VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 3

<< < (3/4) > >>

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 19, 2016, 02:49:23 pm ---Pallister opens with a rather moderate tone to introduce the issue, however this changes quite rapidly into one of disturbance as he repeatedly questions the actions of bars and hotels which oppose the lockout rules. The use of the word ‘suffering’, is in this case almost mocking, and insinuates that the parties involved are complaining about insignificant problems, leading the readers to view them as foolish or childish good work. Thus, the party involved may undergo a paradigm shift to avoid doing so. what are you referring to here? This sentence is way too generic since it's the kind of thing you could say in any essay - be more specific! Are you talking about the audience's perception? This notion is further extrapolated upon in the following sentence don't draw attention to the chronology unless there's something to be said about it. Idea-based connections are more impressive, usually as Pallister points out that in the ‘dim, dark past’, bars were still able to thrive without complaint despite closing earlier, and leads leading (sentence structure here; you can't say 'the author points out that X is Y and leads the audience to think Z') the audience to question the reasons for why bars in the present hold ire against expression - bit of an odd word to use these laws now. Moreover, in order to further deteriorate the credibility of the opposing party in the audience’s point of view, good linking here Pallister, almost in an accusatory tone, intimates that the bars which blames that blame the lockouts for ‘sending them broke’ are simply using the them as an excuse instead of addressing more important issues such as ‘bad management’. This cements their image of irresponsibility, and thus may lead to the audience disregarding their opposing arguments against lockout laws, while also urging the party in question to re-evaluate who they should be placing the blame upon.

Juxtaposed against this expression, Bivell’s arguments are presented in a much more derisive, sardonic tone, however with a similar contention. Firstly, he identifies the people who are against the lockout law as ‘those’, firmly establishing a distinction between himself and the opposing party. This prompts the audience to support his side of arguments in order to avoid being ostracized. This is too generic! Never use a sentence that isn't specifically about this piece and this argument/language. Especially as Bivell begins to mock the opposing party’s use of the word ‘nanny state’, emphasizing their foolishness by repeatedly focussing on the image of a nanny as for the people’s safety, rather than overprotective as was initially meant, by suggesting that these laws are needed as much as the ‘hospital, … health insurance and … justice system’ which are obviously essential for society to flourish to readers. grammar is a bit muddled here, and the length of the sentence is probably making things a bit too complicated. The close analysis is good though. This draws the audience’s attention to the benefits of the lockouts because of these comparisons, while simultaneously degrading the reputation of the groups against them. good; a little bit general, but an improvement over some of those previous sentences.

--- End quote ---

Couple of issues with your expression and grammar here - nothing really clarity impeding, but some recurrent issues that are worth addressing now. Word choice errors are not a big deal at all (and they're the kind of mistakes that are good to make outside of assessment tasks to help clarify your internal vocab.) so don't be too fussed about those.

The specificity of some of your statements is definitely something to take note of; the assessors care a lot about how closely you're analysing, and broad, sweeping statements like 'This technique engenders support for the author's contention' or 'Thus the audience are compelled to concur with the author and view his appraisal of the situation in a positive light' are way too general to be worth any marks. Your work isn't quite that far along the line of generalised statements, but there were one or two instances where getting more specific might've pushed you from saying something that the assessor could justify, and actually justifying it yourself. The latter is, of course, way more helpful if you're looking for a high score, since you're given credit based on the skills you've demonstrated, not the ones the assessor can assume you have.

Mostly little fixes here though, and with a little more practice, you should easily have L.A. under control :)

HopefulLawStudent:
Contrasting today with the “1970’s and ‘80’s”, Pallister gently suggests a 1am lockout was more than generous and would not truly affect business. Instead, he conveys extending business times would not have a significant impact on the businesses affected by the laws. By drawing this analogy between the two time periods and how business once flourished despite closing “much earlier”, the writer conveys an inability to attain a substantial profit cannot be attributed to these laws. His reference to the “dim, distant past” insinuates modern business owners had distanced themselves from what had been and the facts, refusing to acknowledge the lockout laws may not have been responsible for their ailing businesses and thereby accept responsibility for “sending them[selves] broke”. Thus, Pallister implies these laws have merely become a scapegoat for the frustrations of these business owners. The writer’s rhetorical question which closes his letter to the editor directs the audience of Sydneysiders to cast the blame for failing businesses, not at the controversial lockout laws which impose a 1am curfew, but rather, at the “bad management” of these venues. To this end, Pallister scathingly establishes any arguments to the contrary are unfound and thus encourages the businesses affected to direct their scrutiny at their own business models instead if they wished to see an increased profit margin.

Though Bivell articulates a similar view that the lockout laws should be maintained, he instead primarily appeals to the readership’s reason and logic, suggesting these curfews are in the best interests of the audience. His veiled attack against those opposed to these laws insinuates it would be illogical to abolish this curfew. The writer’s anaphora of the term “nanny state” forms an association between these laws and other institutions such as health services and the “justice system” which ensure the security and wellbeing of the reader. Thus, Bivell intimates the advantages of the lockout laws are as apparent as the advantages of the other services bluntly enumerated by the author. He thereby appeals to his audience’s reason and logic to manoeuvre them to deduce it is in their best interests to ensure these laws are maintained.

Done.

I put it off for several weeks under the pretext that I was too busy. This was entirely false, if I was being honest. I just did not wish to tackle the behemoth that was comparative language analysis until now. I seriously feel so relieved to have removed this burden from my shoulders. On top of feedback, would it be possible for you to give a mark out of 10? I'm hoping to be able to track some sort of improvement between now and just before the exam which will be good for morale when I'm days away from October 26 and buried in practice exams.

