Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[Patches]

Hi, here's a piece I recently did.

Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains – Engageeducation.org.au


The growing number of pets amassing in animal welfare shelters has sparked criticism over the availability of pets for purchase in pet stores which are deemed to be the cause of the issue. Pretty average opening sentence. Amassing can probably go, maybe try something like: Increasing overcrowding in animal shelters has sparked a debate over the availability of pets in pet stores. Not the best, but you've definitely got too much going onIn the article for Melbourne Weekend Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13) the magazine negatesdon't think negates is right the pet industry for their alleged connection with puppy mills and attempts to persuade animal activists as well as dog owners and would be dog owners to support their cause. Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor adopts the magazine’s contention and uses satire to contend that puppies born from puppy mill factories may potentially be discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects. In opposition to the issue, Nick Conan’s letter to the editor refutes the article’s claims and contends that would be pet owners shouldn’t have to pay expensive fees just for a dog and despite possible disabilities that a dog is still a dog.
I think this is a good intro but too much. I don't see the point in listing off the audience, tone etc (and definitely not rewriting the title and the date) - you're going to be talking about these factors later on. Text response sort of intros just don't read well for language analysis.

The alliteration in the title ‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’ immediately captures the reader’s attentionmaybe it does, but why does it capture their attention?, appealing to their sense of sympathy and concern as dog owners and animal activists are provoked to imagine a dog, especially a ‘boxer’ or a ‘dane’ in a position of harm and elicit a feel of disgust in the readersgood, but you could go further. What are the connotations of 'drain', say? Waste?. Moreover, the subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish. Moreover, the expert opinion of Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika, aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills. The use of the adjective ‘huge’ coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar of most Australians’ emphasises the gravity of the issuegood and prompts readers to consider the issue of puppy mills and pet neglect and convinces everyday Australians to be more aware of the issue, thus garnering their support for animal rights.Think you lost it in the second half of that sentence - 'thus garnering their support for animal rights' is much too general.

In addition, the image of a dog with a billowing stomach elicits readers’ sympathy as they are positioned to feel disgust about puppy millsbut why that specific connotation?. The slanted eyes of the dog directly looking at the reader acts as a personal connection which may provoke readers to also consider campaigning for animal rights.Much too broad a conclusion I think - make up something like 'the dog stares out at the reader, seemingly imploring them to consider how puppy farms are responsible for widespread abuse - something like that. Someone else here said to 'describe the sound of the reader's heartstrings being pulled' - what is it exactly that the image is trying to convey? In effect, readers, especially new pet owners are encouraged to question the credibility of pet shops and their contribution to the issue of animal neglect and puppy mills due to Ruka’s conclusion that registered breeders don’t ‘condone…a method of sale’. In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the response of pet industry organisations in regards to the issue and position readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights.Yeah, but what specific techniques are used to provoke those negative feelings? Moreover, the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s response reinforces readers’ support and prompts them to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. Sillince’s ‘scathing’ response acts to further the readers’ interest in the issue and support for the closure of puppy mills.

Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justice and lead them to question the responsibility of these animal welfare bodies. Why 'millions'? What is the image of the government that's being created here?Finally, the author acknowledges the opposition’s argument that the campaign has ‘nothing to do with closing pet shops’ to engage the readers’ support, as their interests in animal welfare appear genuine.Why? It's not enough to say 'engage the reader's support' - that's the point of the persuasive piece. Why is the author deliberately distancing themself from claims they want to pet shops? Furthermore, the article’s conclusion acts as an insightful comment on the production of pets in pet stores and gives readers insight about the truth of puppy factoriesThis definitely doesn't work - you're evaluating the success of the article, not its contents. Knox’s comment that pups ‘repeat the cycle’ and are ‘dumped in [their] shelters’ reinforces the cruelty of puppy factories.
Not a great paragraph. Think in terms of what is the author trying to make us think, and what techniques are being used. You're really missing the second part here.

The pun ‘Cruella DeMill’ employed by Robrane in her support of the magazine’s campaign for animal rights is a satirical comment on the operators of puppy mills employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stanceBut what is it about the pun that does this? Pretty much everything in the article is 'employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stance'. Just like the infamous villain in ‘101 Dalmatians’, readers are provoked to consider that the puppy mill business is abhorrent and evil just like ‘Cruella Devil’. The use of an anecdote recounting her story of her dog’s disability, ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’, is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores. In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet. Not bad, but take it further. Is it that they feel guilty because they are perceived to be putting money before the safety of their pet? How does the author turn an accusation into a persuasive technique?

Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence that ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration on the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for the issue and invites new pet owners as well as potential owners to visit the website to make a difference. The use of the link ‘www.closepuppyfactories.org’ presents an easy solution to the problem and invites readers to consider that by going to the website, they are contributing to the eradication of puppy mills and therefore, reducing the chances of buying a defective pet and having to feel regretful for their situation and potentially having to suffer just like Robrane. This is really just describing the argument - why is the author including things like the website?

Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’, and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs whether disabled or defective is still a dog and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful. Bit convoluted but not badConsequently, the exaggeration that buying from a registered breeder is like ‘pa[ying] an arm and leg’ pedantic, but I would just put paying 'an arm and a leg' - the square brackets look a bit sillyaims to convince readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian.You're still just restating the argument - why does he say 'an arm and a leg' as opposed to just 'a lot'?

 The colloquial tone employed by Conan and his rhetorical question ‘why would I pay more than a day’s wage when I don’t have to’ influences the reader by positioning them to find alternative methods of purchasing their dogs. Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of current situation.Good analysis but still a bit pedestrian - you need to describe the implications - surely you've got more to say about a 'steaming pile of dog poo.' Also, Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not ‘activists’ implies the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign; thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry. Much better. Not necessarily convinced that's his exact argument, but you've described how he made it well.

The magazine’s use of evocative language and statistics aims to persuade the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement with puppy mills. How?In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all. Whether pet stores are connected to the operation of puppy mills remains to be further explored on the oncoming weeks, however, criticism of the pet industry appears to be widespread and supported by animal organisations.

I've probably pointed out more than I needed to, but I think your problem is that you're trying to cover everything and in the process losing the detail. People who get 4/10 spend their whole essay retelling the article without actually analysing what's being said - you are really on the cusp of that in a few sections.
You definitely don't need to write 1350 words in the exam, and I think if you chose just a few sections you could write a much better piece. I'd consider trying to identify some themes or components of their argument and structure it around that rather than chronologically as well - it gives you a lot more scope to compare sections and notice patterns.
Very fluent and well written though - you just need to make sure you're always focused on the question, which is 'How is language and visual material used to persuade', not 'what are lots and lots of examples of language being used to persuade without really explaining why.'

[duquesne9995]

Hi so I'm sort of just starting my study for the English exam now  and I haven't written a LA in months so I know this is quite bad but I'm willing to take on board any advice or suggestions that you can give me and am hoping to improve as much as I can in one month! Thanks in advance!

