniques in the intro, the speaker distinctly is 'distinctly' really necessary? encourages his targeted just "target" is fine audience of educated leaders of biodiversity to claim responsibility on the issue, in the hopes of "preserving" life on Earth and alleviating poverty.provide a quick overview of the image you are going to write about as well

During the initial stages of the speech, the speaker opens opens upto his audience in a controlled and formal tone, instigating that 2012 is a year of "vital significance" to our world. The speaker seeks to emphaise the lack of support over life on Earth and the need to "re-establish" and "strenghten'check spelling theirwhose their? goals regarding biodiversity. In conjunction with his status as a prominent leaderwhich does what? What effect does this have on the reader. You have stated that he has credentials, so what is the effect of this: ethos, the speaker's tone establishes a form of trust within the audience and complies them to consider his arguments this sounds generic. Delve into this a bit more; give more detail. However, upon enforcing his contention, the speaker then shifts into an accusatory and passionate tone in order to confront the reader with a sense of guilt in order to establish a sense of guilt within readers. . The speaker essentially declares that his fellow conference members have failed to take "serious action", accusing them of allowing the increasing the growth of poverty and loss of life to occur. Consequently, the speaker induces guilt in his audience, forcing them to take a stand in order to preserve their self moral values.

Throughout the speech, the speaker employs heavy omit use of term 'heavy': inappropriate inclusive language being a leader of biodiversity himself being a leader of biodiversity means that he uses inclusive language? I don't see the correlation. Please make this clearer. The speaker concedes that we are in "the grip" of a species extinction and states that we have "no excuse" for inaction, avoiding any form of alienation between himself and the audience and instead establishing a sense of unity.Additionally, the audience is encouraged to claim responsibility over the issue as the speaker emphasises their positions leaders check expressionof biodiversity. The speaker utilises confronting statistics throughout his speech, declaring that of the IUCN Red list, 38% are "today threatened" and 804 are already extinct. Furthermore, the speaker also states that more than 1.1 billion people remain in "extreme poverty". As a result, the speaker gains immense'immense' word is unnecessary credibility in his arguments by shocking the audience with the consequences of the lack of progress in biodiversity rates, hence further signifying the need for action.statistics are also evidence of meticulous research and further cement the notion that the writer is passionate about what he is writing Immediately after shifting into an accusing and passionate hmm - synonym for passionate? tone, the speaker satirically depicts the lack of action bystating that "wonderful words", "glossy brochures" and "inspiring documentaries" are no substitute for real action. The speaker then proceeds to mock the audience by nothing that they are "mouth platitudes" in the comfort of a "sumptuously catered" conference who have lacked results. Through the combination of satire along with connotative how is the language connotative? You are labelling stuff, but not delving deeper into it. You must justify everything you write language, the speaker heavily implies that the audience is not doing what is necessary to resolve the issue by blatantly stating their former ineffective attempts to do so and their clearexcessive clarification. lack of success, consequently inducing a sense of irresponsibility and failure in the audience. The speaker states that the "dependance" of the poor in biodiversity is "crucial", followed by a declaration that poverty eradication is "crucial" to a global action plan. Hence,the speaker signifies the immediate need for action for the sake of sufferers of poverty. The speaker proceeds to identify himself and the audience as "economic giants", evoking a sense of shame in the audience for their precedency precedency? and once more encouraging the audience to take action.

The speech is accompanied bywith a highly suggestive image, consisting of a hand holding a miniscule earth in his palms. The image indicates that the hand, symbolising the audience, literally has the world in their hands and hence havehas the power to make a difference, supporting the speaker's urge for the audience to take action. The "white" hand held the earth with Africa facing towards the front, being the epitomeexplain why it is the epitome of pverty. Also, how are readers positioned as a result? of poverty. The conjunction of Africa and the white handthis sounds off. The conjunction of Africa and something else? Doesn't this sound awkward to you? enforces the concept of diversity in which the audience are morally obliged to use their power as privellegedspelling leadersso now members of the audience are leaders? I get what you mean, but you need to make it clearer. in order to help those suffering from the hardships of poverty. Conclusively, the image strengthens the speaker's argument and subtly urges the audience to strive to take vital action to "safeguard" biodiversity, before it is too late.try and focus on what every little bit of the picture is doing to do the audience, rather than what the entire picture as a whole is doing.

Throughout the speech, the speaker contends that there has been no progress in the improvement of the rates of biodiversity loss, urging for immediate action. The speaker initially adopts a controlled and formal toneyou are repeating the exact same words you used in intro/1st paragraph. Avoid in order to introduce the issue, before shifting into an accusing and passionate tonerepetition again in order to blatantly enforce the need for action in the audiencefrom people in the audience. The speaker repeatedly utilises inclusive language throughout the speech, establishing a sense of trust within his targeted audience of biodiversity leaders and consequently encourages them to take responsibility and strive for a true "celebration of life" on Earth.

I may appear to sound rude in a few parts of the essay above, but I'm genuinely just trying to emphasise a point. Hopefully this helps you out a bit 

[Patches]

Wrote this one in 45 minutes so it's not exactly polished, but I'd be interested to hear what you think. The three articles are on student union fees - it was a practice piece school gave us from like 2005, so I don't think it's online I'm afraid.

Compulsory student union fees are a contentious issue, charged with political and economic significance for both students and the wider public. These pieces provide a range of views on the role and perceived reality of unionism on university campuses, exploring the issue from the micro-level of the student experience and the macro-level of national significance.
Petra Miliankos, a student union leader, provides an idealistic view of the macro-scale importance of unions in their role in giving a voice to students, both individually and collectively. Miliankos casts unions as an essential part of the Australian democratic tradition, ‘agitators and mobilisers of dissent’ who have been crucial guardians of this shared tradition. The Federal government-led dismantling of compulsory union fees is, then, a continuation of what Miliankos perceives as a ‘backlash’ against civil agitators which is in turn part of a broader attempt by the government to curtail democratic rights. This is expressed in terms of a government ‘not content’ with its ‘demoralisation’ of trade unions, which now turns to student unions, which Miliankos regards as potentially the final bastion of free speech and civil awareness. These appeals serve as a call to arms to the reader, suggesting student unions are a vital part of a democratic society that we all have an interest in defending and promoting. Miliankos also labels the government hypocritical for assaulting the student unions, given their historical role in nurturing the political caste. Politicians, she suggests, have a personal responsibility to protect a system that provided their political ‘apprenticeships’, and should do so for future generations including, presumably, Miliankos.
Sally Morrell instead focuses on the micro-scale experience of university students to whom, she suggests, union fees are more often a financial inconvenience than an expression of democratic rights. She challenges the idealistic view of unionists such as Miliankos, inviting them to ‘complain’ but ultimately come to terms with their own unimportance. Student unionists are portrayed as an indulgent ‘chosen few’, more inclined to use their position of influence within the university for political posturing than providing genuine services to student members. Union leaders are portrayed as out of touch, wedded to a tradition of ‘partying’ at others’ expense – the warnings of those such as Miliankos that an erosion of student unions will lead to authoritarian government are dismissed as ‘scare campaigns.’ Deluded as to their own importance, their claims that ‘university life as we know it’ will come to an end are, according to Morrell, a futile attempt to protect the comfortable status quo in the face of unwilling constituents who have ‘put up’ with unions for so long. What political importance the unions may have is countered by Morrell as ‘someone else’s political agenda’ – she objects to the assumption that a union can speak on behalf of students as a whole, a view likely to find sympathy in an audience who were obliged to pay union fees at university.
Descriptions of union fees ‘siphoned’ and ‘used for piss-ups’ in Morrell’s piece are intended to associate unionism with a particular brand of petty corruption, in line with the petty political pretence Morrell has already identified. Perhaps to lend a degree of nuance to her argument, Morrell acknowledges the health care and other services provided by the unions, but maintains that for the most part compulsory fees were ‘rorted’ by a complacent and arrogant leadership who presume the right to decide what students ‘want’ or ‘deserve’. Michael Gilmour’s letter supports this view, arguing that students can better prioritise services they need than union leaders. Gilmore shares Morrell’s view of the union leadership as patronising and patriarchal, presuming the right to impose financial burdens on their members, supposedly for their best interest. Morrell’s description of the fee as ‘a couple of hundred dollars’, rather than a specific amount, implies a degree of laziness in the unions’ financial operations, which were not subject to economic reality. This supports Morrell’s view of the union’s unchecked waste, bolstering the implication that unions are protected from political and economic reality by the maintenance of compulsory student contributions.
Student unions are regarded in these pieces as either vital democratic institutions, or outdated and inefficient wastes of scarce student resources. Together they provide a varied view of the role and reality of student unionism, and its place in the modern university system.

[Eugenet17]

I may appear to sound rude in a few parts of the essay above, but I'm genuinely just trying to emphasise a point. Hopefully this helps you out a bit 

Thanks man, yeah i know what you mean, realised how weird some stuff sounded after rereading :p

[Sapphire]

This is my first crack at a language analysis that I wrote a few days ago (yes, I shouldn't have left it until this late in the year). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Criticize away


The recent findings by Professor Farida Fozdar on Australia Day have ignited debate over the ethics behind the research. Neil Mitchell’s dismissive and cynical opinion article, ‘Flag theory is about self-promotion’, (Herald Sun, 25/01/12), attacks the credibility of Fozdar’s findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist, in comparison to non-flag-bearing Australians. In a condemnatory tone and with restrained satire, Mitchell contends that Fozdar’s findings are not and should not be considered a representation of flag-bearing Australians. Moreover, the article intends to create a sense of scepticism, resent and eventually, fear, in the primary audience of Australians who participate in Australia Day celebrations. Mitchell is able to achieve this effect on his readers by exposing that the research was not carried out genuinely and with integrity, but rather with the sole intention of gaining attention.  In contrast, Todd Cardy’s matter-of-fact and subtly biased opinion article, ‘Racism links to Aussie car flags’, (National News, 24/01/2012), presents the findings that a positive correlation exists between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians. Unlike Mitchell, Cardy is not as straight forward in his approach of communicating his perspective. Each article is supplemented by a visual which add thrust to the language.

