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

[scottg15]

Thanks heaps.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feedback for vcelife

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 reader’s pity seeking to argue that the death penalty is abhorrent and barbaric and thus should be abolished I didn’t really get what you were trying to say in that last half sentence. Well, I did, it just didn’t seem to flow very well. Perhaps better would be ‘..appeals to the reader’s pity through arguing that the… etc. Otherwise, the intro seems to cover all the bases .
The author seeks to shock readers into confronting not sure about the word ‘confronting’ – or at least alone. It’s just that it kinda implies taking the issue on head on or something (at least for me it does), whereas it’s more just about getting the reader to see it in a different way – maybe less drastic? society’s violent desire to see criminals condemned to death. In try ‘through’ 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 this isn’t a quote is it? If not, I feel that you’re sorta dragging it out a little. that is an anachronism nice in today’s world excellent sentence, although perhaps a little long or complex or something?. 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 I feel that that last little phrase is out of place – it’s kinda already been said..
The author portrays “ordinary people” as simplistic yeah, although if you have the opportunity to use a quote from the article, probably do. In this case you could have used “scary as hell” for example 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 great but what effect does this have on the reader?. In using only simplistic language when describing these ideas such as labelling the “death row inmates” as “bad people”, the author attempts to imply that such people are incapable of comprehending the complex ideas of justice I’m not sure, you may be right. If so, great pickup!. 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 fantastic!

Great piece, although I feel that an opportunity that shouldn’t have been missed was to analyse the final sentence: “You people vote”. Despite being short a short sentence, it is very sharp.

Main areas for improvement:
-At times it feels as though you’re expanding a little too much and almost turning into an opinion piece. Avoid this.
-Choice of words. If you have time, it’s worth contemplating if you really have chosen the appropriate word.
And keep doing whatever you’re doing – some really great stuff!
P.s. good work on being the only person to attempt this piece .

[Burt Macklin]

Week 3 LA: (Not as much as I would like to have done as I found this one a little harder to put together (it's still taking me a bit long to figure out the HOWs and WHYs); I'll hopefully get WK 4 done in the next 2 days)

Spoiler

The relevance and ethics of using the death penalty in modern society has been a topic of vehement debate. Greg Smith weighs in on this issue in his letter to the editor, contending in an alarmist and critical tone that ordinary citizens are demonstrating their immorality and reactionary habits in supporting the death penalty because it is “cheaper”. Smith mainly employs emotive language and direct accusations to persuade “average everyday humans”.

By implicating the “average everyday human” as “scary as hell”, Smith presents his reader with the notion that those like them possess qualities that are alarming. This sense of alarm is created through the association made, unsettling readers as the connotations of “average” and “everyday” as low-key and harmless come in stark contrast with the frantic “scary as hell”. With this association in mind, Smith engenders into the reader the idea that they are “horrifying” because they support the death penalty. However, the incredulous tone evoked through “no conceivable argument” and “literally arguing” suggests to the reader that what should be “horrifying” is that supporters possess a lack of rationality.  Readers are steered towards the disturbing belief that supporters have abandoned moral sensibilities as Smith argues that this fact should be a cause of concern.

Smith criticises the death penalty as a “stain” on the “embarrassing” criminal justice system. Similar assertions are employed with the use of “already” and quotation marks on “justice” implying that incompetence and ineffectiveness have been prevalent. This instils in readers feelings of shame and guilt with regards to the justice system, thereby positioning readers to feel anger towards supporters of the death penalty that are unjustly keeping a system alive that can irrevocably harm “good people”.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feedback for Burt Macklin

Spoiler

The relevance relevance? How so? Should this word be here? and ethics of using the death penalty in modern society not sure if these last three words were really all that necessary. has been a topic of vehement debate Nice intro, although that last bit could have been phrased ‘has been vehemently debated’ in order to be more concise. Greg Smith weighs in on this issue in his letter to the editor Not sure if this is necessary. Instead you probably could have more concisely written ‘In his letter to the editor, Greg Smith contends..’, contending in an alarmist and critical I’m not sure, but it’s sort of as though alarmist already imples critical? tone that ordinary citizens I believe that ‘citizens’ alone implies ‘ordinary’, right? are demonstrating their immorality and reactionary habits in or ‘though’, but maybe ‘in’ is okay? supporting the death penalty because it is “cheaper”. Smith mainly I don’t think this is necessary, right? employs emotive language and direct accusations if possible, combine to create ‘Smith employs directly accusative emotive language to.. to persuade “average everyday humans” but how does this specifically effect (or is the correct word ‘affect’?) the reader?.

