Compilation of Language Analysis Feedback

[ahat]

Hey This is a resubmission on the language analysis I did (about 5 posts ago), based on your feedback, Darvell Feedback appreciated! (appreciated if you could mark it out of 10, thanks).

Don’t let Clare’s death be in vain
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 become a controversial issue amongst Australians. The tragic death of Clare Oliver in 2007 sparked a series of rebuttals on the subject with various authorities claiming solarium use to be “safe” and others refuting this claim. VicHealth CEO Jeril Rechter’s opinion piece, “Don’t let Clare’s death be in vain” (Herald Sun, 12/2/2012) is a belligerent attack on those who vie for solarium use in Victoria, with Rechter vehemently claiming that “there is no safe level of solarium use”. The article attacks solarium companies who are subtly represented as being malicious and “misleading” and inadvertently causing damage to naïve youth. Rechter appeals to younger female generations, appeasing them to rethink their actions before using solariums, and also calls out to an older generation, asking them to join together and prevent the continuation of solariums in Victoria as well as Australia. Complimenting the initial article is an image of a young woman exposed inside a solarium, draped in an unhealthy looking light. The image is used to reinforce the idea of the danger of solariums and increase awareness for the damage solariums are causing to society.

The emotionally evocative language employed in the title as well as bolded subheading under the image instantly garners sympathy from the reader. There is a contrast between the use of “vain” in the title and “choice” in the subheading. Rechter uses this salient language to subtly suggest that Clare’s death, the ultimate sacrifice, was essentially a “choice”, and that her actions served as a warning to later generations. Rechter strengthens this implication by employing an indirect quote from Clare, voicing that her cause was to “warn young woman about the consequences of solariums.” The use of a quote (even though it was indirect) from Clare herself provides Rechter’s article with a sense of authenticity as well as gentility – the reader views Rechter as merely wishing to further Clare’s warning to preserve the younger generations. Furthermore, the fact that Clare is now deceased exemplifies the gravity of the “consequences” that exist as a result of using solariums – ultimately death. This idea foreshadows the main arguments of Rechter’s article and discredits the retorts from various solarium institutions.

The audience is horrified through a relentless barrage of statistics that describes severe increases in cancer and deaths as a result of solarium use. Describing “51 new melanomas, seven deaths and 294 new cases of deadly…carcinoma” being the sole cause of solariums, Rechter intensifies the aura of maliciousness attributed to these machines. Not only describing the maladies as “deadly” he describes them as “new [cases]”, leaving the reader appalled by the thought that there may be countless other young people who may befall the same fate as Clare. As such, they are further moved to not let her death be in “vain”. With the audience left disconsolate, Rechter bombards them with the information that “475 tanning beds” still operate in Victoria, even “5 years after Clare’s death”. The reader cannot comprehend such an occurrence. Given the statistics they had been exposed to and the fact that the solarium companies are almost sacrilegious for continuing their use of solariums after Clare’s death, they are left to fervidly agree with Rechter’s assertion that solariums “must be banned in Victoria”.

Furthermore, Rechter substantiates his claims by complimenting his statistics with evidence reflecting the malicious nature of solarium companies. He describes the introduction of solarium regulation and licensing in 2008 by the Cancer Council - a noble and reputable organisation aiming to prevent cancer in society -that was subsequently ignored by 90% of companies. The audience is left outraged by this revelation. The fact that these solarium companies ignored ruling from the “Cancer Council” is enough evidence for the reader to produce a cause-effect relationship between cancer and solariums. Rechter strengthens this line of attack by graphically describing fair-skinned people (who should have been banned from solarium use) “fry[ing]” inside these machines. This shocking image juxtaposes with the almost alien image accompanying the beginning of the article, where a young woman is seen having chosen to expose herself to UV-radiation. Further, as the solariums are described as the “threat” – companies that pose a serious risk to society that must be prevented at all costs - the audience is swayed to do their utmost to prevent this image being repeated in future generations.

Rechter, being the CEO of VicHealth, is depicted with an aura of authority and moral righteousness, as he describes the work of the Cancer Council, Department of Health and VicHealth in castigating solariums and reducing their numbers by 65%. Rechter culminates his article by articulating that it is time for society to “band together”. He says that “one in six” melanomas in young people and the audience are avid to “protect the lives” of young people. 
 

[darvell]

Hey man I'm happy to remark this for you (Sorry about the late response)
But I personally am not really sure about giving people marks out of ten - I dont really think I know what I'm doing enough to say what's what.
(And I would totally be so cut if I screwed someone up by giving them the wrong mark D:
If you desperately want a mark out of 10 maybe message Brenden - But, keep in mind that that mark out of 10 is only going to change by writing and adapting as per feedback. It's definitely more important to work on your skills (even if you're at a 10/10) than label yourself as x/10.


The long-term use of solariums in Australia as a convenient and social past-time for tanning has become a controversial issue amongst Australians. The tragic death of Clare Oliver in 2007 sparked a series of rebuttals on the subject with various authorities claiming solarium use to be “safe”I personally will always avoid quoting in my introduction, it won't get you any marks and it shows a better understanding if you re-write the "sub args" yourself. and others refuting this claim. VicHealth CEO Jeril Rechter’s opinion piece, “Don’t let Clare’s death be in vain” (Herald Sun, 12/2/2012) is a belligerent attack on those who vie for solarium use in Victoria, with Rechter vehemently claiming that “there is no safe level of solarium use”.again we want to reword this ourselves - quoting what the author thinks doesn't show an understanding The article attacks solarium companies who are subtly represented as being malicious and “misleading” and inadvertently causing damage to naïve youth. Rechter appeals to younger female generations, appeasing them to rethink their actions before using solariums, and also calls out to an older generation, asking them to join together and prevent the continuation of solariums in Victoria as well as Australia. This sounds very ... checklist-y. What I will do instead of having a sentence all about the target audience, I will be like "Rechter targets younger female generations, asserting that solariums are the #1 cause of death throughout the world" - see how it's a bit more integrated into the paragraph when you do that? Complementing note the e, compliments/complements are different words the initial article is an image of a young woman exposed inside a solarium, draped in an unhealthy looking light. The image is used to reinforce the idea of the danger of solariums and increase awareness for the damage solariums are causing to society. Like the end bit, always link back to the issue like that!

The emotionally evocative language employed in the title as well as bolded subheading under the image instantly garners sympathy from the reader. I would avoid analysing things like "bolded subheading" - its pretty generic, you can write the exact same thing ever time it occurs and it comes off as superficial analysis. Also, we really want to avoid using general sentences I think. Be specific about the language being analysed rather than writing general sentences, you'll come off way more beast There is a contrast between the use of “vain” in the title and “choice” in the subheading. Rechter uses this salient language to subtly suggest that Clare’s death, the ultimate sacrifice, was essentially a “choice”, and that her actions served as a warning to later generations. Rechter strengthens this implication by employing an indirect quote from Clare, voicing that her cause was to “warn young woman about the consequences of solariums.” The use of a quote (even though it was indirect) from Clare herself provides Rechter’s article with a sense of authenticity as well as gentility – the reader views Rechter as merely wishing to further Clare’s warning to preserve the younger generations.whydoes he want the viewer to think that, what is he trying to do? Elaborate a little bit  Furthermore, the fact that reword, sounds too informal or something Clare is now deceased exemplifies the gravity of the “consequences” that exist as a result of using solariums – ultimately death.why is that such a big deal, what is the intended impact on the reader? how are they meant to feel? (scared? angry??) justify why you've brought that up - ALWAYS refer back to the reader!! This idea foreshadows the main arguments of Rechter’s article and discredits the retorts from various solarium institutions.Foreshadowing is generally to do with TR essays and novels (foreshadows a future plot), I wouldn't put that in a lang Analy essay

The audience is horrified through a relentless barrage of statisticswe don't want to mention the technique we're talking about before we talk about it. If you want to mention that there's a shitload of statistics, mention that they're listed and quote them, but never never never identify the technique, it breaks the flow and won't get you any extra marks. that describes severe increases in cancer and deaths as a result of solarium use. Describing “51 new melanomas, seven deaths and 294 new cases of deadly…carcinoma” being the sole cause of solariums, Rechter intensifies the aura of maliciousness attributed to these machines.which affects the reader by... which makes the reader feel... Not only describing the maladies as “deadly”this is a pretty powerful word. Analyse it more - what comes to mind when you think of "deadly" ?? Connotations? Man this things a killing machine!!! what's the intended effect on the reader? why does the author do this?? he describes them as “new [cases]”, leaving the reader appalled by the thought that there may be countless other young people who may befall the same fate as Clare.why is it such a big deal that there's so many other cases?? As such, they are further moved to not let her death be in “vain”. You need to analyse the language's effect on persuading the reader in relation to the issue, not how the issue alone effects the readerWith the audience left disconsolate, Rechter bombards them with the information that “475 tanning beds” still operate in Victoria, even “5 years after Clare’s death”. The reader cannot comprehend such an occurrence.can you speak for everyone who has read the article, be careful. Also, this sentence is very short and choppy and screws up your expression. Given the statisticssame deal as earlier they had been exposed to and the fact that the solarium companies are almost sacrilegious for continuing their use of solariums after Clare’s death, they are left to fervidly agree with Rechter’s assertion that solariums “must be banned in Victoria”. why? you've told me its because of statistics. I think it's because of the effect those statistics have. Tell me what effect they have. But again, DON'T IDENTIFY, QUOTE! hahaha.

Furthermore, Rechter substantiates his claims by complementing again note the e his statisticssame deal. Maybe just mention it's his arguments ect that he's reinforcing rather than specifically stats. with evidence don't identify, quote and explain. Also, evidence and statistics are pretty much same thing. Maybe it'd be better to pick out some of the strong language they've used and analyse that (I would only ever analyse probably 1 specific statistic in an essay if it was significant - you don't want the whole essay to be repetitive)  reflecting the malicious nature of solarium companies. He describes the introduction of solarium regulation and licensing in 2008 by the Cancer Council - avoid using "-", it breaks the flow of your sentence as the reader automatically pauses when they read it. Reword your sentences so that it isn't necessary a noble and reputable organisation aiming to prevent cancer in society - same deal with the dash that was subsequently ignored by 90% of companies.is this a quote? if so quote the stat The audience is left outraged by this revelation.why??? also short choppy sentence again messes with your expression The fact that thesetoo casual, reword the start of this sentence solarium companies ignored ruling from the “Cancer Council” is enough evidence for the reader to produce a cause-effect relationship between cancer and solariums.remember we always want to reference the intended effect on the reader and why/how the author does that. Rechter strengthens this line of attack weird phrasing by graphically describing fair-skinned people (who should have been banned from solarium use) I'd avoid brackets as well, make sure they arent necessary when you form your sentecnes “fry[ing]” Ok this is a really good word to pick out. But you havent analysed it. Connotations? What does it make you think of? What do you think is the intended effect on the reader? Why does the author do this? How does it make the reader feel? You can get heeaps out of this word inside these machines. This shocking image juxtaposes with the almost alienremember that it's subjective. You need to mention that the girl has been positioned to look "almost alien" if you want to write something like that, but I dont know if I would use that phrasing image accompanying the beginning of the article, where a young woman is seen having chosen to expose herself to UV-radiation.You should be able to get a full paragraph out of the image, practice getting more out of it. Furthermore?, as the solariums are described as the “threat” – companies that pose a serious risk to society that must be prevented at all costs - the audience is swayed to do their utmost to prevent this image being repeated in future generations. threat man threat? society is going to break down if we don't stop this!! connotations of threat?? intended effect?? gimme some more analysis, that's a pretty powerful word.