Mitchell does not delay in gouging into the core of his argument. The headline immediately exposes the intentions behind Professor Fozdar’s research. The opinion article commences by associating the pejorative terms, ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘a smart lot’, to ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’. On their own, ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’ carry positive connotations. Hence, Mitchell instils the doubt and scepticism of this ‘lot’ in his audience, which is necessary for them to later disregard Fozdar’s findings. The repetition of ‘self- promotion’, which parallels with ‘attention-seeking’, is used to constantly remind the readers of the lack of ethics behind the research. Mitchell extends his criticism beyond attention-seeking, to stating, ‘It is almost an industry’. As a result, the reader is left feeling as though these ‘academics’ are profiting at the expense of law-abiding Australians, like themselves. After shaking his readers’ trust in ‘the earnest and boring of our media’, Mitchell warns his audience that if they accept the “kick an Australian Day” criticism, disguised as research, the same academics will take advantage of them, and ‘[question] the motives’ of all their beliefs and opinions in the future. Thus the audiences' scepticism has developed into fear that they will be reprimanded ‘about what a nasty country’ they live in. In this way, Mitchell implicitly encourages and sagaciously advises his readers to question the academics before they are challenged and attacked themselves. By acknowledging that Australia Day is not ‘simply a competition’ for ‘the hottest barbeque’, Mitchell displays his awareness of the significance of the holiday, further ingratiating himself with his audience.

Before stating the findings, Mitchell reminds his audience once more that ‘the party’, is driven by ‘negative navel-gazing’. The familiar repetition of the terms ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘self-promotion’ still echo from earlier. At this point, the writer specifically refers to Fozdar and her research and demonstrates that not only is she seeking attention but has received it. Mitchell pokes fun at the newfound popularity of Fozdar’s research that is ‘[cycling] like Cadel’ and has even been recognized by ‘the Australian Kayak Fishing Forum’. Fostering the audiences' resent, Mitchell attacks the method of Fozdar’s research. Fozdar and her team are shown to have disrupted ‘the people of Perth, in holiday mode’, to interrogate them as the researchers ‘dug for racism’. At this point, when the distaste of the audience towards Fozdar’s project is at its peak, Mitchell may list the results she has found, that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than non-flag-bearing citizens. Had he done so at the beginning, the readers would have no reason to oppose empirical evidence. This is the approach Todd Cardy takes as he aims to sway the readers towards accepting the results as indisputable facts. Having used humorous cynicism to deride Fozdar’s motives and method of research, Mitchell appeals to the reader’s logic. He employs the rhetorical question, ‘Why would anyone who embraces Australian values not think they were good enough for all?’ in response to Fozdar’s finding that ‘91% of flag-bearers believe that migrants should adopt Australian values’. Mitchell ends his trail of thought with restrained satire and language laden with irony, as he accuses Fozdar’s project of racism; the very thing it is based on exposing. Finally, Mitchell demonstrates that to be ‘proud of your flag and display it’, is actually a positive thing, describing it as ‘an emerging sense of national identity’. Thus, Mitchell invigorates the readers’ sense of patriotism to cajole them into accepting his viewpoint.

Todd Cardy appeals to the same audience as Mitchell, however writes with the aim of informing his audience that there is a link between racism and flag-bearing. The matter-of-fact title of Cardy’s opinion piece sets the tone of the article. Cardy commences his article by listing Fozdar’s credentials and findings. Hence, readers are inclined to accept the research as irrefutable evidence. Although he is not as apparent in his opinion as Mitchell, Cardy subtly sways his audience into trusting in the research. Using terms like ‘only 25%’ and ‘an overwhelming 91%’ to compare the percentages of the responses of flag bearers and non-flag-bearers, Cardy makes a point of paralleling the two groups. Hence, the reader is compelled to compare the groups and reach the conclusion that the former must be more racist. Furthermore, Cardy ends his article by mentioning the research ‘from PhD student Michael Britton’, which ‘backs up’ Fozdar’s findings. Hence, the reader is positioned to fully embrace the research, given that more than one intellectually superior party has stated that flag-bearing ‘may actually be a sign of disrespect for the country’.

Mitchell’s opinion piece is sentimentally supplemented by a photograph (The Daily Telegraph, Brad Hunter), of joyful young Australians holding up their flag. The image of the flag broadcasted proudly by the girls reflects an inflated national pride and figuratively implies that our national identity is nothing to be ashamed of. The happiness of the girls, invoking a similar response from the audience, as they celebrate Australia Day is portrayed as innocent enjoyment. The reader is left to wonder how such smiling, happy, young people can be associated with spiteful racism. Complementing Cardy’s article and adding emphasis to his apparently objective demeanour, is a visual of a car bearing Australian flags. Thus, Cardy remains subtle in his approach by not including an emotionally provocative image.

The two opinion articles and their accompanying visuals provide contrasting perspectives on Fozdar’s recent findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than their non-flag-bearing counterparts. The crux of Mitchell’s article rests on the mockery of the proposal and those who have carried out the research, supported by the employment of appeals to logic, patriotism and fear. Conversely, the force of Cardy’s piece lies in his well-maintained, seemingly impartial poise, which makes his intentions seem credible as he uses empirical data to sway his audience. It is through the intricate arrangement of these linguistic and visual elements, that each writer is able to communicate his perspective on the issue of the correlation between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians.

[jeanweasley]

Back again, Yathi. Here's the rest of my comment. Note that when I try not to use the word 'you' because it feels a bit like an attack sometimes when analysing another's work but I have not fully omitted it as some of the phrasing was easier with the inclusion of the word. Not proofread, sorry. I'm lazy. ;P
---


Miss  Topsfield commences her attack on the  Naplan testing as she deems it to be useless as it impacts on the kidsConsider 'students'. Kids seem too colloquial and i nformal negatively and it is not useful. She backs this stance up by using words such as “stress related” “vomiting” “sleeplessness” which is the technique of using emotive wordsPlace less emphasis on naming the techniques as this will not get you bonus points. Focus on analysing the implications of "vomiting" and "sleeplesness and how this convinces the reader to support Topsfield's contention. If the reader had children or young cousins eg it would concern the readers on how their normal happy child can develop these symptoms over just a normal test.This effect on the reader needs to be better worded as it feels like it is being addressed separately when it should flow with the previous sentence. A tip is to address the what (technique and its implications on the reader and contribution to the issue) how (readers' response towards said technique) why (the intent of technique and how this places weight on the issue to convince the reader to believe in a certain way)  No parent wants to see their child being affected by these kinds of symptoms as they are harmful for their children in turn opposing the nature of the testing. Link to previous sentence to s ound more fluid.To further support her case Consider replacing this with contention. Case seems too informalshe uses statistics to show how wide the effectaffect it can cause. For example “90 per cent said test made some students stress”, “62 per cent cry due to Naplan”. The use of the figures such as 90 per cent shows how muchmany it affects people considering it’s a big number which would in turn make the readers alarmed and concerned on how it can affect a tremendous amount of children in Australia. Hence the readers are going to agree with the author due the large figures of factor relating to the Naplan testing. The previous two sentences could be linked together to discuss the effect. What is lacking, however is the deep analysis on the intent of why the technique is persuasive and how the audience is persuaded to feel a certain way.

GENERAL: The analysis seems very broken. It doesn't flow well mainly because the focus is centred on identifying techniques that there is little room for analysis itself. Also, the implications of the technique aren't all discussed and seem to be only vaguely addressed. A sample reworking to address these issues is shown below:

Topsfield commences her attack that NAPLAN negatively affect children's results and is therefore unnecessary through the negative words such as "stress related" issues like "vomiting" and "sleeplessness" that students who take the test endure. This elicits parents' concern as they are made to feel worried that their children are developing health symptoms because of a national test and therefore support Topsfield's contention.

Here, the first sentence identifies the technique as well as the author's contention, but instead of the techniques being broken and all over the place, it is incorporated into a sentence that actually flows. The next sentence also addresses the effect it has on the target audience and details on why they are made to feel a certain way. What it doesn't detail however, is the intent of the author, which, not having read the article, I cannot deduce, but I'm sure you can fill that in yourself.

Following the same pathConsider: "Adopting a similar position" or "In contrast to..." "Alternatively"... Mr Kevin Donnelly expresses his concern for Naplan Capital letters.testing and how it is not helping our children.Too general. All of the authors here express an interest in NAPLAN so you need to be a little specific about it. What kind of concern is it and why should he be concerned about it?. He goes further on to state that the Naplan testing is flawed system due to the different capabilities.Consider if this is your base argument. Does Donnelly feel that the test is flawed? If he does then just say that he feels that way and omit the previous sentence. Get to the point. To enforce his point of view he usesAgain, no extra points for naming technique. Instead, focus why an expert opinion from a President would be used by the author to persuade the audience to believe in him? Imagine the author as a salesman trying to sell an audience his product. What does he want his customers to do/act/think so that his 'product', that is, his contention, can be bought (supported, in our case)? expert opinion by quoting something Mr Obama said relating to the issue of testing “. All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test, and that's not going to make education interesting." Explain the implications of this quote. What does Obama suggest? Does he suggest that the test is unsuccessful in terms of building intellect and does he also suggest that the learning for the test is not suited for real life or application wise situations? Does he suggest that the test is not helpful because it's not really teaching you anything? By using Barrack Obama the author has used the technique of using experts. So by stating this quote if there are any readers that still unsure whether NAPLAN is helpful or not. They will be considered to agree with the author because if somebody great such as the American president doesn’t support these kind of test why should you?You're asking a question. Rephrase. Why is Obama's opinion so influential? Is it because he is a leader so his view is credible and likely to be believed in by parents? The author also uses inclusive language Give examplethroughout the article to make sure the reader feel that they are involved by using words such as us or we.Rephrase and use more explicit examples and detail how the use of inclusive language makes the reader feel like they are being considered and that their opinions do matter. Don't just lightly say that inclusive language means that everybody is included. Use the basic function of the technique and apply it to the issue and audience involved. This is because the reader is simply not presenting his ideas but what Mr Donnelly perceives to be a community issue.Why is it such a "community issue"? In turn this engages the reader in the editorial and further enhances Mr Kevin Donnelly argument. Again, this is too simplistic. We need to understand why we are persuaded to believe in a certain why. How does Donnelly's argument contribute to the issue as a whole?