By implicating the “average everyday human” as is “scary as hell”, Smith presents his reader with the notion that those like them possess qualities that are alarming alarming qualities. This sense of I removed this as I feel that it doesn’t add anything to your case alarm is created through the association made, unsettling readers as the connotations of “average” and “everyday” as Bangali recently wrote in one of her guides, never write two consecutive synonyms if you are aiming to be concise. Although I guess these are technically quotes, so I guess this is a borderline case.. as low-key and harmless alright, now you’re pushing it come in stark contrast with the frantic not sure if ‘the frantic’ really sure be there, but perhas it adds flow. Still, borderline. “scary as hell” nice argument . With this association in mind more concise: ‘through this association’, Smith engenders into the reader the idea that they are “horrifying” because they support the death penalty but for that little bit at the start, great sentence . However, the incredulous tone evoked through “no conceivable argument” and “literally arguing” suggests to the reader that what should be “horrifying” is that supporters possess a lack of rationality I feel that more concise is: ‘The incredulous tone evoked through “no conceivable argument” and “literally arguing” suggest that it is “horrible” that supporters lack rationality’. So now that I’ve made it more concise, we can see that that doesn’t really make sense (I think?). But even though I could only spot the flaw upon concisifying the sentence, don’t be fooled; as bangali wisely said ‘Examiners wear X-ray glasses, they will see through your arguments even if you use super complex words’ .  Readers are steered towards the word ‘shown’ or something along those lines would be more concise the disturbing belief that supporters have abandoned morality sensibilities as Smith argues that this fact should be maybe ‘is’ is better, not sure.. a cause of concern.

Smith criticises the death penalty as a “stain” on the “embarrassing” criminal justice system excellent . Similar assertions are employed with or ‘through’ the use of “already” and quotation marks on is ‘around’ better? “justice” implying that incompetence and ineffectiveness again, consecutive synonyms have been prevalent. This instils in readers feelings of shame and guilt almost consecutive synonyms again I’d say with regards to regarding the justice system, thereby positioning readers to feel anger towards supporters of the death penalty that are unjustly keeping a system alive that can irrevocably harm “good people”.

Nice piece
Hope my feedback helped

[That Other Guy]

Hey guys, I just wanted to say how fantastic this thread is. Unfortunately, I jumped on the band-wagon a little late; but nonetheless, here is my response to the letter for week 4. I completed this in 20 minutes. 

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor, entitled “Shameful introduction”, Esther Lewin expresses her disenchantment regarding the condition of the toilet facilities at Melbourne airport. Propelling her discourse in an embittered tone, Lewin contends that the state of these public amenities defile the outward aesthetics of Australia and “what… it offers”.

Lewin begins anecdotally, impressing upon the reader a sense of her experience and thus her position of authority on the matter. The use of “each time”, coupled with “I have been disgusted”, exposes this issue as perennial and one that is experienced on a personal level by all who utilise the airport facilities. The direct contrast between “First World” and “Third World” here positions the reader to be reviled at the standards of the facilities and consider them to be retrograde. This is compounded by the use of words such as “dirty”, “grubby” and “grimy”, weighted with an acrimony for filth, and serve to build upon the already-established revulsion of the letter. Thus, Lewin deems Melbourne airport’s shortcomings to be inexcusable as they belie the “Well-resourced” opportunities that the country proffers.

Moreover, Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of economy by exposing the paradoxes of Melbourne Airport’s management’s usage of capital. By acknowledging that “services at the airport” are “expensive”, Lewin seeks to amass a following of those who are aware that the price versus the quality is grossly incongruous. In stating that updates to the public amenities should be “appropriate” and “necessary”, Lewin suggests that authority figures at Melbourne Airport have overlooked something of the most basic nature – and in the process, she unearths their true ineptitude. The high modality colouring the word “unconscionable” appears to be a scathing attack regarding the maltreatment of the “Cleaners”, who Lewin portrays as exploited by the airport’s attempt to “economise on their services”. Here, the audience is made aware that not only is Melbourne airport dismissive of people’s hygiene, it is entirely avaricious. Hence, the reader is galvanised to perceive Melbourne airport management with a pejorative lens.

In concluding her letter, Lewin assumes a worldly approach and notes that the airport is often travellers’ “first introduction” to the country. Herein, Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of nationalism in portraying this issue as not only deplorable for the individual, but the entire nation itself. Through this, the reader is likely to experience a sense of embarrassment of the airport’s management. Thus, with the final words, “I think this is shameful”, Lewin reinforces her contention, establishing an atmosphere of contempt that may linger with the reader, fermenting further negative emotions regarding the condition of Melbourne airport’s facilities and arousing an awareness of the need for change.

