Weekly Letter-to-the-Editor LA Practise Club!

[TheAspiringDoc]

 Hey,
Sorry I'm yet to post. 
Anyways, I was just wondering, in a lot of the feedback a common theme has been "don't be writing unnecessarily long and wordy sentences".
So I get that it flows much nicer I you don't but the reason I do it is because I'm always short of ideas of what to write, so I kind of dawdle.. How to combat this?
Thanks 

[heids]

Hey,
Sorry I'm yet to post. 
Anyways, I was just wondering, in a lot of the feedback a common theme has been "don't be writing unnecessarily long and wordy sentences".
So I get that it flows much nicer I you don't but the reason I do it is because I'm always short of ideas of what to write, so I kind of dawdle.. How to combat this?
Thanks 

If you want to know how to be more concise, I really recommend reading the four articles here.  Then take one of your pieces, and make a challenge of trying to cut down the word count as much as is humanly possible, using those tips and your own ideas, while still keeping the same content (remember to glue multiple stripped short sentences together).  It's fun, and after a couple of times you find yourself putting the ideas into practise in your writing normally.  Be very aware and ready to cross out words or even sentences in your writing at all times.

Yes, it can boil down a decently-padded paragraph into a woefully spindly three-sentence horror.  The good of that is that it seriously forces you to come up with more ideas if you want to deliver a passable essay.  If your issue is not having enough ideas, well... spend time searching out more ideas.  (if you care about that in year 9 lol)  Keep asking specific questions about the topic or piece you're analysing, 'why does the author do this', 'is this true in every case', 'why do I feel like this', etc.  Get feedback on where you could have expanded and what sorts of questions you could have asked to spark more ideas.  Just keep practising twisting your mind into English-nerdiness and it'll gradually come naturally.

[vcelife]

Well here goes this is my piece for week 3 (you would of though it would get easier but this is still terrifying ah well!)

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor published in an American newspaper, the author condemns the brutality of the public’s support of the death penalty, and thus appeals to the readers pity seeking to argue that the death penalty is abhorrent and barbaric and thus should be abolished.
The author seeks to shock readers into confronting society’s violent desire to see criminals condemned to death. In employing quotes from “ordinary people” that portray society as wanting to go back to the “old days” whereby the death penalty was carried out quickly and without numerous appeals, the author seeks to portray the death penalty as both unjust and savagely cruel, a historic relic that is an anachronism in today’s world. The author intends to alienate readers from this general perception by playing upon their fear of seeming old fashioned, and thus the author seeks to encourage readers to move past the death penalty as a form of punishment and think for themselves.
The author portrays “ordinary people” as simplistic and fuelled by “bloodlust”. In arguing that the reasons for wanting the death penalty stem from fear and money, the author seeks to undermine the “everyday, ordinary human[‘s]” argument. In using only simplistic language when describing these ideas such as labeling the “death row inmates” as “bad people”, the author attempts to imply that such people are incapable of comprehending the complex ideas of justice. The reader is positioned to feel superior to people that hold such ideas, and thus are encouraged to see beyond the death penalty as the method for justice.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some feedback
And now to return the favour:

sorry I'm a bit late with this guys, got caught up doing other things but here goes

this is also my first time posting on the forums *cue nerves*
and embarrassingly, it took longer than I care to admit :s

My Week 2 piece:

Spoiler

Tobacco companies' recent attempt to gain access to confidential survey data regarding teenagers' smoking habits and purchases has sparked widespread concern as explicated by medical practitioner Graham Lum's letter to the editor.Although context is important keep it short and relevant. This is pretty good but I personally wouldn’t want it any longer. Keep the ideas, just make it as concise as possible. Lum contends that tobacco companies' targeting of "children" is immoral and should warrant shame and concern. The way in which you’ve outlined your contention is good, just be aware that double barreled contentions can sometimes get a bit messy. Lum adopts an authoritarian approach to vehemently reject the tobacco industry's "shameful" approach to expanding their clientele. You’ve covered everything you need to here well done.