Miss Susie Obrien author of the articleYou need not say her article again as this was meant to have been done in the introduction. You're wasting time here. “Merit in testing time” commences by repudiating the opposition's argument by using a rhetorical question. “So why are so many educators trying to scare parents into thinking standardised testing is bad?’ As arhetorical question has no answer because it is   usually implied and it  makes the reader feel more involved and  the reader will start thinking why do people want the Naplan scraped? Analysis here is very broken and needs to incorporate your ideas in one fluid sentence. Don't ask the reader questions. Also what does "scraped" mean?So they will start going deep into the issue and and develop their own opinion not what the media spoons feeds them concerning Naplan."Will start going deep", I understand the sentiment but this needs to be expressed properly. Are you trying to say that parents or educators are enlightened to see both sides of the issue or not?  To further solidify her argument Good beginning phrase hereshe uses anecdotal evidence by using her son who is going to complete the Naplan. “He was nervous, but I thought it was good for him”.Explain the implications of this. How does using her son as an example add weight to the argument? By using her son and describing his feeling towards the Naplan shows that not all children suffer from the symptoms such as vomiting described by the news outlets.And so what does this suggest about the test as a whole? Does she believe the issue to be blown out of proportion? It is a nover exaggeration of the true situation because only  a small minority of children suffer from these symptoms . In turn this strengthens the author argument for supporting Naplan.How though? How does the use of an anecdote persuade the audience to support this author? And how are the readers made to feel/act/do/think?

--

Conclusion is missing here. As a general comment: there needs to be more analysis of the implications of the said technique and the effect it has on the reader to do/act/feel/support or agree with the writer's contention. Also, an analysis of the differing views of the authors need to be present on the first line of each paragraph. For example, "In contrast to x's view that Schoolies' Week should be band, y author criticises the over-emphasis of accidents that occur during the rite of passage event in the social media"  and "Taking a different stance from the previous authors, z author contends that parents should trust their children to make the correct decisions during the event if they have been instilled with correct values."
The intent on the reader also needs to be discussed. As mentioned, the focus on naming techniques should be removed and analysis should provide the content of your piece. Refer to the author by surname only in the body paragraphs and use more linking words between ideas so that sentences flow better. Also, consider brainstorming before writing as it seems that sentences could be better phrased when all the ideas were taken into consideration and without pausing and looking at the article and then writing again.

Good luck and I hope you like my feedback (:

[Limista]

This is my first crack at a language analysis that I wrote a few days ago (yes, I shouldn't have left it until this late in the year). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Criticize away


The recent findings by Professor Farida Fozdar on Australia Day have ignited debate over the ethics behind the research. Neil Mitchell’s dismissive and cynical opinion article, ‘Flag theory is about self-promotion’, (Herald Sun, 25/01/12)I don't think you really have to put this in brackets - why not try and incorporate it into the sentence?, attacks the credibility of Fozdar’s findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist, in comparison to non-flag-bearing Australians. In a condemnatory tone and with restrained satireinsert some sort of quote to prove this tone, otherwise it sounds empty, Mitchell contends that Fozdar’s findings are not and should not be considered a representation of flag-bearing Australians. Moreover, the article intends to create a sense of scepticism, resent and eventually, fear, in the primary audience of Australians who participate in Australia Day celebrations. Mitchell is able to achieve this effect on his readers by exposing that the research was not carried out genuinely and with integrity, but rather with the sole intention of gaining attention.  In contrast, Todd Cardy’s matter-of-fact and subtly biased opinion article, ‘Racism links to Aussie car flags’, (National News, 24/01/2012)brackets, presents the findingscheck expression. Could just write 'suggests' that a positive correlation exists between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians. Unlike Mitchell, Cardy is not as straight forward in his approach of communicating his perspective. Each article is supplemented by a visual which adds thrust to the language. I like how you succinctly explained what the visual does

Mitchell does not delay in gouginggouging? This can be contradictory and is your opinion of what he does. We want neutral opinions. into the core of his argument. The headline immediately exposes the intentions behind Professor Fozdar’s researchhow does it do this? You labelled what the headline does, but you did not go into detail. Also, it wouldn't hurt to insert the headline as a quote when writing about it.. The opinion article commencesavoid pinpointing through terms like 'latter' or 'incipience' or 'beginning' or 'commences' as to where the persuasive devices occur. The examiner does not care where it occurs in the text; the examiner just wants to know how it is used to propel readers by associating the pejorative derogatory is synonym terms, ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘a smart lot’, to ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’. On their own, ‘academics’ and ‘lobbyists’ carry positive connotations. Hence, Mitchell instils the doubt and scepticism of this ‘lot’ in his audience, which is necessary for them to later disregard Fozdar’s findings.awesome and well-explained The repetition of ‘self- promotion’, which parallelsfirstly, you should express this as "runs parallels with". Secondly, how is one synonymous to the other? You did not justify this with ‘attention-seeking’, is used to constantly remind the readersany specific type of readers you have in mind? of the lack of ethics behind the research....so the reader is likely to feel what as a result? Mitchell extends his criticism beyond attention-seeking, to stating, ‘It is almost an industry’. As a result, the reader is left feeling as though these ‘academics’ are profiting at the expense of law-abiding Australians, like themselves. After shaking his readers’ trust in ‘the earnest and boring of our media’, Mitchell warns his audience that if they accept the “kick an Australian Day” criticism, disguised as research, the same academics will take advantage of them, and ‘[question] the motives’ of all their beliefs and opinions in the future. Thuscomma the audiences'audience's - singular scepticism has developed into fear that they will be reprimanded ‘about what a nasty country’ they live in. In this way, Mitchell implicitly encourages and sagaciously advises his readers to question the academics before they are challenged and attacked themselves. By acknowledging that Australia Day is not ‘simply a competition’ for ‘the hottest barbeque’, Mitchell displays his awareness of the significance of the holiday, further ingratiating himself with his audience.this last sentence was good, as you addressed the writer's intention and what he did. But I think you should have omitted it, as it does not being your paragraph to an end. It makes it sound like you're about to start addressing another group of points related to the barbecue.

Before stating the findings, Mitchell reminds his audience once more that ‘the party’, is driven by ‘negative navel-gazing’. The familiar repetition of the terms ‘attention-seeking’ and ‘self-promotion’ still echo from earliernice link. At this point, the writer specifically refers to Fozdar and her research and demonstrates that not only is she seeking attention but has received it. Mitchell pokes funyou have a better vocabulary than this. Try 'mocks' or 'derides'. Please do not delve into informality randomly, as the examiners will notice at the newfound popularity of Fozdar’s research that is ‘[cycling] like Cadel’ and has even been recognized by ‘the Australian Kayak Fishing Forum’. Fostering the audiences' resent, Mitchell attacks the method of Fozdar’s research.[b], such that[/b] Fozdar and her team are shown to have disrupted ‘the people of Perth, in holiday mode’, to interrogate them as the researchers ‘dug for racism’. At this point, when the distaste of the audience towards Fozdar’s project is at its peak, Mitchell may list confused here. Why are you telling Mitchell what to do?the results she has found,comma inappropriate here. Dash serves purpose that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than non-flag-bearing citizens. Had he done so at the beginning, the readers would have no reason to oppose empirical evidence. This is the approach Todd Cardy takes as he aims to sway the readers towards accepting the results as indisputable facts.wow - like this critique of Mitchell. Links well to Cardy Having used humorous cynicism'humorous' and 'cynicism' do not really go together? It sounds awkward. to deride Fozdar’s motives and method of research, Mitchell appeals to the reader’s logic. He employs the rhetorical question, ‘Why would anyone who embraces Australian values not think they were good enough for all?’ in response to Fozdar’s finding that ‘91% of flag-bearers believe that migrants should adopt Australian values’.it's great that you've labelled it as a rhetoric, and you mentioned the intended effect on the reader with regard to the logical appeal. But how exactly is this rhetorical question supposed to persuade us? What makes it rhetorical? Mitchell ends his trail of thought with restrained satire and language laden with irony, as he accuses Fozdar’s project of racism; the very thing it is based on exposing.well-identified Finally, Mitchell demonstrates that to be ‘proud of your flag and display it’, is actually a positive thing, describing it as ‘an emerging sense of national identity’. Thus, Mitchell invigorates the readers’ sense of patriotism to cajole them into accepting his viewpoint.

Todd Cardy appeals to the same audience as Mitchell, however writes with the aim of informing his audience that there is a link between racism and flag-bearing.great link The matter-of-fact title of Cardy’s opinion piece sets the tone of the article. what is the title and how does it do this? What effect does this have on the reader?Cardy commences avoid pinpointing locationhis article by listing Fozdar’s credentials and findings. Hence, readers are inclined to accept the research as irrefutable evidence.this is like a generic, textbook type analysis of the readers will do. Make your response, with regards to the Fozdar's authority more individualistic Although he is not as apparent in his opinion as Mitchell, Cardy subtly sways his audience into trusting in the research.how?? Using terms like ‘only 25%’ and ‘an overwhelming 91%’ to compare the percentages of the responses of flag bearers and non-flag-bearers, Cardy makes a point of parallelingparalleling? As in, getting them to agree with the same viewpoint? Make this clearer. the two groups. Hence, the reader is compelledreaders are never forced or compelled to do anything. It is their choice, whether they choose to agree or not to compare the groups and reach the conclusion that the former must be more racist.once readers establish this, then what? How do they feel? Furthermore, Cardy endsposition his article by mentioning the research ‘from PhD student Michael Britton’, which ‘backs up’ Fozdar’s findings. Hence, the reader is positioned to fully embracenot appropriate word. Also, one verb to describe what the readers are inclined to feel is not enough. This needs to be more detailed. the research, given that more than one intellectually superior party has stated that flag-bearing ‘may actually be a sign of disrespect for the country’.