This was done to time so it is short  , and the article is from the Insight 2009 Exam (attached).

The removal of computers and laptops from classrooms at Hightower College has sparked concern from parents in the school community. The principal A. Jones attempts to appease the worried parents in his open letter "Are Computers Compromising Education?". Jones outlines the rationale behind the decision and fervently contends that technology detracts from student learning and development. He also addresses parents' fears that their children may be left out of the contemporary 'education revolution' while alluding to the greater detrimental effects of computers and laptops.

Jones creates a disparaging profile of technology use in the classroom and cautions parents against conforming to such ideals propagated by the government. With an empathetic tone, Jones identifies the "fears" of the "concerned parents" and remarks that "understandably, some parents are worried". This allows Jones to establish a positive rapport with the parents from the outset as they feel they are being listened to and that their concerns are being addressed. Whilst acknowledging the source of their fear, Jones dismisses the concept of "Australia's 'education revolution' " by portraying it as a gimmick. The repeated use of inverted commas downplays the significance of the government's policy and renders it insubstantial and misleading. This elicits a sense of contempt among parents towards the government and their "false promise". Here, Jones warns parents against being swept up in the tide of "the so-called 'technological revolution' " which he claims is a "fad". By portraying the use of technology in classrooms as a scam and a ploy by the government, Jones belittles both the government and the concept of computer-centred learning.

Furthermore, Jones asserts the value of the teacher in the education of a child and argues that technology interferes with this connection. Jones appeals to the vested interest which parents have in their children's education when inclusively generalising that "we all know teachers are the most important element". While reminding parents of the "essential" skills that "teacher-to-student learning" provides, Jones proposes that computers compromise this interaction. His statement "every dollar spent on...a computer is a dollar taken away from quality teachers" presents a dichotomy between teachers and technology. Jones implies that the school has had to choose between teachers and technology and that their decision to ban technology prioritises the "most important element in a child's educational life". The prominent role that a teacher plays in a classroom is supported by the accompanying image of a teacher looking over the work of three students. The focus of the teacher and students on the opened book aligns the audience's focus on the education of their children. Parents are given a visual reminder of what education involves and the student-teacher interaction that takes place. By reinforcing the value of the teacher in the classroom, both Jones and the visual allow parents to warm to the idea that teachers are superior to technology in educating their children.

In addition to this, Jones reveals that technology can prevent students from developing good communication skills and having high levels of concentration. Firstly, Jones portrays students as vulnerable and at "risk" of being influenced and distracted by technology. This is likely to be a view that protective parents share and hence they may welcome Jones' consideration of this. Jones paints the picture that technology is not suitable for "impressionable minds". The word "impressionable" evokes feelings of protection and care from parents as the word implies that students are easily influenced. The extent of this influence is ardently expressed in "students' brains are becoming deadened", contrasting to "being nourished by traditional texts". The word 'deadened' adds to the disparaging profile of technology as now parents perceive that laptops may destroy their child's minds. The contrasting nourishment that "traditional texts" provide promotes the idea that books are life-giving. Also, older parents in the audience may appreciate the concept of "traditional texts" and "proper; library-based research" which appeals to their value of time-honoured teaching methods. Altogether, Jones demonstrates that skills such as research skills and concentration can only be developed with human connections and interactions.

In his letter, Jones addresses and subdues the fears of parents while aligning the school's decision with their desire for a good education for their children. He paints the picture that the contemporary popularity of computer-based learning is a gimmick and that in reality, technology is detrimental to students' learning and development of life skills required for the future.


If you could give me a mark out of 10 that would be greatly appreciated, so that I can see where I stand at the moment. Thanks!

[darvell]

The growing number of pets amassing in animal welfare shelters has sparked criticism over the availability of pets for purchase in pet stores which are deemed to be the cause of the issue.To me the end bit just seemed unnecessary In the article for Melbourne Weekend Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13) the magazine negates the pet industry for their alleged connection with puppy mills and attempts to persuade animal activists as well as dog owners and would be dog ownersbit long and wordy I reckon haha to support their cause. Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor adopts the magazine’s contentionFor here and all the points where you've used contention/contends swap the word contends for something like their argument, their assertion, ect ect. Don't ever explicitly write contends, it makes it sound like you're just trying to check off what's needed for the essay and breaks the flow. For a list of words that you can use google "Verbs that show authorial intent" and it should come up with some for you and uses satire to contend that puppies born from puppy mill factories may potentially be discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects. In opposition to the issue, Nick Conan’s letter to the editor refutes the article’s claims and contends that would be pet owners shouldn’t have to pay expensive fees just for a dog and despite possible disabilities that a dog is still a dog. I havent looked at the actual article but if this is one large article with a few responses to it it'd be nice to have a few more of the "sub points" that the main article argues rather than having one sort of general one for each of them. Also you'd want to have a brief description of what's in the image at the end of your intro here!

The alliteration in the title ‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’ immediately captures the reader’s attention,personally I would avoid ever analysing alliteration simply because you can write exactly the same thing for every time it occurs and it comes off as very shallow analysis.  appealing to their sense of sympathy and concern as dog owners and animal activists are provoked to imagine a dog, especially a ‘boxer’ or a ‘dane’ in a position of harm and elicit a feel of disgust in the readers. Moreover, the subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish. Moreover,repeated use of moreover breaks flow the expert opinion instead of listing the technique (expert opinion) quote what she actually says and say how this influences the reader (her CREDIBILITY not the expert opinion) ect ect. of Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika, aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills. The use of the adjective ‘huge’ coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar of most Australians’ why is this quote important? is it that everyone is totally oblivious to how big of an issue this is?? explain yourself further here emphasises the gravity of the issue and prompts readers to consider the issue of puppy mills and pet neglect and convinces everyday Australians to be more aware of the issue, thus garnering their support for animal rights.

In addition, the image of a dog with a billowing stomach elicits readers’ sympathy as they are positioned to feel disgust about puppy millsbecause ...... The slanted eyes of the dog directly looking at the reader acts as a personal connectionhow? say exactly what you mean which may provoke readers to also consider campaigning for animal rights. In effect, readers, especially new pet owners are encouraged to question the credibility of pet shops and their contribution to the issue of animal neglect and puppy mills due to Ruka’s conclusion that registered breeders don’t ‘condone…a method of sale’Connotations of any of these words?. In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the responseibility? of pet industry organisations in regards to the issuetheir welfare and position readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights. Moreover, the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s responsequote the exact part that you're talking about and say HOW it reinforces readers support reinforces readers’ support and prompts them to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. Sillince’s ‘scathingWhat are the connotations of scathing, why have they picked that word? what is the effect on the reader? (or is this the title of her reponse, I'm not exactly sure.. if so, quote the part of the response that you're talking about and explain it directly rather than doing a general analysis of the whole thing haha)’ response acts to further the readers’ interest in the issue and support for the closure of puppy mills.

Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justicedue to.... as this word makes them feel.... ect ect and lead them to question the responsibility of these animal welfare bodies. Finally, the author acknowledges the opposition’s argument that the campaign has ‘nothing to do with closing pet shops’ to engage the readers’ support, as their interests in animal welfare appear genuine. maybe also mention that this is done to make the article look less bias than it actually is Furthermore, the article’s conclusion acts as an insightful comment on the production of pets in pet stores and gives readers insight about the truth of puppy factories. Knox’s comment that pups ‘repeat the cycle’ and are ‘dumped in [their] shelters’ reinforces the cruelty of puppy factories.how? what does it make the reader think about? man get real dramatic here and talk about how the author is making the reader imagine puppies being left behind and tortured and stuff - be creative!

The pun ‘Cruella DeMill’ employed by Robrane in her support of the magazine’s campaign for animal rights is a satirical comment on the operators of puppy mills employed to garner the readers’ attention on the issue and position them to accept Robrane’s stance.same deal as alliteration for me Just like the infamous villain in ‘101 Dalmatians’, readers are provoked to consider that the puppy mill business is abhorrent and evil just like ‘Cruella Devil’. The use of an anecdote recounting her story of her dog’s disability,dont directly identify techniques, sounds like you're looking at a checklist. Quote it instead and explain how the technique effects the reader without listing what it is. ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’, is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores.which makes them feel/think?? are they terrified that this will happen to them? Try and explain yourself as much as you can, the more detail the better! In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet. this is gooddd

Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence that ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration on towards the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for the issue and invites new pet owners as well as potential owners to visit the website to make a difference. The use of the link ‘www.closepuppyfactories.org’ presents an easy solution to the problem and invites readers to consider that by going to the website, they are contributing to the eradication of puppy mills and therefore, reducing the chances of buying a defective pet and having to feel regretful for their situation and potentially having to suffer just like Robrane. Mm, I don't know if I would ever analyse the inclusion of a link like that Im not sure if that's just me, it just doesnt seem like its the strongest thing in the article to pick out to analyse.

Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’, and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs, whether disabled or defective isare still a dogs and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful. Consequently, the exaggeration same deal with identifying techniques. Quote and explain rather than identifying quoting and explaining.that buying from a registered breeder is like ‘pa[ying] an arm and leg’ aims to convince readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian.Could it also ruin the author's credibility? They're supporting being dodgy and buying from someone unregistered! Why should we listen to their opinion <- if an author wrecks themselves dont be afraid to tear them apart in analysis - it can sometimes even show off your skills moreso than if you were to just agree with what the author says.

The colloquial tone same deal as earlier with the checklistemployed by Conan and his rhetorical questionquote dont list ‘why would I pay more than a day’s wage when I don’t have to’ influences the reader by positioning them to find alternative methods of purchasing their dogs.Personally as with the other things I mentioned I usually will also avoid analysing rhetorical questions as you can also write exactly the same thing for them every time they occur - shallow analysis Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of current situation.and consequently ruins their credibility?? this is good though (Y) Also, Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not ‘activists’ implies the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign; thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry. I think this para was a bit better than the other ones

The magazine’s use of evocative language and statisticsquote what you're talking about aims to persuade the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement with puppy mills.mmm? Prove it? how are they convincing the reader? how is it affecting them? In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all. Whether pet stores are connected to the operation of puppy mills remains to be further explored on the oncoming weeks, however, criticism of the pet industry appears to be widespread and supported by animal organisations. Not sure about this end bit that I've underlined - it kind of sounds like you're analysing the issue itself rather than the article and the language used - maybe check with someone else I'm a bit rusty on LA

You might benefit from reading other people's feedback
For you I would suggest trying to limit your quotes to 2 or 3 words and getting proper analysis out of them while you're perfecting your technique,
if you try and analyse too much at once it can mean that you end up coming across as shallow.
Goodluck with it

[jeanweasley]

Thanks for the critiques, I'll rework it soon.

if an author wrecks themselves dont be afraid to tear them apart in analysis - it can sometimes even show off your skills moreso than if you were to just agree with what the author says.

Wait, I don't know what you mean by this. Do you meant to evaluate, if yes, I'm not sure if we're allowed to do that. Well, at least, I've been taught not to.

[brenden]

She means that if an author uses language in a way that will potentially be BAD for their contention, ie. the audience will be full of shit, then you should criticise. (Not subjectively, don't judge the author or anything like that).

Consider an author who is writing about why he loves jeans and targeting 16-24 year old women.

Here is his argument:

Jeans are warm.
Jeans are aesthetically pleasing.
Jeans are easy to wear.
Jeans make the backsides of women very attractive.

You can say "However, the author's use of <words> risks alienating some feminist portion of his audience, as..."

Or, let's say, someone uses a statistics from the 1930s

"However, the statistic is outdated and could potentially represent an agenda on the writer's behalf; this risks fostering distrust in the audience" or something like that.

You don't evaluate, but you can ANALYSE. If a footballer makes a shit play and you're analysing the game, you can say "see why that was bad?" without judging the footballer.

[jeanweasley]

She means that if an author uses language in a way that will potentially be BAD for their contention, ie. the audience will be full of shit, then you should criticise. (Not subjectively, don't judge the author or anything like that).

Consider an author who is writing about why he loves jeans and targeting 16-24 year old women.

Here is his argument:

Jeans are warm.
Jeans are aesthetically pleasing.
Jeans are easy to wear.
Jeans make the backsides of women very attractive.

You can say "However, the author's use of <words> risks alienating some feminist portion of his audience, as..."

Or, let's say, someone uses a statistics from the 1930s

"However, the statistic is outdated and could potentially represent an agenda on the writer's behalf; this risks fostering distrust in the audience" or something like that.

You don't evaluate, but you can ANALYSE. If a footballer makes a shit play and you're analysing the game, you can say "see why that was bad?" without judging the footballer.

Oh, lol. I never knew you could do this. Thanks for explaining!

[sin0001]

Couldn't find the article for this, but it's from the 2009 Insight Exam
Also, I didn't bother with a conclusion


In response to the concerns put forth by the parents of Huntingtower Secondary school’s students, regarding the ban of technology in class, A. Jones, the principal, has outlined his reasons for the school’s controversial decision in a letter specifically addressed to the worried parents. In the principal’s letter, appearing in the school’s weekly newsletter, A. Jones contends, in a defensive and concerned tone of voice, that Australia’s technology revolution has been adversely affecting students by impeding their social and intellectual learning, when the school’s funds can be better spent on quality teaching. Accompanying the principal’s address is a visual depicting the nurturing manner in which the school’s students are taught by a teacher, resonating with the principal’s opinion that students will be better suited to the traditional method of teaching.

Jones begins by debunking the distress faced by the parents, in turn assuring them through the introduction of negative impacts of the ‘education revolution’. By directly addressing the parents’ fears regarding the exclusion of their children from the technological advancement in Australian schools, Jones labels the revolution as a ‘fad’ which has ‘sold short’ his students. In effect, the parents are likely to instantly develop interest in the letter’s claims that the use of technology is providing only a ‘few benefits’. Jones further seeks to add weight to his disapproval towards the use of technology to learn by mentioning the counter-evidence suggested by ‘studies’, thereby causing the reader to grow aware of the thoughtful nature of the school’s ban, rather than viewing the school’s ban in technology as a misinformed and an inexplicable move.