[TheAspiringDoc]

Feedback for That Other Guy

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor, entitled “Shameful introduction”, Esther Lewin expresses her disenchantment great word! regarding the condition of I must say, we’ve got a lot of wannabe superheros on AN, all cutting the fine line with conciseness . I feel this way mainly because those last three words, ‘condition of the toilets’, don’t really add anything to your case other than what the following few words seem to already say.. the toilets
 facilities at Melbourne airport. Propelling her discourse in an embittered tone, Lewin I believe we can actually just cut out that whole first segment, and then insert a word such as ‘sourly’ here, and say  the same thing, only in far fewer words
 contends that the state of these public amenities defile the outward aesthetics of Australia and “what… it offers” Awesome intro! Unlike Lewin’s, yours is anything but shameful .

Lewin begins anecdotally, impressing upon the reader a sense of her experience and thus her position of authority on the matter more concise: Lewin anecdotally impresses upon the reader her experience, and thus her authority on the matter. Which ultimately has what effect on the reader? (making them more inclined to believe/appreciate her arguments). The use of “each time”, coupled with “I have been disgusted”, exposes this issue as perennial and one that is experienced on a personal level by all who utilise the airport facilities. The direct contrast between “First World” and “Third World” here positions the reader to be revileds at the standards of the facilities and consider them to be retrograde more concise: The contrast between “First World” and “Third World” reviles the reader regarding retrograde facilities (I mean, that does work, right?). This is compounded by the use of words such as “dirty”, “grubby” and “grimy”, weighted with an acrimony for filth I’m not saying it doesn’t belong here, I just don’t personally get how this bit fits in, and serve to builds upon the already-established revulsion of the letter having what effect upon the reader? And also, if something is building upon something else, then surely it is already established?. Thus not sure if this word belongs here, Lewin deems Melbourne airport’s shortcomings to be inexcusable as they belie the “Well-resourced” opportunities that the country proffers ’that the country proffers?’ Do you mean she implies that, or is that a bit opinionated or..? Remember; you don’t want to turn an LA into an opinion piece. Also, what effect does this sentence have on the reader? Does it make them want to act in same way, or feel some way or..?.

Moreover, Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of economy frugality by exposing the paradoxes paradoxes? Why? I know that you wrote this super quick, bit still, it’s always good to try and be a little prudent by thinking about what you’re going to write before you do so. Perhaps you were looking for a word more like ‘flaws’? of Melbourne Airport’s management’s usage of capital expenditure. By acknowledging that “services at the airport” are “expensive”, Lewin seeks to amass a following of those who are aware that the price versus the quality is grossly incongruous I get what you’re saying, but it’s almost as though it’s overly concise. I say this because you haven’t really specified what ‘the quality’ is referring to. . In stating that updates to the public amenities correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t amenities kinda imply public anyway? should be “appropriate” and “necessary”, Lewin suggests that authority figures at Melbourne Airport have overlooked something of the most basic nature perhaps just ‘basic’ or ‘obvious’ would be more concise than those last five words? – and in the process, she unearths their true ineptitude true, although if you don’t then state how this relates back to the reader, there isn’t really any point of having it. The high modality I personally don’t get how this word fits in. although maybe that’s just me..? colouring the word “unconscionable” appears to be a scathing attack regarding the maltreatment of the “Cleaners”, who Lewin portrays as exploited by the airport’s attempt to “economise on their services”. Here < I get why you’ve it, I’m just not sure if it really belongs, the audience is made aware learns that not only is Melbourne airport dismissive of people’s hygiene a.k.a. unhygienic?, it is entirely avaricious again, this feels a little opinionated (but I’m not sure). Hence, the reader is galvanised to galvanise someone means to shock or excite them into action. I’m not sure that merely causing someone to perceive differently is worthy of the word galvanised. But then, you guessed it – I’m not sure to perceive Melbourne airport management with a pejorative great word! lens.

