The increasing awareness of the harms of smoking have introduced laws in an attempt to mitigate its effects on
others in non-smokers throughout 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
ly tone to disparag
eing tobacco companies.
intro seems very short, a couple more of the sub arguments that the author uses might be nice in here. Further supporting such sentimentOr even complementing? is an image from Andrew De La Rue, which depicts cigarettes placed disorderly in the sand, which
possibly implies (sound too unsure of yourself here haha ) implying 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. Mention who the author targets - they've specifically tried to aim it towards a group! 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
how? Also, connotations of words? . In consequence, the readers – especially non-smokers –
avoid using dashes in this way, it forces the reader to pause when reading your essay and screws up your expression! could feel alienated towards them as it paints a picture of their angered visage
how does this make them feel alienated though? . 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
how?, as the audience may also envisage patients in agony due to smoking.
what is the effect of this?? Consequently, readers could feel inclined to condemn smokers as selfish,
because.... or concerned for the patients’ wellbeing
again, what is it that causes this?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,
how? why does the author do this? how does it make the reader \feel?? while “futile” hints their powerlessness against the government
how? . Subsequently, such may elicit a sense of contempt as companies are seen as deceptive.
Further
compounding smoking as of negative impactweird phrasing , the editor uses
descriptive language unnecessary, quote what you're talking about! 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”
connotations? effect on reader? how is that effect created? why does author do this? implies that such a problem will only exacerbate
how is this implied? . In consequence, readers could be most inclined to reject smoking in society
mm, why/how? . 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.
is that the only effect it ha\s? associating something with something illegal is pretty dodgy, kind of incriminates it in a way. Elaborate a bit. Aggrandising such repulsion is that the human mouths are “sucking on those deadly things!” The exclamation mark, which underlines the smoking as “deadly”,
what is the effect of deadly though? Exclamation marks - pretty shallow analysis. Connotations? Effect on reader of "deadly" ?? and yet is
been being sucked on may also cajole readers to feel greatly distasteful about smoking
how is this achieved specifically using the language? . 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, furthermore/moreover 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
Almost implies a violation of rights. How would this make the reader feel? You need to analyse this word a bit deeper! . 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
how? prove it , who are also seen as the future generation. Consequently, the readership feel fear and are urged -- as a community --
pleeeeeeeeeeeease avoid using dashes in the future, reword your sentences so that they aren't necessary and your expression will come off way more beast! to take action in order to avoid harm towards them.
why/how? 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”.
You need to make sure that if you're quoting it's because you're going to explain the effect of a word on a reader - that's the main purpose of your essay! This has been added by the editor to directly emphasise the importance of the
issue?? audience against smoking. As such, the inclusion may encourage readers to act.
I think the last bit is maybe unecessary, might be a nice ending sentence but it doesnt really add anything to your analysis - your job is to say how the reader will feel in response to what the author has intentionally done - but not necessarily how they will act in future. I tend to avoid sentences like these personally, I think they're a bit irrelevant to the article analysis. 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
why is this a problem, and how does this position readers to view cigarettes . Further underlining such notion are the surrounding black shades in its background, revealing
its the malicious nature
of "x" (this screwed up your sentence a bit hahaha reword it 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 c
onnotations I like the analysis of the image here, but connotations are in relation to what you think/feel ect when you hear a word only not an image. Maybe just mention something like it is implied? I like this tho good job! 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
how? to what? effect? . 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.
I want you to pick out language from the article that directly supports what you're saying here and analyse it with your analysis of the image, will make it a much stronger paragraph!!! (Also you want to be able to write a bit more than this on the image (but quoting lang. in here will help that) - the image is really important! 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 The editor condemns smokers and cigarette companies,
the editor makes making 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.
The sentences in here are all very short and choppy and start with words like "moreover" and "similarly" - it breaks the flow of it. Slightly longer sentences with a different starting structure will fix this problem!