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

[literally lauren]

Thought I might weigh in too with a little reminder.

You'll never run out of things to say in Language Analysis. There are always more techniques or implications than are evident in the pieces than you'll be able to find in an hour. Attached is an annotated version of the first comment from Week 4 which contains as much as I could feasibly fit on a single page document.
(Incidentally, you might want to go to >Review>Tracking>Reviewing Pane>Vertical to be able to read this easily; that way you can just click through each comment and it'll match it up with the relevant word or phrase.)

Realistically, you'd never write this much in your actual essay, and I've well and truly gone overboard here since there's over 100 words worth of comments for ~100 words of material :p If this were projected into an 800-1000 word piece like the exam material will be, I'd probably have covered about 30% of the comments I've made here, since the piece itself would have to be structured properly; it's not all just raw, disordered analysis. As always, the examiners are testing your selectivity and ability to find the most important things to comment on efficiently and effectively, but this is just an exercise in unpacking as much as possible from this kind of text, and the Letters to the Editor in this thread are a great place to start.

If you're someone who finds the identification of techniques quote difficult, I can highly recommend this as a practice method to train your brain to recognise smaller details and persuasive constructs. Turn it into a challenge to see just how many comments you can come up with, and you'll gradually force yourself to deal with the less obvious stuff that lies beneath the surface.


& I've also attached some additional feedback for TheAspiringDoc since he's been the most prolific marker on this thread and is totally putting the Class of '15 to shame with his diligence :p

Loving this initiative though, and from week-to-week I'm already noticing improvements in people's writing, which is amazing. Keep up the good work guys - not long to go now! 

[tommyl97]

Here is my submission for Week 1. Comments are greatly appreciated. 

PS - To mods, if you're wondering why the same response was submitted under a different account but then deleted; my friend's account was signed in on my laptop without realising. 

Week 1 Response

The lack of disclosure regarding “operational matters” and manipulation carried by politicians has created disunity within the Australian community. Greg Trenton’s opinion piece, “This ordinary bloke has finally had enough” published in The Age, contends in an emphatic tone that politicians should put an end to their secrecy and let “ordinary blokes” like him, know the real truth behind conflicts that occur outside our borders.

The use of “ordinary bloke” sets up the tone for the rest of the letter. He stresses that he is just an average Australian with a “$400k mortgage, two kids in primary school, two at work”. Such statements would encourage fellow citizens to positions themselves with him as he does not enjoy any more privilege or power than his opponents. The establishment of the fact that he does not “give a rats about politics” emphasises that he lacks the motivation to have any concern for the actions of the members of Parliament. Yet he immediately turns this around when he signals that he is sick of the “being taken for an idiot”. This would stir up concurrence by fellow Australians as they would not like to be treated as foolish citizens by “pollies and union leaders” with more “perks” than the rest of the nation.

The imagery illustrated by the recounts of situations from people returning home demonstrates the need for politicians to be held accountable for their “lies and deceit”. The mentioning of the “abuse of kids” and the “rape of their mums” is likely to incite shock and disgust due to the severe maltreatment of these people in detention centres. As many of the readers are probably mums and dads much like Trent, seeing themselves or their own children in the same situation would be extremely horrifying to imagine. Moreover, doctors who have respectable positions within society are labelled as “disaffected liars with a political agenda” coerced into remaining quiet about the issue or otherwise face “two years in jail”. Therefore, this suppression of free-speech and unjust generalisations made upon the behalf of politicians would increasingly positions readers to side themselves with Trent.

Regretting his inaction over all of this throughout his entire life, he invites other people to join him in his cause. Many of his recruits would be “focusing on [their] family” but Trent exclaims that this is the “final straw”. With many acts of terrorism occurring around the world, the nation’s people would be interested in knowing what involvement they have in its dissolution. However, Trent makes it clear that politicians are highly “political” with their answers and refuse to “alert the baddies to their tactics”. Such statements are likely to generate cynicism amongst the readership given Trent’s dismissal of the truth of their words. These feelings are reminiscent of the 9/11 bombings and the war on terror and is clearly linked through his suggestion to “fly a plane into Parliament”. Though, on a serious note he encourages Australians to write to a local member or enlist, just like he is going to.

[Burt Macklin]

WEEK 4 LA:

Spoiler

In a letter to the editor entitled “Shameful introduction”, Lewin contends in an admonishing tone that the state of Melbourne Airport toilets should elicit shame from its employers and the general public. Lewin predominantly employs loaded language and sharp contrasts to persuade Melbournians.

Lewin associates the state of Melbourne Airport toilets with repeated claims that it is “shameful” as the disdainful language targets readers’ affection for Melbourne. By targeting their affection, Lewin appeals to the readers’ sense of justice as he positions them to feel threatened that a negative perception has been created by the incompetence of Melbourne Airport. Moreover, by stating that it is the “first introduction” overseas travellers have of the city and implying that judgement would be passed, Lewin instils in his audience the embarrassing notion that their home would be perceived as abysmal. Thus, by reinforcing this sense of shame in his audience, Lewin compels them to oppose the employers of the Airport who have caused a presumably undeserving perception of what Melbourne is like.