The author proceeds to allude the parents to the inconvenient aspect of the upkeep of technology, highlighting the role of teachers in the students’ development. Through the use of inclusive language in warning the reader: ‘we simply cannot afford’ to invest on ‘quality teaching’, Jones seeks to inform the parents of their role and responsibility in the learning of their children, as they will be seemingly guilty for the loss of ‘quality teaching’. The audience is then caused to feel concerned regarding the ‘negative traits’ which may result from an excessive use of technology, through the principal’s use of negative connotations towards the overuse of computers, as shown by the listed personality defects such as ‘narcissism’ and ‘superficiality’. In addition, Jones forges a comparison between how the students’ social and intellectual skills can be ‘flourished’ through teacher-student interaction and how such development can be ‘stifled’ by an excessive use of technology. In turn, the use of the word, ‘flourish’, creates an impression of growth and progress in the minds of the parents, while the inclusion of the verb, ‘stifles’, carries negative connotations which position the reader to view the dangers of the overuse of technology as an impediment to the development of the students. The principal then paints laptops as a  liability to the school, describing it as an ‘unaffordable inconvenience’, thereby engendering the parents to view school computers to be an unnecessary expense incurred, and one which detracts from the school’s focus on the student’s learning. Conversely, Jones attempts to convey the convenience of employing a traditional method of teaching, in effect causing the reader to feel as though the school’s funds are better spent by prioritizing quality teaching over the use of laptops.

Jones seeks to highlight the adverse effects of technology, on the learning abilities of students, through the use of expert opinion. To support his own contention, the principal uses a quotation from Todd Oppenheimer regarding the negative impacts on one’s communication, inflicted by a ‘computer-centred classroom’; an alliteration included by Jones to grab the parents’ attention before presenting the significant findings of Todd’s study. In effect, the reader is likely to regard the ‘technological revolution’, undergone by Australian schools, to be indeed a hasty and a miscalculated advancement. The writer goes on to appeal to the parents’ sense of fear in conveying that the inability of children to socially interact can transfer to their adult lives, hence positioning the reader to view the effects of technology to be lingering and significant in the lives of the students. The readership is then presented with a contrast between the ‘deadening’ of the students’ brains, inflicted by the exposure to technology and the ‘nourishment’ provided by traditional texts. Thereby creating a dichotomy of the effects on the students and evoking feelings of outrage from the parents of the students towards deceiving nature of the Australian education revolution.

Finally, the principal condemns the ‘false promise’ of the Australian Government and appeals to the parents’ sense of urgency through a call for action to ‘resist’ the technological advancement. This is achieved as Jones, through the use of inclusive language, employ an  imperative tone of voice in demanding that ‘we need to resist’ the ‘computer-based’ revolution. In effect, the parents are positioned to perceive the school’s ban on technology to be of a paramount importance and to view the Government’s ‘promise’ to be misleading, as if they are against providing the students an opportunity to flourish educationally.

[brenden]

Oh, lol. I never knew you could do this. Thanks for explaining!

You can do anything that hits the criteria . Honestly, you could write "I" if you wanted to and still get a 10, but 9999999% of the time it would damage the criteria. Like, if EZ or Lollymatron wrote a text response and spent 1.5 hours on it Nd made it super brilliant, and said "I", well, what idiot is going to say that their textual knowledge is bad, or that their Analysis is bad? You'll find in uni, they expect you to use "I".
Take home lesson: the only rule in English is "hit the criteria" and anything your teachers tell you to do are simply ways they think assist you in hitting the criteria. Personally, I find criticising an author Nd saying how language ISN'T persuasive is one of the best ways to have a perceptive analysis and u undertanding of language

[darvell]

Thanks for the critiques, I'll rework it soon.

Wait, I don't know what you mean by this. Do you meant to evaluate, if yes, I'm not sure if we're allowed to do that. Well, at least, I've been thought not to.

Hahaha sorry dodgy wording I suppose

[darvell]

In response to the concerns put forth by the parents of Huntingtower Secondary school’s students, regarding the ban of technology in class, A. Jones, the principal,Principal A. Jones has a better flow haha has outlined his reasons for the school’s controversial decision in a letter specifically addressed to the worried parents. In the principal’s letter, appearing in the school’s weekly newsletter, A. Jones contends,Contends sounds too much like you're trying to check off the boxes on a checklist and breaks the flow of the essay. Instead you want to say that the author *insert verb showing authorial intent here* - something like asserts, highlights, ect ect google it for a list of them in a defensive and concerned tone of voice,again same deal as with the contends and the checklist, instead of saying tone switch it up for something like approach that Australia’s technology revolution has been is adversely affecting students by impeding their social and intellectual learning, when the school’s funds can be better spent on quality teaching. Accompanying the principal’s address is a visual depicting the nurturing manner in which the school’s students are taught by a teacher, resonating withcomplementing the principal’s opinion that students will be better suited to the traditional method of teaching.

Jones begins by debunking the distress faced by the parents, in turn assuring them through the introduction of negative impacts of the ‘education revolution’. By directly addressing the parents’ fears regarding the exclusion of their children from the technological advancement in Australian schools, Jones labels the revolution as a ‘fad’ which has ‘sold short’ his students. In effect, the parents are likely to instantly develop interest in the letter’s claims that the use of technology is providing only a ‘few benefits’explain further here. Why?. Jones further seeks to add weight to his disapproval towards the use of technology to learn by mentioning the counter-evidence suggested by ‘studies’, thereby causing the reader to grow aware of the thoughtful nature of the school’s ban, rather than viewing the school’s ban in technology as a misinformed and an inexplicable move.This is all pretty good as far as how skilled I am hahaha (bit rusty on LA)

The author proceeds to allude the parents to the inconvenient aspect of the upkeep of technology, highlighting the role of teachers in the students’ development. Through the use of inclusive languageYou don't ever want to directly state the technique that you're about to quote - its unnecessary and breaks the flow of your essay. You can show just as much understanding and write a better sounding essay by quoting and explaining the implications of each word rather than identifying in warning the reader: ‘we simply cannot afford’ to invest on ‘quality teaching’, Jones seeks to inform the parents of their role and responsibility in the learning of their children, as they will be seemingly guilty for the loss of ‘quality teaching’. The audience is then caused to feel concerned regarding the ‘negative traits’ which may result from an excessive use of technology, through the principal’s use of negative connotations towards the overuse of computers, as shown by the listed personality defects such as ‘narcissism’ and ‘superficiality’. In addition, Jones forges a comparison between how the students’ social and intellectual skills can be ‘flourished’ through teacher-student interaction and how such development can be ‘stifled’ by an excessive use of technology. In turn, the use of the word, ‘flourish’, creates an impression of growth and progress in the minds of the parents, while the inclusion of the verb, ‘stifles’, carries negative connotations which position the reader to view the dangers of the overuse of technology as an impediment to the development of the students. The principal then paints laptops as a liability to the school, describing it as an ‘unaffordable inconvenience’, thereby engendering the parents to view school computers to be an unnecessary expense incurred, and one which detracts from the school’s focus on the student’s learning. Conversely, Jones attempts to convey the convenience of employing a traditional method of teaching, in effect causing the reader to feel as though the school’s funds are better spent by prioritizing quality teaching over the use of laptops.