Graham Lum makes no attempt to hide his bias having been a "medical practitioner for half a century", using his expertise in the medical field to validate his view that smoking is "nothing short of evil". Lum's choice to open his letter with this statement instantly provokes readers to see his subsequent arguments as credible and worthy of their consideration. Lovely, but a little long-winded in my opinion. Furthermore, his condemnation of smoking plays on the negative connotations of the word "evil", suggesting to the reader that tobacco companies have a malicious agenda and that smoking habits are worthy of our concern. Good to see you zooming in. Just be aware that you can’t possibly go into this much depth on everything, so be selective. In my opinion this section was a little pedestrian. See if you can write the same thing but in a way that will make your analysis stand out from the pack. Was “evil” the most important word, and thus warrant such individual attention? Or can you combine his use of “evil” with tone/ other language choices/ techniques that in combination work to achieve the same effect? Lum then adopts an alliterative rhythm to liken anyone who "promot(es) and profits" from an "addictive product" as a "criminal or sociopath". Nice pick up. Interesting points like these will really make your analysis stand out. This is intended to function in two ways: firstly, Lum's association of tobacco companies with "criminal(s)" and "sociopath(s)" serves to warn readers that those who endorse smoking are dangerous, dysfunctional members of society who that they ? Proof read manipulate the vulnerable who are prone to "addict[ion]". This can also be linked with his admission that Big Tobacco is "acting within the law", suggesting to readers that tobacco companies are not literal but "ethical and moral" criminals. This encourages the reader to reevaluate the intent of these companies and to consider withdrawing their support.Try and be more specific with your intended effects. How exactly does the author go about trying to make the reader withdraw the support. What is it about being an “ethical and moral” criminal that causes the audience to react in that way. How do specific subsets of his audience react? eg. smokers will most likely react to this differently to those who were already suspicious of Big Tobacco.  Lum continues his theme of "morbidity and mortality" by labelling Big Tobacco as "pedlars of death", stressing that tobacco companies' desire to improve their marketing has the underlying subtext of selling death to anyone including "children". Lum's mention of children is particularly alarming to readers who are parents, appealing to their desire to love and protect their children, Discussing how the author want particular parts of an audience to react is really powerful.. as well as evoking a sense of disgust that such companies would stoop to such "diabolical" behaviour to make a profit as they are without a "conscience".
conclusion: not sure how to do them! According to my teacher the only time you need a conclusion is to compare/ contrast multiple pieces (which of course you have in an exam). I’m not really sure how you’d write a conclusion here, perhaps just summarize the main technique used. Hopefully someone else can help out here  

Overall
•   Language and vocab really good! I think it flows quite nicely, and you are able to use some good vocab which is letting you get into some really nice ideas
•   Keep it short and concise
•   You’ve picked up some interesting points here which is really good
•   I think you could focus a little more on exactly how the author intends the audience to respond, and how the author appeals to different subsets of the audience.
!

[tashhhaaa]

Well here goes this is my piece for week 3 (you would of though it would get easier but this is still terrifying ah well!)

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor published in an American newspaper, the author condemns the brutality of the public’s support of the death penalty, and thus appeals to the readers pity seeking to argue that the death penalty is abhorrent and barbaric and thus should be abolished.
The author seeks to shock readers into confronting society’s violent desire to see criminals condemned to death. In employing quotes from “ordinary people” that portray society as wanting to go back to the “old days” whereby the death penalty was carried out quickly and without numerous appeals, the author seeks to portray the death penalty as both unjust and savagely cruel, a historic relic that is an anachronism in today’s world. The author intends to alienate readers from this general perception by playing upon their fear of seeming old fashioned, and thus the author seeks to encourage readers to move past the death penalty as a form of punishment and think for themselves.
The author portrays “ordinary people” as simplistic and fuelled by “bloodlust”. In arguing that the reasons for wanting the death penalty stem from fear and money, the author seeks to undermine the “everyday, ordinary human[‘s]” argument. In using only simplistic language when describing these ideas such as labeling the “death row inmates” as “bad people”, the author attempts to imply that such people are incapable of comprehending the complex ideas of justice. The reader is positioned to feel superior to people that hold such ideas, and thus are encouraged to see beyond the death penalty as the method for justice.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some feedback
And now to return the favour:

awesome feedback, thank you!

