The issue of sports sponsorship and promotion of unhealthy food is has been brought to the attention of the public in a blog post by Rona Macniven and Bridget Kelly. They suggest that unhealthy food and sport don’t go together in the way they are promoted. In a concerned tone Macniven and Kelly formally enlighten the readers as to the impressionability of children’s minds and the effect negative messages can have on their perceptions of what’s good and bad I know you're trying to keep things general here for your intro, which is fine, but try to avoid these words 
They're almost always too vague, and it's kind of a missed opportunity to use more descriptive words. Even 'negative' is a bit too simplistic - try and tell us in what way something is good/ bad/ positive/ negative etc. In commenting, This is a bit abrupt for introducing a new text; try to have half a sentence like 'The piece was also accompanied by various comments, including one from...' Eli highlights a contradiction expressing logically her indifference towards what messages are being conveyed. The second comment from Nutritionist, concerningly supports wording sounds a bit odd; how do you support something concerningly? Might be better off just leaving the tone out this time and coming back to it in your B.P.s the article and it’s no apostrophe for possessive 'its' contention that the issue of sports sponsorship needs to be addressed. Nice, functional intro. Remember to be flexible with your formula so you're not having to do 'author+tone+contention' every time as often there will be no single, unifying/ important tone to comment on. And other times, you'll have a contention with multiple facets that'll take a few sentences to flesh out. Also, be careful not to align any articles too closely since you'll NEVER get material where two pieces (e.g. article + article; article + comment; comment + comment) completely agree with one another. There'll always be some important distinction, like they both agree, but to different extents (e.g. Article 1 implies we should invade New Zealand; Article 2 also suggests that we should invade New Zealand, but goes a step further in arguing Australia should conquer Indonesia too!) - otherwise, why would they give you those two different texts?
Beginning with the by-line, the explanation of the background of the authors immediately increases the credibility of the article. With Macniven being a researcher in the field and Kelly being a lecturer, it is inferred that the documentation is going to be backed by the knowledge of intelligent individuals, causing the reader to trust the information as they read through it. This is further supported good link! by the inclusion of statistics as mentioned in the reference to junior community sports clubs in NSW and ACT with findings of 17% of the 347 sponsors being food or beverage companies. By evoking feelings of respect of the knowledge and appreciation for the statistics, the reader is prompted to recognise the collation between the sports companies and their extensive relations with food companies, unhealthy food at that. Great job! Love that you're actually explaining what these statistics mean. I was a bit worried you were just going to say 'By evoking feelings of XYZ, the authors compel readers to view these statistics as lending overwhelming support to their contention' but your specificity is great here! 
By specifically referring to junior community sports clubs, the relation between children and the article is made. This sentence doesn't really gel with the one that came before it. And I'm not sure what you're implying here - the relation b/n children and the article?? The picture wait, so are we talking about the authors referring to junior sports clubs, or the subject matter of the visual? Don't jump around too much, or your reader will get lost particularly highlights the attention to children that needs to be drawn ?. A close up picture of happy children heavily donned in team clothing and accessories is effective in highlighting highlights NEVER state something is 'effective' or 'ineffective' - assume it is persuasive, and just tell me how & why. Everything else is either a waste of time, or totally outside the scope of the task and therefore worth penalising (depending on your assessor's mood) the innocence and vulnerability of children and adolescents. This is further supported by linking familiar brand names and the adult audience. By referring to names such as ‘Coca-Cola’, ‘Red Bull’, ‘Cadbury’, “McDonalds’ and ‘Sydney Swans’ not sure this last one is important since it's more of a team brand than an official sponsor (I think?) the children’s ability to ‘recall brands’ is further supported by encouraging the reader to analyse their ability to recall brands, furthermore they can then move on to recalling their own childhood memories and what impact such brands had on their sport relationships. Okay, sentence structure is a little messy here. You seem to lose control of the analysis if your sentences get too long, so try and keep an eye on this. While the attention of the parents is held, Macniven and Kelly go on try to avoid chronological markers like 'then,' or 'later' since they're not as effective as idea-based connections to implore their message 'implore' means 'plead with,' so doesn't really work in this context. Showing that they understand that, ‘a few beers’ and ‘some pub food’ go with ‘these annual events’, the authors highlight the Aussie culture and bring in a link expression is a bit colloquial here with the Australian adults, encouraging them to realise that the authors understand what an Aussie life could be furthermore encouraging the readers to uphold a sense of respect for the argument Again, once the sentence hits this length, I start to lose track of what you're trying to say. A strong appeal to the responsibility of the parents is made as the authors contend, ‘the impact of ever-present… advertising on those of a more impressionable age is of concern.’ quote integration is a little bit lacking here. This is kind of grammatical, but a lot weaker than properly integrated quotes that fit your sentence. Try to boil this quote down to find its most important language and just use that within your analysis. To parents, this statement is effective in highlighting what children are exposed to Could you be more specific here? The reference to ‘ever-present’ is loaded language **see end comments regarding quote integration** that influences the way the advertising is looked at. For the reader try not to overuse this as a means of transitioning to talking about the effect this use of language encourages more awareness and attention be taken towards advertising Again, could you be more specific about how this relates to the issue at hand?
Eli, comment 1, The first comment by Eli presents a contradicting argument this sounds like you're saying his argument is contradictory, rather than that he is trying to argue that the main piece is contradictory more casually. Upholding the argument that the, ‘occasional hamburger’ is alright if the ‘kids are out playing sport and eating well the rest of the time’. This is a fragmented sentence. Notice how if you read it out aloud in isolation, it sounds a bit incomplete? If not, let me know and I can explain this further. The author encourages the readers that not all kids expression. You can't say you 'encourage someone that exercise is good;' - you have to say you 'encourage someone to exercise' are considered to be not ‘[eating] enough of the right foods or [doing] enough physical activity’ as the main article suggests. The use of colloquial language is seen as, ‘big deal’ is used to express the authors’ belief, what belief? further getting a link expression with the audience and bringing them down to a more informal level. As Eli goes on to highlight that sport is not the only problem, the use of a rhetorical question emerges probably more straightforward to just say 'the author rhetorically questions whether...', saying ‘what about gambling advertisers?’ Appealing to a sense of fairness and bringing in another aspect of society, Eli is shown to be similarly in agreement expression with how impressionable young children are however suggest ‘all of these sponsors should be looked at more closely’, in contrast to the main article.
Nutritionist, comment 2, Aim for a smoother transition supports the main argument with the contention that ‘sporting events normalise the consumption of junk food’ and it’s concerning to the author ? The use of statistics as seen in the reference to, ‘what kids are eating after sport often contains more kilojoules than they burn playing the sport’, is in likeness to the reference expression in the main argument that, ‘current statistics also tell us almost one in four Australian children is currently overweight or obese’. Most of your quotes seem to be quite long; try and shorten them so you can be more precise about which language/arguments are persuading here. By bringing in this support, the main argument is not only given greater credibility but those who agree with the main arguments stance which is? are reaffirmed, encouraging strong emotions which are? Never just say 'emotions' - always tell us which ones!. The use of a metaphor is evident you seem to be overusing this as a way of highlighting techniques, so perhaps look into some alternate sentence structures to help you get around this as the author portrays sponsors as having a, ‘hand’ to feed the sport, by evoking imagery of what? And how is this a metaphor?, the audience see the argument clearer and can connect with the argument in a greater way. Too general! What part of the argument is being strengthened here? What is the author trying to do? The more specific you can be, the more marks you can get. Loaded language supports all arguments previously mentioned and sums up the main article by saying, ‘contradictory and confusing messages’ are being sent to the kids, a force is applied to the audience to ensure they see the side they need to support Okay, how is this loaded language? Which words in this quote are loaded? How does this support the previous arguments? How does it summarise the contention of this comment? What 'force' is being applied to the audience? Which side do they need to support? <-- you might know the answers to all of these questions, but because you haven't demonstrated that knowledge, you can't get credit for it. Specificity is key!