Lewin emphasises the fact that he has “travelled often”, conveying to the reader that his perception of the toilets are not ill-informed, especially given that he has been disgusted “each time” he has been at the airport.  As a result, Lewin confronts his audience with the notion that misconduct has been pervasive as he underlines the negligence of the Airport staff for not rectifying the state of the toilets any time sooner. This notion is further highlighted by Lewin denigrating the airport with the condemnatory “unconscionable behaviour”, implying to the reader that the airport has failed on two accounts due to their neglect of the Airport toilets and their moral failure to acknowledge the task of cleaners who are assumed to be the “lowest paid”. Therefore, Lewin positions readers to abhor Melbourne Airport employers with the belief that injustice has occurred.

Lewis labels the toilets as “Third World standard” as he suggests that is a far cry from the standards of a First World and “rich” country. Thus, Lewin invokes outrage from his readers due to their sense of patriotism being threatened by the notion that the poor sanitation and hygiene implied in “grimy sinks” and “dirty floors” is misrepresentative of a country that is generally clean and “well resourced”.

Feedback for tommyl97:

Spoiler

The lack of disclosure regarding “operational matters” and manipulation carried by politicians has created disunity within the Australian community. Greg Trenton’s opinion pieceletter to the editor (all LA pieces are essentially opinion pieces, so I think it pays to be specific.), “This ordinary bloke has finally had enough” published in The Age, contends in an emphatic tone that politicians should put an end to their secrecy and let “ordinary blokes” like him, know the real truth behind conflicts that occur outside our borders. Nice intro.

The use of “ordinary bloke” sets up the tone What kind of tone?for the rest of the letter. He stresses that he is just an average Australian with a “$400k mortgage, two kids in primary school, two at work”. Such statements would encourage fellow citizens to positions themselves with him as he does not enjoy any more privilege or power than his opponents.Why does he position himself as an "ordinary bloke" and encourage citizens to align themselves with him? The establishment of the fact that he does not “give a rats about politics” emphasises that he lacks the motivation to have any concern for the actions of the members of Parliament. Yet he immediately turns this around when he signals that he is sick of the “being taken for an idiot”. Nice pick up, but why do you think he doesn't give a "rats" about politics and then suddenly is concerned about the lies of politicians ? What effect does this have on his audience when they realise a man who usually is apathetic to politics is compelled to write this letter? This would stir up concurrence by fellow Australians as they would not like to be treated as foolish citizens by “pollies and union leaders” with more “perks” than the rest of the nation.

The imagery illustrated by the recounts of situations from people returning home demonstrates the need for politicians to be held accountable for their “lies and deceit”. The mentioning of the “abuse of kids” and the “rape of their mums” is likely to incite shock and disgust due to the severe maltreatment of these people in detention centres. As many of the readers are probably mums and dads likely parents much like Trent, seeing themselves or their own children in the same situation would be extremely horrifying to imagine. And, therefore, how are they positioned to view the issue?Moreover, doctors who have respectable positions within society are labelled as “disaffected liars with a political agenda” coerced into remaining quiet about the issue or otherwise face “two years in jail”. Therefore, this suppression of free-speech and unjust generalisations made upon the behalf of politicians would increasingly positions readers to side themselves with Trent.Last bit is a bit too general, be more specific about the intended effect on the reader. Link it to how the suppression of free-speech and unjust generalisations are likely to make them feel.

Regretting his inaction over all of this throughout his entire life, he invites other people to join him in his cause.HOW does he invite people to join his cause? Does it have something to do with him saying that he regrets his inaction? Many of his recruits would be “focusing on [their] family” but Trent exclaims that this is the “final straw”. With many acts of terrorism occurring around the world, the nation’s people would be interested in knowing what involvement they have in its dissolution. Relevance? However, Trent makes it clear that politicians are highly “political” with their answers and refuse to “alert the baddies to their tactics”.  Such statements are likely to generate cynicism amongst the readership given Trent’s dismissal of the truth of their words. How is cynicism generated by saying that they would refuse to "alert the baddies?"These feelings are reminiscent of the 9/11 bombings and the war on terror and is clearly linked through his suggestion to “fly a plane into Parliament”.What affect does suggesting they fly a  paper plane into Parliament have on the reader? Why is he suddenly employing humour? Though, on a serious note he encourages Australians to write to a local member or enlist, just like he is going to. How? Cite specific evidence.

Overall, like me, I think you need to work on expanding on the specific intended effect on the reader are more explicitly HOW and WHY by constantly asking questions such as:
- How are the audience persuaded to think/ feel? How is this achieved through language? How are certain key players / issues positioned to the reader?
- Why does the author want them to feel / think this way?

A good effort, nonetheless. 

[heids]

Week 6 letters

Two on the topic of the recent bushfires, which resulted from a controlled burn (by a government-employed guy) which ... well ... wasn't so controlled.  You can analyse one, or both in comparative, or both separately.  Your choice, brother.

Spoiler

Letter 1
I am not aware of one instance in which a controlled or planned burn has subsequently stopped or slowed the progress of a bushfire. From the present Lancefield disaster back to the fire that devastated Wilsons Promontory, and further back, many controlled/planned burns have become out of control. In addition, the poor air quality in regional areas caused by controlled or fuel-reduction burns seriously affects the health of residents. This ridiculous practice must cease. The only basis for controlled burning is the desire of successive state governments to be seen to be doing something about bushfires.

Authorities need to focus on such things as the prevention of arson, the education of machinery operators, and the use of 21st-century technology to locate fires as soon as possible after they start, so that they may be extinguished quickly. Where, during our bushfire season, are the large jet air tankers used in the US?