Rechter, being the CEO of VicHealth, is depicted with an aura of authority and moral righteousness, as he describes the work of the Cancer Council, Department of Health and VicHealth in castigating solariums and reducing their numbers by 65%. Rechter culminates his article by articulating that it is time for society to “band together”. He says that “one in six” melanomas in young people and the audience are avid to “protect the lives” of young people. 
  Is this meant to be your conclusion?
If this is your conclusion,
-No quoting
- DONT identify techniques
Instead what we want to do, very much like the introduction, is list their sort of "sub arguments"
and subtly get the tone in there as well - don't use the word tone or I'll murder you (im jk relax)
Give that a go for starters and we'll roll from there.

Keen to see another re-write

Good luck with it

[sin0001]

Would appreciate any feedback. Please note that analysis of the image was limited as it wasn't clear in hardcopy!
Insight 2010---> http://mackyr12english.wikispaces.com/file/view/English-2010-QA_edHB_09March10.pdf

The recently popularized, yet controversial trend of young people undertaking solo voyage has sparked criticism from authorities attacking its irrational and reckless aspect. While some adults wish the younger generation to overcome the overprotective nature of society by pursuing such thrilling adventures, others are condemning the emerging harms of solo circumnavigation for young people. Representing the latter viewpoint is Michael Grey  in his opinion piece, ‘Too Young, Too Soon’; Grey employs a didactic and a disapproving tone in deeming solo voyages as an unjustifiable and a fool-hardy trend, appealing to the parents’ sense of safety in discouraging young, impressionable minds from being victimised into blindly following the trend. Accompanying the piece is a graphic depicting the potential alienation suffered by adolescent voyagers at sea.

Using the headline of the piece, the children who attempt solo circumnavigation are painted to be immature, impressionable and therefore easily victimised by such dangerous trends of the youth. The repetition of the word ‘too’ in the headline, ‘too young, too soon,’ is likely to induce sympathy from the older readers, as the children undertaking harmful stunts are positioned to look forced by responsible figures such as their parents and society. The consequence of Grey appearing mindful of the need of adventure in the lives of young people and shifting the blame to the ‘motives of parents,’ is that the children partaking in reckless behaviour are depicted to be impressionable by the ‘encouragement’ of adults. Subsequently, by deeming such teenagers to be easily influenced, Grey attempts to highlight their immaturity in being unable to make independent decisions of their own accord. Moreover, Grey presents a list of privileges, such as being able to ‘vote’ and ‘drive a car’, that such impressionable children are not entitled to, thereby seeking to assert the need of these youngsters to develop ‘mentally’ and ‘physically’. In effect, the reader is likely to align with the writer’s view that children who succumb to societal or parental pressure in performing daredevil acts are perhaps too inexperienced for the act of solo circumnavigation, which instead requires the ‘complex’ abilities shown to be lacking amongst young adults. The use of imagery in describing ‘teenage risk-taking’ to be a ‘fire’ fuelled by ‘thrill-seeking’, Grey illustrates that the harmful societal pressures imposed upon children will be amplified by the actions of more teenagers seeking ‘instant gratification’, in an attempt to posit the risky activities such as solo circumnavigation to be an erroneous approach in overcoming the harmful ‘modern-culture’ of risk-taking. In turn, concerned parents and adults are likely to view the culture of teenage risk-taking to be the crux of the issue of overly young adults undertaking solo voyages, thereby being cautious towards this culture and developing adequately the urge to eradicate such societal influences in order to adequately care for their children.

Appealing to the parents’ sense of common sense, the writer challenges the viability of the practises involving young, immature voyagers. By showing the ‘World Sailing Speed Record Council’ (WSSRC) to have ceased its support of the ‘age record for the youngest solo circumnavigation’, Grey gathers support for this stance against under-age voyages through his use of expert opinion in the form of an established authority discouraging the idea of solo voyages by young people. The reader is positioned to view Grey’s concerns, as shown by his stance, to be genuine and valid, as they also resonate with the ideals espoused by a well-established body such as the WSSRC. Through the anecdote of a ‘Dutch court’ disallowing a ’13 year-old’ to conduct a solo voyage, Grey then challenges why Australians have failed to undertake such protective measures, using a rhetorical question. Again, by depicting the concerns for adolescent voyaging shown by an authoritative body, the ‘Dutch court’, the author appeals to the common sense of the older and more responsible subset of the readership, in order to convey the futility of Australians in adequately caring for young children through the lack of preventative measures undertaken. Consequently, feelings of guilt and regret are likely to be induced in the reader for recklessly exposing under-developed children to the sport of solo circumnavigation.

Aiding Grey’s portrayal of reckless teenagers as being impractical and disillusioned in following the trend of solo circumnavigation is the assertion that these children will be exposed to the reality being ‘alone and vulnerable’. In his use of negative connotations in describing the distasteful reality which must be endured by voyagers, such as suffering from ‘intense loneliness’, the writer alludes to the misleading nature of solo voyages, as young sailors are contrastingly shown to be ‘excited at first’. The reader, in response, is confronted with the harsh and brutal reality that is shown to eventuate in the voyage. The adjective, ‘intense’, used to describe the loneliness faced by the voyagers, serves to accentuate the concerns faced by parents of young sailors, thereby positioning them to further distance their children from the sport. Complementing this is the accompanying visual presenting the isolation likely to be encountered by voyagers, in the form of an extensive expanse of the ocean. The visual, therefore, imposes upon the concerned parents of the impressionable children the view that ‘young minds’ of the sailors are likely to be negatively impacted through the exclusion and loneliness they face, undermining the development of young voyagers.

Grey finishes off by establishing a dichotomy between the voyages undertaken by ‘admirable men’ and those endured by the adolescents. He utilizes positive connotations when referring to the voyages conducted by experienced sailors by describing their journeys as ‘legendary’, instilling a sense of appreciation from the reader towards these voyagers. Such ‘brave feats’ are juxtaposed by the use of ‘crude’, which accounts for the nature of ‘public stunts’ performed by the inexperienced, immature adolescents. In effect, the reader may feel as if the younger voyagers are merely forced to sail for publicity stunts, and their intentions for circumnavigating are not as noble as those of more experienced voyagers, who are also implied to have more of a passion for the sport of sole circumnavigation than younger adults.

[darvell]

The recently popularized, yet controversial trend of young people undertaking solo voyages - this seems very broad, try and be a bit more clear about what it is they're doing (without reading the article you'd be confused) has sparked criticism from authorities attacking maybe even just say something like the author asserts that is reckless and irrational hahaits irrational and reckless aspect odd phrasing. . While some adults wish the younger generation to would?overcome the overprotectivestrange phrasing again. nature of society by pursuing such thrilling adventures, others are condemning the emerging harms of solo circumnavigation for young people. Representing the latter viewpoint is Michael Grey  in his opinion piece, ‘Too Young, Too Soon’ (Newspaper, Date); Grey employs a didactic and a disapproving tonePersonally I will avoid this. Some people do use "tone" but I think it flows nicer to use a verb that shows authorial intent, eg I'll reword your sentence to show you what I mean "Grey  didacticly and  disapprovingly deems solo.... ect ect  (I'd personally take out one of the tone words when doing it this way, it seems like it's too much) in deeming solo voyages as an unjustifiable and a fool-hardy trend, appealing to the parents’ sense of safety in discouraging young, impressionable minds from being victimised into blindly following the trend. Accompanying the piece is a graphic of x, depicting immediately outlining the potential alienation suffered by adolescent voyagers at sea.

Using the headline of the piece, the children who attempt solo circumnavigation are painted to be immature, impressionable and therefore easily victimised by such dangerous trends of the youth. The repetition of the word ‘too’ in the headline, ‘too young, too soon,’ is likely to induce sympathy from the older readers, as the children undertaking harmful stunts are positioned to look forced by responsible figures such as their parents and society.How are they positioned to look responsible though? link back to the words The consequence of Grey appearing mindful of the need of adventure in the lives of young people and shifting the blame to the ‘motives of parents,’ is that the children partaking in reckless behaviour are depicted to be impressionable by the ‘encouragement’ of adults. Subsequently, by deeming such teenagers to be easily influenced, Grey attempts to highlight their immaturity in being unable to make independent decisions of their own accord.how does this affect readers though?? always make your main focus how the language effects the reader! Moreover, Grey presents a list of privileges, such as being able to ‘vote’ and ‘drive a car’, that such impressionable children are not entitled to, thereby seeking to assert the need of these youngsters to develop ‘mentally’ and ‘physically’. In effect, the reader is likely to align with the writer’s view that children who succumb to societal or parental pressure in performing daredevil acts are perhaps too inexperienced for the act of solo circumnavigation, which instead requires the ‘complex’ abilities shown to be lacking amongst young adults.Why are they likely to agree? What effect does the listing of these privileges have on the reader? why does he do this (Just go a bit more in-depth, you're almost there!) The use of imagery in describing ‘teenage risk-taking’ to be a ‘fire’ fuelled by ‘thrill-seeking’, Grey illustrates that the harmful societal pressures imposed upon children will be amplified by the actions of more teenagers seeking ‘instant gratification’, in an attempt to posit the risky activities such as solo circumnavigation to be an erroneous approach in overcoming the harmful ‘modern-culture’ of risk-taking.I dont know about you but I kinda feel like this language is used to make it look gimmick-y hahha and sort of undermine it as a legitimate thing?? just something to ponder In turn, concerned parents and adults are likely to view the culture of teenage risk-taking to be the crux of the issue of overly young adults undertaking solo voyages, why???thereby being cautious towards this culture and developing adequately the urge to eradicate such societal influences in order to adequately care for their children.