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feedback for Tashhhaaa
My Week 2 piece:

Spoiler

Tobacco companies' recent attempt to gain access to confidential survey data regarding teenagers' smoking habits and purchases has sparked widespread concern as explicated by medical practitioner Graham Lum's letter to the editor. Lum contends that tobacco companies' targeting of "children" is immoral and should warrant shame and concern. Lum adopts an authoritarian approach to vehemently reject the tobacco industry's "shameful" approach to expanding their clientele. nice vocab! 

Graham Lum makes no attempt to hide his bias having been a "medical practitioner for half a century" not sure is expressed to its full potential. Personally I feel that "Lum makes no attempt to conceal his bias, as is connotated by his position as a "medical practioner for half a century" is favourable", using his expertise in the medical field to validate his view that smoking is "nothing short of evil" i think it's not really relevant that he has 'expertise' in the medical field, as this is more of an ethical topic. Instead perhaps refer to the general ethical connotation that belongs to doctors. Lum's choice to open his letter with this statement instantly provokes  dont think this is quite the right word.. Perhaps try prompts?readers to see his subsequent arguments as credible and worthy of their considerationfair point, although that last phrase feels a little clunky to me. Furthermore, his condemnation of smoking plays on the negative connotations of the word "evil", suggesting to the readership (or at least that seems to be the trend - what you've got is probs just as good lol) that tobacco companies have a malicious agenda perhaps be a little more specific?and that smoking habits are worthy of our concern dont say our or we or anything like that. Also be more specific; he's not really discussing people's smoking habits as his main point - it's more like he's talking about how it's wrong to pull adolescents into such a habit. Lum then adopts an alliterative rhythm to liken anyone who "promot(es) *promoteand profits" from an "addictive product" as a "criminal or sociopath". This is intended to function in two ways: firstly, Lum's association of tobacco companies with "criminal(s)" and "sociopath(s)" serves to warn readers that those who endorse smoking are dangerous, dysfunctional members of society who that "that" not neededthey manipulate the vulnerable who are prone to "addict[ion]"better: they manipulate those who are vulnerable to addiction?. i think you need to delve delve deeper into how he uses the alliterative rhythm.. Right?? (As in, am I right?) This can also be linked with his admission that Big Tobacco is "acting within the law", suggesting to readers that tobacco companies are not literal but "ethical and moral" criminals. nice This encourages the reader to reevaluate the intent of these companies and to consider withdrawing their supporti suppose.. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not really as though his main intention is to do the aforementioned is it?. Lum continues his theme of "morbidity and mortality" by labelling Big Tobacco as "pedlars of death", stressing that tobacco companies' desire to improve their marketing has the underlying subtext of selling death to anyone including "children". Lum's mention of children is particularly alarming to readers who are parents try 'such as', appealing to their desire to love is that relevant?and protect their children, as well as evoking a sense of disgust that such companies would stoop to such "diabolical" behaviour to make a profit as they are without a "conscience" not sure if those last six words really fit in.. or at least I'm not sure about the segue that leads to them.

So, overall, awesome writing
Just remember:
Be specific
Be relevant
Don't use 'we' 'i' 'our' etc.
And most importantly...
keep up the awesome work 
 .