Jones seeks to highlight the adverse effects of technology, on the learning abilities of students, through the use of expert opinion. same deal, quote instead of identifying - you seem to do this only at the start, its unnecessary and won't get you any extra marks. The rest of this essay is sounding really good, you're on the right track!To support his own contentionsame deal with the checklist - you want to avoid ever explicitly writing contention/contends/tone ect ect. To make your essay sound more sophisticated (in this case you could even just cross the start bit out and I think it'd be fine) but just swap it for a synonym, it makes a really big difference. Assessors/teachers will be looking for people directly identifying techniques, tone and contenition in an essay - that's how I roll when I mark, anyway, the principal uses a quotation from Todd Oppenheimer regarding the negative impacts on one’s communication, inflicted by a ‘computer-centred classroom’; an alliteration included by Jones to grab the parents’ attention before presenting the significant findings of Todd’s study. In effect, the reader is likely to regard the ‘technological revolution’, undergone by Australian schools, to be indeed a hasty and a miscalculated advancement. The writer goes on to appeal totarget the parents’ sense of fear in conveying that the inability of children to socially interact can transfer to their adult lives, hence positioning the reader to view the effects of technology to be lingering and significant in the lives of the students. The readership is then presented with a contrast between the ‘deadening’ of the students’ brains, inflicted by the exposure to technology and the ‘nourishment’ provided by traditional texts. Thereby creating a dichotomy of the effects on the students and evoking feelings of outrage from the parents of the students towards deceiving nature of the Australian education revolution.this is all really good other than what I have mentioned! Totally limited feeback I am afraid

Finally, the principal condemns the ‘false promise’ of the Australian Government and appeals stick a synonym here, too. I group appeal in the same lot with the words I have mentioned above, I wouldn't use it, it sounds like you're just trying to match the criteria rather than write an essay that flows and does what its meant to do to the parents’ sense of urgency through a call for action to ‘resist’ the technological advancement. This is achievedbe careful about using absolute terms in this way .. can you speak for every single person who has read the article? Just something to think about hahaha as Jones, through the use of inclusive language, employ an  imperative tone of voiceapproach in demanding that ‘we need to resist’ the ‘computer-based’ revolution. In effect, the parents are positioned to perceive the school’s ban on technology to be of a paramount importance and to view the Government’s ‘promise’ to be misleading, as if they are against providing the students an opportunity to flourish educationally.

This is all pretty good! Sorry for the limited feedback, you're too skilled for my rusty LA critiquing!
Good job

[sin0001]

Thanks heaps darvell! Yea I agree with you that I shouldn't have explicitly mentioned the words- contention & tone. Is this analysis fine w/o a conclusion?

[ahat]

ARTICLE: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/dont-let-clares-death-be-in-vain/story-e6frfhqf-1226267190176
The long-term use of solariums in Australia as a convenient and social past-time for tanning has exploded across the media board in recent times as a contentious and controversial issue - the tragic death of Clare Oliver in 2007 sparked a series of rebuttals on the subject. VicHealth CEO Jeril Rechter’s response, “Don’t let Clare’s death be in vain” is a belligerent attack on those who vie for solarium use in Victoria. He responds to the antagonistic issue by employing an opinion piece, his fervent tone relegating his avid beliefs and his use of selective, bitter statistics manifest his visceral feelings for the issue. His piece, published in the “Herald Sun”, increases exposure to an audience of young adults, especially females, who are ardent on tanning by solarium means. He also targets older generations to take action in preventing the continuation of solariums. Rechter’s use of doomsday statistics makes it clear that his cause is to prevent further “tragedy” being wrought upon individuals; arguing the long-term physical effects of deliberate UV-radiation as well as the hidden, deep, emotional adversity wrought upon parents and friends due to the inadvertent deaths and cancer risks of solarium use. Clare’s sorrowful death informs Rechter’s article and underlying bleak tone; his relentless barrage of statistics and attacks against solarium use relegating the reader to his point of view.

Rechter exemplifies the injustice of Clare’s death by beseeching us to not let her death be in “vain”. The use of such salient language in the title draws the reader’s attention, leading them to pay homage to the mournful loss of life. Rechter continues this emotional tact with switching narrative style from first-person to third-person - representing Clare’s death as the ultimate sacrifice, a “warn[ing] [to] young women about the consequences of solariums.” Deliberately presenting his arguments as informal quotes through use of language such as “she told her” and “she made it clear” does Rechter provide validity to his arguments, subtly representing Clare as the figurehead supporting his expositions.

Rechter furthers his assertions by appealing to the reader’s sense of social justice. In an audacious and metaphorical depiction of solariums and their proponents as those solely to blame for innocent deaths, the reader’s anger is flared and their hatred consigned to these institutions. He devotes considerable space to selective evidence used to support his ideas, presented in a specific chronological layout which builds his case against solarium use. Rechter leaves the audience horrified at an appalling description of “51 new melanomas, seven deaths and 294 new cases of deadly squamous cell carcinoma” every year in Victoria. The audience, disconcerted and shocked, are bombarded with the information that despite these contritious statistics, “475 tanning beds still operate in Victoria”. This contrasts with Rechter’s initial reverberating statement, of not taking Clare’s death in vain, connoting that the solarium companies have little concern for the devastation they cause. These evocative and emotional statements and language used to describe them, such as“dangerous” and “vulnerable”, leave the reader feeling as if the moral thing to do is to side with who they believe is right, Rechter, and condemn the solarium companies for their malicious actions.   
 
Furthermore, Rechter substantiates his case by describing the work of reputable institutes, such as the Cancer Council, Department of Health and VicHealth in castigating solariums and reducing their numbers by 65%. Rechter himself representing VicHealth, is depicted with an aura of authority and moral righteousness for preventing the disease of solariums from spreading further. Rechter’s use of short, sharp sentences such as “there is no safe level of solarium use” hyperbolizes his point of view, encapsulating the crux of his argument in a sentence of emphasis. The sentence acts nearly as a subheading and is strengthened by Rechter’s continued use of evidence. Appealing to the reader’s nostalgic reminisces of youth, he bestows responsibility unto them, especially older readers, of being able to prevent melanomas in the young Australians. Deliberately identifying the young individuals as “Australians”, Rechter appeals to patriotism. His assertion that “solariums are a choice” connotes that the deaths and cancer are preventable. The audience, not wanting to back down from such a noble cause and having been convinced of Rechter’s view through his relentless attack, accept the responsibility to ensure the continuation of future generations.