Appealing to the parents’ sense of common sense, change one of those words! - Personally avoid ever saying appealing but I think I've mentioned this to you in previous essays so I'm backing off and letting you roll with your style hahaha the writer challenges the viability of the practises involving young, immature voyagers. By showing the ‘World Sailing Speed Record Council’ (WSSRC) to have ceased its support of the ‘age record for the youngest solo circumnavigation’, Grey gathers support for this stance against under-age voyages through his use of expert opinion I think I've mentioned this before - we don't ever want to mention the technique that the author uses - quote and explain. Rather than saying it's an expert opinion mention that they have credibility in the form of an established authority discouraging the idea of solo voyages by young people. The reader is positioned to view Grey’s concerns, as shown by his stance, to be genuine and valid, as they also resonate with the ideals espoused by a well-established body such as the WSSRC. Through the anecdote same deal, quote and explain, identifying the technique before you quote it is unnecessary won't get you any extra marks! and of a ‘Dutch court’ disallowing a ’13 year-old’ to conduct a solo voyage, Grey then challenges why Australians reword this part of the sentence so that it makes sense without the why in there have failed to undertake such protective measures, using a rhetorical question.again same deal. Again, by depicting the concerns for adolescent voyaging shown by an authoritative body, the ‘Dutch court’, the author appeals to the common sense of the older and more responsible subset of the readership, in order to convey the futility of Australians in adequately caring for young children through the lack of preventative measures undertaken. Consequently, feelings of guilt and regret are likely to be induced in the reader for recklessly exposing under-developed children to the sport of solo circumnavigation.why will they feel guilt though, why/HOW has the reader been positioned to feel this way?

Aiding Grey’s portrayal of reckless teenagers as being impractical and disillusioned in following the trend of solo circumnavigation is the assertion that these children will be exposed to the reality being ‘alone and vulnerable’. In his use of negative connotationsI'm not sure if you fully understand connotations - if you mention that something has negative connotations you also want to mention what those are. Connotations are like what you think of when you hear the word - what pops into your head, what's associated with it? Make sure you mention what the specific connotations are in describing the distasteful reality which must be endured by voyagers, such as suffering from ‘intense loneliness’, the writer alludes to the misleading nature of solo voyages, as young sailors are contrastingly shown to be ‘excited at first’. The reader, in response, is confronted with the harsh and brutal reality that is shown to eventuate in the voyage. The adjective, ‘intense’,this seems a bit late to re-reference the quote, you seem as though you've moved on and then go back. Try and quote this a bit closer to the original quote so that it's still fresh in the reader's mind. used to describe the loneliness faced by the voyagers, serves to accentuate the concerns faced by parents of young sailors, thereby positioning them to further distance their children from the sport.why is loneliness and having a terrible time importatn? how does it aim to make the readers specifically feel - not just that they will distance themselves, how do they view it? Complementing this is the accompanying visualI know your image was blurry but you would want to describe the actual image itself as well as saying what it represents or whatever presenting the isolation likely to be encountered by voyagers, in the form of an extensive expanse of the ocean. The visual, therefore, imposes upon the concerned parents of the impressionable children the view that ‘young minds’ of the sailors are likely to be negatively impacted through the exclusion and loneliness they face,why is this a bad thing, what is the effect on the reader? undermining the development of young voyagers.

Grey finishes off by establishing a dichotomy between the voyages undertaken by ‘admirable men’ and those endured by the adolescents. He utilizes positive connotations of x when referring to the voyages conducted by experienced sailors by describing their journeys as ‘legendary’, instilling a sense of appreciation from the reader towards these voyagers. Such ‘brave feats’ are juxtaposed by the use of ‘crude’, which accounts for the nature of ‘public stunts’ performed by the inexperienced, immature adolescents. In effect, the reader may feel as if the younger voyagers are merely forced to sail for publicity stunts, and their intentions for circumnavigating are not as noble as those of more experienced voyagers, who are also implied to have more of a passion for the sport of sole circumnavigation than younger adults.you seem to kind of avoid the way it will specifically make the reader FEEL. You mention how they will view the issue ect ect, but it is also important to mention the way that particular words spark emotions - will show a deeper understanding

Goodluck with it

[shooterblitz]

Hey guys, this is my 2nd practice language analysis for the exam. Its been completed under timed conditions (1 hour, no planning time), and as I typed it up, I could sense it being a really wrecked analysis. Very unclear in my opinion. Going to throw it on hear in order to get some feedback, and improve in my next piece.

After the Australian Government’s push to fund new technology for educational institutions all over the nation, the Principle of Hightower College, A. Jones has retaliated to prevent the ‘education revolution’ from occurring in his school, as he believes there are negative repercussions co-existing within the idea. Jones has decided to remove computers from regular classrooms, with the exception of I.T related subjects, as to prevent the negative outcomes observed from the regular use of computers. In the letter titled ‘Are Computers Compromising Education?’, Jones addresses the parents of Hightower College as part of the weekly school newsletter, as to explain and argue his decision, which has caused significant controversy. Jones tends to suggest in an extremely reasonable, composed and authoritative tone, that this decision to remove computers is validated by the intrusion computers cause between teachers and students, as well as the high costs associated with the purchase and maintenance. More so, Jones also argues that computers cause social deficiency’s in the children, as well as negative health issues. With the use of a frank and formal approach to writing this letter, Jones uses a great appeal to the traditional methods of education as to develop his defence for the removal of computers, as he intends to inform and encourage the parents to support his decision.

Jones’ letter is commenced with an image of students, where there is engagement with the teacher, and an absence of any form of technology. The key aspect of the visual observed is the enlightening positivity, whereby students are appearing to depict high levels of complexity, understanding and comprehensiveness. The visual tends to inform or show the parents at an early point in the letter, the positive impacts obtained from the removal of technology from classrooms, leading the reader to feel less against the move, and essentially become more willing to read and understand Jones’ point of view. The visual furthermore tends to compliment Jones’ argument that ‘every dollar spent on the purchase and maintenance of a computer is a dollar taken away from quality of teachers.’ Jones suggests that the high costs of purchase and maintenance tend to reduce funding for paying high-quality teachers, and the flow on effect is ‘we rob our children of a future’, as a quality education is being prevented. Jones emphasises to a great extent that ‘teachers are the most important element in a child’s educational life’, which strictly attempts to appeal to the parents’ fear. Such a blunt statement tends to rise fear in the parents as they are encouraged to feel that computers will intrude between ‘teacher-to-student learning’, therefore causing negative influences on their child’s education. Jones continues to suggest that the costs of technology tend to be ‘a wasteful expense for the school’, and further ‘disrupts the flow of learning’, which continues to encourage a shield of fear within parents. The principle then transcends into the negative repercussions imposed upon the children, as technology causes a challenge to education.

Jones explores another of his supporting argument, whereby he suggests that computers ‘have a detrimental effect on children’s learning abilities’, to create an ongoing flow of suggestions as to his decision to remove technology from classrooms. The principle is able to flourish such an argument through the use of expert opinion, which tends to strengthen his argument in the eye of the reader, and further encourage parents to agree with Jones’ actions. Jones utilises a leading social theorist from the US as a source for opinion to claim that as computer-centred classroom causes social challenges for children. This tends to add on to the rise of fear in the parents as they are encouraged to believe that the use of laptops in class may cause an inability ‘to successfully interact with other people.’ Jones then provides a contrast of ideas by claiming that ‘being nourished by traditional texts’ outweighs the positives of computers. The principle presents to the parents the pros of using traditional texts, which then appeals to the parents’ sense of tradition. The parents are inclined to believe that the traditional approach to education requires a ‘higher level of sustained concentration’ in comparison to computers, which tends to reduce fear in the reader and allows for parents to feel more comfortable to agree with Jones’ decision to remove computers. Jones tends to add onto the parents’ sense of tradition by coming that ‘the internet discourages students from undertaking proper, library-based research – an essential skill for any student, but one that is sadly being lost in today’s technological age.’ By making use of such a strong statement to conclude his argument, Jones essentially rest assures the parents that his decision to remove computers was essential for children. The parents are urged to feel satisfied that their children are being rid of ‘detrimental effects’ on their education and are being exposed to traditional methods of education, which allow for greater intellect. Moreover, the parents are positioned to agree with Jones’ initial decision, and are convinced that the removal of computers is a much-needed change.

Jones moves towards the conclusion of his address to the parents, and though the parents are essentially convinced and agreeing with Jones’ decision, he presents the fact that the constant use of computers imposes great health issues upon the children. Presenting such a point allows Jones to assure that his explanation is guaranteed to persuade the parents to agree, but more so support his decision. Jones particularly tends to generalise the children by claiming that ‘they spend most of the day staring at a screen. This is obviously unhealthy.’ Such a generalisation proves helpful for Jones in his explanation as he urges parents to believe that by using computers all day, significant health issues arise. Jones insinuates that students spend all day upon computers, which is essentially false in all cases, though a generalisation seems convincing to the parents because it is a familiar view presented through the media. To summarise his explanation, Jones carries the health effects into a statement comprising of inclusive language, which tends to force the reader believe that they have a stake in the issue. Jones states that ‘We need to resist the temptation to dumb down the classroom.’ which further pushes the reader to feel that the use of computers is a bad idea, whereby being encouraged to agree with Jones’s original decision to remove technology from the school. The parents are left convinced by the conclusion to agree and support Jones’ idea as to prevent a compromise in education for children attending the school.

I can't get the PDF version of the article, but its from Insight 2009. Apologies for that.

[darvell]

After the Australian Government’s push to fund new technology for educational institutions all over the nation, the Principle of Hightower College, A. Jones has retaliated to prevent the ‘education revolution’is this a quote from the article? You don't need to quote the article in your intro (I personally avoid it, won't get you any marks) from occurring in his school, as he believes there are negative repercussions co-existing within the idea. Jones has decided to remove computers from regular classrooms, with the exception of I.T related subjects, as to prevent the negative outcomes observed from the regular use of computers.This seems like a filler sentence that's sort of retelling the article - although we want to know what Jones thinks, we don't need to know this - it's not part of his opinion ect ect. Instead talk more about his contention/subarguments that he uses to get his point across In thehis letter titled ‘Are Computers Compromising Education?’, Jones addresses the parents of Hightower College as part of the weekly school newsletter, asin order to explain and argue his decision, which has caused significant controversy. Jones tends to suggests in an extremely reasonable, composed and authoritative tone,So many words! Pragmatic? Also I will personally avoid saying the word tone but some people do use it. Instead I'd be like "Jones pragmatically asserts x" that this hisdecision to remove computers is validated by the intrusion computers cause between teachers and students, as well as the high costs associated with the purchase and maintenance. Moreover? so, Jones also argues that computers cause social deficiency’s in the children, as well as negative health issues. With the use of a frank and formal approach to in writing this letter, Jones uses a great appeal weird phrasing. Get rid of the great. - Also I will avoid "appeal to x" - personal preference to the traditional methods of education as to develop his defence for the removal of computers, as he intends to inform and encourage the parents to support his decision.
Just generally, there's a theme of sort of "Jones this, Jones that" throughout your essay. Try referring to him as other things - You can refer to him as Jones, The author, the writer, He, The Principal, ect ect - will make your expression better. Also we want to have a very brief sentence describing the basics of the image at the end here!