John Christiansen, St Kilda

Letter 2: Living in fear and dread
We live at the edge of the Great Dividing Range and lost everything on Black Saturday. With much care, we rebuilt to protect ourselves and our home and we are hyper-vigilant about weather conditions. Why did we bother?

On Tuesday, embers blew in from the Lancefield bushfire, 41kilometres away. Someone had lit a fire on the edge of a forest going into forecast days of extreme heat and strong wind.  This person was not an arsonist but an employee of the Environment Department. How can it have been so irresponsible?

Anyone with a grain of sense can see these forests are already in drought. Moreover, it is ironic that a strategy intended to protect people and assets from fire actually subjects them to that very trauma and loss. We are extremely nervous that one day the Environment Department will earmark our forest for a useless reduction burn and everyone from here to Marysville will re-live that tragic day in 2009.
Bonny Francis, Upper Plenty

[tashhhaaa]

I know I've been a bit inactive here but since it's all about LAs:

how do you guys cope with the time constraints? My teacher recommends writing it in 50 min but I'm still not finishing them and it ends up taking me 70 mins :s

also I will write the latest piece up tonight, call me out if I forget Heidi plz

(...I forget everything...)

[heids]

how do you guys cope with the time constraints? My teacher recommends writing it in 50 min but I'm still not finishing them and it ends up taking me 70 mins :s

also I will write the latest piece up tonight, call me out if I forget Heidi plz

(...I forget everything...)

Will do Tash

[If I had been writing essays at this point which I wasn't], I had exactly the same problem (took like 70-80 mins on each when practising, and even under exam pressure, I only had 35 mins to give to Context ).

For you, the way to improve is probably
a) practise
b) cut out techniques/quotes - just decide not to write about them
c) develop a list of sentence formulas and phrases, and reuse till they flow off your pen without thought
d) quit on perfectionism.  Just write something even not quite so good.  If you have an idea, put it down on the page even when it's not quite as good as you'd like.  If you can't start a paragraph, just start it really badly - and come back later.

[tashhhaaa]

Will do Tash

[If I had been writing essays at this point which I wasn't], I had exactly the same problem (took like 70-80 mins on each when practising, and even under exam pressure, I only had 35 mins to give to Context ).

For you, the way to improve is probably
a) practise
b) cut out techniques/quotes - just decide not to write about them
c) develop a list of sentence formulas and phrases, and reuse till they flow off your pen without thought
d) quit on perfectionism.  Just write something even not quite so good.  If you have an idea, put it down on the page even when it's not quite as good as you'd like.  If you can't start a paragraph, just start it really badly - and come back later.

thanks! I think perfectionism is my biggest issue :s
may I ask, if you weren't writing essays at this point, how did you prepare?!

[tashhhaaa]

My Week 6 piece:

so I wrote this with the intention of doing a comparative but I sort of forgot and this is what I came up with, but I couldn't really pull anything else out of this anyway

Spoiler

Recent instances of irresponsible controlled burning have sparked concern among members of affected and concerned communities. In his letter to the editor, John Christiansen contends that planned burnings are a ploy for state governments to present a facade of action against bush fires that only increase the risk of such disasters occurring rather than an effective measure of control. Similarly, Upper Plenty resident Bonny Francis argues that the Environment Department’s back burning measures are “irresponsible” and only exacerbate the issue.

Christiansen begins with his admission that he has never witnessed an instance where controlled burning has “stopped or slowed the progress” of a bushfire. This creates an immediate feeling of scorn directed at the Environment Department and other responsible parties among his readership who are presumably victims or bush fires whilst presenting the argument that controlled burning is useless which pervades his letter. Francis employs a similar approach in her letter, branding fuel-reduction burns as “useless”. Christiansen continues to highlight the perceived disadvantages of planned burning by alerting readers of the “poor air quality” it causes in regional areas that “seriously affects the health” of residents. Through this statement, Christiansen seeks to create a sense of alarm whilst asserting that the actions of the Environment Department are detrimental to their health and therefore cannot be of benefit to anyone. In suggesting that authorities need to “preven[t] arson” and focus on “education of machinery”, Christiansen presents a solution for bush fire prevention. He advocates for “21st century technology” to be employed to save lives, which appeals to readers’ own desires to stay up to date that should be reflected through fire authorities’ methodology. Christiansen concludes by stating that Australian services are not using the “large jet tankers” of the US. This acts to elicit concern in readers who will view Australian Environmental Services as out of date and therefore ineffective.

In contrast to Christiansen, Francis adopts an anecdotal and inclusive approach to persuade her target audience. She begins by stating that “we rebuilt to protect ourselves” and that “we are hyper-vigilant” about weather conditions. The words “protect ourselves” and “hyper-vigilant” connote negative feelings towards environmental authorities as they imply that they have failed to keep her community safe whilst evoking a sense of collective hardship resulting from “useless reduction burn”. This is further supported by her description of not an “arsonist… but an employee of the Environment Department” causing embers from a nearby bushfire to land in her town. She speaks on behalf of her township to create a sense of fear in saying that “we are extremely nervous” that the Environment Department will re-create that “tragic [Black Saturday] in 2009”.