In concluding her letter It may be that you don’t actually need this first phrase; she has used the technique, and unless the location of the bit you’re analysing is critically important, I’d think that it’d be more concise without this bit, Lewin assumes a worldly approach and notesing that the airport is often travellers’ “first introduction” to the country. Herein again, same rant as I just went through, discussing that perhaps location in the piece isn’t needed not sure , Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of nationalism in portraying this issue as not only deplorable for the individual, but the entire nation itself More concise: issue as deplorable for both the individual and the nation. Through this, the reader is likely to experience a sense of embarrassment of regarding the airport’s management. Thus, with the final words now I think it’s acceptable to describe the location, given the fact the they are indeed the ‘final words’, “I think this is shameful”, Lewin reinforces her contention, establishing an atmosphere of contempt that may linger with the reader, fermenting further negative emotions regarding the condition of Melbourne airport’s facilities and arousing an awareness of the need a desire for change.

Fantastic piece, especially given the time constraints
I think you’ve got a few things to work on, but going really well.
 

Good job
P.s. Thanks for the great choice of topic Bangali 

[TheAspiringDoc]

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
 

Hey duo & all others who were following
Sorry - I've realised that I was mistaken. I recommended that you shouldn't have used the word 'authority' (I've highlighted it green in the above quote). I was wrong. After 'That Other Guy' did the same thing, I started to doubt myself and hence looked it up. It turns out that authority is in fact not only " the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience", but also " the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something" amongst other things.
My bad 

[That Other Guy]

Feedback for That Other Guy

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor, entitled “Shameful introduction”, Esther Lewin expresses her disenchantment great word! regarding the condition of I must say, we’ve got a lot of wannabe superheros on AN, all cutting the fine line with conciseness . I feel this way mainly because those last three words, ‘condition of the toilets’, don’t really add anything to your case other than what the following few words seem to already say.. the toilets
 facilities at Melbourne airport. Propelling her discourse in an embittered tone, Lewin I believe we can actually just cut out that whole first segment, and then insert a word such as ‘sourly’ here, and say  the same thing, only in far fewer words
 contends that the state of these public amenities defile the outward aesthetics of Australia and “what… it offers” Awesome intro! Unlike Lewin’s, yours is anything but shameful .

Lewin begins anecdotally, impressing upon the reader a sense of her experience and thus her position of authority on the matter more concise: Lewin anecdotally impresses upon the reader her experience, and thus her authority on the matter. Which ultimately has what effect on the reader? (making them more inclined to believe/appreciate her arguments). The use of “each time”, coupled with “I have been disgusted”, exposes this issue as perennial and one that is experienced on a personal level by all who utilise the airport facilities. The direct contrast between “First World” and “Third World” here positions the reader to be revileds at the standards of the facilities and consider them to be retrograde more concise: The contrast between “First World” and “Third World” reviles the reader regarding retrograde facilities (I mean, that does work, right?). This is compounded by the use of words such as “dirty”, “grubby” and “grimy”, weighted with an acrimony for filth I’m not saying it doesn’t belong here, I just don’t personally get how this bit fits in, and serve to builds upon the already-established revulsion of the letter having what effect upon the reader? And also, if something is building upon something else, then surely it is already established?. Thus not sure if this word belongs here, Lewin deems Melbourne airport’s shortcomings to be inexcusable as they belie the “Well-resourced” opportunities that the country proffers ’that the country proffers?’ Do you mean she implies that, or is that a bit opinionated or..? Remember; you don’t want to turn an LA into an opinion piece. Also, what effect does this sentence have on the reader? Does it make them want to act in same way, or feel some way or..?.

Moreover, Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of economy frugality by exposing the paradoxes paradoxes? Why? I know that you wrote this super quick, bit still, it’s always good to try and be a little prudent by thinking about what you’re going to write before you do so. Perhaps you were looking for a word more like ‘flaws’? of Melbourne Airport’s management’s usage of capital expenditure. By acknowledging that “services at the airport” are “expensive”, Lewin seeks to amass a following of those who are aware that the price versus the quality is grossly incongruous I get what you’re saying, but it’s almost as though it’s overly concise. I say this because you haven’t really specified what ‘the quality’ is referring to. . In stating that updates to the public amenities correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t amenities kinda imply public anyway? should be “appropriate” and “necessary”, Lewin suggests that authority figures at Melbourne Airport have overlooked something of the most basic nature perhaps just ‘basic’ or ‘obvious’ would be more concise than those last five words? – and in the process, she unearths their true ineptitude true, although if you don’t then state how this relates back to the reader, there isn’t really any point of having it. The high modality I personally don’t get how this word fits in. although maybe that’s just me..? colouring the word “unconscionable” appears to be a scathing attack regarding the maltreatment of the “Cleaners”, who Lewin portrays as exploited by the airport’s attempt to “economise on their services”. Here < I get why you’ve it, I’m just not sure if it really belongs, the audience is made aware learns that not only is Melbourne airport dismissive of people’s hygiene a.k.a. unhygienic?, it is entirely avaricious again, this feels a little opinionated (but I’m not sure). Hence, the reader is galvanised to galvanise someone means to shock or excite them into action. I’m not sure that merely causing someone to perceive differently is worthy of the word galvanised. But then, you guessed it – I’m not sure to perceive Melbourne airport management with a pejorative great word! lens.