Jones’ letter is commenced always write in present tense - commenceswith an image of students, where there is showing engagement with the teacher, and an absence of any form of technology.I think personally I'd want to be analysing what's IN the image rather than what's not - although it's a valid point, mention it without saying it's an absense - describe what you can see in the image and this will become apparent anyway The key aspect of the visual observed is the enlightening positivity, whereby students are appearing to depict high levels of complexity, understanding and comprehensiveness. The visual tends tonot liking this "tends to" trend - sounds very vague. Aims to? inform or show the parents at an early point in the letter,You're sometimes a bit overly keen with the commas - watch that, it will screw up your expression the positive impacts obtained from the removal of technology from classrooms, leading the reader to feel less against the move,how? and essentially become more willing to read and understand Jones’ point of view. Furthermore, The visual furthermore tends to compliments Jones’ argument that ‘every dollar spent on the purchase and maintenance of a computer is a dollar taken away from quality of teachers.’this is a very long quote - try just quoting the most important parts of it rather than large chunks - it's also way easier to analyse smaller quotes Jones suggests that the high costs of purchase and maintenance tend to tend is banned reduce funding for paying high-quality teachers,This is sort of just rewording the quote - not sure if this sentence is necessary haha and the flow on effect strange phrasing. Even he asserts that this will result in?? (reword to fit sentence) is ‘we rob our children of a future’,Ok what you're doing here is explaining one quote using another. Ref to bottom of page,** ill put a list of questions that I want you to answer in relation to the quote. as a quality education is being prevented. ok but why is this a problem, effect on reader? always always link back to reader Jones emphasises to a great extent that ‘teachers are the most important element in a child’s educational life’, which strictly attempts to appeal to the parents’ fear of what?? . Such a blunt statement tends to rise fear in the parents as they are encouraged to feel that computers will intrude between ‘teacher-to-student learning’, therefore causing negative influences on their child’s education why is this an issue though? what willl the negative effects ultimately result in??. Jones continues to suggest that the costs of technology tend to be are ‘a wasteful expense for the school’, and further ‘disrupts the flow of learning’, which continues to encourage a shield of fear within parents. The principle then transcends into the negative repercussions imposed upon the children, as technology causes a challenge to education. Ok for this last bit ref. to ** at the end.

Jones explores another of his supporting argument, whereby he suggests that computers ‘have a detrimental effect on children’s learning abilities’, to create an ongoing flow of suggestions I don't think they're suggestions - suggestions imply that it's sort of an idea that you can choose. They're arguments. as to his decision to remove technology from classrooms. The principle wrong principle/principal is able to flourish such an argument through the use of expert opinion, which tends to strengthen his argument in the eye of the reader, and further encourage parents to agree with Jones’ actions. Yes, expert opinions are good. But why?? Because they build up his credibility! I want you to start directly quoting the technique you're talking about rather than identifying it like this - you'll come off as way more beast, identifying techniques will not get you any marks and makes the essay sound like a checklist! Jones utilises a leading social theorist from the US as a source for opinion to claim quote what you're talking about that as computer-centred classroom causes social challenges for children. This tends to adds on to the rise of fear in the parents as they are encouraged to believe that the use of laptops in class may cause an inability ‘to successfully interact with other people.’ ** ref. to end Jones then provides a contrast of ideas by claiming that ‘being nourished by traditional texts’ outweighs the positives of computers. The principle presents to the parents the pros of using traditional texts, which then appeals to the parents’ sense of tradition.or does it just make the textbooks look better by praising them? I don't think it's a direct target to tradition - unless he references something like " the good old days when we had paper textbooks" (or something like that) The parents are inclined to believe that the traditional approach to education requires a ‘higher level of sustained concentration’ in comparison to computers, which tends to reduce fear in the reader and allows for parents to feel more comfortable to agree with Jones’ decision to remove computers. Jones tends to add onto the parents’ sense of tradition by coming that weird phrasing - stating that? ‘the internet discourages students from undertaking proper, library-based research – an essential skill for any student, but one that is sadly being lost in today’s technological age.’suchhhh a looong quote - I would even struggle to analyse this! By making use of such a strong statement to conclude his argument, Jones essentially rest assures the parents that his decision to remove computers was essential for children.how?? **ref to end. The parents are urged to feel satisfied that their children are being rid of ‘detrimental effects’ on their education and are being exposed to traditional methods of education, which allow for greater intellect and consequently - end sentence (moreover sounds as though you are bringing up a new point so it was used a bit strangely as it was only one sentence). Moreover, the parents are positioned to agree with Jones’ initial decision, and are convinced that the removal of computers is a much-needed change.


Jones moves towards the conclusion of his address to the parents, and though the parents are essentially convinced and agreeing with Jones’ decision, he presents the fact that the constant use of computers imposes great health issues upon the children. You can't say that parents are convinced and agreeing - can you speak for everyone who has read the article?? Be careful. Presenting such a point allows Jones to assure that his explanation is guaranteed to persuade the parents to agree, but more so support his decision. Jones particularly tends to generalise don't identify! the children by claiming that ‘they spend most of the day staring at a screen. This is obviously unhealthy.’ Such a generalisation proves helpful for Jones in his explanation as he urges parents to believe that by using computers all day, significant health issues arise. Jones insinuates that students spend all day upon computers, which is essentially false in all cases, though a generalisation not your job to say if he's being true or false in this way. seems convincing to the parents because it is a familiar view presented through the media. is this where your conclusion starts, or is this the end of the para??To summarise his explanation, Jones carries the health effects into a statement comprising of inclusive language, which tends to force the reader believe that they have a stake in the issue. Jones states that ‘We need to resist the temptation to dumb down the classroom.’ which further pushes the reader to feel that the use of computers is a bad idea, whereby being encouraged to agree with Jones’s original decision to remove technology from the school. The parents are left convinced by the conclusion to agree and support Jones’ idea as to prevent a compromise in education for children attending the school.Yeah ref. to what I'm abou tot write for this whole end para (same sort of issues as with the rest of it)

Things to consider/work on/advice ect ect

-I would suggest shortening your quotes to 1-2 words (or slightly longer if vital) at least while you are perfecting your technique - you will find it easier to analyse each individual word and therefore will come off way more beast.

- For each word I want you to tell me: (QUOTE ONE WORD THEN DO THIS, NOT 3/4)
-connotations of the word - what do you think of when you hear it?
-Intended effect on the reader
-HOW that word creates that effect
-why the reader wants them to feel this way
THEN after you have done this you can move on to another word

-Don't use "tends to" - ill kill u if I see that in another essay (jk relax) no but for real BANNED ok

-Make sure you're not directly identifying techniques - we want to be more subtle than that. Quote and explain!!

Des all I got for now, pretty keen to see a redraft

Good luck with it!

[Jeggz]

Hey guys! Would really appreciate any feedback on this piece and possibly even a mark out of 10 if that's okay with you Thanks in advance!

Too Young Too Soon

The recent surge in adolescents who are choosing to embark upon solo circumnavigation has ignited great controversy in the community as to whether or not the lives of our future generations are being endangered as a result. In response, Michael Grey in his Opinion Article, “Too Young, Too Soon,” contends that it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they are not encouraging their children on the basis of fleeting popularity whilst more definitive age restrictions must be established by authorities to ensure maximum safety for all. In an overridingly reasoned tone, Grey intends to arouse awareness amongst the parents and also the Sailing authorities, regarding the necessity to recognise the need for better regulations and a larger emphasis to be placed upon our youth.

Grey commences by asserting how the children who embark upon such stunts such as “solo circumnavigation,” cannot be entirely blamed. Rather, Grey directs the focus towards the “eager parents,” who probe their children down this path. The alliterative phrases, “daredevil,” and “death-defying,” used to describe the feats set about by youth, aims to evoke a sense of guilt in the parent readership as they perceive the dangers associated with their encouragement. This feeling of remorse is furthered through the claim that the reason behind this ulterior motive is due to “a brief, flash publicity.” Grey successfully exhibits the sheer selfishness of the parent readership and is able to imbue a sense of understanding in them as to how change is indeed imperative. The listing effect upon “young to vote, drive a car or drink alcohol,” directly appeals to a sense of logic and rationale as Grey enunciates how youth simply do not possess the maturity to circumnavigate alone. The readership is likely to understand how a “hazardous round-the-world trip,” is probably not appropriate for young adolescents. Rather, Grey exclaims how it is qualities such as “sheer patience,” “hard work,” and “persistence, “which is essential in a child before they embark upon such a journey. Through this, he is able to induce strong feelings of realisation amongst the parent readership as they become aware of their skewed motives and are likely to change their behaviour for the betterment of the youth. The implementation of the imagery relating to “thrill-seeking,” which “pours fuel on the spreading fire,” that is teenage risk taking, is a means through which Grey directly addresses the issue at hand, positioning readers to understand how this, “spreading fire,” must be curbed before it is too late.

Grey continues by addressing how parents on the contrary justify their behaviours with the claim that they are simply allowing the youth to “prove themselves,” one way or another. The reiteration of “daredevil,” aims to continue Grey’s streak as he places greater emphasis upon the dangers that are affiliated with these “wild adventures.” The juxtaposition between “challenging activities,” and developing “positive skills,” instils a sense of awareness in the parents’ readership as they are likely to realise that there is indeed a difference between the two cases. The parents’ argument that their children are “too protected,” is nullified by the authoritative stance of the “World Sailing Speed Record Council,” who recently discontinues its endorsement of having the record for the youngest solo circumnavigation. This appeal to authority and logic probes a sense of common understanding amongst the parents readership as they are likely to be in agreement with the crux of Grey’s contention. As an alternative to child and adolescent development, Grey proposes the revival of “Boy Scouts and Girl Guides,” which certainly encourages “positive development’ in youth, yet are “virtually unattended,” in modern society. Grey induces a streak of realisation amongst the readership, positioning them to view their significant role when it comes to moulding their children’s future. The direct condemnatory remark, as the parents are labelled a “unfit,” to be a responsible parental figure, attempts to initiate a transformation in them as they discontinue their support of such dangerous feats.

