[English] Language Analysis - Special Religious Instruction in schools

[palladium]

Hi guys!

I was really hesitant in posting this, but since it's the holidays and I'm not likely to get feedback from my teacher anytime soon, I thought why not. To be honest I'm really embarrassed about this essay and I have no idea if I'm going into enough depth or if I'm just retelling what the authors are saying and not analysing it properly... so I would be so so grateful for any help/feedback you might have to offer

(hey, if worse comes to worst... at least you'll feel better about your own writing )

The issue is Special Religious Instruction (SRI) in primary schools, and the articles are these:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/children-do-not-deserve-this-kind-of-religious-instruction-20140222-3391k.html (there was a small image with this in the printed newspaper but just ignore where I've talked about it)
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/religious-educators-in-schools-should-not-be-misleading-children-20140224-33cxv.html (in this one, it was titled 'Religious education a dinosaur for children' in print, so that's what I've used in my essay)

This essay is too long (I didn't do it with time constraints) but I'd just like constructive criticism on my analysis even any short comment would be great. So thank you in advance!

Special Religious Instruction  – The Age, February 2014

The presence of special religious instruction (SRI) classes in secular public education has recently become a source of furious debate, especially following the distribution of controversial religious material at Torquay College. In response, two pieces published in The Age in February 2014 discuss the demerits of such an arrangement. Published on the 23rd, an accusatory and informative editorial ‘Children do not deserve this kind of faith’ argues that SRI is detrimental to a child’s emotional and moral development. Similarly, Dee Broughton’s opinion piece, published on the 25th and titled ‘Religious education a dinosaur for children’, adopts a matter-of-fact, and, at times, scathing tone to denigrate the value of SRI, contending that the material taught is outdated and contradicts modern knowledge. Both pieces address a target audience of parents, teachers, principals and other individuals involved in the public education system.

Throughout the editorial, the reader is continually prompted to question and criticise the Catholic religion. The headline proclaims that ‘children do not deserve this kind of faith’, implying that religious education is detrimental to the development of children. As children are often viewed as the most vulnerable and impressionable members of society, the reader are compelled to fight for their rights and protect them from any harm which may result from the mentioned ‘faith’. Therefore in effect, the reader would be likely to reject it, which would ostensibly be for the good of the children. Accompanying the article is a small image, cropped to two hands clasping a Bible behind an individual. This outdated posture not only represents the anachronism of widespread religious education in modern times, but also highlights Catholicism’s strict central focus on rites and tradition, suggesting that nothing else is important. Such an apparently narrow emphasis is not likely to be received well by the reader, who would instead be more open to the ideas expressed in the editorial.

In labelling a Christian code of conduct as ‘questionable’, the editorial undermines the faith, suggesting that it is lacking logic and reason. This is further reinforced by describing it as being ‘peddled’, which indicates repetitive, soliciting behaviour.  The subsequent characterisation of the Catholic religion as ‘zealotry’ coerces the reader to reject its practice, as ‘zealotry’ carries negative connotations of excessive fanaticism, which is generally frowned upon and viewed as mental instability. As a result, the reader is positioned to be wary of the Catholic faith, and would be not be likely to be in support of it. In addition, by characterising ‘grade six pupils as Torquay College’ as ‘targets’, the reader is led to feel anger at the alleged perpetrators in victimising the children. However, in order to appear rational and open-minded, the editorial stops short at explicitly criticising the Catholic faith itself. Instead, the ‘manner of its delivery and the content of its message’ are specifically ridiculed and described as ‘fundamentalist claptrap’ and ‘blinkered and ‘prejudiced’. These words indicate strong disapproval and leave no room for doubt that it is anything else. Having highlighted its seeming absurdity, the reader is encouraged to believe the views expressed in the editorial, especially after it has seemingly established its objectivity in not completely dismissing the Catholic faith itself. Despite this, its condemnation of religious education throughout the piece is apparent.