In concluding, Don't begin a conclusion with 'in conclusion.' I know it's your conclusion. You know it's your conclusion. It's just a redundant reminder all three texts send difference messages. see end comments regarding essay structure; you should avoid needing to make these kinds of highly general statements in your concl. The main article concludes with an urgent call for change in providing more statistics, evidence or successful solutions and numerous alternatives. This effectively persuades the reader that not all is lost, and there is ways to overcome the problem. A comparison of junk food to tobacco is made to give the audience another way to look at the problem, ensuring they have the chance to see the benefits of changing current methods and the detriment to society that current methods are. The use of a pun by suggesting the problems in sport need to be ‘tackled’, leaves the reader on a positive and jovial note. Don't analyse in your conclusion - leave that for your B.P.s Eli concludes with a strong emphasis on the parents responsibility and that they’re the ones to make the final decisions as to what their children are exposed to, causing the audience to see the blame shifted from the sponsors to the parents allowing parents to reanalyse their support or disagreements with the main article. Nutritionist makes an impressionable conclusion with the phrases, ‘Playing sport is healthy. Junk food is not. The two should not be promoted together’. By concluding so bluntly, it is enforced on the reader that there is a clear distinction between the two and a clear problem with them being merged. An appeal to fear and analysis an appeal to analysis? aims to leave the reader analysing where they stand and what their contention is what contention are you talking about here? The readers don't have a contention - they're the ones being persuaded..
Okay, a couple of things to sort out:
- This essay structure is letting you down a bit. You spend one whole paragraph each on Eli & Nutritionist's comments, and they're about 100 words each. And yet the main piece, which is two pages long, only gets one paragraph? You want your analysis to reflect the material, so if you get:
1 x main article that takes up 75% of the material
1 x visual that takes up 5% of the material
2 x comments that take up 10% of the material each
...then you can't have:
Para 1: the main article + visual
Para 2: comment 1
Para 3: comment 2
...because you're hugely compromising your analysis of the main piece! There's so much more you could talk about, and you'd be compromising quite a few marks if you only wrote one paragraph of analysis about it.
Instead, I'd recommend aiming for the 'key player' method that lets you forge links between the different pieces and connect them based on how they address certain ideas/ 'key players.'
For example:
Para 1: focussing on the idea of health and wellbeing (main article + comment 2)
Para 2: focussing on children's vulnerability (main article + visual)
Para 3: focussing on the advertisers/sponsors (main article + comment 1)
This would hopefully help you even out the overall structure, and make your conclusion less long and comparative since it will let you do some comparing and contrasting throughout your analysis.
If this is a totally unfamiliar format to you, let me know and I can go into a bit more detail
Also, quote-wise, in P1 you make an effort to unpack this line: "the impact of ever-present… advertising on those of a more impressionable age is of concern."
But rather than just saying 'The authors contend "the impact of ever-present… advertising on those of a more impressionable age is of concern" ' you should instead just pick out the most relevant bits and do some analysis around them.
For example:
The authors express their "concern" for the impact of this advertising through their use of the loaded term "ever-present" which implies that these advertisements are inescapable, and therefore damaging.
There were quite a few moments where your use of quotes was a bit clunky, and it meant that you weren't able to use as much evidence as you otherwise might have. So practising this kind of sentence integration would hopefully make it easier to closely analyse language AND BE MORE SPECIFIC!
That's probably my biggest recommendation for this piece, because so much of your discussion was
right; it just wasn't
specific. And the specificity is where most of the marks are, so if you have a sentence like 'Loaded language is evidence when the author criticises the fast food companies which compels readers to see the other side of the argument and agree with the author's contention' -- it's too general!! And even if the assessors can tell that you understand the purpose of the language, you won't be given full credit for that bit of analysis unless you can describe how that specific language is leading to that specific effect.
Hopefully that helps; let me know if you have questions about any of these comments
Home
Help
Search
Login