Grey concludes by underpinning the need for more definitive regulations to be set in society, in regards to adolescent behaviour. Grey appeals to the hip-pocket nerve by drawing upon the impact that will be imposed upon “taxpayers,” who will need to compensate for “inexperienced teenage behaviours.” As a result the readership will be repelled against teenage solo circumnavigation and will be in support of setting more strict regulations. Targetting the sailing authorities, Grey outlines the dire urgency for recognition of “better regulations,” and “sensible age restrictions.” He provides a more holistic stance in which the “well-being of children, “is prioritised. The title, “Too young, too soon,” further cements the need for boundaries in regards to age-limits for youth adventurers. The repetition in “too,” intends to position the authorities to perceive the need to embrace reform and act responsibly for the betterment of the future. The monochromatic image which accompanies Grey’s article also intends to exemplify the bleak nature of the events that adolescents may encounter upon their expedition. The looming clouds, coupled with the crashing waves, allows Grey to establish his stance once and for all, as he asserts the need to put a “stop,” to the reckless ways exemplified by the parents, for the betterment of future generations.

[shooterblitz]

Things to consider/work on/advice ect ect

-I would suggest shortening your quotes to 1-2 words (or slightly longer if vital) at least while you are perfecting your technique - you will find it easier to analyse each individual word and therefore will come off way more beast.

- For each word I want you to tell me: (QUOTE ONE WORD THEN DO THIS, NOT 3/4)
-connotations of the word - what do you think of when you hear it?
-Intended effect on the reader
-HOW that word creates that effect
-why the reader wants them to feel this way
THEN after you have done this you can move on to another word

-Don't use "tends to" - ill kill u if I see that in another essay (jk relax) no but for real BANNED ok

-Make sure you're not directly identifying techniques - we want to be more subtle than that. Quote and explain!!

Des all I got for now, pretty keen to see a redraft

Good luck with it!
[/b]

Thanks so much for the feedback mate. Appreciate it heaps!

In regards to being subtle with the techniques, how would you suggest I do that? Would it be something like 'The author (sorry for using this again ) tends to generalise the children attending this school, by presenting a common stereotype.'

And with the 'tends to', what other words can I use!?

I'll take in the feedback and write up another piece tomorrow

Thanks again! (PS. What would you have given that piece out of 10?)

[darvell]

errr personally I wouldn't analyse a stereotype - I don't think it's the strongest thing to analyse. You could analyse the same quote in a different way:

"Jones particularly tends to generalise the children by claiming that ‘they spend most of the day staring at a screen. This is obviously unhealthy.’ Such a generalisation proves helpful for Jones in his explanation as he urges parents to believe that by using computers all day, significant health issues arise. "

What is it about the generalisation that causes the readers to agree with his point?
If I say to you "blonde girls are stupid." - I have presented you with a "common stereotype" - but if someone said that to me in that way I probably wouldn't agree based only on that sentence (Stereotypes are pretty ignorant, idk). Right?

So what it is about the quote then that is persuasive?
I think this particularly appeals to an older audience who don't use technology in the way that we do.
It kind of creates a bridge between the kids and their technology and the adults and their traditional paper based learning, right?

Now not only that, but it's also "UNHEALTHY" !!
These youngin's are wasting away proper learning and their health for the sake of some stupid technology!!

"staring at a screen" is pretty good too. It sort of demeans technology and undermines it as a medium of learning.

So basically what I am telling you to do is analyse the LANGUAGE in the quote, not that it's a generalisation, I think you will get much much better analysis out of it if you do!!

(If this is sketchy let me know and I'll try again)

Now as for this "tends to" business, hahah
What we want to do instead of this is write the author: asserts, highlights, illustrates, argues, condones, demeans ect ect.
Google "verbs showing authorial intent" and there should be lists of them. (If you post an essay tomorrow with that in it Imma hunt you down son)

Pretty keen to see another one
Also for rating out of 10 I'm not really sure how to rate people out of 10 I dont feel like I'm er credible enough.
You can PM brencookie if you really want a mark, but go check out the criteria for Eng exam and see what it takes for a 10,
feedback is so much more important than a mark out of ten!

Get to it kid!

[darvell]

The recent surge in adolescents who are choosing to embark upon solo circumnavigation has ignited great controversy in the community as to whether or not the lives of ourno inclusive language, it's not YOU or OUR, it's the READER future generations are being endangered as a result. In response, Michael Grey in his Opinion Article, “Too Young, Too Soon,” contends asserts, argues,?? Google "verbs showing authorial intent"that it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they are not encouraging their children on the basis of fleeting popularity whilst more definitive age restrictions must be established by authorities to ensure maximum safety for all. In an overridingly reasoned weird phrasing - pragmatic? tone, I personally avoid using the word tone, instead I write things like "pragmatically asserts" but some people do use it, also another one of the authors arguments might be nice in here, this seems a little short to me Grey intends to arouse awareness amongst the parents and also the Sailing authorities, regarding the necessity to recognise the need for better regulations and a larger emphasis to be placed upon our youth.
We want a brief sentence about the image here - and mention how it immediately emphasises the topic, it's a nice way to finish by linking back.

Grey commences by asserting how the asserts that children who embark upon such stunts such as “solo circumnavigation,” cannot be entirely blamed. Rather, Grey directs the focus towards the “eager parents,” who probe their children down this path. The alliterative we don't want to identify the techniques before we quote them. Literally just quote and explain, don't identify! phrases, “daredevil,” and “death-defying,” used to describe the feats set about by youth, connotations of words?aims to evoke a sense of guilt in the parent readership as they perceive the dangers associated with their encouragement. This feeling of remorse is furthered through the claim that the reason behind this ulterior motive is due to “a brief, flash publicity.” Grey successfully exhibits the sheer selfishness of the parent readership and is able to imbue a sense of understanding in themhow??? as to how change is indeed imperative. The listing effect upon weird phrasing, stick another word here “young to vote, drive a car or drink alcohol,” directly appeals  I avoid the word appeal as a general rule, I just think theres better ways of saying things hahato a sense of logic and rationale as Grey enunciates how youth simply do not possess the maturity to circumnavigate alone.but why did you quote the list, what is the effect on the reader of that? How does the reader create this effect? The readership is likely to understand how a “hazardous round-the-world trip,” don't quote unless you're going to explain how the words effect the reader - excessive quoting is a bad habit and will make you look less skilled than you are is probably not appropriate for young adolescents why? . Rather, Grey exclaims how it is qualities such as “sheer patience,” “hard work,” and “persistence, “which is essential in a child before they embark upon such a journey.explain your quotes. What is the effect on the reader? connotations? how does the author create the effect? Through this, he is able to induce strong feelings of realisation amongst the parent readership as they become aware of their skewed motives and are likely to change their behaviour for the betterment of the youth don't need to mention how they will behave after reading. LANGUAGE's effect on the READER!! .  The implementation of the imagerydefinitely think you need a brief description at end of intro so readers can visualise what you're on about hahaha relating to “thrill-seeking,” which “pours fuel on the spreading fire,” make sure you're explaining these quotes! that is teenage risk taking, is a means through by which Grey directly addresses the issue at hand, positioning readers to understand how this, “spreading fire,” must be curbed before it is too late.

Grey continues by addressing how parents on the contrary justify their behaviours with the claim that they are simply allowing the youth to “prove themselves,”don't quote unless it's an important quote that effects the audience in a specific way that you will go on to explain one way or another. The reiteration of “daredevil,” aims to continue Grey’s streak as he places greater emphasis upon the dangers that are affiliated with these “wild adventures.” but how does that effect the reader? The juxtaposition between “challenging activities,” and developing “positive skills,” instils a sense of awareness in the parents’ readership as they are likely to realise that there is indeed a difference between the two cases.Mm, I think you could analyse stronger things, possibly. The parents’ argument that their children are “too protected,” is nullified by the authoritative stance of the “World Sailing Speed Record Council,” who recently discontinues its endorsement of having the record for the youngest solo circumnavigation. This appeal I just hate appeal ok there's totally better words, thesaurus that shit! to authority and logic probes a sense of common understanding amongst the parentsal readership as they are likely to be in agreement with the crux of Grey’s contention. why? Also avoid contention as well. The author's arguments? ect ect. We want to be more subtle, otherwise it sounds like a checklist. As an alternative to child and adolescent development, Grey proposes the revival of “Boy Scouts and Girl Guides,” which certainly encouragesthis sounds like you are endorsing it. You need to remember that this is the AUTHOR'S opinion, not yours. “positive development’ in youth, yet are “virtually unattended,” explain these quotes? why have you chosen them? connotations? how do they effect the reader? in modern society. Grey induces a streak of realisation weird phrasing amongst the readership, positioning them to view their significant role when it comes to moulding their children’s future.by doing what? The direct condemnatory remark, as the parents are labelled a “unfit,” omgg "unfit" parents- what does this make you think of? Imagine how this effects the reader, what do they visualise? How do those words create that effect?? to be a responsible parental figure, attempts to initiate a transformation in them as they discontinue their support of such dangerous feats.

Grey concludes by underpinning the need for more definitive regulations to be set in society, in regards to adolescent behaviour. Grey appeals to the hip-pocket nerve quote and explain, don't identify. by drawing upon the impact that will be imposed upon “taxpayers,” who will need to compensate for “inexperienced teenage behaviours.” As a result the readership will be repelled against teenage solo circumnavigation and will be in support of setting more strict regulations why? I don't believe you, justify yourself. . Targetting the sailing authorities, Grey outlines the dire urgency for recognition of “better regulations,” and “sensible age restrictions.” He provides a more holistic stance in which the “well-being of children, explain each underlined quote individually - it must be important if you've quoted it. What's the effect on the reader? how does that word create that effect? why does the reader do this? connotations? Try and be as specific as you can “is prioritised. The title, “Too young, too soon,” further cements the need for boundaries in regards to age-limits for youth adventurers. The repetition in “too,” intends to position the authorities to perceive the need to embrace reform and act responsibly for the betterment of the future.how? The monochromatic image which accompanies Grey’s article also intends to exemplify the bleak nature of the events that adolescents may encounter upon their expedition. The looming clouds, coupled with the crashing waves, allows Grey to establish his stance once and for all, as he asserts the need to put a “stop,” to the reckless ways exemplified by the parents, for the betterment of future generations.
You want to be able to write  a whole paragraph about the image, it's really important. (Or some people also split their analysis of the image so that there's a bit in each of their paras, but I would suggest the prior cause I think it's simpler to achiever.