The article culminates with a provocative and encroaching conclusion. Rechter surmises his main points in a concise and befitting conclusion. Using inclusive language and evocative language, Rechter asks the audience to band together to “protect” the “vulnerable” and naïve younger generations from the real “threat” of solariums. Rechter’s final call to arms echoes through the reader’s minds and effectively positions them to agree with his assertions.

 
All feedback welcome

[darvell]

The long-term use of solariums in Australia as a convenient and social past-time for tanning has exploded across the media boardstrange phrasing. Could just swap this for something like has become a controversial topic ect ect in recent times as a contentious and controversial issue - the tragic death of Clare Oliver in 2007 sparked a series of rebuttals on the subject. VicHealth CEO Jeril Rechter’s response, “Don’t let Clare’s death be in vain” (Newspaper, Date) is a belligerent attack on those who vie for solarium use in Victoria. He responds to the antagonistic issue by employing an opinion piecestrange phrasing again. Through his opinionated article?, his fervent toneavoid using the word tone throughout your essay. You want to mention it without making it seem like you're simply trying to hit the criteria. Switch this up for something like approach relegating his avid beliefs and his use of selective, bitter statisticswe don't want to be talking about HOW he gets across his opinion yet, the introduction should just feature what he thinks and sort of his sub-arguments manifest his visceral feelings for the issue. His piece, published in the “Herald Sun”I personally will put this in brackets after the article name as I have shown, increases exposure to an audiencesame sort of deal with the tone thing. Like you want to mention his audience and tone but we dont want the whole essay to be like "Author:darvell. Article name: Atar Note. Tone: angry. Audience: students." even if you stick some words in the middle of that, do you see how choppy and boring it is to read? You want to incorporate these things so that the reader doesnt read the essay as a checklist, you want it to flow and sound nice! So instead of saying that it is his audience and using the actual word, you can say that he's "targeting x" of young adults, especially females, who are ardent on tanning by solarium means. He also targets older generations to take action in preventing the continuation of solariums. Rechter’s use of doomsday statistics makes it clear that his cause is to prevent further “tragedy” being wrought upon individuals; arguing the long-term physical effects of deliberate UV-radiation as well as the hidden, deep, emotional adversity wrought upon parents and friends due to the inadvertent deaths and cancer risks of solarium use. Sounds like  you're getting into analysisn too early! Make sure what you stick in here is only the sub-arguments and things that should be in the intro! Clare’s sorrowful death informs Rechter’s article and underlying bleak tone; his relentless barrage of statistics and attacks against solarium use relegating the reader to his point of view. You don't want to be mentioning the reader or anything to do with how the author affects the reader in the introduction - that should be in your paragraphs instead. Also as there is an image, you'd want to provide a brief description of what is in the image at the end of the introduction here

Rechter exemplifies the injustice of Clare’s death by beseeching usBe careful not to use inclusive language. It's not US, WE, OUR, its AUTHOR's effect on the READER hahaha to not let her death be in “vain”.Ok why have they picked to use "vain"?? what's so important about the phrase, what effect does it have? The use of such salient language in the title draws the reader’s attention, leading them to pay homage to the mournful loss of life. ok instead of stating that it's salient language quote the exact phrase that you're talking about, comment on any connotations of the word and say WHY/HOW it leads them to "pay homage", and WHY the author does this. Be as detailed as you can, you want to show off dem skillz with this! Rechter continues this emotional tact with switching narrative style from first-person to third-personAre you talking about the bit at the end with this? I wouldn't personally analyse this unless you have some sort of beast justification - You haven't really explained why it is important and the idea of it being a "narrative style" for me sounds odd for LA, I dont know if that's just me. I'd say probably avoid this - you can probably get some better analysis by picking strong words, it comes off a little shallow - representing Clare’s death as the ultimate sacrifice, a “warn[ing] [to] young women about the consequences of solariums.”You need to make sure you don't just quote things and not explain them. What is it about the quote that made you choose it, why is it powerful, what is the author trying to do? Deliberately presenting his arguments as informal quotesYou dont want to directly identify the technique like that. Quote and explain instead, that way it's clear exactly what you're talking about. Listing the techniques won't get you any marks and typically breaks the flow of a nice sounding essay! through use of language such as “she told her” and “she made it clear” mm, is this the best evidence to pick? If you want to roll with this you need to explain why it is important and what the effect on the reader is meant to be! does Rechter provide validity to his arguments,how? prove it subtly representing Clare as the figurehead supporting his expositions.

Rechter furthers his assertions by appealing to the reader’s sense of social justice. again same deal, breaks the flow. Quote instead, don't identify.In an audacious and metaphorical depiction Quote what you're talking about rather than describing it!of solariums and their proponents as those solely to blame for innocent deaths, the reader’s anger is flared and their hatred consigned to these institutions. He devotes considerable space to selective evidence *quote evidence here*used to support his ideashow is it used to support his ideas? why does the reader use the evidence he has picked?, presented in a specific chronological layout which builds his case against solarium use. Rechter leaves the audience horrified at an appalling description of “51 new melanomas, seven deaths and 294 new cases of deadly squamous cell carcinoma” every year in Victoria. but why are they horrified? You need to explain what you're quoting! Don't let the quotes do the work for youThe audience, disconcerted and shocked, are bombarded with the information that despite these contritious statistics, “475 tanning beds still operate in Victoria”.why is this a problem? why has it been included? how does this attempt to make the reader feel? How does that support the author's argument? This iscontrastsed with to Rechter’s initial reverberating statement,*quote* of not taking Clare’s death in vain, connoting that the solarium companies have little concern for the devastation they cause. which makes the reader feel... which supports his arguments by...These evocative and emotional statements and language used to describe them,again quote and explain rather than identifying! such as“dangerous” and “vulnerable”why are these words so important, what is associated with them, how are they designed to make the reader feel?, leave the reader feeling as if the moral thing to do is to side with who they believe is right, Rechter, and condemn the solarium companies for their malicious actions.   
 