[heids]

Sorry for not being round here much, badly timed a whole heap of extra shifts and other commitments just round exam time so I don't even have enough seconds to check AN let alone help out (((((((((
plus I seriously believe the dementia of all my patients is rubbing off on me

thanks! I think perfectionism is my biggest issue :s
may I ask, if you weren't writing essays at this point, how did you prepare?!

Whoops, sorry for not answering.  I'm not saying you shouldn't write essays (that would be like the worst advice ever given on this forum), but that I didn't because I totally gave up on them like 6 weeks before the exam.  Instead, I analysed my texts, planned for prompts, annotated articles for LA, etc.

Here's feedback for your piece, too, tashhhaaa!

Spoiler

Recent instances of irresponsible controlled burning have sparked concern among members of affected and concerned communities. nice start In his letter to the editor, John Christiansen contends that planned burnings are a ploy for state governments to present a facade of action against bush fires that only increase the risk of such disasters occurring rather than an effective measure of control really nicely written (I like the simple clear start of 'in his ___, author contends....'), but you've tried to cram a bit too much into your contention so the sentence is a bit roundabout - either cut out bits or split in two. Similarly, Upper Plenty resident Bonny Francis argues that the Environment Department’s back burning measures are “irresponsible” and only exacerbate the issue. again, nice sentence - but does it fully embody the message of her piece?  She's much more 'alarmist' and emotional - she doesn't just logically explain that it exacerbates the issue, she tries to get us stressed as about it!
Really nicely written intro - short, to the point, clear, well-expressed, and covers what you need to cover.  No dramas, you've got this down pat!

Christiansen begins with his admission that he has never witnessed an instance where controlled burning has “stopped or slowed the progress” of a bushfire. this quote feels like it's put here 'just coz' - you could've picked out more powerful quotes that you can specifically analyse (e.g. 'I am not aware of one instance' - super forceful, right? like, there's not even ONE CASE on EARTH that's been successful guys!! - it's not an 'admission' it's a forceful/frustrated statement).  Quotes aren't there just to fill out your writing, instead they're supposed to provide one little 1-4 word piece of language that you can analyse and focus on how those particular words/language make us feel This creates an immediate feeling of scorn good directed at the Environment Department and other responsible parties among his readership who are presumably victims or bush fires whilst presenting the argument that controlled burning is useless which pervades his letter. Francis employs a similar approach in her letter, branding fuel-reduction burns as “useless” impact? how does this word/argument make us feel?. Christiansen continues to highlight the perceived disadvantages of planned burning by alerting readers of the “poor air quality” it causes in regional areas that “seriously affects the health” of residents. Through this statement, Christiansen seeks to create a sense of alarm whilst asserting that the actions of the Environment Department are detrimental to their health and therefore cannot be of benefit to anyone. In suggesting that authorities need to “preven[t] arson” and focus on “education of machinery”, Christiansen presents a solution for bush fire prevention. He advocates for “21st century technology” to be employed to save lives, which appeals to readers’ own desires to stay up to date good that should be reflected through fire authorities’ methodology. Christiansen concludes by stating that Australian services are not using the “large jet tankers” of the US. This acts to elicit concern in readers who will view Australian Environmental Services as out of date and therefore ineffective.

In contrast to Christiansen, Francis adopts an anecdotal and inclusive approach to persuade her target audience. She begins by stating that “we rebuilt to protect ourselves” and that “we are hyper-vigilant” about weather conditions. The words “protect ourselves” and “hyper-vigilant” connote negative feelings towards environmental authorities as they imply that they have failed to keep her community safe how do those particular words imply this? and can you be specific about what negative feelings you're talking about? *** whilst evoking a sense of collective hardship resulting from “useless reduction burn” (start new sentence at red asterisks - always give yourself a bit more space to analyse things; you have all the room in the world!  It's tempting to try cramming too much into one sentence, but always breathe and feel free to spread over 2-3 sentences on one quote. This is further supported by her description of not an “arsonist… but an employee of the Environment Department” causing embers from a nearby bushfire to land in her town. so why does she use this language?  Is that quote particularly strong/emotive/persuasive? She speaks on behalf of her township to create a sense of fear in saying that “we are extremely nervous” that the Environment Department will re-create that “tragic [Black Saturday] in 2009”. I feel that the letter is actually more emotional and stressed-out than this...

The biggest thing is perhaps picking out cooler quotes so you can analyse how the language and tone makes us feel - examples: Anyone with a grain of sense, trauma and loss, relive that tragic day, how can it have been so irresponsible, devastated, this ridiculous practice [/b]must[/b] cease, I am not aware of one instance, etc.  You don't wanna dump in random quotes for the sake of it - instead, think, what words are the most powerful and impacting, let's discuss THEM and how exactly that choice of words impacts me!

Also just more analysis and a bit less description of what the author is doing - for example:
She speaks on behalf of her township to create a sense of fear in saying that “we are extremely nervous” that the Environment Department will re-create that “tragic [Black Saturday] in 2009”.
Green = description of what she says or does
Red = analysis of impact
You want more RED all throughout!  A good exercise could be going through your past essays/work yourself and highlighting any analysis - the more highlights you have in a paragraph the better!  Keep working for more and more highlighted chunks in your essay
(e.g. rather than just quoting 'that tragic day in 2009', you could analyse the impact of the word 'tragic', etc.  I want you to be picking out the most powerful things and analysing the hell out of them, which mainly means grab 1-2 words like 'tragic' or 'ridiculous' and think how it makes us feel.)