Things to  work on

- explaining each word properly before moving on.
Its better to quote one word and explain it like a beast rather than quoting 3-4 and skimping on the analysis. Analysis should be the focus!

-Avoid directly identifying techniques (see the points where I mentioned this)

-No inclusive language!! 

-In some places where I crossed out like a whole sentence and replaced it with 1-2 words, you need to write a bit more succinctly there. Make sure that all the words you're using are necessary!

Goodluck with it
 

[Smiley_]

vcaa sample piece

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf

Following the incident involving Animal Activists, setting a truck of chicken’s free, discussion has arisen regarding whether this action was justified.  An opinion piece written by Jo Smith, the publicity officer for Australians for Animal rights entitled “Chickens Range Free” discuses in a passionate and at times aggravated tone that the actions of the animal rights activists were proven to be rational. The audience of the piece includes readers of the online newspaper especially those who feel as if the animal activists were in the wrong, with the  purpose of the piece being to rationalise the activists decision. An accompany image depicts three chickens in cramped conditions.

The title of the piece “Chickens Range Free” is a pun, as well as gaining the reader’s attention, the title alludes to the event that Jo Smith has written about. The idea that the chickens are “free” ties in with Smiths contention that allowing the chickens to run free was not a crime and that the chickens deserve better.

As Smith is a member of the “Australians for Animal Rights” she has a vested opinion on the issue and uses a personal approach to attempt to rationalise the Activists actions. Through stating that she “completely” understands why action was taken, she lends her self, credibility as she is educated on the reasons why the chickens were set free. Her credibility is extended when she acknowledges opposing viewpoints that “some people” feel that “liberating a truckload of chickens is to drastic”. By following this statement with praise for the activists that the “risked life” the reader is positioned to view the activists as brave and heroic people. Therefore ones that should be praised, not vindicated.  Through the piece Smith utilises emotive language when referring the caged chickens such as “oppressed” and “abominably cruel” this attempts to evoke a sense of outrage and sympathy from the readers to feel as if having the chickens caged is an outrage. Smith continues to rationalise the activist’s decisions by stating that its “little wonder” that people have to “resort to extreme action” when chickens are left in cramped cages with little or no rights.  A distressing image is created when Smith explains that the chickens do not have same rights as humans do and they are trapped in cages that are “45 square centimetres in size” this encourages to view the treatment of the animals as injustice and inhuman and continues to justify the writers contention.

The accompanying image of the chickens in one of these small cages aims to put a face to the issue and allow the reader to see the suffering that the chickens must endure. As quoted by Jeremy Betham the philosopher the chickens cannot “ talk but (they) can suffer” this invites the reader to feel invested in the issue and they could do more for the suffering animals.

In an attempt to allow the reader to see her point of view Smith criticizes various people.  The writer aims to create a negative image of the media by stating that they “have fallen over themselves” to publicise the critics this positions the reader to feel as if the activists have been unfairly treated and therefore deserve sympathy.  Through utilising the inclusive language “we must” the audience is invited to share the readers outrage on the issue. She combines this with an appeal to human rights that “animals have the same rights as we do” in an attempt to persuade the reader that the chickens will continue to suffer if something is not done.  The writer invites the reader to question the type of meat they consume when she states that is people “knew the details of how” the chickens lived “few would go on eating them”. Through outlining the horrific details of the chickens life and deaths the reader is positioned to see the activists actions as a positive step towards achieving animal rights.

The final paragraph reaffirms the writers contention that  “an action which frees caged chickens is justified” due to the suffering that the animals endure on a daily basis. By employing the repetition of “justified” this reinforces into the readers mind that this issue is one of great significance to the “Australians for Animal Rights” and that should not be criticized in the manner that it has. To conclude her piece Smith ends with the strong statement that “the end definitely justified the means” clearly outlining her point of view and as this is the last thing that the reader reads aims to provide a firm statement which attempts to leave no doubt in the readers mind on the issue.

Through her piece Jo Smith Freelance writer and publicity officer for Australians for Animal Rights, employs a passionate and aggravated tone to attempt to position her reader that the actions of the animal rights activists were acceptable. Through utilising an attack on those who don’t support this issue, appeals and inclusive language the writer attempts to appeal to her intended audience.   

[Alwin]

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh! first time marking LA and haven't written a LA on this article before

Following the incident involving Animal Activists, setting a truck of chicken’s free, personally I would just put this word in for 'flow': [much]discussion has arisen regarding whether this action was justified.  An opinion piece written by Jo Smith, the publicity officer for Australians for Animal rights, comma entitled “Chickens Range Free” discuses  please remember that you are analysing a persuasive piece so the write is not "discussing". A better word choice could have been "contends" or "argues" in a passionate and at times aggravated tone goodthat the actions of the animal rights activists were proven to be these words are optional rational. The audience of the piece includes readers of the online newspaper especially those who feel as if the animal activists were in the wrong, with the purpose of the piece being to rationalise the activists decision. An accompany image depicts three chickens in cramped conditions.

The title of the piece “Chickens Range Free” is a pun, as well as gaining the reader’s attention, the title alludes to the event that Jo Smith has written about. The idea that the chickens are “free” ties in with Smiths contention that allowing the chickens to run free was not a crime and that the chickens deserve better.
Hmm. There's nothing really wrong with this structure, but it looks a bit odd having such a small paragraph.
You have two choices, either embed it in a bigger paragraph or join it with the next one. OR you could expand more:
1. Why is it a pun? It is a pun because of 'free range eggs', 'free range chicken' and other free range products which often conjure images of green pastures or open fields, whereas this occurred on a busy road. etc etc
2. Who would get the pun? As the pun relies on readers' familiarity on 'free range' products, it is most likely that readers interested in humane treatment of animals will appreciate this pun.
3. What is the effect? Thus, not only does the headline catch readers' attention, but for readers that understand the pun they are more open to accepting Smith's view because they are engaged with his piece.
4. Structure? Does Smith continue this metaphor?
5. Who will not like this pun? What will the effect be for these people?
So, as you can see you can write a lot about the headline which  can become a paragraph onto itself, rather than just 2 lines which looks a bit informal


As Smith is a member of the “Australians for Animal Rights” she has a vested opinion on the issue and uses a personal approach to attempt to rationalise the Activists actions. Good explanation Through stating that she “completely” understands why action was taken, she lends her self, credibility as she is educated on the reasons why the chickens were set free. Her credibility is extended when she acknowledges opposing viewpoints that “some people” feel that “liberating a truckload of chickens is too (missing the second 'o') drastic”. By following this statement with praise for the activists that the “risked life” the reader is positioned to view the activists as brave and heroic people. Therefore ones that should be praised, not vindicated. Or, some readers could think they were idiots because some chickens were "were run over by passing traffic". I don't think that it detracts from your analysis not including this point, but sometimes it is good to acknowledge how different groups of readers react. Throughout* typo(?) the piece Smith utilises emotive language when referring the caged chickens such as “oppressed” and “abominably cruel” this. Full stop, start a new sentence =)  This is an attempt attempts to evoke a sense of outrage and sympathy from the readers to feel as if having the chickens caged is an outrage. Smith continues to rationalise the activist’s decisions by stating that its “little wonder” that people have to “resort to extreme action” when chickens are left in cramped cages with little or no rights. hmm, I don't think she's using logic here but you don't have to agree with me! A distressing image is created when Smith explains that the chickens do not have same rights as humans do and they are trapped in cages that are “45 square centimetres in size” this encourages to view the treatment of the animals as injustice and inhuman and continues to justify the writers contention.

The accompanying image of the chickens in one of these small cages aims to put a face to the issue and allow the reader to see the suffering that the chickens must endure. As quoted by Jeremy Betham the philosopher the chickens cannot “ talk but (they) can suffer” this invites the reader to feel invested in the issue and they could do more for the suffering animals.
Again with the short 2 line sentence paragraph. Not sure if you were taught this structure, but personally I'm not too fond with it. Either couple it with another paragraph, as you talk about Smith's imagery/figurative language in the previous part. Or, you could expand more and describe the picture more and the effect on the reader and make it into longer paragraph. Up to you =]

In an attempt to allow the reader to see her point of view Smith criticizes various people.  The writer aims to create a negative image of the media by stating that they “have fallen over themselves” to publicise the critics this positions the reader to feel as if the activists have been unfairly treated and therefore deserve sympathy. Explain how this influences readers who criticised the activists' actions. Does this persuade them or alienate them? Through utilising the inclusive language “we must” the audience is invited to share the readers outrage on the issue. What demographic of readers are invited to share this view? All readers? She combines this with an appeal to human rights that “animals have the same rights as we do” in an attempt to persuade the reader that the chickens will continue to suffer if something is not done.  The writer invites the reader to question the type of meat they consume when she states that is people “knew the details of how” the chickens lived “few would go on eating them”. Through outlining the horrific details of the chickens life and deaths the reader is positioned to see the activists actions as a positive step towards achieving animal rights. Hmm, okay I thinnk I can go with this. But (sorry) I feel like your missing quite a few techniques because you're covering quite a large section of the text only talking about 2-3 techniques used. Rather than spoon feed you, I'll give you some hints:
1. Is there repetition?
2. What is the effect of the phrase: "Too many people have a simplistic human-centred"
3. Smith quotes a talk-back radio host and a man walking his dog. Why?
4. "AAR does not believe it is ‘antisocial’ to liberate animals from inhumane conditions" possible discourse marker?
5. Does the tonality change during the piece?
6. Use of pronouns, when does she use "I", "we", etc and what is the effect?
7. Any rhetorical questions? If so, explain them and their use! =]
8. What is the point of the line: "that if the public knew the details of how they lived and died, few would go on eating them"? Is this a rational argument?

The final paragraph reaffirms the writers contention that  “an action which frees caged chickens is justified” due to the suffering that the animals endure on a daily basis. By employing the repetition of “justified” this reinforces into the readers mind that this issue is one of great significance to the “Australians for Animal Rights” and that should not be criticized in the manner that it has. Good. To conclude her piece Smith ends with the strong statement that “the end definitely justified the means” clearly outlining her point of view and as this is the last thing that the reader reads aims to provide a firm statement which attempts to leave no doubt in the readers mind on the issue.

