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 mills
because ...... The slanted eyes of the dog directly looking at the reader acts as a personal connection
how? 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 respons
eibility? 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 response
quote 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 ‘scathing
What 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 justice
due 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 goodddFurthermore, 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 dog
s 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