But anyways, this is a really good piece, don't feel any stress about it!  Just keep working on more analysis, more analysis, more analysis.  Pull out specific powerful quotes and think about how EXACTLY they make us feel! And you will kill this

This whole feedback is poorly explained (I also pressed backspace in my browser and lost it first time round ) because I'm just dead tired from work.

And... I'm also too rushed to find a vaguely half-decent letter so here are the two first letters I found for WEEK 7 (two options because I have barely read them yet, so pick the one you like better )

Spoiler

It's heartening to see governments responding compassionately by moving to legalise medicinal marijuana. One reason is the realisation that those in need will source the drug anyway. Clearly it is preferable for governments to control supply than for citizens to take matters into their own hands. The same argument applies to medically assisted dying, also a means of relieving suffering yet seemingly a bridge too far for most politicians. Similarly, citizens who seek to avoid suffering will continue to hasten their own deaths without waiting for permission. But those deaths will occur by less suitable means, causing trauma to families and to those who find their bodies. Our politicians need to find the courage to act decisively in the matter of voluntary assisted deaths, and to show the same compassion that is evidenced with medical marijuana.

Bob Thomas, Blackburn South

Spoiler

Wean governments off the revenue

Jonathan Holmes highlights the pitiful situation that poker machines have created in this country. The ABC's program Ka-Ching Pokie Nation revealed the worst as far as problem gamblers and their families are concerned. Many hundreds of thousands of people are directly and indirectly affected in this way. The onus is on the gambler to be responsible for the product that makes people addicted in the first place. The bells, sounds, music etc are all there to suck people in to this legalised and government-endorsed "theft". Granted, more than 180,000 people are employed in pubs, clubs, casinos and other places with gambling facilities. Good for those people with jobs, but at what cost? Revenue-shifting at its best. The state governments "love" the tax revenue. The losses with pokies in clubs, pubs and casinos amount to $12billion. But governments really give out only a pittance to combat problem gambling. We need political action on this issue. We need to drastically cut poker machine numbers, reduce problem gamblers and losses and wean governments off the revenue. Politicians in the past may have failed but we should not give up fighting against powerful and entrenched interests and show how greedy and manipulative these interests really are.

Peter Allan, Blackburn

If you write a piece, anyone, I will give feedback on it on Monday morning - I'd really encourage you guys to keep writing and not give up on your last leg!

[Mc47]

That extensive annotations thing is incredibly helpful. Thanks a lot!

[tashhhaaa]

Sorry for not being round here much, badly timed a whole heap of extra shifts and other commitments just round exam time so I don't even have enough seconds to check AN let alone help out (((((((((
plus I seriously believe the dementia of all my patients is rubbing off on me

Whoops, sorry for not answering.  I'm not saying you shouldn't write essays (that would be like the worst advice ever given on this forum), but that I didn't because I totally gave up on them like 6 weeks before the exam.  Instead, I analysed my texts, planned for prompts, annotated articles for LA, etc.

Here's feedback for your piece, too, tashhhaaa!

thank you! if you can, (focus on work/sleep/fun and take a break first!) what do you think that deserves out of 10? My teacher keeps giving me 7s for everything and I'm absolutely terrified

[elysian]

Here is letter 6.

[99.90 pls]

Week 7 (Pokie machine letter) - I only got back into LA a few days ago after a six-month hiatus so feedback would be really appreciated! Thanks

Spoiler

Inspired by the ABC’s recent program ‘Ka-Ching Pokie Nation’, Peter Allan of Blackburn has written a letter to the editor which contends, in an fervent, abhorred tone, that greater political action must be taken to denounce and sanction the gambling industry, and that current measures are insufficient. He targets the entire Victorian demographic in hopes of generating grassroots support for the “[combatting]” of “problem gambling”.

Allan titles his letter “Wean governments off the revenue”, likening “revenue” to a narcotic to be “[weaned]” off. Thus, he implies that “governments” are addicted to a notion which may provide temporary relief but will ultimately result in grave harm. “Wean” also links in with the addictive nature of “poker machines”, suggesting that the “governments” too have become gambling addicts. The superfluous “many” in “many hundreds of thousands” exacerbates the magnitude of the “problem” immensely, as three consecutive multiplicative quantifiers (“many hundreds… thousands”) evoke the image of unbridled exponential growth. The repeated and emphatic use of the conjunction “and” in “gamblers and their families”, “directly and indirectly” imply that the issue has become ubiquitous, and that it is spreading like a plague in that one party being afflicted will directly result in another related party also being affected.

The circular logic of “[the] onus is on the gambler…” highlights the irrationality of the “pitiful situation”, in conjunction with the oxymoronic irony of “government-endorsed theft”, as the enforcers who are supposed to prevent theft are now partaking in it. This also evokes a sense of lawlessness and moral decadence, which is supported by the scathing accusations of “greedy and manipulative” interests.

Finally, the anaphora of the inclusive “we” in “We need political action… We need to… reduce problem gamblers… We should not give up…” angles the reader alongside Allan and creates a dichotomy between the government and its sinister “entrenched interests” versus the noble action which he emphatically invites readers to take.