The editorial then shifts to a relatively more constrained, informative tone in discussing evidence and statistics for its allegations. An inserted excerpt from Refuel 2 provides an example of what can be found in such ‘biblezines’. It is intended to reinforce the credibility of the editorial by presenting concrete evidence of the matter it is discussing, and also serves to highlight the discriminatory and controversial nature of such publications. Due to its backwards views of sexism and homosexuality – for example, ‘the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin… you need to find a trusted counsellor to talk about this’ – the reader may be inclined to feel disgust and distaste for the ideals that the biblezine promotes. It is suggested that this is the view of all such publications. Thus, the reader is likely to reject them entirely, regardless of its other content. Following this, it is emphasised that ‘hundreds of principals in primary schools had stopped weekly religious education classes’. It is implied that they are doing the right thing and the reader is led to question why more schools have not done so, especially as ‘the number of schools delivering [such] classes had dropped from 940 to 666’ in the past two years. This significant decrease in such a short period of time serves to assure the reader that the editorial must be making a substantial point if it is backed by such statistics. On the other hand, it is stated that Access Ministries had ‘denie[d] the decline’. This purportedly allows the editorial to provide another perspective on this issue; however, its deliberate and obvious distancing of itself from that information subtly raises doubts about its accuracy.

The editorial insistently states that ‘pupils are [at school] to learn, not to be converted’. Such a direct and palpable statement is intended to clear any remaining doubts and invite agreement amongst parents and teachers. By quoting Joe Kelly of Cranbourne South Primary School – in particular, in saying that SRI has ‘no value whatsoever’ – the editorial aims to provide a real-life example of a respected individual in the community courageously standing up for what the editorial believes is right. The reader is encouraged to join Kelly in taking a stand – by disagreeing, the reader is implying that they support the ‘rubbish’ and ‘hollow and empty rhetoric’ that SRI is painted as. This drastic exaggeration is anticipated to be taken seriously. As it is later declared that ‘young minds are impressionable minds’, the reader may be compelled to prevent the children’s exposure to material of such poor quality. Instead, a schoolchild should have a right to instruction of ‘educational benefit and value’. However, in order to maintain its diplomacy, the editorial concludes by asserting the right of ‘the deliverers of… Refuel 2’ to religious freedom, but definitively reiterates that religious education ‘have no place in or near a schoolyard’.

In a similar vein to the editorial, Broughton’s opinion piece denigrates the importance of SRI in public primary education. Broughton stresses that material taught in SRI classes contradict with what is taught in mainstream education. She introduces this idea in the headline, proclaiming that ‘religious education [is] a dinosaur for children’. The implication is that religious education is an anachronism; similar to dinosaurs, it has no place in the modern world and should thus remain in the past. In addition, the term ‘dinosaur’ also refers to the anecdote with which Broughton regales the reader at the beginning of the piece. In a conversational tone, she recounts a conversation ‘at the dinner table’ – a seemingly harmless occasion with little cause for worry. However, Broughton describes her son speaking about his SRI teacher stating that there was ‘no such thing as dinosaurs’. Such an obviously inaccurate statement is likely to be seen as outrageous by the reader, who would immediately be inclined to view ‘Mrs Smith’ with distrust and suspicion. Broughton’s subsequent exclamation of ‘what?’ is intended to encourage and reinforce this disbelief. The aftermath – ‘a long, very complicated discussion’ with her son – illustrates the ramifications of ‘Mrs Smith’s’ inappropriate actions. In highlighting her son’s ‘confusion’, Broughton encourages the reader to sympathise with him. The reader is led to feel a sense of pity for the young child who has had such erroneous information forced upon him. No compromise is shown as Broughton declares ‘Mrs Smith’s’ conduct as ‘unpalatable and unacceptable’. It is assumed that the reader is in agreement, and they are prompted to similarly disapprove.

Broughton then argues that SRI classes cannot be mandated or checked for appropriateness. Earnestly and in a straightforward manner, she discloses a ‘quiet word’ with the principal of her son’s school, whereupon she explains that the principal was ‘very supportive’ of her withdrawal of her son from those classes, but had ‘little control over what was taught in those classes’. In doing so, Broughton immediately absolves the regular school staff from responsibility, and instead pins all blame onto the ‘lay people volunteers’. The term ‘lay people volunteers’ suggests a lack of professionalism and training, leading readers to question their credentials in teaching impressionable children. Broughton attempts to include all parents in her opinion by asserting that ‘many more’ parents would opt out if ‘they knew more about what the students are taught and by whom’. This wary and accusatory statement highlights Broughton’s suspicion towards SRI and the reader is encouraged to share the viewpoint. However, Broughton does not seek to marginalise or undermine all those with a religious faith. She endeavours to placate those individuals by stating that ‘looking at opposing views’ allows children to ‘question and understand’. By appearing open-minded, accepting and diplomatic, she contrasts herself with ’Mrs Smith’, who seems to offer her own particular view as the ‘historical truth’. The reader is encouraged to support her opinions in lieu of ‘Mrs Smith’s’. Broughton also refers to the quoted ‘oversight’ of Access Ministries distributing ‘inappropriate and offensive material’ as an example of the difficulty in moderating SRI classes. As most individuals would feel that children should not be subjected to such material in any circumstances, it is implied that the best solution would be to cease these classes immediately.