Mitchell’s opinion piece is sentimentally supplemented by a photograph (The Daily Telegraph, Brad Hunter), of joyful young Australians holding up their flag. The image of the flag broadcasted proudly by the girls reflects an inflated'inflated' has negative connotations. This can be argued. Make the examiner understand why you believe it is 'inflated' national pride and figurativelyhow does it figuratively do this? implies that our national identity is nothing to be ashamed of. The happiness of the girls, invoking a similar response from the audiencethe way you said this makes me feel as though the audience has no choice but to feel the same way. What about readers who do not feel the same way? Some apathetic readers, for example, may not care on seeing this photo. Did you accommodate for them?, as they celebrate Australia Day is portrayed as innocent enjoyment. The reader is left to wonder how such smiling, happy, young people can be associated with spiteful racismand as a result, readers do what? Is the credibility of the visual or any of the writer's heightened because of this? How?. Complementing Cardy’s article and adding emphasis to his apparently objective demeanourevidence of objectivity?, is a visual of a car bearing Australian flags. Thus, Cardy remains subtle in his approach by not including an emotionally provocative image.why is this not emotionally provocative? What is Cardy's approach? You've left this paragraph too short and haven't really explained what you state.

The two opinion articles and their accompanying visuals provide contrasting perspectives on Fozdar’s recent findings that flag-bearing Australians are more likely to be racist than their non-flag-bearing counterparts. The crux of Mitchell’s article rests on the mockery of the proposal and those who have carried out the research, supported by the employment of appeals to logic, patriotism and fear. Conversely, the force of Cardy’s piece lies in his well-maintained, seemingly impartial poise, which makes his intentions seem credible as he uses empirical data to sway his audience. It is through the intricate arrangement of these linguistic and visual elements, that each writer is able to communicate his perspective on the issue of the correlation between flag-bearing and racism amongst Australians. conclusion is good

You've listed persuasive technique after persuasive technique. That's how you've arranged your LA. It sounds too chronological, formulaic and cliché if you write it out like this. Why not go for a more synergistic approach, where you try grouping the paragraphs according to effect on the reader? This is harder to do, I must admit, but it would make your LA sound less monotonous. If you find you are struggling to complete an LA in this style in an hour, just stick with the chronological approach.

Also, you don't fully explain your propositions. It's great that you've identified it, but you have to justify why you feel it is being used in this way

Overall - nice job though for your first LA! 

[Sapphire]

^ Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback Starfish
Ah man, I have a lot to work on. I was aware of that when I started though, so the only way from here is forward I guess.

Why not go for a more synergistic approach, where you try grouping the paragraphs according to effect on the reader? This is harder to do, I must admit, but it would make your LA sound less monotonous. If you find you are struggling to complete an LA in this style in an hour, just stick with the chronological approach.

Also, you don't fully explain your propositions. It's great that you've identified it, but you have to justify why you feel it is being used in this way

Overall - nice job though for your first LA! 

Yep, yep, I'll give that a go I have no doubt I will struggle with time at the beginning but with enough practice I should be able to do it in an hour (I hope so anyway).

You have pointed out that I mentioned things but didn't dwell on them. I cut things short because I didn't have enough time/the essay was getting too long. Would it have been better for me to discuss less but in more detail? There is no way I could have justified everything I mentioned properly in <1600 words.

Thanks!

[Limista]

^ Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback Starfish
Ah man, I have a lot to work on. I was aware of that when I started though, so the only way from here is forward I guess.
Yep, yep, I'll give that a go I have no doubt I will struggle with time at the beginning but with enough practice I should be able to do it in an hour (I hope so anyway).

You have pointed out that I mentioned things but didn't dwell on them. I cut things short because I didn't have enough time/the essay was getting too long. Would it have been better for me to discuss less but in more detail? There is no way I could have justified everything I mentioned properly in <1600 words.

Thanks!

Yes, discuss less, but do it in more detail. Remember, it's quality and not quantity! 

[Limista]

Wrote this one in 45 minutes so it's not exactly polished, but I'd be interested to hear what you think. The three articles are on student union fees - it was a practice piece school gave us from like 2005, so I don't think it's online I'm afraid.

Compulsory student union fees are a contentious issue, charged with political and economic significance for both students and the wider public. These piecessources of publication, date etc...? provide a range of views on the role and perceived reality of unionism on university campuses, exploring the issue from the micro-level of the student experience and the macro-level of national significance. think you've left out a few things in your intro that need to be there. For example, you haven't mentioned the articles' target audiences and tone. You haven't compared the pieces briefly in your intro.
Petra Miliankos, a student union leaderhow do these credentials heighten his credibility?, provides an idealistic view of the macro-scale importance of unions in their role in giving a voice to students, both individually and collectively. Miliankos casts unions as an essential part of the Australian democratic tradition, ‘agitators and mobilisers of dissent’ who have been crucial guardians of this shared traditionwhat is his intention as a result & how does this affect the reader?. The Federal government-led dismantling of compulsory union fees is, then, a continuation of what Miliankos perceives as a ‘backlash’ against civil agitators which is in turn part of a broader attempt by the government to curtail democratic rights. This is expressed in terms of a government ‘not content’ with its ‘demoralisation’ of trade unions, which now turns to student unions, which Miliankos regards as potentially the final bastion of free speech and civil awareness.so far I've read two long sentences about what is happening in the article. However, I've not really read an analysis of these language techniques These appeals serve as a call to arms to the reader, suggesting student unions are a vital part of a democratic society that we all have an interest in defending and promoting.this is the intention. But what is the effect on the reader? Miliankos also labels the government hypocritical for assaulting the student unions, given their historical role in nurturing the political caste. Politicians, she suggests, have a personal responsibility to protect a system that provided their political ‘apprenticeships’, and should do so for future generations including, presumably, Miliankos. Miliankos does this...so what? I'm trying to say you've identified the bits in the article where strong language occurs, but you have not described explicitly what effect this language has.
Sally Morrell instead focuses on the micro-scale experience of university students to whom, she suggests, union fees are more often a financial inconvenience than an expression of democratic rights.this contrast is good She challenges the idealistic view of unionists such as Miliankos, inviting them to ‘complain’ but ultimately come to terms with their own unimportance.she does this, but what effect does this have on the reader and what was her intention in doing so? Student unionists are portrayed as an indulgent ‘chosen few’, more inclined to use their position of influence within the university for political posturing than providing genuine services to student members. Union leaders are portrayed as out of touch, wedded to a tradition of ‘partying’ at others’ expense – the warnings of those such as Miliankos that an erosion of student unions will lead to authoritarian government are dismissed as ‘scare campaigns.’ Deluded as to their own importance, their claims that ‘university life as we know it’ will come to an end are, according to Morrell, a futile attempt to protect the comfortable status quo in the face of unwilling constituents who have ‘put up’ with unions for so long. What political importance the unions may have is countered by Morrell as ‘someone else’s political agenda’ – she objects to the assumption that a union can speak on behalf of students as a whole, a view likely to find sympathy in an audience who were obliged to pay union fees at university. it's like you've rewritten the article in your own words, describing what you think is happening from your point of view. This is not an analysis of language.
Descriptions of union fees ‘siphoned’ and ‘used for piss-ups’ in Morrell’s piece are intended to associate unionism with a particular brand of petty corruption, in line with the petty political pretence Morrell has already identified.how does this affect the reader? Perhaps to lend a degree of nuance to her argumentthis phrase is good. This is what we want. , Morrell acknowledges the health care and other services provided by the unions, but maintains that for the most part compulsory fees were ‘rorted’ by a complacent and arrogant leadership who presume the right to decide what students ‘want’ or ‘deserve’. Michael Gilmour’s letter supports this viewgood link, arguing that students can better prioritise services they need than union leaders. Gilmore shares Morrell’s view of the union leadership as patronising and patriarchal, presuming the right to impose financial burdens on their members, supposedly for their best interest.effect on reader? Morrell’s description of the fee as ‘a couple of hundred dollars’, rather than a specific amount, implies a degree of laziness in the unions’ financial operations, which were not subject to economic reality. This supports Morrell’s view of the union’s unchecked waste, bolstering the implication that unions are protected from political and economic reality by the maintenance of compulsory student contributions. effect on reader?
Student unions are regarded in these pieces as either vital democratic institutions, or outdated and inefficient wastes of scarce student resources. Together they provide a varied view of the role and reality of student unionism, and its place in the modern university system.conclusion should be longer. You should also be aiming to summarise the language devices, as opposed to only summarising the ideas in each article.

It was pretty good in my opinion.

Things you should be aiming for:
* clarify effect on reader
* make writer's intention more explicit, rather than summarising what the writer does in the article. Ask yourself WHY it is done
* devise a formula for an introduction for every language analysis that gives a contextualising sentence, writer's contention, publication source and date, type of article, audience, tone. If there's a visual, don't forget to briefly write about that in your introduction.

[brenden]

Its essay time =]

**Disclaimer: This is not Brenden, this is his sister (he just marked this and it got deleted so he's making me do it instead lol) and any advice is just how I do LA, I am very capable of being wrong, and also pretty rusty on LA so if I say anything that's wrong feel free to correct me. **

Brumby’s Camps: Analysis
Prior to the 2010 election, John Brumby’s “Education for Life” program consisted of a 2-week camp experience which sparked heated debate. All three articles and cartoons featured in the Herald Sun over the week of his announcement ardently contend that his proposal is unwarranted and unnecessary.This line says that they all contend x, but you go on to individually state what each article contends, so this line seems unnecessary. The editorial “We Need to Do more” (17/11/2010) puts forward the argument argues, asserts?that Mr. Brumby’s plans are a desperate plea to win votes and little detail has been provided. Following suit is Greg Kasarik’s letter “Army no Dumping Ground” (18/11/2010), where he refutes Mr. Brumby’s proposal to “send students to army bases”, stressing that the Australian Army adheres to a strict code which should not be tarnished by troubled teens. The accompanying visual aid also downplays the “Education for Life” program, where Mark Knight (17/11/2010) satirically depicts Mr. Brumby’s “boot-camps”. All three articles adamantly reject Mr. Brumby’s plans, manipulating concerned parents to oppose the scheme.I think this introduction would be stronger if you had a couple of the different arguments from each of the articles rather than just one for each. Don't go too crazy and make it super long but yeah.