[heids]

thank you! if you can, (focus on work/sleep/fun and take a break first!) what do you think that deserves out of 10? My teacher keeps giving me 7s for everything and I'm absolutely terrified

Agreed, it’s not as good as the other sections of your writing I’ve marked (you were right and tight with those).  But you definitely shouldn't be terrified!  Just keep working on getting SPECIFIC quotes and focusing on how SPECIFICALLY they impact us, and explaining every step of the way; just a bit more practise should get you a long way.  You've got a solid good ability, just need some more fine tuning and you'll be right!!

(and sorry, I never give marks, I don't have a CLUE what equals what marks)

Feedback on elysian’s week 6 piece

Spoiler

The introduction of controlled or planned burning has left many communities that have recently experienced bushfires in disbelief since your first sentence is your first impression on the examiner, I’d try to make sure it’s accurate – for instance, this isn’t about controlled burning being ‘introduced’ (I think the letters make it clear enough that it’s a long-term thing? If not, sorry for not giving the background clearly enough!), and I wouldn’t say it’s left people in ‘disbelief’; more they’re annoyed, frustrated, scared.  But this is a minor quibble, don’t stress . In his letter to editorial, John Christiansen contends that the Government should focus on preventing bushfires instead of controlled or planned burning as controlled burning is not only useless but destructive. Similarly, Bony Francis agrees that reduction burning does not make a difference to the prevention of bushfires. I don’t think is quite what she’s arguing – isn’t she more focusing on how they could actually START a new fire?  Go through it chunk by chunk and you’ll see that she’s more trying to present them as scary and dangerous and traumatic and destructive and unfair - trying to arouse fear and horror and outrage and all that jazz.

Beginning by stating that controlled or planned burning has not ‘stopped or slowed down the progress of a bushfire’; the author suggests that the burning does not prevent bushfires in any way leaving readers to feel outrage for the continuation of it. Referencing to the Lancefield bushfire, readers are positioned to condemn the use of bushfires controlled burning (tiny, but try to be accurate!) as they may be able to get ‘out of control’ creating a potential risk to the community good start, but you could expand or explain the steps a bit more; the steps in your analysis are currently quote (‘out of control’) --> creates potential risk --> positions readers to condemn planned burns.  Now I want you to put in an extra ‘step’ between the second and third – how does the fact that it creates a risk make readers condemn it?  Do they feel fear, insecurity, danger, etc. – and how does that lead to them condemning these burns?  You want to avoid jumping between a quote and the overall contention in 1-2 leaps – it feels super obvious, but you have to explain every step of the journey.  Picture your examiner as a 5-year-old who needs you to explain everything or they won’t get it!  Hold their hand and step them along with baby steps, and they'll reward you with a 10 instead of a 7 . Christiansen ensure the audience support in ceasing the practice as he attacks the Government who only seem to be implementing the burning so they are seen as being productive same thing again: you say ‘he attacks the government --> thus audience support his point of view’; but that leaves a big gap!  HOW does attacking the government make the audience agree?  Show me all the links in your reasoning or I won’t believe you The rhetorical question ‘ Where during our bushfire season, are the large jet tankers used in the US’ suggests that the Government is not doing enough to stop bushfires leaving readers to feel outraged for the lack of action by the Government this is much better, very good! You explain in more detail and it all makes super logical sense.  Keep it up!

In a similar manner, Francis criticises the Government for the continued use of controlled burning. Readers are left to feel as they cannot trust the Government as the Lancefield fire was caused by a member of the Environment Department and not an arsonist. The phrase ‘grain of sense’ great quote choice implies to readers that the Government are ignorant as they cannot see that planned burning is doing more harm than good so what’s the point of presenting the government as ignorant? How does this make them agree with the author’s overall contention?.  Readers are positioned to sympathise with those who survived Black Friday  as the writer mentions that many are still ‘hyper-vigilant about weather conditions’ again, just a little bit more gap-filling could be great – how does the people being ‘hypervigilant’ make us feel more sympathy?  Think about how it makes them look responsible, careful, like they’re acting, etc. – so we can’t blame it on them, and we also feel like they are working hard and doing their best so they really deserve other people to support them and we feel more sorry for them when they get hurt, than if they were just lazy good-for-nothings who expected everyone else to do their work.
Oh, and.  Just a reminder that short quotes (e.g. just the word 'hyper-vigilant' or 'tragic' or 'grain of sense') are easier to analyse than longer sentences, because you can focus on how just one thing influences us without getting bogged down in trying to deal with a whole sentence.  This lets you go into how each word makes the readers FEEL (scared or outraged or stupid or...). The repetition of ‘ we’ suggests that people who lived in areas that were affected by Black Saturday will be forced to replay the tragic events of the day.  avoid analysing ‘we’ unless it’s SUPER key to the argument.  Instead maybe try analysing the word ‘tragic’ or something

Although the two pieces present similar views, they take different approaches to presenting their argument. I'd just dive in with 'Overall, while Francis employs..., Christiansen...' Frances employs a more personal approach with the use of anecdotes GREAT that you're thinking about their slightly different approaches - with a clearer understanding of the contention of each you could make this even better! while Christiansen attacks the Government for not taking bushfires more seriously.