Broughton concludes her piece by enunciating that ‘religious education has no place in secular education’. Such a forceful, decisive statement is difficult to contradict or misunderstand. Following this, she mollifies parents who would want a religious education for their child by encouraging them to enrol in ‘fine’ schools which have ‘structured, approved and appropriate’ religious education courses, taught by ‘professional educators’. Thus, Brought clarifies that it is not religious education courses in general that she condemns, but specifically the SRI classes taught in public schools. In mentioning the ‘professional educators’ who teach those classes, Broughton contrasts them with the ‘volunteers’ who teach the SRI classes. It is implied that the ‘professional educators’ are able to provide a more superior learning experience. Lastly, Broughton suggests a traditional solution of ‘church on Sundays’ for those who want their child to attend a public school but still learn religious values. Broughton has seemed to provide a solution for every parent, thus it is inferred that SRI classes are not a necessity. Instead, as stated in an earlier paragraph, the extra time that the schoolchildren gain would be beneficial to them in light of their ‘packed’ day.

These two pieces share a similar contention in supporting the abolishment of SRI classes. The editorial provides seemingly rational but subtly accusatory viewpoint which may marginalise the religious due to the contrasting beliefs, whereas Broughton’s opinion piece utilises personal experience and opinion to substantiate her claims. This is likely to appeal to other parents in similar circumstances; however to the general audience it may appear to be subjective and one-sided.

[arandomu]

The presence of special religious instruction (SRI) classes in secular public education has recently become a source of furious debate, especially following the distribution of controversial religious material at Torquay College. In response, two pieces published in The Age in February 2014 discuss the demerits of such an arrangement. Published on the 23rd, an accusatory and informative editorial ‘Children do not deserve this kind of faith’ argues that SRI is detrimental to a child’s emotional and moral development. Similarly, Dee Broughton’s opinion piece, published on the 25th and titled ‘Religious education a dinosaur for children’, adopts a matter-of-fact, and, at times, scathing tone to denigrate the value of SRI, contending that the material taught is outdated and contradicts modern knowledge. Both pieces address a target audience of parents, teachers, principals and other individuals involved in the public education system. Good

Throughout the editorial, the reader is continually prompted to question and criticise the Catholic religion. The headline proclaims that ‘children do not deserve this kind of faith’, implying that religious education is detrimental to the development of children. As children are often viewed as the most vulnerable and impressionable members of society, the reader are is compelled to fight for their rights and protect them from any harm which may result from the mentioned ‘faith’. Therefore in effect, the reader would be likely to reject it, which would ostensibly be for the good of the children.Needs phrasing work. What is the reader likely to reject? How does it make them think it is good for the children (just be brief with stating that)? Accompanying the article is a small image, cropped to two hands clasping a Bible behind an individual. This outdated posture not only represents the anachronism of widespread religious education in modern times, but also highlights Catholicism’s strict central focus on rites and tradition, suggesting that nothing else is important. Such an apparently narrow emphasis is not likely to be received well by the reader, who would instead be more open to the ideas expressed in the editorial.

