Here's my essay for Part C of Exam 3. I took 10 mins planning and reading (no pen-ie reflect reading time) and then 1 hour and 5 mins writing (ugh took longer than I hoped, but I usually spend more on LA anyway
) Feedback much appreciated! I actually wrote this by hand, but I'll type it out as it's easier to mark
Spoiler
In response to the recent decision by the local neighbourhood committee in north valley to impose a "district-wide no tolerance policy for littering", and editorial titles "Little Bugs are Trash!" has been printed, bitterly advocating the need for stricter, punitive measure against those littering. As the newsletter has been distributed to various residents in North Valley, the editorial appeals to a predominantly community-minded readership to praise the change in policy. Accompanying the editorial are a variety of comments, each refuting the editorials proposed punitive solution for their own reasons.
The pun in the editorial's title "Litter Bugs Are Trash!" immediately relates the neighbourhood's "abundance of rubbish lying in the streets" to those directly responsible for littering- the "litter bugs". This emphatically positions readers to view these people as the reasons for the neighbourhood's litter problem, and thus concede these people should be appropriately dealt with. In particular, the editorial targets those responsible for the litter as "this generation", focusing the attack on a younger demographic appeals to a likely older readership who already possess an irked or exasperated disposition to this generation. THe editorial's attempts to nurture this sense of irritation and frustration in readers is highlighted by the generation's crude depiction as "some rag-tag bunch of youths chain-smoking or binge-drinking"; by employing actions such as "chain-smoking" and "binge-drinking" that are universally condemned, the writer presents an image of these people as irresponsible and a danger to the community's image and reputation.This is further emphasised as the editorial caustically relates these people to the writer's "four year old nephew", who is "already becoming more considerate and self-aware". The comparison to a young child, inherently immature and irresponsible, as "more considerate" bitterly undermines the credibility of these litterers, that they are even more inept than a four year old. As the writer questions "how is it that this four year old has a better sense of right from wrong", he/she encapsulates the incompetence of these people, and evokes sheer exasperation that they have not been adequately disciplined. Likewise, the simplistic language these litterers are purportedly incapable of asking, such as "where will this litter end up?", degrades their reputation, ultimately compelling readers to conclude that it is consequently their responsibility to overcome this issue, as these people cannot.
While the editorial's depiction of these litterers as "scummy and nugatory" is indeed vitriolic and unrelenting, the writer's description of the community neighbourhood as "a mockery of what was once a lovely place to live", and repulsive accompanying photo of rubbish littered over a lake exasperatedly prompts readers to consider it justified. The photograph presents the natural environment, that of water, plants and trees, as plagued by toxic waste, plastics and food wrappers almost covering the surface of the lake. This image would particularly evoke raw frustration in the editorial's readership, as they are the community who suffers from these "litter bugs" blatant disregard fro the local environment. Further indignation is elicited in the editorial's imagery of "cigarette butts sticking to my shoes or plastic bags flying in my face"; the complaint is personalised and thus provides a sense of understanding in readers for the author's outrage. The consecutive rhetorical questions, such as "Are people aware of the harm they are doing to our town, our community?", employs the inclusive pronoun "our" to caustically recriminate those people who are to blame for destroying the neighbourhood environment. However, the use of "are people aware" also prompts readers to share the editorial's request for action, lest the readers themselves be considered oblivious to their community's own underlying issue.
Thus, the editorial is able to logically introduce its proposed solution- penalties of sixty to three hundred and seventy five dollar fines to those caught littering. The editorial appeals to an already in dignified readership, who, as a consequence of the editorial's previous depictions of the local environment and of litterers, would happily support the idea that these "litterbugs" will be "made to literally pay the price of the damages they're causing". However, this is contrasted by Paulette Morris who passionately exclaims "how utterly preposterous!", suggesting the editorial's proposed solution is incredulous and "completely unrealistic". Morris appeals to the readers' hip pocket nerve as she reminds them that a "tissue", "blown our of your pocket", or a "silly little accident" could result in a 375 dollar fine. The use of a rather insignificant, unintentional act of littering positions readers to view the punishment as underserved and thus the proposal as overly complicated, further encapsulated by its depiction as "some bureaucratic dunce". Max Lawson employs hyperbole as he challenges the practicality of the solution. His extreme descriptions of "guards on street corners", "forensic biologists" and "cameras everywhere" seeks to reflect the irrationality of the editorials proposal, urging readers to view it as excessive and overly punitive. On the other hand, Julie Sanders adopts a more reasoned, pragmatic voice, even providing an alternate solution- a "collective Clean-Up day". She utilises the editorial's diatribe against a perceived ignorant, incompetent younger generation as she reasons "it'd also help the older ones realise" the consequences of their littering. Furthermore, as Sanders compares her idea of her idea of "reforming people's mindsets" to the editorial's proposition that would "[wring] everyone's wallers dry", Sanders removes any financial motives, presenting herself and her argument as more community-minded and supportive."
"Litter Bugs Are Trash!" and the responding comments each reveal opposite arguments in how to combat North Valley's litter issue. WHile the editorial seeks to incite frustration and thus justify a strict punitive policy to fine "litterbugs", the responding comments chastise the practicality of this proposal, with Sanders even providing a more progressive, optimistic alternative.
And just a quick question: after typing my essay I noticed heaps of errors e.g. missing apostrophes, some sentences not making sense etc. I know Part C is where I make the most errors for some reasons, so am wondering what the best and fastest way to proofread would be on the day. Thanks!
Edit: also realised I forgot to analyse the second visual, since I analysed the first, is this still a problem?
Home
Help
Search
Login