The Herald Sun’s Editorial “We Need to Learn More”Your title differs between the introduction and here, just a heads up highlights that the crux of Mr. Brumby’s proposal is “scant on detail”. In order to outline the gratuitous nature of his plans, the editor utilizes a sarcastic medium, evident from phrases such as “looks like a winner”. Because “looks like” could be is intended to be?interpreted to be mocking, aiming to readers could have evoked within them feelings of doubt at Mr. Brumby’s announcement within readers.. This questioning tone I would avoid saying "tone". Switch it up with something like approach, otherwise it sounds like you are just trying to check off boxes is reiterated and further amplified as phrases such as “sounds like… might… looks like” are littered throughout the editorial. This is designed to denigrate Mr. Brumby’s proposal and therefore undermine his credibility. And create doubt in the reader's mind? More questions could be raised within readers towards the “Education for Life” program as the writer attempts to elicit readers to respond with outrage toward the proposal. The editor is skeptical at towardsorganizations such as “Country Fire Authority… Meals on Wheels”, leaving the implication that they are of no benefit to school children, when their “2 weeks” would be more efficient spent “in the classroom”. This couldRealllly do not like the constant use of could. I get that you're probably trying to avoid using definite terms, but I think "could" makes it seem as if the reader has a choice in the matter and that it is totally up to them. The reader is being manipulated. It intends to, aims to, intentionally sparks.. ect in the reader arouse slightThe author doesn't ever really intend to slightly get the reader's attention or slightly make them angry or passionate. They want the reader to 100% have no doubt in their mind that what they are telling them is correct. hostile feelings, specifically in parents of school children, annoyed that the program is irrelevant and a waste of time.Consequently undermining the authority of Brumby's campaign,opinion ect ect   

Moreover, the Herald Sun discloses that the program will cost “$208 million”. This staggering figure in conjunction with “scant on detail” demonizes Mr. Brumby for not giving out information to the public when it will cost so much money.  Since a majority of parents reading will be taxpayers, the appeal to the “hip pocket nerve” could make the readership oppose the program.Okay this is all really good idea wise, but I would never say appeals to hip pocket nerve. Try not to directly identify PLT's or tone. It will make you sound less sophisticated. Instead, you can literally just say that it aims to enrage the reader as a taxpayer that a huge sum of money is being wasted on a cause that does not benefit their children, and you could even mention that this creates an oposition between the readers, being the hardworking taxpaying parents, and the careless brumby who throws away huge amounts of money for something that is worthless to their children. +it builds credibility for the editor ect. Don't be afraid to go really indepth and analyse the shit out of stuff, it will pay off even if you think it is absurd. In particular, “scant on detail” is evocative, since “scant”Personally, I try to avoid quoting the same thing twice, and I have noticed that you have done this a few times. I'd try and re-word your sentences so that you don't have to quote the same thing twice, but if it has to be done it's fine. has the undertone that the detail being provided is miniscule, perhaps even non-existent. This could again replace this could stimulate the audience into thinking that that Mr. Brumby has ulterior motives or is on a hidden agenda. The accompanying poster telling readers that the “election is 10 days to go” could introduce the notion that Mr. Brumby is proposing his plan so that he can win votes.like this! This belief is affirmed as the editor urges Victorians to focus their attentions on how “Mr. Brumby… wrote to the Minister for Defense… for advice on his new proposal”. The Herald Sun condescendingly undermines Mr. Brumby and discredits him for acting rashly and without aforethought.
Similarly, Greg Kasarik’s authoritative and slightly venomousmuch better way of incorporating tone here. letter “Army no dumping Ground” condemns the idea of having year 9 students enroll into the Australian army. Kasarik’s previous occupation of “former soldier” allows him to undermine the proposal without questioning from the audience since he has hadusing his credibilty as a result of his previous experience within the defense force. Phrases such as “highly demanding selection…highly professional organization” depict that the Australian Defense Force (ADF) is an organization that adheres to a strict code of conduct and is of vital significance. Therefore he implies that Mr. Brumby’s proposal of applying troubled youth into the army (in hopes of “fixing their behavioral problems”) as illogical and “silly”. Childish connotations? I'd mention thisAs a consequence, this could incite concerned parents to generate ridicule at Mr. Brumby’s plans, thinking that Mr. Brumby has not asked for permission from the army or thought about the consequences. This derision towards Mr. Brumby is then replaced with fear as Kasarik explains that the army “has the demanding role of defending our country”, provoking fear in the reader . In particular, “defending our country” could elicit fear that without our army being “ready and professional”, we would be under constant attack.NEVER say I, we, us , our. It is NOT you, it is the reader. In this case, just replace our with Australia Thus arguing, implying, suggesting? thatthe need for a strong and capable army is of vital importance, and should not be compromised. Akin to the Herald Sun’s editorial, Kasarik also offers an alternative, albeit in a slightly didactic tone. Same deal as earlier with the tone. Being more subtle will make you look more sophisticated.According to Kasarik highlights, illustrates that ect ect.. pick a verb to stick in herethe more beneficial thing to do is to “assist them in a civilian environment with trained instructors, who know and want to relate with kids”.This is a hugee block of quote that you later go on to inspect individually. I would take out the huge block and just examine the smaller parts, it also saves you from being repetitive with the quoting. “Civilian environment” suggests that children should not be placed in the army because they need to be educated properly in a safe manner. This also subtly suggests that the army is dangerous and no place for troubled teens.What does this aim to do to the reader? Make them scared because they need an army and they wanna fill it with kids? Make them scared for their own children's safety, or even their own? Drill in the fear here. This is a hugeeee fear provoking technique. In addition “trained instructors who know what to do and want to do it” This is a very big quote. i'd just try and take out the crux of it, like "trained instructors', who "know what to do"implies that the army personnel are not “trained” to deal with adolescents, nor do they aspire to do it in the first place. Hence, Kasarik’s clear and logically framed arguments could permeate into concerned parents, positioning them to view Mr. Brumby’s plans as outrageous. Drill in more of this last part!

In a similar fashion, not sure about that phrasing. Could just be a me thing. Mark Knight’s satirical cartoon spoofs and derides “Camp Brumby”. Parents of troubled teens could same deal immediately feel opposed to Mr. Brumby’s camp as they take note of the line-up of adolescents in the foreground. The children are shown with unenthusiastic and slightly haughty expressions, evident from the disbelief in their eyes. Their comments range from “This sucks already” to “I’m going to seek asylum”. I would go into detail about those captions. The first one seems as though it demeans teenagers, promoting them as whiney ect, which could prove detrimental to the army, drill in the fear again. Also, not only could the second one hint at the detention centre as is mentioned later in this paragraph, but when someone jumps on a rickety boat in search of safety, you'd say that where they were would have to be pretty bad, right? War zones, innocent people being killed, really heavy war connotations, which is juxtaposed to the whiney teenager. Could aim to make the reader wonder if the whiney teen will be able to handle the war zone. Just a thought.Not only do these remarks encompass the notion that children would most likely oppose “Camp Brumby”, but are also homage to some topical issues of that year. To the right of the teenagers, readers would see a figure many would assume as John Brumby himself, evident from his trademark “bushy eyebrows”. Because his chest is puffed out and his large strides could ensue hilarity, this casts Mr. Brumby sardonically. Therefore readers could have instilled into them the mindset that Mr. Brumby and his proposals are not to be taken seriously. That he thinks he's almost posh, foreign, ect. Widens the gap between Brumby and the readers - everyday people.Knight portrays how he views the camps are likely to look like as he draws them with barbed-wire fences and guard-towers.is this how they really will look, OR is it how he wants the reader to think they will look? Twisting the truth is all part of getting the readers on the authors side. These high-security implementations are comparable to what is seen in a jail.explore the connotations of being in jail, teenagers, what impact this aims to have on the reader. Knight hints that “Camp Brumby” is unwarranted because it is more likely to be a detention centre for children rather than a camp for rehabilitation (the fencing and guard-towers implying that there is no escape)like this. Likewise, prominent signs on the barbed-wire fence include “no play-stations, Facebook, phones…” This indicates that Brumby’s camps rob children of their freedom, generating disgust within parents since it makes an appeal to moral and human rights. Or also that teenagers are not concerned with the army ect, but that they are too concerned with technology to take the army and the real world seriously? The notion of his camps being a prison is strengthened as readers focus their attentions on the bus in the background. The cloud of acrid smoke emanating from the trail of the bus could leave the implication that the teenagers are left behind, and that they are left there without second-thoughts since as the bus is in a rush to leave. Overall, the image starkly depicts Mr. Brumby’s camps as malign and unjust since it could rob children of their freedom.

The crux of the two articles and cartoon denigrate Mr. Brumby’s “Education for life program”. The editorial utilizes a more emotive approach, niceeseen from the heavy use of sarcastic attacks in order to highlight the lack of detail given. In contrast, the letter to the editor opts for a more scathing and authoritative tone,same deal as Kasarik belittles Mr. Brumby for not considering the impact his proposal could have on the Australian Defense Force. Similarly, Mark Knight’s cartoon downplays “Camp Brumby”, envisioning that the camps are more akin to a prison rather than a rehabilitation centre. Ultimately, upon digesting the contents of all three media texts, concerned parents are likely to view Mr. Brumby’s “Education for Life program” as gratuitous and unwarranted.
I'd also just like to add that author's can totally contradict themselves and ruin their own arguments at times. It will make you look really good if you point out that the author has lost the audience because he's wrecked himself, it shows that you have a clearer understanding ect. I would recommend trying this out where you can!

What do you guys think? Too convoluted/verbose/doesn't make sense?  - These are some criticisms I have been receiving from my teacher recently...

[brenden]

To the user named Turk on page five -- I'm on a shitty Macbook that can't open documents, so if you still want your essay marked you're gonna have to copy/paste it onto the thread =]

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

Hi Brenden, I would really appreciate any feedback as I really really suck at English. Thank you in advance 
You should take a look att he sticky in English Studies
Article: 'The good, the bad and the ugly' - http://mslangleysyear11englishclass.wikispaces.com/file/view/Comparative+Example+P1.pdf

In the editorial, “The good, the bad and the ugly” (published in The Daily Tribute, July 16, 2009), the writer scathingly criticizes council officials, who should be helping victims of vandalism including local businesses rather than condoning it through their inactivity. In support of the writing piece, a picture serves to attract the readers to reading the editorial. It highlights one of the tragic forms of giving locals an “eyesore”. I guess it does the job pretty quickly! I'm not fussed on intros (the body is what get the marks) -- but I do think intros can be useful FOR marks -- browse through this thread (early pages) for my recommended intro.