In labelling a Christian code of conduct as ‘questionable’, the editorial undermines the faith, suggesting that it is lacking logic and reason. This is further reinforced by describing it as being ‘peddled’, which indicates repetitive, soliciting behaviour.  The subsequent characterisation of the Catholic religion as ‘zealotry’ coerces the reader to reject its practice, as ‘zealotry’ carries negative connotations of excessive fanaticism, which is generally frowned upon and viewed as mental instability.State how the writer attributes a lot of negative connotations to the characteristics of christianity, the effect of each, and the cumulative effect on the reader. As a result, the reader is positioned to be wary of the Catholic faith, and would be not be likely to be in support of it. In addition, by characterising ‘grade six pupils as Torquay College’ as ‘targets’, the reader is led to feel anger at the alleged perpetrators in victimising the children. However, in order to appear rational and open-minded, the editorial the writer stops short at explicitly criticising the Catholic faith itself. Instead, the ‘manner of its delivery and the content of its message’ are specifically ridiculed and described as ‘fundamentalist claptrap’ and ‘blinkered and ‘prejudiced’. These words indicate strong disapproval and leave no room for doubt that it is anything else. Having highlighted its seeming absurdity, the reader is encouraged to believe the views expressed in the editorial, especially after it has seemingly established its objectivity in not completely dismissing the Catholic faith itself. Despite this, its condemnation of religious education throughout the piece is apparent.

The editorial then shifts to a relatively more constrained, informative tone in discussing evidence and statistics for its allegations. An inserted excerpt from Refuel 2 provides an example of what can be found in such ‘biblezines’. It is intended to reinforce the credibility of the editorial by presenting concrete evidence of the matter it is discussing, and also serves to highlight the discriminatory and controversial nature of such publications. Due to itstoo vague backwards views of sexism and homosexualityTry not to put your own opinion in it, maybe describe it as "The writer highlights the political incorrectness of such views in..." – for exampleavoid using "for example" , ‘the Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin… you need to find a trusted counsellor to talk about this’ – the reader may be inclined to feel disgust and distaste for the ideals that the biblezine promotes Rephrase. Something like "by highlighting how the bible portrays homosexuality as a sin, and the insinuation towards children that that people with "gay feelings" should "find a trusted councilor"... . It is suggested that this is the view of all such publications. Thus, and therefore,the reader is likely to reject them entirely, regardless of its other content. Following this, it is emphasised that ‘hundreds of principals in primary schools had stopped weekly religious education classes’. It is implied that they are doing the right thing and the reader is led to question why more schools have not done so, especially as ‘the number of schools delivering [such] classes had dropped from 940 to 666’ in the past two years. rephrase This significant decrease in such a short period of time serves to assure the reader that the editorial must be making a substantial point if it is backed by such statistics. On the other hand, it is stated that Access Ministries had ‘denie[d] the decline’. This purportedly allows the editorial to provide another perspective on this issue; however, its deliberate and obvious distancing of itself from that information subtly raises doubts about its accuracy.

The editorial insistently states that ‘pupils are [at school] to learn, not to be converted’. Such a direct and palpable statement is intended to clear any remaining doubts and invite agreement amongst parents and teachers.sounds like your own opinion. Perhaps say "implying to parents that the purpose of schooling is for education rather than religious indoctrination. By quoting Joe Kelly of Cranbourne South Primary School – in particular, in saying that SRI has ‘no value whatsoever’ – the editorial aims to provide a real-life example of a respected individual in the community courageously standing up for what the editorial believes is right . The reader is encouraged to join Kelly in taking a stand – by disagreeing, the reader is implying that they support the ‘rubbish’ and ‘hollow and empty rhetoric’ that SRI is painted as. This drastic exaggeration is anticipated to be taken seriously. As it is later declared that ‘young minds are impressionable minds’, the reader may be compelled to prevent the children’s exposure to material of such poor quality. Instead, a schoolchild should have a right to instruction of ‘educational benefit and value’. However, in order to maintain its diplomacy, the editorial concludes by asserting the right of ‘the deliverers of… Refuel 2’ to religious freedom, but definitively reiterates that religious education ‘have no place in or near a schoolyard’.