Through her piece Jo Smith Freelance comma ,writer and publicity officer for Australians for Animal Rights, employs a passionate and aggravated tone to attempt to position her reader that the actions of the animal rights activists were acceptable. Through utilising an attack on those who don’t support this issue, appeals and inclusive language the writer attempts to appeal to her intended audience. Personally, to conclude I consider whether the piece was effective (maybe just one line) and talk briefly about the audience again. I know this is not everyone's style, but your conclusion looks a bit short / rushed. Just remember that the intro is the first impression and the conclusion is your final chance to impress your examiner =]

Overall, a pretty good effort! keep it up and keep at it! try to analyse a few more techniques per paragraph because it has a lot of potential

[tcstudent]

CHICKENS RANGE FREE, FROM THE SAMPLE VCAA 2013 SAME ANALYSIS ARTICLE AS ABOVE

Can i get a rough estimate on the mark i may receive for this one please, thank you guys.

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf



The issue of hundreds of chickens being freed among the general public has created much debate as to the appropriateness of the behaviours of activists. Jo Smith addresses his concern in the opinion piece ‘’Chickens Range Free’’ published in a Melbourne newspaper, Jo Smith an Australia for animial rights raises awareness that all animals deserve to be free to lead natural lives as ‘’animals have the same right as we do’’. Smith utilises a firm critical tone when expressing his worry for our ‘’so called farm animals’’, While also dismissing the opinion of a certain talk back radio presenter.
The Accompanying visual illustrates the environment that chickens live in and is intended to directly support the opinion piece by raising awareness of the ‘’cruel ways [chickens] lived’’.

The Title ‘’Chickens Range Free’’ immediately introduces the piece which intends to make the specific audience of famers and general public acknowledge the content within the piece. This piece is also supported by smith who is a member of the ‘’Australia for animal rights’’ which he aims to then give the general public accredited information on this issue. Furthermore by smith using a statement made that ‘’some people may think liberation a truck-load of chickens is to drastic a measure’’ it intends to dismiss the opinions of those that are completely unaware of the issue by smith directly support the actions of ‘’activists’’ making the community re think their decisions placed up animals.
Furthermore smith appeals to the general public that ‘’it is important for someone to stand up for the rights of animals’’ this is shown by smith to be a critical area as ‘’our’’ animals do not have a voice and therefore rely on humans to protect them.

Smith then introduces the media into the opinion piece by exhibiting their bias on the issue by only interviewing ‘’a man nearby’’ who was completed one sided on the issue, by stating ‘’ it’s a wonder nobody got hurt’’. Which really asks us the question, do we really believe someone could have gotten hurt from chickens being free? The only ones that are being hurt are the chickens, not only this but by the radio presenter ‘’sneering’’ ‘’activists’’ actions it shows the majority of us are so uncompassionate for the ‘’rights of animals’’ but so critical about human rights. Despite this, the radio presenter also attacks activist behaviour ruling it ‘’idiotic…anti-social’’ thus smith showcases this statement of the radio presenter to further belittle the opposition among his AAR members. The radio presenter then tries to create a jocular atmosphere among his listeners by questioning if they ‘’fancy a free range chicken?’’ which is obviously no ‘’if the public knew the details of how they lived’’, however to ‘’we Australians for animal rights believe that all animals deserve to be free to lead natural lives’’ introduces his members to give the public an understanding that it is not only him that supports the actions of the activists.



In addition smith continues his critical argument through stating it is ‘’we doing ourselves injustice, we over populated the number of animal species’ and it is ‘’we that treat our so called farm animals in abominably cruel ways’’ Through Smith’ repetitious quote of ‘’we’’, Smith aims to push forward the claims that Australia are the reason for this issue and that it is only through raising concern that he hopes to allow ‘’Chickens [to] range Free’’. Nevertheless, Smith strives to raise awareness by comparing Human rights to animal rights to again ensure people acknowledge they are similar to us just without a ‘’voice. Not only this but smith utilises his authority by dismissing the imposed ‘’Antisocial’’ statement on activists. Furthermore through smith using irrefutable facts such as ‘’450 square centre metres’’ it intends to make those reading feel emotional especially those concerned around the issue but also sick as they are ‘’unable to move’’ and ‘’without proper ventilation’’ While also fictionally depicting an image of a small cage with chickens forced to lay eggs.


Smith further expresses his disproval towards the ‘’poor farmer’’ by illustrating ‘’chickens are possibly the most abused animals on the face of the earth’’ intending to make the general public reading feel sympathetic towards ‘’our so called farm animals’’ this is then supported by smith’s disgusted tone when describing the facts behind how they ‘’lived and died. Few would go on eating them’’. Thus smith intends to elicit an emotional response from the public to gain as much support on this controversial issue. In addition smith’s article is accredited by ‘’philosopher Jeremy Bentham’’ to provide the community with information that is formally irrefutable. Bentham progresses by questioning readers, ‘’can they speak? [NO], but can they suffer?[yes], through the Philosopher’s evidences it gives the general readers the ability to re-think previous arguments of the ‘’radio presenter’’ and biased witness. Furthermore Bentham concludes his supporting argument through imply ‘’[animals] have rights that should be respected’’ but he also ends by stating if ‘’we respected animals it may result in us ‘’better understanding human rights’’ which smith intends on showing that the majority selfish.


Smith then also concludes his arduous opinion by implying until a ‘’human alternative can be found’’ chickens will be continuously released which smith intends on implicating that ‘’breaking the law’’ to free these creatures has a justified means as evident ‘’ the end definitely justified the means’’ showcasing the AAR members as fighters for freedom, which signifies smith’s compassion towards the issue and therefore aims to influence the reader to do so too.
Supporting Smith’ opinion, the accompanying 3 large chickens illustrates ‘’being trapped’’ which makes the community reading and ‘’poor farmers’’ reconsider their bias on the issue at hand. Moreover the chicken appearing to escape his/her head from the cage highlights the ‘’inhuman condition’’ they have ‘’lived and died [in]’’ Through this reminder, Smith intends on pushing forward his main contention by illustrating  ‘’animals deserver to lead a natural life’’ and therefore not only ‘’should be respected’ but able to ‘’range free’’.



Both the opinion piece and accompanying image aligned with smith’ argument support the notion that ‘’Chickens [should] Range Free’’. Whilst the article does this through the use of smith’ critical tone to persuade the reader by exemplifying the factors around this controversial issue, the image also achieves this through highlighting the terrible conditions our animals live in, however this issue is set to spark further debate as the means are seen by some to be ‘’idiotic and anti-social’’.




THANK YOU.

[Alwin]

CHICKENS RANGE FREE, FROM THE SAMPLE VCAA 2013 SAME ANALYSIS ARTICLE AS ABOVE

Can i get a rough estimate on the mark i may receive for this one please, thank you guys.
I'm sorry! But I won't give you a mark on this, because I don't feel I have the consistency to mark. Like sometimes I write a LA I think was crap and like a 9 or 10 then when I do a piece I think is good get like 7 lol. Plus, not enough experience marking
You need with more experience to give you a good mark or close to what an examiner would give.
*stares at brenden

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/english-samp-w.pdf


The issue of hundreds of chickens being freed among the general public has created much debate as to the appropriateness of the behaviours of activists. Jo Smith addresses his (This is awkward. I though it was a girl lol)concern in the opinion piece ‘’Chickens Range Free’’ published in a Melbourne newspaper,. full stop Jo Smith an Australia for animial rights raises awareness that all animals deserve to be free to lead natural lives as ‘’animals have the same right as we do’’some people advice against quoting in your intro but personally I don't see it as a major problem. Smith utilises a firm critical tone when expressing his worry for our ‘’so called farm animals’’, Whilewhile (no capital. just typos I'm guessing) also dismissing the opinion of a certain talk back radio presenter.
The Accompanying visual illustrates the environment that chickens live in and is intended to directly support the opinion piece by raising awareness of the ‘’cruel ways [chickens] lived’’.

The Title ‘’Chickens Range Free’’ immediately introduces the piece which intends to make the specific audience of famersfarmers* =P and general public saying 'specific' and 'general' is such close proximity sounds a bit weird, odd word choice. acknowledge the content within the piece. This piece is also supported by smithSmith* capital letter who is a member of the ‘’Australia for animal rights’’ in which he aims to then give the general public accredited information on this issue. Very clunky sentence sorry. Try breaking it up into two simple sentences rather than trying to over-impress with the big complex sentence.Furthermore by smithSmith* capital letter using a statement made that ‘’some people may think liberation a truck-load of chickens is to drastic a measure’’ it intends to dismiss the opinions of those that are completely unaware of the issue by smithSmith* capital letter directly support the actions of ‘’activists’’ making the community re think their decisions about caged animals? I'm not quite sure what you meant placed up animals.
No need for a new paragraph here Furthermore smith appeals to the general public that ‘’it is important for someone to stand up for the rights of animals’’ this is shown by smithSmith* capital letter to be a critical area as ‘’our’’ animals do not have a voice and therefore rely on humans to protect them.
Okay, so how does dismissing the opinion of those unaware of the issue make the audience feel? Are they inclined to agree with Smith now? Or will some people feel as if they are being treated like idiots?
You said that Farmers were part of the target audience (which I'm not 100% sure on) but how would farmers feel about this

Smith then introduces the media into the opinion piece by exhibiting their bias on the issue by only interviewing ‘’a man nearby’’ who was completed one sided on the issue, by stating ‘’ it’s a wonder nobody got hurt’’. [coloGood, but it should be the one sentence not two =] two =][/color]Which which really asks us the question,:  comma is okay, but colon is better since it demonstrates your ability to use more complex grammar do we really believe someone could have gotten hurt from chickens being free? The only ones that are being hurt are the chickens, not only this but by the radio presenter ‘’sneering’’ ‘’activists’’ actions it shows the majority of us are so uncompassionate for the ‘’rights of animals’’ but so critical about human rights. Despite this, the radio presenter also attacks activist behaviour ruling it ‘’idiotic…anti-social’’ thus smithSmith* capital letter showcases this statement of the radio presenter to further belittle the opposition among to* his AAR membersRemember that Jo Smith is a publicity officer and not (apparently) a member of the AAR although this is implied. The radio presenter then tries?? why the future tense indicator when this even has already happened? to create a jocular atmosphere among his listeners by questioning if they ‘’fancy a free range chicken?’’ which is obviously no ‘’if the public knew the details of how they lived’’, however to ‘’we Australians for animal rights believe that all animals deserve to be free to lead natural lives’’ introduces his members to give the public an understanding that it is not only him that supports the actions of the activists. This sentence is quite long and (no offence!) I got lost trying to read it the first time sorry! The idea is sound, but maybe something like this would have been better for clarity:
The radio presenter's attempt to create a jocular atmosphere by questioning if his listeners "fancy a free range chicken" is quashed by Smith later in his/her piece (still not sure about gender lol) as he/she states that "if the public knew the details of how they [chickens] lived... few would go on eating them." <Even this reworking is a bit clunky sorry, but also tack on some analysis> This rebuttal demonstrates that ________ and readers of Smith's piece are ________ =]
Then, start a new sentence and make your next point, something like:
Smith also makes it apparent that this is not his personal view because he _______ <insert quote> etc etc _____ =]