PS: Technology sucks.

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on March 29, 2016, 07:10:34 pm ---Contrasting today with the “1970’s and ‘80’s”, Pallister gently suggests a 1am lockout was more than generous and would not truly affect business. Instead, why 'instead?' That would imply some difference between these two sentences, but they seem to be backing one another up (eg. it's like saying 'I had eggs for breakfast. Instead, I had toast too' ???) he conveys extending business times would not have a significant impact on the businesses affected by the laws. By drawing this analogy between the two time periods and how business once flourished despite closing “much earlier”, the writer conveys that an inability to attain a substantial profit cannot be attributed expression is a bit clunky here; if you need to simplify something, try to turn it into an active sentence instead of a passive one (ie. 'the laws are not to blame for their inability to turn a profit,' as opposed to 'their inability cannot be attributed to the laws...') to these laws. His reference to the “dim, distant past” insinuates modern business owners had distanced themselves from what had been and the facts, could you be more specific here? refusing to acknowledge the lockout laws may not have been responsible for their ailing businesses and thereby accept responsibility for “sending them[selves] broke”. Thus, Pallister implies these laws have merely become a scapegoat careful with plurality. 'The laws have become a scapegoat' sounds a bit odd for the frustrations of these business owners. The writer’s rhetorical question which closes his letter to the editor directs the audience of Sydneysiders to cast the blame for failing businesses, no comma here not at the controversial lockout laws which impose a 1am curfew, but rather, at the “bad management” of these venues. To this end, Pallister scathingly establishes any arguments to the contrary are unfounded exp. 'He establishes arguments are unfounded' should be either 'establishes them to be unfounded' or, preferably, 'establishes that they are unfounded' and thus encourages the businesses affected to direct their scrutiny at their own business models instead if they wished to see an increased profit margin.

Though Bivell articulates a similar view that the lockout laws should be maintained, he instead primarily appeals to the readership’s reason and logic, suggesting these curfews are in the best interests of the audience v. good link between paras :). His veiled attack against those opposed to these laws insinuates* see end comments it would be illogical to abolish this curfew. The writer’s anaphora of the term “nanny state” forms an association between these laws and other institutions such as health services and the “justice system” which ensure the security and wellbeing of the reader. Thus, Bivell intimates the advantages of the lockout laws are as apparent as the advantages of the other services bluntly enumerated by the author which he bluntly enumerates. He thereby appeals to his audience’s reason and logic to manoeuvre them to deduce it is in their best interests to ensure these laws are maintained. good discussion of the intention/effect

--- End quote ---
Overall, you've done a good job of handling the comparative elements, and you've got a good variation of techniques and persuasive language.

Minor grammatical thing: you also seem to use verbs like 'insinuates' and 'establishes' in the context of 'The author verbs this idea is true' as opposed to 'The author verbs that this idea is true' which sounds a bit more natural. For the most part, that first variant isn't 'wrong,' but it's a bit unconventional and there are instances where it becomes genuinely ungrammatical, so perhaps get used to using 'that' more often after these kinds of verbs.

Hope that makes sense, but let me know if you want a more detailed explanation of the syntax behind all that^

HopefulLawStudent:
Thanks for the feedback, Lauren!

Question(s)
1. What do you mean re: scapegoat and plurality? Would that sentence need to be changed to: "The law had become a scapegoat..."?
2. Is scapegoat informal? Can I actually use in an LA essay?

Good old "that". Didn't even realise I needed it. It sorta sounds funny with the that to me but that's just my internal grammar screwing up (as it does sometimes). So in general for sentences like "'The author verbs that this idea is true", should I always include a "that" after the verb irrespective of what the verb is?

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 04, 2016, 08:40:35 am ---Thanks for the feedback, Lauren!

Question(s)
1. What do you mean re: scapegoat and plurality? Would that sentence need to be changed to: "The law had become a scapegoat..."?
--- End quote ---
Yes, or else you could say 'the existence of these laws is a scapegoat' or 'the proposal to introduce these laws is a scapegoat' since you need to match the plurality of the subject and the verb.

eg. The reporter argues that we should...
vs.
The reporters argue that we should...

NOT: The reporter argue that we should...
or
The reporters argues that we should...

^That's probably stuff you already intuitively know, but there's no shame in needing to consciously check your writing to make sure it matches - I have to do it a lot of the time in uni essays, esp. for very long/complex sentences.


--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 04, 2016, 08:40:35 am ---2. Is scapegoat informal? Can I actually use in an LA essay?
--- End quote ---
Nope, it's not informal, though it may at times be more beneficial to spell out in what way something is a scapegoat rather than just using that word and moving on. The accompanying explanation you've got here is fine though :)


--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 04, 2016, 08:40:35 am ---Good old "that". Didn't even realise I needed it. It sorta sounds funny with the that to me but that's just my internal grammar screwing up (as it does sometimes). So in general for sentences like "'The author verbs that this idea is true", should I always include a "that" after the verb irrespective of what the verb is?

--- End quote ---
It depends. Which is a very frustrating answer, but it's true :-\

For some verbs, it's more necessary
eg.
The author believes that there should be more money invested in this project.

because without the 'that,' there, it sounds a bit more informal. It's fine aloud, but in written form, it can seem 'wrong' to some people:
eg.
The author believes there should be more money invested in this project.

For others, you can't have a 'that' without it being really weird:
eg.
The author undermines that the project was a success ???
The author magnifies that the importance of the project ???

For some, it's a bit more optional, though most people would prefer the 'that' being there
eg.
'The author suggests (that) the project was a failure.'
'The author implies (that) it was doomed from the start.'

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page