In a similar vein to the editorial, Broughton’s opinion piece denigrates there is a better word for thisthe importance of SRI in public primary education. Broughton stresses that material taught in SRI classes contradict with what is taught in mainstream education. She introduces this idea in the headline, proclaiming that ‘religious education [is] a dinosaur for children’. The implication is that religious education is an anachronism; similar to dinosaurs, it has no place in the modern world and should thus remain in the past. In addition, the term ‘dinosaur’ also refers to the anecdote with which Broughton regales the reader at the beginning of the piece. You can make this more brief, and also talk more about effect on reader. In a conversational tone, she recounts a conversation ‘at the dinner table’ – a seemingly harmless occasion with little cause for worry. However, Broughton describes her son speaking about his SRI teacher stating that there was ‘no such thing as dinosaurs’. Such an obviously inaccurate statement is likely to be seenRephrase, sounds like an opinion. as outrageous by the reader, who would immediately be inclined to view ‘Mrs Smith’ with distrust and suspicion. Broughton’s subsequent exclamation of ‘what?’ is intended to encourage and reinforce this disbelief. The aftermath – ‘a long, very complicated discussion’ with her son – illustrates the ramifications of ‘Mrs Smith’s’ inappropriate actions. In highlighting her son’s ‘confusion’, Broughton encourages the reader to sympathise with him You said "her son", but then referred to the writer as "him". Pick one  . The reader is led to feel a sense of pity for the young child who has had such erroneous information forced upon him. No compromise is shown as Broughton declares ‘Mrs Smith’s’ conduct as ‘unpalatable and unacceptable’. It is assumed that the reader is in agreement, and they are prompted to similarly disapprove.

Broughton then argues that SRI classes cannot be mandated or checked for appropriateness. Earnestly and in a straightforward manner, she discloses a ‘quiet word’ with the principal of her son’s school, whereupon she explains that the principal was ‘very supportive’ of her withdrawal of her son from those classes, but had ‘little control over what was taught in those classes’. In doing so, Broughton immediately absolves the regular school staff from responsibility, and instead pins all blame onto the ‘lay people volunteers’. The term ‘lay people volunteers’ suggests a lack of professionalism and training, leading readers to question their credentials in teaching impressionable children. Broughton attempts to include all parents in her opinion by asserting that ‘many more’ parents would opt out if ‘they knew more about what the students are taught and by whom’. You can make this much more brief.This wary and accusatory statement highlights Broughton’s suspicion towards SRI and the reader is encouraged to share the viewpoint. However, Broughton does not seek to marginalise or undermine all those with a religious faith. She endeavours to placate those individuals by stating that ‘looking at opposing views’ allows children to ‘question and understand’. By appearing open-minded, accepting and diplomatic, she contrasts herself with ’Mrs Smith’, who seems to offer her own particular view as the ‘historical truth’. The reader is encouraged to support her opinions in lieu of ‘Mrs Smith’s’. Broughton also refers to the quoted ‘oversight’ of Access Ministries distributing ‘inappropriate and offensive material’ as an example of the difficulty in moderating SRI classes. As most individuals would feel that children should not be subjected to such material in any circumstances, it is implied that the best solution would be to cease these classes immediately.

Broughton concludes her piece by enunciating that ‘religious education has no place in secular education’. Such a forceful, decisive statement is difficult to contradict or misunderstand. Following this, she mollifies parents who would want a religious education for their child by encouraging them to enrol in ‘fine’ schools which have ‘structured, approved and appropriate’ religious education courses, taught by ‘professional educators’. Thus, Brought clarifies that it is not religious education courses in general that she condemns, but specifically the SRI classes taught in public schools. In mentioning the ‘professional educators’ who teach those classes, Broughton contrasts them with the ‘volunteers’ who teach the SRI classes. It is implied that the ‘professional educators’ are able to provide a more superior learning experience. Lastly, Broughton suggests a traditional solution of ‘church on Sundays’ for those who want their child to attend a public school but still learn religious values. Broughton has seemed to provide a solution for every parent, thus it is inferred that SRI classes are not a necessity. Instead, as stated in an earlier paragraph, the extra time that the schoolchildren gain would be beneficial to them in light of their ‘packed’ day.

These two pieces share a similar contention in supporting the abolishment of SRI classes. The editorial provides seemingly rational but subtly accusatory viewpoint which may marginalise the religious due to the contrasting beliefs, whereas Broughton’s opinion piece utilises personal experience and opinion to substantiate her claims. This is likely to appeal to other parents in similar circumstances; however to the general audience it may appear to be subjective and one-sided.

Overall, I think you need to work on your phrasing. I didn't mark out every part that needed work as I have to get up earlier tomorrow (Friday morning, uni life  ), so go through your analysis again. A good tip to improve your phrasing is to read your writing aloud, then see if that makes sense to you. Also, be more brief, there were many areas where you could have simplified what you were saying. It is good that you try to go into detail, but you must learn to write concisely if you want to write down what you need to write in SACs and in the English exam.
When describing what happens in an article, keep it to one sentence, you are describing a bit too much and not analyzing too much
Try not to make a description of something in the article sound like an opinion.
Good job, just try polish it up. If you have your teacher's email, I advise staying in contact with him/her and refining the essay over the holidays, or constantly writing new essays and trying to incorporate your teachers advice. Remember this is only term 1, so please relax.