In concluding her letter It may be that you don’t actually need this first phrase; she has used the technique, and unless the location of the bit you’re analysing is critically important, I’d think that it’d be more concise without this bit, Lewin assumes a worldly approach and notesing that the airport is often travellers’ “first introduction” to the country. Herein again, same rant as I just went through, discussing that perhaps location in the piece isn’t needed not sure , Lewin appeals to the reader’s sense of nationalism in portraying this issue as not only deplorable for the individual, but the entire nation itself More concise: issue as deplorable for both the individual and the nation. Through this, the reader is likely to experience a sense of embarrassment of regarding the airport’s management. Thus, with the final words now I think it’s acceptable to describe the location, given the fact the they are indeed the ‘final words’, “I think this is shameful”, Lewin reinforces her contention, establishing an atmosphere of contempt that may linger with the reader, fermenting further negative emotions regarding the condition of Melbourne airport’s facilities and arousing an awareness of the need a desire for change.

Fantastic piece, especially given the time constraints
I think you’ve got a few things to work on, but going really well.
 

Good job
P.s. Thanks for the great choice of topic Bangali 

Thank you very much for the feedback, TheAspiringDoc! It's great to have someone who does not know you personally review your work. I have begun to realise that, under pressure, my word choices aren't as sensible as they usually are. I'll be working on that for sure.
For someone who is in year 9, you have an excellent awareness of language conventions and vocabulary that will surely take you far. Thanks again for the feedback!

[heids]

Hey guys, first want to say thanks for all joining in, and keep up your writing and your contributions to each other!

Brief feedback on your feedback guys : could focus a bit less on people's language, expression, conciseness etc., which is hard to improve on quickly before the exam, and a bit more on their ideas and depth which are ultimately the main mark-scorers (basically, how much they're analysing the effect on the reader).

Here's an eg of the sorts of things you could comment on

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.
Cool, you've identified awesome quotes and a technique
Do you think the point is just 'to raise awareness'? Or maybe to arouse revulsion/horror?
Also, rather than just stating that this technique/quote 'raises awareness' or 'persuades them to agree with her', I'd like you to prove it to me!  How do those strong descriptors, those specific words you quoted, make us feel?  What feelings do they wake up?  Don't leave any gaps for me to guess - pull apart those words and explain in minute detail how this works on the audience to get them to feel and think something, so they'll agree

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.
Okay, so, HOW does 'first introduction' create a negative impression?  How do these words actually do that?  And then, why does the author want to present it this way?
And I'd avoid throwing in random quotes (e.g. 'rich and well-resourced') if you're not going to analyse them, since they won't score you marks (marks come from analysing how it persuades the reader).  If you want to analyse those words, think about how they make us feel about Melbourne, and why the author wants us to think that way.

Basically: keep asking 'how' and 'why' - how does this particular word or technique make us feel, why/how does it make us feel that way, and why does the author want us to feel that way? (ie. how does it persuade us to agree with the overall message)

P.S. Sorry whoever's work this is, nothing personal bout your writing, just randomly landed on it!

eg of my real feedback

The alleged abuses occurring at asylum seeker camps offshore Australia has been a contentious issue as of late. Greg Trenton weighs in on this issue in his letter to the editor entitled, “This ordinary bloke has finally had enough, contending in a disillusioned and exasperated tone that the deceit conducted by Australian politicians has reached a tipping point and that their failure to address the abuses at camp will be brought into public consciousness what exactly do you mean by the underlined part?. Trenton mainly adopts the use of colloquial language and denigration of politicians to persuade everyday Australian citizens towards his viewpoint nothing wrong with it, but it’s good to make a habit of cutting out anything vague and general like ‘persuades them to agree with his viewpoint’ as they don’t add anything to your analysis.
Really solid intro that ticks off boxes and says everything clearly and concisely.  Well done.