Furthermore, Rechter substantiates his case by describing the work of reputable institutes, such as the Cancer Council, Department of Health and VicHealth in castigating solariums and reducing their numbers by 65%. Rechter himself representing VicHealth, is depicted with an aura of authority and moral righteousness for preventing the disease of solariums from spreading further. Rechter’s use of short, sharp sentences such as “there is no safe level of solarium use” hyperbolizes his point of view, encapsulating the crux of his argument in a sentence of emphasis. The sentence acts nearly as a subheading and is strengthened by Rechter’s continued use of evidence.quote and explain, no checklist and no general statements! Be specific and you'll come across as beast! Appealing to Targetting the reader’s nostalgic reminisces of youth, he bestows responsibility unto them, especially older readers, of being able to prevent melanomas in the young Australians.how does he do this, prove it! Show me dem quotes son Deliberately identifying the young individuals as “Australians”, Rechter appeals to patriotism.Mmm, I wouldn't analyse this specifically. Especially don't just identify the technique like that as I have mentioned, but an appeal to patriotism - I'd say you can pretty much write the exact same thing for that every time it happens, WHEREAS for crazy ass words that he's used to shock his audience - you can come up with some really dramatic and original stuff, it'll really help you stand out, teachers/assessors have to read hundreds of essays on the same article so you want to be the guy who pulls some original stuff that sounds brill His assertion that “solariums are a choice” connotes that the deaths and cancer are preventable.ok firstly I think you're kind of using connotes in the wrong context. It doesnt mean that something states/argues,points out ect, it is what is ASSOCIATED with a word - eg If I said "victimised" you might get rape connotations from it ect ect. Secondly, why is it important that cancer is preventable? Man all these people are dying and we're just letting them? Why does he want them to think this, how does it affect the audience! The audience, not wanting to back down from such a noble cause and having been convinced of Rechter’s view through his relentless attack, accept the responsibility to ensure the continuation of future generations.

The article culminates with a provocative and encroaching conclusion. Rechter surmises his main points in a concise and befitting conclusion. Using inclusive language and evocative language, Rechter asks the audience to band together to “protect” the “vulnerable” why has he used those words instead of just "keep them safe"?? and naïve younger generations from the real “threat” Man they're a threat! THEY'RE GOING TO INVADE US THIS IS THE END OF THE WORLD WOW THIS AUTHOR IS ON TO SOME SERIOUS SHIT HERE, we need to get rid of those solariums before we ALL DIEEEEE!of solariums. Rechter’s final call to arms echoes through the reader’s minds and effectively positions them to agree with his assertions. Be careful with absolute statements. Can you speak for everyone who has read the article??? Just something to ponder.

I would suggest trying to shorten your quotes to 1-2 words and make sure you're analysing each word before you move on. You should be able to get a fair bit from each word. Try and be creative too, it really helps to stand out!

Good luck with it

[jeanweasley]

Okay, I redid it and by God, it took me the whole day!!!!!
 I know it's too long but I got carried away when I did it on the computer. Is this better?

-- Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains – Engageeducation.org.au

The increasing overcrowding in animal shelters has ignited debate over the issue of pet neglect. In an article for  Melbourne Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13), the magazine criticises the ability of pet stores to provide a simple way of purchasing pets to potential owners, alluding that they are the cause of overcrowding in animal shelters. The magazine also attacks the responsibility of potential owners, suggesting that they are oblivious to the unlawful operations currently practised in the pet industry. In response to the issue, Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor utilises satire to highlight the effects of puppies born from puppy mills insinuating that they may be potentially discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects they may have. However, Nick Conan, another dog owner, refutes the article’s claims defending his, and many other’s decision to purchase pets from pet stores even if they may not be from registered breeders, denying that there is a need for pet owners to pay expensive fees just to own a pet. Accompanying the initial article is an image of a dog with a billowing stomach, used to reinforce the need for owners to be more aware about the underhanded operations involved in the pet industry.

The subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian  Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish. Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills in her comment that ‘puppy mills are a huge problem’. The use of the adjective ‘huge’ coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar for most Australians’ insinuates that everyday Australians are oblivious to the backhanded operations occurring in the pet industry as well as its direct effects on potential owners whose first port of call is to buy pets from pet shops. The gravity of the issue is emphasised here, and readers are prompted to consider the operation of puppy mills and pet neglect, convincing everyday Australians to become more aware of the issue.
Henceforth, readers may evoke a feeling of sympathy as the explicit image of a pregnant dog struggling to walk as well as the headline ‘employee of the month’ infers the cruel situations experienced by dogs forced to breed in puppy mills. Also, the dog’s unusual stomach suggests that it may not be the first time for it to breed puppies, alluding to the fact that animals in puppy mills are abused and treated like ‘employees’ that are designed to breed constantly. In conjunction with this, the dog’s slanted eyes acts as a personal connection with the reader as readers are invited to protest against their inhumane treatment.

 In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the responsibility of pet industry organisations in regards to their welfare and positions readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights. Moreover, the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ prompts readers to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. The fact that the association finds an enquiry to be ‘unnecessary’ and could ‘cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justice as these words denote that the bodies are reluctant to take action because of the prospective cost, dismissing the campaigners’ plea as a nuisance and unworthy of resources that could possibly eliminate the cause of pet neglect and eradicate puppy mills.

In support of this, Robrane’s statement ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’ is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores, therefore positioning the reader to feel guilty if they purchase from unregistered breeders. In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet. Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration towards the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for animal rights.
Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’ and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs, whether disabled or defective are still dogs and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful. Consequently, buying from a registered breeder is like paying ‘an arm and leg’ convinces readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian. Whilst this statement may address the cost of purchasing a pet, Conan’s credibility may be questioned as he dismisses the vital research needed for potential owners to conduct about the health and safety of their future pet, and in effect, he may be seen as indirectly supporting puppy mills and unregistered dog breeders.

Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of the current situation. Also, Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not ‘activists’ implying that the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign, thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry.

The employment of the word ‘confronting’ to describe RSPCA’s campaign aims to persuade the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement in puppy mills as readers are affected by the stark image of the dog prompting them to feel passionate about defending animal rights and convincing potential owners to purchase from registered breeders instead of pet stores where the history of the origins of their pet remain unknown. In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all.

[darvell]

Totally proud that you re-wrote it, good work!

The increasing overcrowding in animal shelters has ignited debate over the issue of pet neglect in Australia. (Sentence just sounded short and choppy idk haha). In an article for  Melbourne Magazine (‘Boxers in boxes, Danes in drains’, 29/01/13), the magazine criticises the ability of pet stores to provide a simple way of purchasing pets tofor potential owners, alluding that they are the cause of overcrowding in animal shelters. The magazine also attacks the responsibility of potential owners, suggesting that they are oblivious to the unlawful operations currently practised in the pet industry.Yeah this is better In response to the issue, Jan Robrane’s letter to the editor utilises satire Idek what this is, I googled it and it said irony - sounds too much like you're jumping into analysis in the intro. You want to only mention the "sub contentions", nothing about any techniques or how they have got their point across yet!to highlight the effects of puppies born from puppy mills insinuating that they may be potentially discarded by their owners due to possible long term defects they may have. However, Nick Conan, another dog owner, refutes the article’s claims defending his, and many other’s decision to purchase pets from pet stores even if they may not be from registered breeders, denying that there is a need for pet owners to pay expensive fees just to own a pet. AccompanyingYou can also use complementing (note the e) here the initial article is an image of a dog with a billowing stomach, used to reinforce the need for owners to be more aware about the underhanded operations involved in the pet industry. gooood work!