The writer of the editorial begins by brutally attacking the “thugs” who desecrated the wall which is a part of Patrick and Lisa’s café by introducing Lisa’s state as “heavily pregnant” and announcing that it was their “one day off” when the wall was attacked. Lisa’s condition as a mother to be hyphenate mother-to-beconveys a sympathetic <word needed> towards her heart wrenching story and manipulates the reader to agree that this should not be happening to innocent victims But how? tell me how the language is working. What about the things you've quoted manipulates the reader in X way? Also -- don't quote things if you aren't going to analyse how those particular words persuade the reader. Otherwise those words can only detract from your essay; they do nothing constructive. . Arguing that it promotes the “thorn in the side” you aren't discussing this language - so don't quote it. express it in your own words to demonstrate your comprehension to the struggling couple, she alliteratively describes the criminals as “ingratitude and selfish individuals”. This aims to elicit both disgust and dismay from the readers who have already been drawn into the issue with the editor’s repeated “disgrace” shown by the graffiti artists you've told me what it aims for, but not by which method the author goes about achieving that aim. . Further, the writer’s listing of the how this has affected Lisa and Patrick, “recent entrepreneurs and dual-mortgage bearers”, positions readers to agree that vandalism is more than just an “eyesore” but it is forcing more work upon the struggling couple how? .
You aren't making an attempt at demonstrating a perceptive  analysis of how language is being used to persuade  (key word being analysis). You're giving a 'what' and not a 'how' or 'why'.

The writer’s extract from what a local had to say is supported by the visual image that precedes the writing. I the image, readers clearly see that passers-by are confronted with an “imposing mixture of lurid and tasteless sexual diagrams and obscenities”. Combined, the image and description elicit disgust and fear for a local mother, who often walks down the route with her eight-year old daughter, that her daughter may ask her the meaning of the “more colourful phrases” whilst manipulating the reader to feel horror at a mother who wouldn’t be able to explain for her daughter.this sentence neds to be clearer, but i think you've made more of an attempt at explaining a 'how' here. The writer’s short and sharp “SEVEN HOURS.” only adds to the reader’s repulsion at how the council is unwilling to help out local businesses victimised by wreckage how? You're describing instead of analysing. Whilst the writer’s use of “the council… refused to offer any support” helps to convince readers of the veracity of the writer’s view that “council officials and local government members should be supporting the efforts of individuals like Patrick and Lisa, not passively condoning this puerile cultural vandalism.” how does it help to  convince readers?

The editorial’s embedded “... dragged its heels for weeks and then refused to offer any support” only adds to the reader’s revulsion at the council’s careless attitude.  Whilst the café owners continue to “work diligently” to make deadlines for their “repayments and worked tirelessly to make their business a success” help to convince readers of the hostile council lack of understanding. Together, the Patrick and Lisa’s anecdote the writer uses draws the reader to sympathise and agree with the writer’s point of view. Further, the writer’s description of the council’s lack of consideration towards the couple, positions the readers to feel sorry and want to end this vicious act of graffiti now to help entrepreneurs such as Patrick and Lisa.

The general public as well as the local business owners do not believe this should continue and share the same view as the writer. Vandalism on the walls of local businesses “rings clear to any self-respecting citizen” that it should not happen. By the council officials and local governments doing nothing about this issue, it is saying that it is okay and should not be addressed promptly. The writer’s distressful and agonising anecdote of Patrick and Lisa is what confronts the reader and allows for a sense of emotional appeal towards the couple.
Your writing is for the most part pretty coherent and reads well, but you're missing the point of Language Analysis.

Here is the question you need to be answering for everything you've written within this essay: How?

(and you sucking at English is just bullshit... This is nicely written; you have a good understanding of the language. it just misses the point.)

[Limista]

In the opinion article ‘We’ve made it through another year: let’s not drink to that’being pedantic here, but try to use " instead of ' to avoid ambiguity former AFL player and psychologist Tim Pekin forms a diagnostic hypothesis as to why a culture of alcohol has become so firmly entrenched in Australian societyI can see you are implicitly referring to the issue at hand here. Why not try making it more explicit?. Pekin uses a variety of literary techniques to position his reader to understand that Australian’s society’s indulgence in alcohol and its misuse is ‘masking…the prospect of life with no purpose’ and levels some credit to the flawed human condition that is trying to cope with ‘a lack of authenticity in our lives…in being a grain of sand in an ever bigger sandpit’I think the quoting used here is too excessive for an introduction. I would have been satisfied had you not quoted this second statement. Pekin demonstrates considerable knowledge and experience in this issue through his experience in working with drug and alcohol-affected youth as a psychologist and growing up in such a societyexpression flawed in this sentence. You should say, 'and growing up in a society that...', and it is this knowledge and experience that positions the reader to agree with Pekin’s hypothesisstandpoint, contention, viewpoint are synonyms. Hypothesis in this instance is appropriate due to the fact that Pekin is a psychologist, but if he was a lawyer, for example, then 'hypothesis' would be the wrong word. that Australian society is ‘largely inadequate at dealing with emotions and distress’…instead trying to find ‘meaning…at the bottom of a glass’. excessive quoting for an introduction. You have also not briefly mentioned the target audience and tone in the introduction.

Pekin’s tone is generally moderate –inappropriate use of dash here. I would say, Pekin's tone is generally moderate, as it presents... presenting an understanding of what? but there should be a comma before 'but'simultaneously confused? 'but simultaneously demonstrates a confused and exasperated... and exasperated attitude to the societal problem of alcohol abuse, relating in a rather non-nonchalant is one word. There is no hyphen requiredchalant fashion,to two anecdotes about local youths coming to speak towith him whilst drunk, inas a result of his...his position as the local football coach. Pekin only ‘wanders (sic)?’ down to check on the boy who fell off his roof – no dash here. A comma would sufficegiving the reader the implication implying that such an occurrence is regular for Pekin.that to Pekin, this is a regular occurrence that he has to deal withokay. So this is made tacit for readers. Readers as a result are likely to feel what?. Later in the piecedo not allude to position in article. Do not say, 'at the beginning' or 'later' or 'commences' etc., Pekin relates that he ‘could fill pages’ with stories that are similar to thoseto which?, and makesI would say 'and strives to make it clear to readers'. One cannot guarantee that his intended effect has been achieved, but one can acknowledge his attempt. Refer to the reader as a plural also it clear to the reader that this is not an uncommon occurrenceso you've repeated the commonality with which so and so occurs to Pekin. In other words, you've repeated the analysis of an idea. This is not advisable. You want to be striking a different chord with every sentence you make, rather than pulling on the same strings.. Pekin changes'alters' is a synonym his tone, howeverI would say 'However, Pekin alters his tone..., when relating the story of around twenty years previousfrom 20 years previously. If it's a number greater than 10, use numerals, where a drunk driver hits another drunk person, and graphically describes in detailif it's graphic, it's already detailed the memory he holds of the pedestrianspedestrian's leg being disconnected ‘a long way from his body, toes twitching inside his sock’. This graphicrepeat of adjective and macabrehow can a tone be macabre? tone Pekin utilises is clearly avoid adverbs like 'obviously' and 'clearly' because they are arguable. The examiner may not feel that A or B is 'clearly' depicted at allintended to be used as shock valuewhat is this?, a scare tacticyou're using the word 'tactic'. I would not advise this, simply because you are making out the writer to be a scheming and cunning individual by using this particular noun. You're basically writing 'scare technique'. In doing so, you are bluntly saying that A or B or C is the technique, as opposed to embedding it into a more sophisticated form of analysis. Instead, you could have just said, 'which attempts to frighten readers..'. In this instance, I have used a verb instead of a noun to describe the writer's intention. to position the reader to understand that truly gruesome and graphic things happen to, and is'are' not 'is' caused by, drunken individuals.

The use of literary tactics I have already written about my disagreement with this word by Pekin is should be 'are' not 'is'prolific. Pekin strongly and forcefully contends throughout the piece that alcohol misuse and the resulting problems are those held by Australian society, and this is reinforced by Pekin’s continual use of inclusive language –no dash. Just a comma stating that ‘No longer can we point the finger elsewhere’ or ‘We need to look hard to see the underlying causes’. so you've pinpointed these quotes. I'm going to ask: HOW is his contention reinforced by these quotes? You must make this clear. Pekin also uses metaphor[insert metaphor here]. I want to know what this metaphor is right away; I don't want to have to wait to demonstratedon't think this is the appropriate word. the experience of a former team mate who was drawn in to intothe misuse of alcohol, using a metaphorserroneous expression relatedrelative to the experience of a drunken personto the experiences of drunken persons, stating that ‘the prevailing culture sat him high on the drinking stool, propped up by the lure of stardom and leaning on the bar of potential’ – no dash. Full stop is needed. DO NOT make your sentences longer than 4 lines.Pekin’s use of metaphor positions the reader to understand that this is a common issue and one that society is perpetuating.nice. Pekin also makes considerable use of anecdotal evidence, relating several personal anecdotes from a wide sphereI think you mean wide 'range' of areas – from his experiences as a football coach, to his experiences when working as a drug and alcohol counsellor in Melbourne, to his football days. This wide variety of similar experiencesI don't understand how these experiences are similar? of alcohol misuse and abuse from a large spherenoun is appropriate in this context of backgrounds demonstrates to the readertry and make 'reader' plural that this is a common phenomenon and a definite ‘societal problem’. Even Pekin’s title demonstrates to the readeris demonstrative of the fact that.. that drinking has now become an everydayor 'a daily' occurrence, and that we should ‘drink to’ almost any occasion, be it an ‘18th birthday party’ or making ‘it through another year’full stop. so you've told me what the title does. How does this position readers?