By establishing himself as an “ordinary bloke” who “[makes] ends meet”, Trenton has provided the reader with a representation of a man who seems familiar to them, therefore making them more inclined to trust his authenticity – as he is acutely aware of the actions of politicians, despite not giving “a rats about politics” your explanation is clear and really good - could you then expand further? Why does he present himself as someone who doesn't 'give a rats' about politics?  It's good and you could get more out of it. By employing the use of colloquial language such as “pollies” and “docs”, Trenton creates a personable tone noice, but by running multiple impacts together into one sentence, you miss a chance to analyse.  Why does he create a personable tone?  How is he trying to get the readers to view him through this tone, and why does he want them to view him that way?  How does it help persuade them? while simultaneously creating a divide between “ordinary Aussies” and the brazen “pollies” brilliant! now think about how this influences the reader and makes them feel towards the politicians. The divide is further developed by Trenton by mentioning the criticisms from noble doctors who “leave their cushy well-paid jobs” to aid compared to politicians who stay silent on the issue. This serves to highlight the suffering morality of politicians to the reader, as Trenton attempts to elicit an urgency to address the callousness of the government. To take this to a higher level (and yes, it’s already really high-quality, but I want you to go further!), expand on the point a bit longer.   You don’t have to try and cram analysis of a few phrases into one sentence; take the time to breathe and spread it out over a few sentences.  Think about that ‘leave their cushy well-paid jobs’ again.  Why does he say that?  How is he trying to make the readers view the doctors?  How do these words create this feeling?  And why does he want them to view the doctors that way?  Then, you brilliantly suggested he uses this to contrast with the politicians; so how does that make us feel about the politicians?  Do we like or dislike them, respect or despise them?  And thus what does that stimulate us to want to think or do? (you’ve answered most of these in very very brief detail, but could expand more over a couple of sentences)

Spoiler

‘cushy well-paid jobs’ – aims to make the readers view the doctors as self-sacrificing and noble, so they’ll see their claims as reliable rather than being made up for reasons of self-interest, thus they’ll believe the horrific conditions of the camps.  Contrasts with politicians who are presented as selfish, callous and unreliable, so we despise and don’t rely on them and thus believe they’re telling lies.

Trenton’s admission of the allegations going through the “keeper” as he makes “ends meet” serves to eliminate any readers’ predisposition to disregard his claims because of self-righteousness really great ideas here, well done!. Thus, the reader is more inclined to believe that Trenton is speaking from a place of genuine frustration; evident as he points out the politicians’ self-preservation in his irreverent jibe nice word towards a government who “can’t comment” because it would “alert the baddies”. Trenton’s mocking tone suggests to the reader the folly over allaying foes instead of prioritising humanitarian concerns encourages the reader to ridicule etc. Coupled with Trenton’s stance that he is “off to enrol”, he leaves readers with the belief that if current politicians are not capable, they will be able to vote in political changes. unclear last sentence, I don’t get what you’re trying to say

Summary: really good work, you obviously know the point of LA and are focusing on how the reader is influenced by the author's choices.  You could just go further and expand more, especially by asking yourself more questions all the time about why the author is doing this, how exactly the author wants the audience to view someone/thing involved (e.g. the author himself, the doctors, the politicians), why he wants the readers to view them like this, in what way the language makes them feel like this, etc. 

All the time keep asking questions about how it impacts the reader's views and why, and be willing to spread analysis of even just one sentence/phrase over a few sentences, rather than trying to cram 2-3 things into one sentence. 

wow, I'm so arrogant, like 'gaze upon my feedback and learn, ye lowly mortals'   Apologies, I'm in no way a model of feedback-giving

P.S.

as bangali wisely said

wooooooo I'm rising the world!  been quoted for the first time in my life!

P.s. Thanks for the great choice of topic Bangali 

You are so totally welcome.  I'll be trying to better it next week any suggestions for a super-awkward topic welcome, anyone

[scottg15]

P.S. Sorry whoever's work this is, nothing personal bout your writing, just randomly landed on it!

Thanks very much, and will be implemented next time (if I do another one)

[Coffee]

Haven't been doing as well as I'd like lately so I'm going to start joining in to get in some practise! (Haven't written an LA in a while). Sorry for randomly jumping into week 4! Not sure if I'm going to back track yet or not, we'll see how I go.

Spoiler

Esther Lewin’s opinion piece, ‘Shameful Introduction’, condemns the toilets at Melbourne Airport. Blunt and direct in tone, Lewin contends that the current state of the facilities are deplorable and will deter tourists.