The subtle use of accusatory words such as ‘claim’ and ‘under threat’ to associate pet shop owners with the idea that they are the cause of pet neglect, positions the reader to view pet shop owners as well as the Australian  Veterinary Association as vindictive and selfish.I reckon you can even get more out of this (just trying to push you a bit cause you seem keen) - threat man threat! What does threat make you think of! If we dont fix this shit the whole world is going to end!! Get creative Save-A-Dog-Scheme’s Julia Rika aims to convince readers that the issue of pet neglect stems from the problem of puppy mills in her comment that ‘puppy mills are a huge problem’. The use of the adjective ‘huge’Personally I try to avoid quoting the same thing twice like that - I think you can get a nicer flow if you don't double quote  (I'm just being tedious, personal preference) coupled with the phrase ‘under the radar for most Australians’ insinuates that everyday Australians are oblivious to the backhanded operations occurring in the pet industry as well as its direct effects on potential owners whose first port of call is to buy pets from pet shops.It almost makes you think it's sneaky - anything thats "under the radar of most Aussies" sounds kinda dodgy, I think you should mention this. It kind of implies they're being sneaky and trying to hide it. The gravity of the issue is emphasised here, and readers are prompted to considermaybe more associate the two? the operation of puppy mills and pet neglect, convincing everyday Australians to become more aware of the issue. and supportive of his arguments as well??
Henceforth, readers may evoke a feeling of sympathy as the explicit image of a pregnant dog struggling to walkTry get a bit more out of this. Why is it a pregnant dog that's struggling? How does that aim to make the readers feel? Why has the author chosen this image, what's his intention? Literally be as detailed with it as you want, show off dem skilzzzz as well as the headline ‘employee of the month’ infers the cruel situations experienced by dogs forced to breed in puppy mills. AlsoToo casual, the dog’s unusual stomach suggests that it may not be the first time for it that it was forcedto breed puppies, alluding to the fact that animals in puppy mills are abused and treated like ‘employees’ that are designed to breed constantly. why does the author want to imply this, how does it make the audience feel? Man dogs are getting abused here! We need to take action and save the poor puppies or the world is going to end!!In conjunction with this, the dog’s slanted eyes acts as a personal connection with the reader as readers are invited to protest against their inhumane treatment.I still don't understand this maybe I'm just being slow - could you explain what you mean a little further here - HOW does it act as a personal connection?

 In addition, the author refers to animal welfare organisations such as ‘RSPCA’ to contrast the responsibility of pet industry organisations in regards to their welfare and positions readers to harbour negative feelings about these animal organisations that are responsible for protecting animal rights. Moreover I think the in addition/moreover being one sentence apart makes it sound like you're switching topics really quickly. Maybe just write *Authors* inclusion of..., the inclusion of Pet Industry Association of Australia’s Joanne Sillince’s response that ‘an enquiry is unnecessary and would cost the government millions’ prompts readers to question the sense of action that these bodies really have. The fact that the association finds an enquiry to be ‘unnecessary’ and could ‘cost the government millions’ provokes the readers’ sense of justice as these words denote that the bodies are reluctant to take action because of the prospective cost, dismissing the campaigners’ plea as a nuisance and unworthy of resources that could possibly eliminate the cause of pet neglect and eradicate puppy mills. Mention that this trashes her credibility and makes her look greedy I reckon. Good job though you're doing heaps better

In support of this, Robrane’s statement ‘I failed to recognise Pongo’s disability until we tried to train him several months later’ is aimed at readers to understand the difficulties of owning a disabled dog and is also an example of the consequences to be had if dogs are purchased from unregistered breeders and pet stores, therefore positioning the reader to feel guilty if they purchase from unregistered breeders.or even worried that it will happen to them? Idk this just makes me think of like disfigured dogs suffering and stuff hahaha might wanna mention stuff like that - just suggestions In addition, Robrane’s statement that she ‘would have been happy to pay extra for a puppy from a registered breeder’ positions potential animal owners to feel guilty about considering buying their pets at pet stores where prices might be cheaper whilst possibly not knowing the health or safety of their future pet. POOR PUPPIES SUFFERING THE WORLD IS OVER OMG WE NEED TO SHUT THIS DOWN NOW!Furthermore, Robrane’s evocative sentence ‘puppy mills and backyard breeders should be shut down’ exhibits her anger and frustration towards the issue and aims to motivate animal activists to campaign for animal rights. I reckon either analyse this a bit more or take it out - it seems really short and choppy, maybe not the best quote to pick I'm not sure, maybe try finding something more powerful
Conan’s letter to the editor, however, refutes the magazine and Robrane’s opinion by asserting that ‘a dog is a dog’ and aims to position the readers to feel that dogs, whether disabled or defective are still dogs and also targets pet owners who feel that they have to put their pet up for adoption as irresponsible and disgraceful.Remember what I was saying here about how if the author messes up and screws themselves over you can tear them apart? This is an opportunity - He's pretty much saying that breeding dodgy, illegal and disfigured animals is all good. Wreck him!! Consequently, buying from a registered breeder is like paying ‘an arm and leg’ convinces readers that paying for registered breeders is too expensive and unfair for a common Australian. Whilst this statement may address the cost of purchasing a pet, Conan’s credibility may be questioned as he dismisses the vital research needed for potential owners to conduct about the health and safety of their future pet, and in effect, he may be seen as indirectly supporting puppy mills and unregistered dog breeders. so proud. :')

Conan aims to empower potential owners to consider that they don’t have to pay for a registered breeder to buy a dog to enjoy the comfort of having a pet. Additionally, Conan’s expressions that the issue ‘makes [him] roll his eyes’ and that the insinuation that pet stores are to blame for the number of pets amassing in shelters is a ‘steaming pile of dog poo’, positions the reader to question the reality of the issue and whether or not claims made by the magazine are truly representative of the current situation. Also,again language is too casual hahah Conan refers to animal organisations as ‘protestors’ and not rather than‘activists’ implying that the idea that animal organisations are robbing the rights of pet stores to sell due to their extensive and damaging campaign, thus readers are positioned to feel that animal organisations oppose the pet industry and are using their campaign to fuel hatred and criticism for the industry.

The employment of the word ‘confronting’ to describe RSPCA’s campaign aims to persuade convince the reader to criticise the operation of pet owners and their involvement in puppy mills as readers are affected be careful - is this always the case?by the stark image of the dog prompting them to feel passionate about defending animal rights and convincing potential owners to purchase from registered breeders instead of pet stores where the history of the origins of their pet remain unknown. In the two responses to the article, Robrane supports the magazine’s stance and persuades similar minded people to campaign for animal rights and end the operation of puppy mills, encouraging potential pet owners to buy from registered breeders. However, Conan disputes the previous statements and questions the validity of the issue justifying that the number of pets amassing in animal shelters is really the fault of ‘negligent and ill prepared owners’, thereby positioning the reader to view that pet stores are at no fault at all. wait wait wait is this your conclusion I am so confused
If this is your conclusion I don't want to see quotes or the effect on the reader - much like the intro you want to have his sort of sub arguments, THEN you can go on to say that he was convincing up until the point where he wreck himself ect ect

if this isn't your conclusion son where's the conclusion!?!
Good job though, keep up the good work!