[palladium]

Thank you arandomu!! Your marking's very much appreciated, oh if I could give you the box of chocolates sitting beside me rn (studying = dubious food choices) I totally would, but I guess I have to settle on upvoting you. Yeah I also think that my phrasing/expression's something I need to work on, as well as the other points you mentioned, I'll definitely try to put them into practice. Thanks for marking this even though you had uni the next morning! Your insights are invaluable to me

[arandomu]

No worries, good luck in VCE 
If you have any questions regarding this piece feel free to ask in this thread

[yang_dong]

Hi, can you please help me too?
It's also on language analysis:
I was wondering,
in the sentence: ‘dismantle[d] the Howard government’s hard-won border protection’ policies, in effect ‘turbocharged the people smuggling racket and lured asylum seekers…with the promise of open borders’.

I’m not quite sure how is the word 'hard - won' used? How does it effect the readers? It seems like it’s a deliberate choice by the writer so do something… Doesn't it give you a sense that Left are doing things wrong? it was with much effort that the Right is protecting us with this policy  (appeal to safety) and for Left to dismantle it... waste of effort...

and i was also wondering:
‘the opportunistic bleeding hearts who have been parading with their compassion all week’

How would i phrase this cause i want to say how by using the word 'parading' to describe how the Left are expressing their compassion, you wouldn't really associate 'parading' with compassion, cause its not like a happy occasion that should be celebrated? and thus readers feel... not sure how it would impact on readers... feels like the Left are not taking the issue seriously...

Thank you

[arandomu]

It depends on the context in terms of finding the reader. It can mean that it was gained through great effort, but it could also mean it faced lots of opposition.
It could show how hard the government fought to get the policies through.

Don't refer to political parties by their place on the political spectrum (left, right wing), just say the "Labor party", "Liberal Party", "Greens" ect.

Looking at the phrase ‘the opportunistic bleeding hearts who have been parading with their compassion all week’ shows opposition to the "bleeding hearts", basically the writer is stating that they're going around and trying to change policies because they hurt their feelings, under the label of "compassion" (ie. "If you don't agree with us you have no compassion".
Basically he is making a mockery of the opposition for opposing the Howard's government policies.
If you want more information, I advise you to make your own thread with the article and the language analysis piece you want help on, or if you don't want others seeing your piece you may send me an inbox and I'll try look at it when I have time.

[palladium]

Hi arandomu (or anyone reading this), I just have two quick questions if that's okay:

1. What should be included in a conclusion? I've heard some people say summary of contention, tone, techniques used, and audience, while other people say to write two sentences max just describing the issue and articles. One teacher at my school even teaches his students not to have a conclusion

2. With an analysis of 2 articles, would separate analyses for the articles seem like it was just 2 language analysis essays stuck together, and if so, is that acceptable? Sorry for my lack of articulation haha, I hope that makes sense :$

Thanks in advance!!

[arandomu]

1. Firstly, you should always have a conclusion, a teacher recommending against a conclusion is unusual. There is no set structure for a conclusion for language analysis, but what I did was highlight the contention, and if there is an image, see if it agrees and disagrees with the article, and how. I then talk about, in an overall approach, how the article(s), and image(s) persuade the reader, and how it intends to make them respond.. Although it's best to follow your teacher's advice for now, as your teacher is the one marking your sacs, and then develop your own style as you get more experience.

2. With an analysis of multiple articles, what I did was just mention both articles and compare contentions in the introduction, but then in the body paragraphs I would just write about each article individually. So I would allocate an introduction to both, then the first and second paragraph to article 1, and the second and third paragraph to article 2. If there was a third article. which is quite rare, I would probably just try to write 6 paragraphs, keeping everything concise, or if I felt like I'd be short of time, one paragraph per article, just highlighting the significant devices and their effects. In the conclusion I would talk about the overall effect of each article, and what is the same or different, and just re-emphasize overall tone and techniques of the article, as well as mention which article the image supports, and if it didn't, why it didn't support the articles.