Lewin expresses her disgust at the state of the toilets through a cluster of adjectives, ‘dirty’, ‘grubby’, and ‘grimy’, evoking a sense of revulsion amongst her readership. Juxtaposed against the descriptors ‘rich’ and ‘well-resourced’, Lewin dramatises the state of Australia’s facilities and is further emphasised through her claim ‘these are Third World standard’. This connotation is used to associate the toilets with developing countries, thus positioning the reader to view them in a negative light and feel both shocked and ashamed. Lewin remarks that the facilities look as though they haven’t been ‘updated for years’. By suggesting the facilities haven’t been updated, Lewin blames the government for its current state; directing the audience’s outrage towards the government and positioning them to view the government as negligent for not adhering to proper hygiene standards.

By labelling the facilities as ‘necessary’, Lewin places the facilities at the forefront of the audience’s mind; emphasising their importance. Lewin stresses it is the ‘first introduction’ for overseas travellers to what Melbourne offers and her remark that it is ‘shameful’ suggests that the facilities could be a deterrent to tourists and appeals to the financial wellbeing of Australians, causing readers to fear for the country's financial stability. Likewise, she further provokes feelings of shame and disgrace in her remark and the audience is left to contemplate the government’s priorities and the standards of Australia’s facilities.

Sorry it's bad :/

[scottg15]

Here is some feedback for Coffee, but this is the first feedback ive given so don't rely on it too much.
If someone else could also give some feedback, both me and Coffee will be happy.

Spoiler

Esther Lewin’s opinion piece letter to the editor (may not be necessary but sounds a bit more sophisticated), ‘Shameful Introduction’, condemns the state of the toilets at Melbourne Airport. Great. Blunt and direct in tone, Lewin contends that the current state of the facilities are deplorable and will deter tourists. Great but also, who is the audience, and what general appeals. Just the intro may be too succinct.

Lewin expresses her disgust at the state of the toilets through a cluster of verbs verbs???, these are doing words, and you have listed describing words. Maybe ‘adjectives’ is suitable. ‘dirty’, ‘grubby’, and ‘grimy’, evoking a sense of revulsion amongst her readership. Great. Juxtaposed against the descriptors ‘rich’ and ‘well-resourced’, Lewin dramatises the state of Australia’s facilities and is further emphasised through her claim ‘these are Third World standard’. This (connotation) good word. Shows you are digging deep into the argument. is used to associate the toilets with developing countries, thus positioning the reader to view them in a negative light and feel both shocked and ashamed. Lewin remarks that the facilities look as though they haven’t been ‘updated for years’. By suggesting the facilities haven’t been updated, Lewin blames the government (I don’t know but is the airport part of the government. Maybe the Melbourne Airport.) for its current state; directing the audience’s outrage towards the government again. and positioning them to view the government again. as negligent for not adhering to proper hygiene standards.
Great paragraph,

By labelling the facilities as ‘necessary’, Lewin places the facilities at the forefront of the audience’s mind ; emphasising not that you’re using it too often, but this could be changed to highlights, underlines, or stresses. Probably more because this is what I need to do. their importance. Lewin stresses it is the ‘first introduction’ for overseas travellers to what Melbourne offers and her remark that it is ‘shameful’ suggests that the facilities could be a deterrent to tourists and appeals to the financial wellbeing of Australians, causing readers to fear for the country's financial stability. Something is clumsy in this sentence. But don’t know what??Likewise, she further provokes feelings of shame and disgrace in her remark which remark??? and if you’re talking about ‘shameful’, then don’t say is provokes shame, because that is obvious. and the audience is left to contemplate the government’s again priorities and the standards of Australia’s facilities.

Overall great essay and good work. This is the first time I’ve given feedback so don’t rely on this too much. Someone else may give you some.
However
- Could have included how Lewin is a traveller and therefore has the authority to speak so negatively about the toilets.

But otherwise, I like it. And keep up the hard work, It’ll pay off on the 28th.

[Coffee]

Thanks for the feedback scottg15

And yes, I did mean adjectives! Might pay to start proof-reading... Will fix the original post now.

[heids]

Here is week 5's letter!  Sorry it's late!  There are two letters - you can either chose one and write just on that, or do a comparative (which I recommend).  The topic is whether we should ban smacking in Australia.

Spoiler

Letter 1
The idea of banning smacking is based on nothing but nauseating, dewy-eyed, new-age catch-phrases - ‘socioemotional needs’, ‘emotional affirmation’ and ‘rich parent-child relationships’.