OVERALL: good and solid, you clearly know what you're doing   You pick out key quotes, and analyse what the author is doing and why But to improve:

1.  Make your contentions more specific and accurate  Try to check exactly what they're arguing and what they're saying.  Just imagine you were explaining what it was about to your friend ('yeah, I was reading this cool article about controlled burning lately, you should so read it!! ' ).  Explain in your head step-by-step what it's about and what it's saying, and you'll find it easier to tell exactly what the contention is.  Half the state will just say the author is arguing that 'controlled burning is bad' - you want to stand out by actually going deep in to what the author is actually saying, like 'controlled burning is super-dangerous and is going to wipe us all out though we're working so hard and it's not fair and wahhh and everyone get scared!'

2.  Explain every step of the way.  Even when it seems ridiculously obvious.  When you state 'X causes Y' (X is a quote and Y is an impact), think about and explain HOW X caused Y.

3.  Focus on how their words and language impact us.  To find quotes, maybe skim-read a paragraph and see if there are any individual words or really short phrases that 'jump out' to you as powerful, like 'relive that tragic day' (esp 'tragic'), 'how can it have been so irresponsible (esp 'so irresponsible'), 'trauma and loss', 'this ridiculous practice must cease', (esp 'ridiculous'), 'disaster', 'devastated'.... and so on.  Then, with each, think about why it's powerful.  How does it make you feel?  What emotions does it stir?  Anger?  Fear?  Scorn?  Why does that word make you feel like that? &c.

Feedback on 99.90pls’s week 7 piece

Spoiler

Inspired by the ABC’s recent program ‘Ka-Ching Pokie Nation’, Peter Allan of Blackburn has written a letter to the editor which contends, in an fervent, abhorred tone, that greater political action must be taken to denounce and sanction word choice? Sanction = approve or give permission. EDIT: looked it up, turns out the word has two opposite meanings and I only knew one… UGH MY IGNORANCE the gambling industry, and that current measures are insufficient. He targets the entire Victorian demographic in hopes of generating grassroots support for the “[combatting]” of “problem gambling”. basically flawless intro, I'd just mention the government since a lot of it is about attacking them and their interests in gambling

Allan titles his letter “Wean governments off the revenue”, likening “revenue” don’t need to put this in quotes to a narcotic to be “[weaned]” off. Thus, he implies that “governments” are addicted to a notion which may provide temporary relief but will ultimately result in grave harm awesome! Seriously, this is like the best sentence I’ve read in marking essays all year.. “Wean” also links in with the addictive nature of “poker machines”, suggesting that the “governments” too have become gambling addicts given time restraints, you’re probably going on too long about one word – I’d cut this sentence because you killed that word last sentence already; expand on the impact of that rather than adding a new point.  Anyways, now can you just draw it a bit further to the reader?  You’re using words like ‘implies’ and ‘suggests’, which are great, but they’re about what the AUTHOR is doing rather than the focus on the READER.  So now, if we see the govt as addicted.  How does that make us FEEL and THINK about them?  You could either start a new sentence and expand (e.g. ‘Hence, the reader may feel/view the government as…’), or ‘cheat’ by swapping ‘suggesting’ with ‘encouraging the reader to feel’… The superfluous “many” in “many hundreds of thousands” exacerbates the magnitude of the “problem” again, I wouldn’t “quote” so much as you’re doing because it looks messy and takes the focus away from the quotes that you’re actually analysing, like ‘wean’ or ‘many’ immensely, as three consecutive multiplicative quantifiers curious, can you come up with words like this under exam conditions!? I sincerely hope not, for everyone else’s sake (“many hundreds… thousands”) evoke the image of unbridled exponential growth. The repeated and emphatic use of the conjunction “and” in “gamblers and their families”, “directly and indirectly” imply that the issue has become ubiquitous, and that it is spreading like a plague in that one party being afflicted will directly result in another related party also being affected. If you could pull this stuff in the exam, you’d be 10ing it for sure.  Awesome stuff.  All the more awesome because it’s unusual and no one else will think of it.  Now take it that step further – if we see that the issue is ubiquitous and spreading, how does that make us feel?  Scared?  Worried?  Annoyed? (all that stuff, I’ll leave it to you to clothe in fancy language )

The circular logic of “[the] onus is on the gambler…” highlights the irrationality of the “pitiful situation”, in conjunction with the oxymoronic irony of “government-endorsed theft”, as the enforcers who are supposed to prevent theft are now partaking in it. This also evokes a sense of lawlessness and moral decadence, which is supported by the scathing accusations of “greedy and manipulative” interests. Same thing – spotlessly perfect analysis except that you could focus on the reader’s response more – they’ll see it as irrational and thus condemn the idea, or they feel it’s lawless and morally decadent and thus it makes them feel ____ about the government [ugh all my ideas feel idiotic next to your flawless prose]

Finally, the anaphora of the inclusive “we” in “We need political action… We need to… reduce problem gamblers… We should not give up…” angles the reader alongside Allan and creates a dichotomy between the government and its sinister “entrenched interests” versus the noble action which he emphatically invites readers to take. another minor point – you could try to split up sentences a bit shorter.  I know the temptation to fit everything into one sentence, but you have a bit more room to ‘move’ if you can split it up with ‘This/It also…’ or ‘Furthermore…’.  When you try to cram everything into one sentence, it gets tricky trying to keep it all clear and easy to navigate.

Imagining that LA has three steps -
1. Quote and/or technique (WHAT the author is doing)
2. The immediate impact of this (i.e. what it suggests, presents or implies)
3. How this makes the reader feel and think and want to do
- you are utterly, impossibly killing steps 1 and 2.