P.s. Someone else pls also mark hers.. I don't want her to only just get my substandard marking - I just wanted to give it a go   
Edit: omg, the actual seconds after I posted it I looked back at the thread and realised vce life had already done it LOL. Oh well,... It was a good learning experience 

[tashhhaaa]

Feedback for Tashhhaaa
My Week 2 piece:

Spoiler

Tobacco companies' recent attempt to gain access to confidential survey data regarding teenagers' smoking habits and purchases has sparked widespread concern as explicated by medical practitioner Graham Lum's letter to the editor. Lum contends that tobacco companies' targeting of "children" is immoral and should warrant shame and concern. Lum adopts an authoritarian approach to vehemently reject the tobacco industry's "shameful" approach to expanding their clientele. nice vocab! 

Graham Lum makes no attempt to hide his bias having been a "medical practitioner for half a century" not sure is expressed to its full potential. Personally I feel that "Lum makes no attempt to conceal his bias, as is connotated by his position as a "medical practioner for half a century" is favourable", using his expertise in the medical field to validate his view that smoking is "nothing short of evil" i think it's not really relevant that he has 'expertise' in the medical field, as this is more of an ethical topic. Instead perhaps refer to the general ethical connotation that belongs to doctors. Lum's choice to open his letter with this statement instantly provokes  dont think this is quite the right word.. Perhaps try prompts?readers to see his subsequent arguments as credible and worthy of their considerationfair point, although that last phrase feels a little clunky to me. Furthermore, his condemnation of smoking plays on the negative connotations of the word "evil", suggesting to the readership (or at least that seems to be the trend - what you've got is probs just as good lol) that tobacco companies have a malicious agenda perhaps be a little more specific?and that smoking habits are worthy of our concern dont say our or we or anything like that. Also be more specific; he's not really discussing people's smoking habits as his main point - it's more like he's talking about how it's wrong to pull adolescents into such a habit. Lum then adopts an alliterative rhythm to liken anyone who "promot(es) *promoteand profits" from an "addictive product" as a "criminal or sociopath". This is intended to function in two ways: firstly, Lum's association of tobacco companies with "criminal(s)" and "sociopath(s)" serves to warn readers that those who endorse smoking are dangerous, dysfunctional members of society who that "that" not neededthey manipulate the vulnerable who are prone to "addict[ion]"better: they manipulate those who are vulnerable to addiction?. i think you need to delve delve deeper into how he uses the alliterative rhythm.. Right?? (As in, am I right?) This can also be linked with his admission that Big Tobacco is "acting within the law", suggesting to readers that tobacco companies are not literal but "ethical and moral" criminals. nice This encourages the reader to reevaluate the intent of these companies and to consider withdrawing their supporti suppose.. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not really as though his main intention is to do the aforementioned is it?. Lum continues his theme of "morbidity and mortality" by labelling Big Tobacco as "pedlars of death", stressing that tobacco companies' desire to improve their marketing has the underlying subtext of selling death to anyone including "children". Lum's mention of children is particularly alarming to readers who are parents try 'such as', appealing to their desire to love is that relevant?and protect their children, as well as evoking a sense of disgust that such companies would stoop to such "diabolical" behaviour to make a profit as they are without a "conscience" not sure if those last six words really fit in.. or at least I'm not sure about the segue that leads to them.

So, overall, awesome writing
Just remember:
Be specific
Be relevant
Don't use 'we' 'i' 'our' etc.
And most importantly...
keep up the awesome work 
 .

P.s. Someone else pls also mark hers.. I don't want her to only just get my substandard marking - I just wanted to give it a go   
Edit: omg, the actual seconds after I posted it I looked back at the thread and realised vce life had already done it LOL. Oh well,... It was a good learning experience 

lol it's fine, I got two rounds of feedback woo

and omg yoU'RE GRADUATING IN 2018?!?!/!?!

YOU'RE IN YEAR 9?!?!?!?!?

I didn't even know what a language analysis was when I was your age (wow I sound old haha), let alone how to correct one
your motivation is inspiring, keep it up! just don't get sick of VCE before you're actually doing it!

btw your feedback was great, as was vcelife's 

[TheAspiringDoc]

lol it's fine, I got two rounds of feedback woo

and omg yoU'RE GRADUATING IN 2018?!?!/!?!