In addition smithSmith* capital letter continues his critical argument through stating it is ‘’we doing ourselves injustice, we over populated the number of animal species’ and it is ‘’we that treat our so called farm animals in abominably cruel ways’’. (full stop) Um, hmm, your integration of quotes sounds a bit unnatural. For example, for the last one: ... and it is "we ... (use ellipsis maybe) treat our so called..." Through Smith’s* missed the 's', typo I'm guessing repetitious quote of ‘’we’’, Smith aims to push forward the claims that Australia are the reason for this issue and that it is only through raising concern that he hopes to allow ‘’Chickens [to] range Free’’. Nevertheless, Smith strives to raise awareness by comparing Human rights to animal rights to again ensure people acknowledge they are similar to us just without a ‘’voice" close quotation marks. Not only this but smithSmith* capital letter utilises his authority by dismissing the imposed ‘’Antisocial’’ statement on activists. Furthermore through smithSmith* capital letter using irrefutable facts such as ‘’450 square centre metres’’ it intends to make those reading feel emotional especially those concerned around the issue but also sick as they are ‘’unable to move’’ and ‘’without proper ventilation’’ While also fictionally depicting an image of a small cage with chickens forced to lay eggs. I like the explanation of imagery, but you also could have criticised the fact that Smith does not state his/her source. Don't forget to explain the effect on the reader, sympathy? pity? compassion?

Smith further expresses his disproval disapproval* towards the ‘’poor farmer’’ by illustrating ‘’chickens are possibly the most abused animals on the face of the earth’’ intending to make the general public reading feel sympathetic towards ‘’our so called farm animals’’. Full stop, new sentence. This this is then supported by smith’sSmith's* disgusted tone when describing the facts behind how they ‘’lived and died. Few would go on eating them’’. Thus smithSmith* capital letter intends to elicit an emotional response Describe this emotion. what is it? Analysis is solid, but specifics like the exact emotion elicited in readers is what most examiners are looking for. from the public to gain as much support on this controversial issue. In addition smith’sSmith's* article is accredited by ‘’philosopher Jeremy Bentham’’ to provide the community with information that is formally irrefutable. Bentham progresses by questioning readers, ‘’can they speak? [NO], but can they suffer?[yes]" close quotation marks. I question your use of [ ] here, through the lower case pPhilosopher’s evidences singular it gives the general readers public? the ability to re-think previous arguments of the ‘’radio presenter’’ and biased witness. Furthermore Bentham concludes his supporting argument through imply ‘’[animals] have rights that should be respected’’ but he also ends by stating if ‘’we respected animals it may result in us ‘’better understanding human rights’’ which smithSmith* capital letter intends on showing that the majority is selfish. How do readers react? Do they like being called "selfish"?

Smith then also concludes his arduous opinion by implying until a ‘’human humane*** please don't quote wrongly, hope this is just a typo an you know the difference between "human" and "humane" alternative can be found’’ chickens will be continuously released where is this alluded to? quote? which smithSmith* capital letter intends on implicating that ‘’breaking the law’’ to free these creatures has a justified means as evident ‘’ the end definitely justified the means’’ showcasing the AAR members as fighters for freedom, which signifies smith’sSmith's* compassion towards the issue and therefore aims to influence the reader to do so too.
Supporting Smith’s* missed the 's' opinion, the accompanying 3 large chickens illustrates ‘’being trapped’’ which makes the community reading and ‘’poor farmers’’ reconsider their bias on the issue at hand. Moreover the chicken appearing to escape odd word choice. "push" would have been better suited his/her head from the cage highlights the ‘’inhuman condition’’ they have ‘’lived and died [in]’’ Through this reminder? reminder ? It's at the very top of the piece, not at the bottom, Smith intends on pushing forward his main contention by illustrating  ‘’animals deserver to lead a natural life’’ and therefore not only ‘’should be respected’ but able to ‘’range free’’. good =]

Both the opinion piece and accompanying image aligned with smith’ Smith's * argument support the notion that ‘’Chickens [should] Range Free’’. Whilst the article does this through the use of smith’ Smith's * critical tone to persuade the reader by exemplifying the factors around this controversial issue, the image also achieves this through highlighting the terrible conditions our animals live in, however this issue is set to spark further debate as the means are seen by some to be ‘’idiotic and anti-social’’. Audience? Structure?




THANK YOU.

Things you might want to work on:
1. Capital letters ~ at first I though maybe you were in a rush and forgot to capitalise stuff but when I only saw Smith capitalised properly like twice maybe something more than a typo? sorry if it is a typo, don't mean to be picky but grammar is important
2. Sentence structure ~ some awkward unwieldy sentences sorry! Try varying your sentences up a bit and use simple sentences if it's a really important point
3. Audience ~ you always refer to the target audience as "the general public". Maybe a bit more specific? You mentioned farmers, but never went on to explain how farmers would react to this piece
4. Effect on audience ~ your analysis is good, you explain within the context of the piece not just defining techniques but in some places (I've pointed out) you've forgotten to state the effect
5. No worries mate, good luck with English =D If you don't agree with any of my suggestions just let me know, and sorry if I was too harsh anywhere!

[e^1]

Thought I would add another LA here, it's been checked by someone else but would like to hear what others think.


Smoking article


The increasing awareness of the harms of smoking have introduced laws in an attempt to mitigate its effects on others in society. In The Daily Messenger’s editorial “Time for the Very Last Puff” (3rd of July, 2007), the editor asserts that smoking should be prohibited throughout the state, using a pejorative tone to disparage tobacco companies. Further supporting such sentiment is an image from Andrew De La Rue, which depicts cigarettes placed disorderly in the sand, which possibly implies environment harm to readers. As a result of its generally unsophisticated language, the article may attract the general public and smokers, which may in turn incite further debate, including how to effectively reduce the incidence of smoking.

Initially, the editor attempts to besmirch the smoking companies and smokers as inconsiderate. In one instance, the phrase “face of fury” has been added to belittle smokers as irate and unfriendly. In consequence, the readers – especially non-smokers – could feel alienated towards them as it paints a picture of their angered visage. Augmenting such perception is the contrast between patients who “die inside hospitals”, compared to staff who “freely light up outside”. Such represents staff as uncaring and callous, as the audience may also envisage patients in agony due to smoking. Consequently, readers could feel inclined to condemn smokers as selfish, or concerned for the patients’ wellbeing. While in one aspect the editor reprimands the smokers for their insensitivity, smoking factories’ are also rebuked for being “futile” and “tricky” in their campaigns. Specifically, “tricky” suggests that they have been manipulative, while “futile” hints their powerlessness against the government. Subsequently, such may elicit a sense of contempt as companies are seen as deceptive.

Further compounding smoking as of negative impact, the editor uses descriptive language to encourage readers to visually see them in such a way. In one depiction, ashtrays are delineated as being filled “crazily” in the hospital. As the editor has previously made the connection between patients and smoking staff, the word “crazily” implies that such a problem will only exacerbate. In consequence, readers could be most inclined to reject smoking in society. Compounding such description, the editor particularly makes parallels between smoking and “strange flowers” and “poisonous mushrooms”.  Demonstrating that smoking is an illegal drug, for “strange flowers” and “poisonous mushrooms” are related to illegal drug use, audiences are potentially left fearful of the harmful effects it can have. Aggrandising such repulsion is that the human mouths are “sucking on those deadly things!” The exclamation mark, which underlines the smoking as “deadly”, and yet is been sucked on may also cajole readers to feel greatly distasteful about smoking. Particularly, smokers could also feel ashamed and ridiculed that such harm placed on their bodies are similar to health damages caused by illicit drugs. On another aspect, the editor denigrates those who smoke near others as being of “assault”. While smokers may feel contrite for their actions, others could feel aggravated that harm is similar to “assault”, for the word implies harm to which they did not deserve. Similarly, the “war on the weed” made analogous to the communities plan to reduce smoking rates magnifies the gravity and impacts which may “ruin” the lives of young people. This may elicit inclusion and concern to the younger citizens of society, who are also seen as the future generation. Consequently, the readership feel fear and are urged -- as a community -- to take action in order to avoid harm towards them. After establishing the image of ash-trays as malevolent, the editor takes this to his advantage by finally stating that they “must fight bravely to consign smoking to the ashtray of history”. This has been added by the editor to directly emphasise the importance of the audience against smoking. As such, the inclusion may encourage readers to act.

Accompanied with the article is an image, which visually aims to vitiate smoking as to elicit averseness among readers. Represented as cigarettes spontaneously placed in an area of sand, some cigarettes are shaped as crumbled or fragmented. Readers may hence feel repugnant and interpret cigarettes as only causing regression towards both society and the environment. Further underlining such notion are the surrounding black shades in its background, revealing its malicious nature and compounded with the sand, could provoke an image of the present environment which is being gradually consumed by the multiplication of cigarettes to a state where it is both desolate and lifeless. Such provocation is caused by the connotations of the colour black, which relates to corruption and wickedness, and the surfeit amount of sand in the background, which may suggest a desert – an environment which is ostensibly incompatible with human life. Consequently, readers are possibly influenced to fear the future harms cigarettes could cause. Such sentiment may also be intensified by the black-and-white colour of the image, implying a lack of vibrancy for which the environment is attributed with.

Both the editorial from The Daily Messenger and the supplemented image from Andrew De La Rue support the idea that smoking should be arrantly banned. In a condemning tone towards the smokers and cigarette companies, the editor makes connections between smoking and those of greater magnitude to censure them as thoughtless. Moreover, the editor also encourages the readership to take action after such criticism. Similarly, the image portrays cigarettes as a polluting factor towards the environment and the society. Ultimately, non-smokers could feel irritated that their health and the health system are being debased by smokers and hence feel to take action. Conversely, smokers may experience a sense of remorse and uncomfortableness as they are attacked throughout the article. If this issue is not addressed soon enough, smoking could be left to further afflict the health of future generations.


Article links:
http://i.imgur.com/c0IoQBl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qg98cxp.jpg