But to make 1000% sure that you kill the 10, focus on step 3.  How does each and every quote you mention make the reader feel or think about the issue?  What emotions does it raise?  How does it make them view the people or things involved?

Brother.  Work on step 3 and make sure you can reproduce this in the exam, and the examiners will be disappointed there’s no such thing as an 11/10.

[99.90 pls]

Feedback on 99.90pls’s week 7 piece

Spoiler

Inspired by the ABC’s recent program ‘Ka-Ching Pokie Nation’, Peter Allan of Blackburn has written a letter to the editor which contends, in an fervent, abhorred tone, that greater political action must be taken to denounce and sanction word choice? Sanction = approve or give permission. EDIT: looked it up, turns out the word has two opposite meanings and I only knew one… UGH MY IGNORANCE the gambling industry, and that current measures are insufficient. He targets the entire Victorian demographic in hopes of generating grassroots support for the “[combatting]” of “problem gambling”. basically flawless intro, I'd just mention the government since a lot of it is about attacking them and their interests in gambling

Allan titles his letter “Wean governments off the revenue”, likening “revenue” don’t need to put this in quotes to a narcotic to be “[weaned]” off. Thus, he implies that “governments” are addicted to a notion which may provide temporary relief but will ultimately result in grave harm awesome! Seriously, this is like the best sentence I’ve read in marking essays all year.. “Wean” also links in with the addictive nature of “poker machines”, suggesting that the “governments” too have become gambling addicts given time restraints, you’re probably going on too long about one word – I’d cut this sentence because you killed that word last sentence already; expand on the impact of that rather than adding a new point.  Anyways, now can you just draw it a bit further to the reader?  You’re using words like ‘implies’ and ‘suggests’, which are great, but they’re about what the AUTHOR is doing rather than the focus on the READER.  So now, if we see the govt as addicted.  How does that make us FEEL and THINK about them?  You could either start a new sentence and expand (e.g. ‘Hence, the reader may feel/view the government as…’), or ‘cheat’ by swapping ‘suggesting’ with ‘encouraging the reader to feel’… The superfluous “many” in “many hundreds of thousands” exacerbates the magnitude of the “problem” again, I wouldn’t “quote” so much as you’re doing because it looks messy and takes the focus away from the quotes that you’re actually analysing, like ‘wean’ or ‘many’ immensely, as three consecutive multiplicative quantifiers curious, can you come up with words like this under exam conditions!? I sincerely hope not, for everyone else’s sake (“many hundreds… thousands”) evoke the image of unbridled exponential growth. The repeated and emphatic use of the conjunction “and” in “gamblers and their families”, “directly and indirectly” imply that the issue has become ubiquitous, and that it is spreading like a plague in that one party being afflicted will directly result in another related party also being affected. If you could pull this stuff in the exam, you’d be 10ing it for sure.  Awesome stuff.  All the more awesome because it’s unusual and no one else will think of it.  Now take it that step further – if we see that the issue is ubiquitous and spreading, how does that make us feel?  Scared?  Worried?  Annoyed? (all that stuff, I’ll leave it to you to clothe in fancy language )

The circular logic of “[the] onus is on the gambler…” highlights the irrationality of the “pitiful situation”, in conjunction with the oxymoronic irony of “government-endorsed theft”, as the enforcers who are supposed to prevent theft are now partaking in it. This also evokes a sense of lawlessness and moral decadence, which is supported by the scathing accusations of “greedy and manipulative” interests. Same thing – spotlessly perfect analysis except that you could focus on the reader’s response more – they’ll see it as irrational and thus condemn the idea, or they feel it’s lawless and morally decadent and thus it makes them feel ____ about the government [ugh all my ideas feel idiotic next to your flawless prose]

Finally, the anaphora of the inclusive “we” in “We need political action… We need to… reduce problem gamblers… We should not give up…” angles the reader alongside Allan and creates a dichotomy between the government and its sinister “entrenched interests” versus the noble action which he emphatically invites readers to take. another minor point – you could try to split up sentences a bit shorter.  I know the temptation to fit everything into one sentence, but you have a bit more room to ‘move’ if you can split it up with ‘This/It also…’ or ‘Furthermore…’.  When you try to cram everything into one sentence, it gets tricky trying to keep it all clear and easy to navigate.

Imagining that LA has three steps -
1. Quote and/or technique (WHAT the author is doing)
2. The immediate impact of this (i.e. what it suggests, presents or implies)
3. How this makes the reader feel and think and want to do
- you are utterly, impossibly killing steps 1 and 2.

But to make 1000% sure that you kill the 10, focus on step 3.  How does each and every quote you mention make the reader feel or think about the issue?  What emotions does it raise?  How does it make them view the people or things involved?

Brother.  Work on step 3 and make sure you can reproduce this in the exam, and the examiners will be disappointed there’s no such thing as an 11/10.

Thank you so much, bangali_kok! This is really helpful and I'm going to incorporate all your feedback into my practice

And as for what conditions I did this under, I gave myself 10 minutes reading and 30 minutes writing (on pen and paper), so it was pretty generous haha

Note to self:
*How does it make the reader FEEL or PERCEIVE? (technique -> implication -> reader)
*Stop quoting unnecessarily unless you're going to analyse it!
*Don't labour a point for too long
*Watch sentence length so that it doesn't spiral out of control