YOU'RE IN YEAR 9?!?!?!?!?

I didn't even know what a language analysis was when I was your age (wow I sound old haha), let alone how to correct one
your motivation is inspiring, keep it up! just don't get sick of VCE before you're actually doing it!

Haha thanks 

btw your feedback was great, as was vcelife's 

As was yours    (and on that note, damn.. I'm lovin how I can finally wear my summer clothes again and go outside  )

[tashhhaaa]

Haha thanks  :DAs was yours    (and on that note, damn.. I'm lovin how I can finally wear my summer clothes again and go outside  )

I'm lovin how I feel guilty about wearing my summer clothes and going outside because I have to study enjoy it while it lasts

[heids]

Annnndddd week 4's letter is up!

Very short and simple, since almost no one did last week's; just a reminder that the days are passing fast so don't forget to write your pieces as the exam is almost upon us!  And yes, I did my best to choose a really fascinating and appropriate topic that you'll love writing about

I recommend doing this in no more than 20 minutes including planning/reading, it's a small commitment (and seriously don't be scared of posting something poor, I know my output in 20 mins would be pretty bad... and everyone else is in exactly the same boat)

Spoiler

Shameful introduction

I have travelled often and each time I have been at Melbourne Airport I have been disgusted at the state of the toilets. For a First World, rich, well-resourced country, these are Third World standard; dirty floors, grubby toilets, broken or cracked furniture and grimy sinks. The facilities don't look like they have been updated for years.

Considering how expensive all the services at the airport are, I would think that some of the profit should be used on appropriate and necessary facilities for travellers. Cleaners must be the lowest paid in the workforce, so it seems unconscionable behaviour to economise on their services at the expense of public health and safety. And since the airport and its facilities are the first introduction for overseas travellers to what Melbourne and Australia offers, I think this is shameful.

Esther Lewin, Caulfield

[TheAspiringDoc]

Week four piece
Hey, so here's what I've got . I wasn't sure if I was supposed to include a conclusion?

Spoiler

In a wholly embittered letter to the editor, Esther Lewin contends her despondency over Melbourne Airport's "shameful" restroom facilities. Lewin employs a shaming tone, fundamentally appealing to her readership's values of hospitality and common courtesy, whilst simultaneously instilling an accusative curiosity as to why such poor service is being delivered. She relates the toilets to those that are of "Third World standard", seemingly encouraging public indignation over the issue, ultimately endeavouring to bring about a reprioritisation of the airport's finances, to resolve cleaners' "low pay" and hence lack of productivity.
Lewin's opening proclamation that she "has often travelled [to Melbourne Airport]" positions her readers to see her as well placed to formulate such opinions, as she has been repeatedly exposed to the toilets in question, inaugurating an affinity of credence. To build her case, Lewin also describes the amenities as "dirty, grubby and grimy". Coupled with her specificity into the matter, she addresses the issue in a sense that prepossesses her readers to fully picture and understand the true nature of the situation, resulting in an exceedingly engaging argument.
Lewin positions her readership to consider the "expense(s) of public health and safety" that are resulting from such "unconscionable behaviour". The use of such assertive and castigatory language serves to consolidate the sense of chagrin dissatisfaction that had previously been impressed upon the reader, denunciating the Airport Management for their inclination to avert funding from the cleaning sector.
Lewin's juxtaposition of the "shameful" toilets with how relatively "expensive all the [other] services at the airport are" verifies just how erroneous the current state of squalor is.
Finally, Lewin appeals to the patriotism of her readers by asserting that "the airport and its facilities are the first introduction for oversees travellers to what Melbourne and Australia offers", ensuingly instigating an urge within her readership to expunge the toilets of such unpropitious attributes.

Thanks!
P.s. I think I redefined the definition of 20 minutes.. two and a half hours 

EDIT: Alas! I too am faced with the burden of a line through my work..  oh well.