Giving the cheeky brats a good ol’ wallop or two won’t hurt ‘em.  I want my kid to grow up to be an honest, upright guy.  Someone who can take what comes.  Someone who can shoulder his duty without a whimper.  Someone who reminds me of the spirit and courage of our dying Anzacs.  Not a washed-out wimp who needs to be wrapped up in cotton wool and take the occasional recourse to smelling salts on a lace handkerchief to nurture his fragile delicacy.

They knew how to do it in the good ole days.
Jem Fitzwiggin, Footscray

Letter 2
Banning smacking.  The idea terrifies me.  Why should the government steal my chance to build bonds of love and respect between myself and my child?

I'm sure you're very familiar with these broad discipline types showcased in supermarkets.
Type 1: ‘No Henry, we’re not buying that, we’re going.’  The mother struts self-consciously up the aisle… halts indecisively… turns and flutters ineffectually back.  The irresolute, frazzled nagging repeats ceaselessly, as little Henry crows triumphantly; he knows he’s already won.
Type 2: A ceaseless torrent of yelling and abuse – an accumulation of fermenting anger at all his crimes from yesterday, last week, last month. The child cowers in sullen fear and anger.
Type 3: a firm, solid smack.  Instant obedience.  Instant forgiveness and love, as the child cries into the warm, comforting arms of his mummy.   It’s over.  Finished.  They can move on.

Somehow they think banning type 3 discipline will better our relationships and society.  But I have yet to meet someone who can give one conceivable reason why a simple, firm, open-handed smack is more damaging than prolonged violent verbal abuse. Tell me.  How on earth can forcing parents towards types 1 and 2 develop parent-child love, trust and respect? Which type do you want for your child?  Which type do you want for your society?
Angie James, Toowoomba

[scottg15]

Here is an attempt at week 4's, but as you'll probably realize i got sick of it by the end.

Spoiler

WEEK 4: WEEKLY LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR

Through appealing to his readers sense of pride, Jem Fitzwiggin in a letter to the editor, contends to the Australian parent that the idea of banning smacking impinges on the ANZAC spirit, and will only pamper the children to become ‘washed-out wimps’. Further attacking this proposal, Angie James contends to her readers that the banning will only tear at the parent-child love relationships of society, through the use of anecdotes and appeals to her reader’s common sense.

In his letter, Jem Fitzwiggin opens his letter by undermining the idea of banning smacking. Though using words such as ‘nauseating’ and ‘emotional affirmation’, Jem outlines to his readers that this idea has no solid basis for change, and intends to initially arouse questioning amongst his readership. Jem follows this with the use of colloquial language, stating ‘give the cheeky brats a good ol’ wallop’. This is used by Jem to align his readership with him, as he intends to draw parallels with his readers as to their children and their mischievous deeds. Having created this association, Jem uses a personal anecdote to give himself authority in the eyes of his readers as he too, has a ‘kid’.

Having created this foundation, Jem then appeals to his reader’s patriotic pride, through comparing his ideal of an ‘honest and upright’ child with the ‘spirit and courage of our dying Anzacs’. Through doing so, Jem intends to arouse questioning amongst his readership, as to their ideal child and the qualities they hold. However, Jem contrasts these positive characteristics with a ‘washed-out’ and a ‘wool’ wrapped, ‘wimp’. Through juxtaposing the two possible ideals, Jem appeals to his reader’s common sense, as they are coerced to choose between the two.

Also contending against the possible banning of smacking, Angie James opens her letter questioning the intentions of the government, accusing them of ‘steal[ing] her chance to build bonds of love and respect’. This initial undermining of the proposal, is used by Angie to provoke instant opposition to the government, as she appeals to her reader’s societal values.

Angie continues to do so through the use of ‘supermarket’ anecdotes. Contrasting the ‘indecisive mother’ and the ‘triumphant Henry’, with the ‘instant obedience…forgiveness and love’ of a ‘firm, solid smack’, Angie appeals to her reader’s common sense, as she depicts the ‘type 1’ and ‘type 2’ disciplines as tearing at the material of society. Further to this, Angie mocks the government using phrases such as ‘they think’, to demonstrate to her readers the irony of their role being to ‘better our relationships and society’. This is used by Angie to arouse anger amongst her readership for the irresponsible actions of the government.

Concluding her letter, Angie questions her readers’ stance by asking a rhetorical question. This is utilised by Angie to put back on her readers the responsibility for implementing the ‘type 3’ discipline. By asking, ‘what type do you want for your society?’ Angie reiterates the idea that the banning of smacking is tearing at the ‘parent-child love, trust and respect’ that form our society.

Thanks in advance for the feedback