VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 11

<< < (2/2)

Anonymous:
In response to Malcolm Turnbull’s suggestion for Australians to ‘live within their means’, Hans Pieterse identifies the hypocrisy of these words by suggesting that a man who presumably has ‘$4000 helicopter rides’ does not have the right to be saying these words, as he clearly is not living frugally himself. This in turn degrades Turnbull’s standpoint in the reader’s perspective, establishing distrust in the these words as for the benefit of the people, rather than for the politicians themselves. To this end, the audience becomes much less willing to follow the prime minister’s words. Indeed, Pieterse generalises this sentiment to attack all politicians, intimating that they ‘lead the way’ in extravagant spending, and so are the true source for the country’s tough economic situation. Subsequently, this brings into question to the audience whether or not the politicians are upholding their duty and are suitable to govern Australian in these circumstances.

Similarly, Henry Herzog criticizes Turnbull’s words, but with much less vitriol, and in a more rational tone. He argues that the term is ‘meaningless’ as many people already try to do as such, indicating an insensitivity and obliviousness on Turnbull’s part. This demonstrates to the reader that Turnbull does not understand much about this issue, and as a result, his words should not be taken in consideration in regards to it. The author also extrapolates upon this point by questioning the contradictory nature of the government in proposing these actions which would damage Australia’s economy, when their purpose should be to improve it. This in turn furthers the audience’s mistrust in Turnbull’s government, as they do not see the true implications of their actions.

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 03, 2016, 06:10:49 pm ---In response to Malcolm Turnbull’s suggestion for Australians to ‘live within their means’, Hans Pieterse identifies the hypocrisy of these words by suggesting that a man who presumably has ‘$4000 helicopter rides’ does not have the right to be saying these words, as he clearly is not living frugally himself v. good summary :) This in turn degrades Turnbull’s standpoint in the reader’s perspective, establishing distrust in the these words as for the benefit of the people, rather than for the politicians themselves I get what you're saying here, but the phrasing's a bit confusing. Maybe explain this part before you start analysing, since this pertains to Turnbull's argument rather than Pieterse's. To this end, the audience becomes minor point, but try and angle your sentences so that you're commenting on what the author is intending to do, rather than how the audience might respond (i.e. 'the author aims to engender readers' support for X' rather than 'readers are more likely to support X' as the latter can sound a bit too definitive.) much less willing to follow the prime minister’s <-- always capitalise Prime Minister words. Indeed, Pieterse generalises this sentiment to attack all politicians, intimating that they ‘lead the way’ in extravagant spending v. good link!, and so are the true source for the country’s tough economic situation. Subsequently, this brings into question to the audience whether or not the politicians are upholding their duty and are suitable to govern Australian in these circumstances. this final point is a little vague, but overall this is a very good chunk of analysis.

Similarly, Henry Herzog criticizes Turnbull’s words, but with much less vitriol, and in a more rational tone. <-- another great integrated comparison here :) He argues that the term which term? Obviously your assessor would be able to fill in the gaps, but you don't want them to have to do this. The more they have to think, the more frustrated they get, so try and contextualise things where necessary is ‘meaningless’ as many people already try to do as such, indicating an insensitivity and obliviousness on Turnbull’s part. This demonstrates to the reader that Turnbull does not understand much about this issue, and as a result, his words should not be taken in consideration in regards to it. The author also extrapolates upon this point by questioning the contradictory nature of the government in proposing these actions which would damage Australia’s economy, when their purpose should be to improve it good, though the notion that the government's "purpose should be to improve the economy" is something you should probably offer evidence for rather than state as fact - how do you know this is true based on what the author has said in his piece? This in turn furthers the audience’s mistrust in Turnbull’s government, as they do not see the true implications of their actions. again, this ending is kind of nebulous. Which implications and actions are you talking about here, and how does this contribute to the author's point? Overall though, you've got some very well articulated points of analysis with some very impressive connections between the articles, so keep up the good work! :)

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page