EDIT 2: I figured out why there was a line! It is because at some point in my writing I wrote (s) , except with straight instead of curvey brackets, which is AN's command to produce a line like this. 

[duo0024]

My piece for the 'Shameful Introduction'. I assumed Lewin was a male as I could not be bothered writing he/she and him/her all throughout. The piece isn't finished even though it took me 30 minutes (I want to add so much more but yea...) but I am still posting it anyway. I like the timing idea. Means I will refrain from perfecting everything and save time to write more stuff 

[duo0024]

Feed back for The Aspiring Doc.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feed back for The Aspiring Doc.

Thanks duo!
And in return:
Feedback for duo0024

Spoiler

Traveller good start, sets the scene and all, although I feel that by adding this in straight away and not analysing immediately, you’re kinda wasting your opportunity to analyise it. Well I guess you’re not really, just that you still need to come back to it later. Esther btw Esther is a female name (I think)  Lewin’s disappointment pervades throughout his review in regards to the toilets at the Melbourne Airport failing to meet up to ‘First World’ standards nice, although I think you’d do well to perhaps also delve into her likening of it to a third world country facility?. Designed to shine a spotlight are clichés okay in the VCE?. Also I think illuminating would be more concise and suited. on the lack of care assigned to these facilities also I think she tries to discuss the lack of funding for it, Lewin contends that the conditions of toilets at Melbourne Airport could perhaps be seen as a deterrent to other travellers especially those from overseas. (don’t right that, but perhaps mention in some way?).
Lewin commences his review by establishing his credentials to his readers as someone who ‘travel(s) often’, thereby attempting to ascertain a relationship of authority authority? A word like that applies to week 2’s analysis of the doctor, but I wouldn’t say Lewin has authority, it’s more like she’s in a good position  with the reader. As he has had many experiences and exposures to other toilets in other countriestechnically, Lewin never actually specified that he’d been to other countries.., the readership will not only now portray don’t think that is the right word – try ‘view’  Lewin as more worthy to critique the Melbourne Airport for their ‘disgust(ing)’ ‘toilets’, but also take his arguments into consideration not quite comfortable with that last phrase – it’s kinda like you’ve already stated that?.
The tricolon ‘first world, rich, well-resourced’ bam! (sorry, I meant ‘cool’) used to describe Australia seeks to establish and inflate the grandeur of the Australian country why ‘country’? is it really necessary? , inciting feelings of pride in the Australian readership fantastic!. This pride however, soon diminishes into feelings of shame not quite shame, it’s more like embarrassment I think. Lewin is shaming the airport management, not the reader. She is simply appealing to her readership’s patriotism to an extent – resulting in us feeling ‘let down’, and hence we resort to also wanting to shame the airport staff – not ourselves, the readers., and disgust when Lewin contrasts this grandeur to the ‘dirty floors, grubby toilets’ and ‘broken furniture’ I’m likin’ it . By listing a surplus of the negative aspects of Melbourne Airport’s toilets, Lewin suggests to the readership that the list is unexhausted, thereby compelling Melbournians to depict the issue of their ‘grubby toilets’ as far worse than imagined, and would thus likely share in Lewin’s observation that it hasn’t ‘been updated for years.’ umm.. how does that lead to the conclusion that the toilets haven’t been .. updated?
Lewin proceeds by don’t need ‘proceeds by’ – cut it out and instead just say Lewin asserts..  asserting that by leaving the toilets as they are, their presence can perhaps act as a deterrent to other ‘overseas travellers’, and as such suggests that the indifference and lack of action more concise is ‘inaction’ shown try ‘displayed’  by the Melbourne Airport could perhaps be costly to Australia’s reputation odd choice of word I think. I know what you mean, but I feel that something like ‘appeal’ or even ‘eminence’ maybe woud be better? Anyhow, great sentence . Readers are thus likely to elicit feelings of frustration at the ineptness of the authority figures in the Melbourne Airport, and would agree that some of the ‘profit should be used on appropriate and necessary facilities’ to ascertain a far more welcoming ‘introduction’. ggggrrrrreeaat!!
For me, I feel that your areas for improvement are conciseness and choice of words – mainly if what you’ve written as actually relevant/stated in the text etc.
Awesome job
 

[scottg15]

Excuse this, was a first attempt and tried to stay within the time limit.