The intended impact of Pekin’s article is for the reader to consider the real issues behind the misuse of alcohol – what is it it is truly ‘masking’ and why is it so stridently pursued by people from all spheres of society. Pekin proposes, in his expertise as a psychologist, that it is a simple flaw of the human condition to attempt to find meaning and avoid the ‘prospect’ of a ‘life with no purpose’ – no dash.and the intended impact of his article hence Hence, the intended impact of his article.. is to highlight the societal problems associated with that stem fromAustralia’s alcohol alcoholicculture and encourage the reader to consider the true flaws of the human condition and the ‘lack of authenticity in our lives’.Writer's purpose is thoroughly described. However, the effect on the reader has barely been addressed.

Pekin’s proposition that Australian society’s misuse of alcohol is maskingconcealing is a synonym truer issues of what is truly wrong with Australian society –no dash. Term 'or' would supplement the ‘authenticity’ that is lacking in the lives of people that leads to ‘disconnection’ and dissatisfaction with themselves and their lives – in some respects, to ‘drown their sorrows’, is a key theme of the his piece. Pekin’s relation comparison with his..of personal experience makes it clear to the reader that this is a phenomenon that all of societythe community is a afflicted affected byby, full stop. In other words, this construes..the inability to find meaning in themselves by ‘being a grain of sand in an even bigger sandpit.’ Pekin demonstrates overused this verb these issues by use of his through using amoderate and tolerant tone, but itis clear that the piece is intended to expose the ‘entrenched’ alcohol culture Australia lives inof Australia, and relate to the readermake it comprehensible.. that the true issue behind all of this is the flawed ‘human condition’full stop. you could have provided a quick summary of the persuasive techniques in your conclusion. I also think you excessively quoted the article in your conclusion.

Sometimes your sentences don't make sense. They are not convoluted because of verbosity, but because your expression is not spot-on. When you speak to your parents, teachers and friends, I can almost guarantee you that your expression will be flawless. This is because your sentences will be shorter. Why not try to practice writing shorter sentences in your essays until you're at the stage where complexity in sentence structure becomes an option? Your ideas, with regard to the writer's intention should hit the target; not evade it. One way of doing this is developing clarity in expression.

I also think you've negated the effect on the reader in favour of the writer's intention. There should be a balance between the two.

Para 1: tone
Para 2 : persuasive techniques
Para 3: impact on reader
^ That's how you've organised your analysis. I think it's fine; however, why devote paragraph 3 to 'impact on the reader' if you should be discussing the impact of a particular persuasive technique on the reader in every paragraph? Leave paragraph 3 for more persuasive techniques, or leave it for 'stretching out' the persuasive techniques you've begun to discuss in paragraph 2.

[brenden]

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

The issue of euthanasia and its place in society has caused heavy controversies over the years, as a result debate surrounding the legalization of euthanasia has become increasingly evident. I think you could express that better (I'm put off by 'debate' being 'evident' - seems strange, no? In response to the issue, an opinion article written by Craig Wallace What about... "In response to the issue, ABC'S RampUp published Craig Wallace's opinion article "Euthanasia..." (<date>) entitled ‘Euthanasia: let’s look at the bigger picture’ was published by ABC’s RampUp on the 21st of January,2013 in which Wallace contends in a condemning and antagonistic tone that euthanasia should not be legalized, stating that it is essentially “suicide” and hence should not be condoned by society. In contrast, another opinion article entitled “Why is it so hard to grant the wish to die in peace?” in the 16th of May issue of the Age, an anonymous doctor controverts in a logical and controlled tone that euthanasia should be legalized to help doctors realize that “advanced care” isn’t always the solution, and to instead help grant the wish of terminally ill patients to  “die peacefully”. Wallace’s article incorporates heavy use of rhetorical questioning and is primarily targeted at supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media whom he believes differentiates suicide and euthanasia due to the factor of disability last part of this sentence could be clearer, and you might consider restructuring your sentence to show that Wallace wants the people that differentiate b/ween the two to STOP differentiating (i'm assuming that's what he's doing, anyway) . The anonymous author utilities inclusive language to encourage responsibility in the target audience of medical professionals who oppose euthanasia. reader, as it is targeted at medical professionals who oppose the use of euthanasia.
I like your intro. I expect good things from this essay, including a discussion of how tone is being used to manipulate a particular target audience (which would be quite impressive). Your intro is promising, I'm hoping the rest of the essay lives up

Wallace’s article contends that euthanasia is simply another form of suicide and therefore should not be legalized. Wallace adopts a combative and condemning tone to project a sense of superiority and intelligence towards the reader you need another sentence saying 'how' and 'why' he is doing this -- i mean, he's trying to project a sense of superiority -- does that work against him or for him? i mean, superiority could just as easily lead a reader to say "fuck you" as it could lead them to submit to his opinion, right? So, tell me, what's he going for with the superiority, and what does it actually do? . Throughout the article, the author enforces the concept of euthanasia being “suicide” multiple times through the repeated usage of rhetorical questions, suggesting that if suicide is a “gift: for a specific group of people who find their lives unbearable, “why not” everyone else?  Wallace asserts this point once more when he questions the legitimacy of granting the right of euthanasia to one group but “not another”. Notice here your descriptive verbs/adverbs pertaining to the author. Enforces, suggesting, repeated usage, asserts, questions. These are all describing what the author is diong, and describing the language, yeah? But what you want to be doing is ANALYSING. To BREAK IT DOWN. DECONSTRUCT. "aiming" "has the potential to influence x audience x way because x" -- i know your next sentence is 'encourages the reader to accept his point of view'' - but i think you'll agree with me when i say that's slightly shallow? I mean, how does he indicate that people who disagree are fooloish, and what is the effect of feeling foolish on the reader? I know my last question seems a bit "uhhh, what do you mean, they feel FOOLISH" - but i mean, we can easily say "they feel foolish, thus their embarrassment could potentially lead them to agree with the author in order to restore their previous perception of self, discarding the reason for their original feelings through changing their opinion" (not the cleanest sentence, but you see my point) The author subsequently encourages the reader to accept his point of view by indicating that those who disagree are foolish. Wallace generalizes the communitywhy? by stating that everyone goes through “unbearable pain” in different forms in their lives in order to reinforce that suicide shouldn’t be allowed simply because of disability but how does this work?. The author is able to validate his opinion dubiously and allow the reader to relate themselves to the issue how?. Wallace employs evidence ahh, I see.. Try something to make this connect and flow a bit better, such as "In an attempt to validate his opinion and...., Wallcace employs..."in the form of the UN Convention’s regulations regarding the Rights of the Disabled, which affirms that everyone has the “inherent right” to life in order to restate his position on the issue once more . As a result, the author gains credibility in his arguments, increasing the urge in the reader to accept his position getting better.. The author concludes his article by exaggerating legal euthanasia  by comparing it to a “door to hell”, confronting the reader with shock in order to further emphasise that euthanasia has no place in our society. The article is accompanied with an image of a syringe and a bottle labeled with a skull. As an image of a skull symbolizes imminent death, it contrasts with the idea that euthanasia is a “gift” and instead signifies that euthanasia is essentially nothing more than suicide.
Conversely, the article written by an anonymous doctor contends that euthanasia should be legalized to allow the terminally ill to die in peace and help doctors realize that care isn’t always the solution for patients. The article assumes a rational and logical tone, placing the readers who oppose euthanasia in a position of self-doubt how?. The title of the article immediately captures the reader’s attention and solidifies the author’s contention through the use of a rhetorical question, subtly encouraging the reader to consider the issue by implying that those who disagree are illogical. what's the title and how does it say what you say it does? Upon the beginning of the article, the author utilises an anecdote of a man known as “the miracle man” who was denied death and instead continues to live a life filled with daily hardships. The author is therefore able to establish credibility in the need for euthanasia as well as evoking a sense of commiseration in the reader for terminally ill patients okay, good! now go one step further, what's the commiseration going to (potentially) do?!. Being a doctor himself, the author uses inclusive language repeatedly throughout the article to relate with his audience of medical professionals by stating that “we” think advance care is the solution and that “we” are very clever with our treatments. The author is able to encourage a sense of responsibility and duty in a doctor, and emphasizes a need for doctors to accept a patient’s refusal for treatment this is great. The author appeals to the emotions of the reader  this is not greatwhen he depicts life as a typical terminally ill patient who is “frail”, “incontinent” and unable to “walk without help”. google connotations, if you don't know the meaning of the word already. Here's a sentence for you to fill in: "The connotations of "frail", incontinent" and unable to "walk without help" position the reader to..... because they could feel....." The author forces  i'm very anti being conclusive like this. "the author forces"...... you can hardly force someone to feel sympathetic. the reader to feel sympathetic towards all terminally ill patients, further demonstrating the need for euthanasia. Once more, the author targets medical professionals through the use of rhetorical questioning when he concludes the anecdote of the “miracle man”, by inquiring if it proved a “triumph” in modern medical care, consequently belittling the medical professionals by deeming them foolish for opposing euthanasia and constantly focusing on providing patients with “burdensome treatments”. I read the last sentence twice (which is once too much).

When compared with one another, both articles have distinct similarities in terms of intended effect on the reader. Wallace and the anonymous doctor both establish their authorities during the beginning stages of their articles, albeit with different methods. Wallace conducts an attack towards an outside article which didn’t discourage suicide but instead considering a case of euthanasia as a “relief”, resulting in disparaging the media and instigating a sense of compliance in the reader to place their beliefs in his point of views.  getting a bit hard to follow in that sentenceContrastingly, the anonymous doctor simply stated that he was a GP for “25 years”, which establishes a form of trust and avoids any form of alienation with his targeted audience, also proving that he is an expert within the field.  Both articles denigrate the subjects through the use of sarcasm in which Wallace states his concern for the interpretation of “voluntary” in a world that isn’t the ideal world of “crystal clarity” whilst the doctor concludes his article by suggesting that medical professional stops the “treatment merry-go-round”. Both authors are subsequently able to project a sense of superiority over those who oppose their view, gaining validity in the reader towards their respective contentions i followed, but getting stretchy. Both authors distinctly state the consequences of euthanasia, where Wallace dramatically states that there is no “undo button” in death, inferring onto the finality of euthanasia whereas the doctor depicts the life of terminally ill patients, referring to them as having brains and bodies which are on a “downward spiral” and being “run ragged” due to being denied a peaceful death. As a result, both articles are able to confront the reader by triggering a sympathetic response and increasing the reader’s sense of empathy, further strengthening their initial contentions. holistically, this paragraph is a big of a damager on the flow of your essay - notice how all of your sentences are lengthy. it might be okay once or twice intermittently, but when you put it all together in one "BAM TAKE LENGTHY SENTENCES, MOTHERFUCKER... well, shit gets a bit awkward for the reader.