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor, Esther Lewin, shares her disgust for the facilities that Melbourne Airport has to offer to ‘overseas travellers’. In a largely disappointed tone, Lewin describes the state of the toilets as being ‘grubby’, ‘broken’ and ‘grimy’. Through strong descriptors such as these, Lewin intends to raise awareness amongst her readers of the state of these facilities.
Lewin further attacks these facilities, portraying Melbourne, and Australia as a ‘rich’, ‘first world’ country, who are too selfish to provide a decent ‘introduction’ to its overseas visitors. Through portraying the wealth of the country, Lewin aims to alarm her readers and appeal to their sense of decency in providing ‘appropriate and necessary facilities’.
In a last attempt to expose the awfulness of Melbourne’s facilities, Lewin reveals the fact that these facilities are the facade of the country and Melbourne itself. Words such as ‘first introduction’ which appear also in the title, infer to her readers, a negative impression of the ‘rich’ and well-resourced’ Melbourne, which in turn will adversely affect the city.

Sorry as already said, first attempt, but thought that if anything it will provide some hope to others to the the easy competition they are facing.

Glad for feedback, and thanks in advance.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feedback for scottg15

Spoiler

In a I feel that ‘her’ flows better letter to the editor, Esther Lewin, comma not necessary shares her disgust for try ‘regarding’ the facilities that Melbourne Airport has to offer to try ‘for’ ‘overseas travellers’Good intro. However, two things stand out to me: you need to be more specific – she is not disgusted with the facilities in general – instead she is disappointed with the toilets in a particular. And secondly, you need to be more concise – For example, you could have instead written ‘..shares her disgust regarding Melbourne Airport’s poor toilets for ‘overseas travellers’ . In a largely disappointed tone, Lewin describes the state of the toilets as being ‘grubby’, ‘broken’ and ‘grimy’. Through strong descriptors or ‘adjectives’ such as these, Lewin intends to raise awareness amongst her readers of the state of these facilities to ultimately have what effect?.
Lewin further attacks these facilities, portraying Melbourne, and Australia I’d say you could probably just use one of the two in order to be more concise as a ‘rich’, ‘first world’ country, who are too selfish to provide a decent ‘introduction’ to its overseas visitors that reads for as she is saying that ‘Melbourne is selfish’. That’s not right; instead she’s saying that the airport officials are making Melbourne look bad. Also, conciseness again; I think you could have instead written ‘..who are too selfish to decently introduce themselves to overseas visitors’, although I guess that does lose the quote bit... Through portraying the wealth of the country, Lewin aims to alarm her readers and appeal to their sense of decency in providing ‘appropriate and necessary facilities’ I’m not entirely sure as to how exactly a statement of Australia’s wealth directly leads onto people feeling that way. I get do get what you’re saying, I think it’s just that in this case it might be beneficial to elaborate a little more .
In a last attempt to expose the awfulness of Melbourne’s facilities, Lewin reveals the fact that these facilities are the facade I like it  of the country and Melbourne itself. Words such as ‘first (shameful) introduction’ which appear also in the title, infer to her readers, a negative impression of the ‘rich’ and well-resourced’ Melbourne, which in turn will adversely affect the city good point, but what effect does this have upon the reader?.

Nice first attempt
My main points for improvement:
-conciseness – cut at ous many unnecessary words as you can
-always going back to what effect there is on the reader
-remain conscious of the technicalities (e.g. toilets, not facilities)
-make sure your writing says what you want it to say
-and I guess keep an eye out for whether you’ve chosen the write word ford the job. If you have time, ask yourself ‘does it read well?’
-and keep up the good work