Wallace’s opinion article uses a condemning and antagonistic tone to consolidate his point of view that euthanasia should not be legalized as it is merely a form of “suicide”. Wallace constantly uses rhetorical questions to degrade his opposition and is therefore targeted towards supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media. The anonymous doctor’s opinion piece employs a logical and reasonable tone to place the reader in a position of self-doubt, enforcing his contention that euthanasia should be legalized for patients to die peacefully and to avoid medical professionals forcing active treatment upon them against their wishes. The author substantially uses anecdotal evidence and inclusive language to emphasise his arguments, targeted specifically at the medical professionals amongst those who defy euthanasia.


Just to clarify -- you're a Year 11 English student??

[Eugenet17]

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

The issue of euthanasia and its place in society has caused heavy controversies over the years, as a result debate surrounding the legalization of euthanasia has become increasingly evident. I think you could express that better (I'm put off by 'debate' being 'evident' - seems strange, no? In response to the issue, an opinion article written by Craig Wallace What about... "In response to the issue, ABC'S RampUp published Craig Wallace's opinion article "Euthanasia..." (<date>) entitled ‘Euthanasia: let’s look at the bigger picture’ was published by ABC’s RampUp on the 21st of January,2013 in which Wallace contends in a condemning and antagonistic tone that euthanasia should not be legalized, stating that it is essentially “suicide” and hence should not be condoned by society. In contrast, another opinion article entitled “Why is it so hard to grant the wish to die in peace?” in the 16th of May issue of the Age, an anonymous doctor controverts in a logical and controlled tone that euthanasia should be legalized to help doctors realize that “advanced care” isn’t always the solution, and to instead help grant the wish of terminally ill patients to  “die peacefully”. Wallace’s article incorporates heavy use of rhetorical questioning and is primarily targeted at supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media whom he believes differentiates suicide and euthanasia due to the factor of disability last part of this sentence could be clearer, and you might consider restructuring your sentence to show that Wallace wants the people that differentiate b/ween the two to STOP differentiating (i'm assuming that's what he's doing, anyway) . The anonymous author utilities inclusive language to encourage responsibility in the target audience of medical professionals who oppose euthanasia. reader, as it is targeted at medical professionals who oppose the use of euthanasia.
I like your intro. I expect good things from this essay, including a discussion of how tone is being used to manipulate a particular target audience (which would be quite impressive). Your intro is promising, I'm hoping the rest of the essay lives up

Wallace’s article contends that euthanasia is simply another form of suicide and therefore should not be legalized. Wallace adopts a combative and condemning tone to project a sense of superiority and intelligence towards the reader you need another sentence saying 'how' and 'why' he is doing this -- i mean, he's trying to project a sense of superiority -- does that work against him or for him? i mean, superiority could just as easily lead a reader to say "fuck you" as it could lead them to submit to his opinion, right? So, tell me, what's he going for with the superiority, and what does it actually do? . Throughout the article, the author enforces the concept of euthanasia being “suicide” multiple times through the repeated usage of rhetorical questions, suggesting that if suicide is a “gift: for a specific group of people who find their lives unbearable, “why not” everyone else?  Wallace asserts this point once more when he questions the legitimacy of granting the right of euthanasia to one group but “not another”. Notice here your descriptive verbs/adverbs pertaining to the author. Enforces, suggesting, repeated usage, asserts, questions. These are all describing what the author is diong, and describing the language, yeah? But what you want to be doing is ANALYSING. To BREAK IT DOWN. DECONSTRUCT. "aiming" "has the potential to influence x audience x way because x" -- i know your next sentence is 'encourages the reader to accept his point of view'' - but i think you'll agree with me when i say that's slightly shallow? I mean, how does he indicate that people who disagree are fooloish, and what is the effect of feeling foolish on the reader? I know my last question seems a bit "uhhh, what do you mean, they feel FOOLISH" - but i mean, we can easily say "they feel foolish, thus their embarrassment could potentially lead them to agree with the author in order to restore their previous perception of self, discarding the reason for their original feelings through changing their opinion" (not the cleanest sentence, but you see my point) The author subsequently encourages the reader to accept his point of view by indicating that those who disagree are foolish. Wallace generalizes the communitywhy? by stating that everyone goes through “unbearable pain” in different forms in their lives in order to reinforce that suicide shouldn’t be allowed simply because of disability but how does this work?. The author is able to validate his opinion dubiously and allow the reader to relate themselves to the issue how?. Wallace employs evidence ahh, I see.. Try something to make this connect and flow a bit better, such as "In an attempt to validate his opinion and...., Wallcace employs..."in the form of the UN Convention’s regulations regarding the Rights of the Disabled, which affirms that everyone has the “inherent right” to life in order to restate his position on the issue once more . As a result, the author gains credibility in his arguments, increasing the urge in the reader to accept his position getting better.. The author concludes his article by exaggerating legal euthanasia  by comparing it to a “door to hell”, confronting the reader with shock in order to further emphasise that euthanasia has no place in our society. The article is accompanied with an image of a syringe and a bottle labeled with a skull. As an image of a skull symbolizes imminent death, it contrasts with the idea that euthanasia is a “gift” and instead signifies that euthanasia is essentially nothing more than suicide.
Conversely, the article written by an anonymous doctor contends that euthanasia should be legalized to allow the terminally ill to die in peace and help doctors realize that care isn’t always the solution for patients. The article assumes a rational and logical tone, placing the readers who oppose euthanasia in a position of self-doubt how?. The title of the article immediately captures the reader’s attention and solidifies the author’s contention through the use of a rhetorical question, subtly encouraging the reader to consider the issue by implying that those who disagree are illogical. what's the title and how does it say what you say it does? Upon the beginning of the article, the author utilises an anecdote of a man known as “the miracle man” who was denied death and instead continues to live a life filled with daily hardships. The author is therefore able to establish credibility in the need for euthanasia as well as evoking a sense of commiseration in the reader for terminally ill patients okay, good! now go one step further, what's the commiseration going to (potentially) do?!. Being a doctor himself, the author uses inclusive language repeatedly throughout the article to relate with his audience of medical professionals by stating that “we” think advance care is the solution and that “we” are very clever with our treatments. The author is able to encourage a sense of responsibility and duty in a doctor, and emphasizes a need for doctors to accept a patient’s refusal for treatment this is great. The author appeals to the emotions of the reader  this is not greatwhen he depicts life as a typical terminally ill patient who is “frail”, “incontinent” and unable to “walk without help”. google connotations, if you don't know the meaning of the word already. Here's a sentence for you to fill in: "The connotations of "frail", incontinent" and unable to "walk without help" position the reader to..... because they could feel....." The author forces  i'm very anti being conclusive like this. "the author forces"...... you can hardly force someone to feel sympathetic. the reader to feel sympathetic towards all terminally ill patients, further demonstrating the need for euthanasia. Once more, the author targets medical professionals through the use of rhetorical questioning when he concludes the anecdote of the “miracle man”, by inquiring if it proved a “triumph” in modern medical care, consequently belittling the medical professionals by deeming them foolish for opposing euthanasia and constantly focusing on providing patients with “burdensome treatments”. I read the last sentence twice (which is once too much).

When compared with one another, both articles have distinct similarities in terms of intended effect on the reader. Wallace and the anonymous doctor both establish their authorities during the beginning stages of their articles, albeit with different methods. Wallace conducts an attack towards an outside article which didn’t discourage suicide but instead considering a case of euthanasia as a “relief”, resulting in disparaging the media and instigating a sense of compliance in the reader to place their beliefs in his point of views.  getting a bit hard to follow in that sentenceContrastingly, the anonymous doctor simply stated that he was a GP for “25 years”, which establishes a form of trust and avoids any form of alienation with his targeted audience, also proving that he is an expert within the field.  Both articles denigrate the subjects through the use of sarcasm in which Wallace states his concern for the interpretation of “voluntary” in a world that isn’t the ideal world of “crystal clarity” whilst the doctor concludes his article by suggesting that medical professional stops the “treatment merry-go-round”. Both authors are subsequently able to project a sense of superiority over those who oppose their view, gaining validity in the reader towards their respective contentions i followed, but getting stretchy. Both authors distinctly state the consequences of euthanasia, where Wallace dramatically states that there is no “undo button” in death, inferring onto the finality of euthanasia whereas the doctor depicts the life of terminally ill patients, referring to them as having brains and bodies which are on a “downward spiral” and being “run ragged” due to being denied a peaceful death. As a result, both articles are able to confront the reader by triggering a sympathetic response and increasing the reader’s sense of empathy, further strengthening their initial contentions. holistically, this paragraph is a big of a damager on the flow of your essay - notice how all of your sentences are lengthy. it might be okay once or twice intermittently, but when you put it all together in one "BAM TAKE LENGTHY SENTENCES, MOTHERFUCKER... well, shit gets a bit awkward for the reader.

Wallace’s opinion article uses a condemning and antagonistic tone to consolidate his point of view that euthanasia should not be legalized as it is merely a form of “suicide”. Wallace constantly uses rhetorical questions to degrade his opposition and is therefore targeted towards supporters of euthanasia, including those in the media. The anonymous doctor’s opinion piece employs a logical and reasonable tone to place the reader in a position of self-doubt, enforcing his contention that euthanasia should be legalized for patients to die peacefully and to avoid medical professionals forcing active treatment upon them against their wishes. The author substantially uses anecdotal evidence and inclusive language to emphasise his arguments, targeted specifically at the medical professionals amongst those who defy euthanasia.


Just to clarify -- you're a Year 11 English student??

Thanks for the feedback!
Yeah i noticed that last body paragraph was waay too stretchy, i really need to work on flow at certain points but i've recently started reading sentences out loud after writing and that helps abit.

And yes im a year 11 student, how come?

[brenden]

Not bad for a Year 11 . Aim higher than 43.