Could I please get some feedback for my comparative language analysis 
I tend to struggle with the comparison so advice and tips are greatly appreciated. Btw this is an unfinished piece - article and cartoon attached
The recent global influx of asylum seekers and refugees has sparked a universal debate precipitated an interminable discussion (It seemed clucky - it's your choice to use what I have included) pertaining to both ethics I can't really seem to think of a good word, but using "ethics" kinda ruins the flow of your sentenceand politics. In her opinion piece titled ‘Why are we deaf to asylum seekers’, published in The Age (2016), Rania Al-Abdullah strongly declares advocates in a prudent and credible tone that the public must listen to the pleas and outcries of asylum seekers. Don't just stop here. Talk more about Abdullah's contention Comparably, in a cartoon published in the Drawn to the news Blog (2015), Adam Zyglis, the artist, contends that while political parties and nations continue to contemplate solutions to the crisis at hand, refugees and asylum seekers will continue to perish Again you need to extend this sentence, as it seems quite confusing. By just writing "asylum seekers will continue to perish", you can either mean they are being delivered to a premature demise, or that their population is being decreased, as they are settling down, which is a good thing, can contradicts Al-Abdullah .
Through the title of her opinion piece Try something else, Rania Al-Abdullah You don't need to mention the author's first name twice initially intends to grapple her readers by posing the question, ‘Why are we deaf to asylum seeker’s cries of pain?’. This stimulates her readers to consciously reflect upon their own values this is good, positioning them to question why they will ignore the pleas of asylum seekers, but not those of say legal citizens Make sure you tell your assessor how the author's language positioning the reader, and not inferring what will happen in the future (which is what you have done here). From the outset, Al-Abdullah manages to evoke you can use "instils" a sense of guilt within her readers by highlighting the very clear, yet invisible line that separates who they, them as somewhat privileged people (here just explain that they privileged because of the place they are living in) in juxtaposition with the wretched refugees... (why?), choose to in order to direct their attention and moral support towards (towards what?). Al-Abdullah then opens by recounting the novel Blindness, in which “scenes of panic, cruelty and disorder” are rife. Through the use of such bold, evocative words, and through describing these scenes as “apocalyptic”, the writer illustrates a picture of immense chaos and havoc, a picture which resonates with readers as being one that seemingly only exists in works of “fiction”. This notion, however, is quickly dismissed as Al-Abdullah states that this is what she “used to think”. A parallel is thus drawn between the novel and real life, with the writer emphasising the fact that these “apocalyptic scenes” are actually occurring and are being experienced by refugees and asylum seekers. In turn, readers are shocked and alarmed by such a confronting truth.
Similarly, in his cartoon, Adam Zyglis depicts scenes of a very confronting manner. Whereby Rania Al-Abdullah draws parallels between a novel and real life, Zyglis draws parallels between a story that epitomised the asylum seeker crisis. This story is that of the death of the three-year old Syrian refugee, Alan Kurdi, who drowned during his boat journey and was found lying face down on a beach. Pictured in the centre of Zyglis’ cartoon is a little boy resembling Alan Kurdi, who lies face down unconscious. Serving as a symbol of injustice, Zyglis intends to evoke feelings of anger and alarm within viewers, in particular parents, who may find this scene particularly confronting. Al-Abdullah, also, appeals to parents and a sense of parental duty, quoting a mother who “puts on a brave face” for her children in such a dire situation. Both the writer and the illustrator attempt to heighten this sense of duty of care, thus prompting those who have children, or are surrounded by children to realise that asylum seekers are just like them, parents, who are simply trying to protect their own.
Moreover, it is seen that behind the little boy are two men, one representing Europe, and one seemingly representing Republican candidate Donald Trump, as illustrated by his “trunk”, and elephant like body, in which the elephant is a notable symbol of the party. Zyglis pictures both men standing away from the shoreline, he does this to portray their lack of compassion, and perhaps their fear as depicted by “Europe’s” facial expression. As a result, viewers are compelled to condemn governing nations for failing to put politics aside, and meet their immediate moral obligation to help desperate people in need. Furthering upon this, we see Donald Trump claim that Europe should “build a wall”. Here, Zyglis aims to signify that their idea of a solution is to simply block the refugees and asylum seekers out, which essentially does not solve the crisis. Alternatively, Rani Al-Abdullah sheds light on this same aspect, as she states that perhaps the public have a case of “selective hearing”. Similar to that of Zyglis, the writer highlights that we cannot continue to “shield ourselves” from our problems, as by doing this, more and more innocent people will continue to die on our shores. Both Zyglis and Al-Abdullah emphasis this notion of turning a blind eye in the hopes of convincing readers that this does more harm than good.
I have only finished the introduction and the first half of the first body paragraph.
I will come back to this soon (as soon as I get some free time). I am also not really the best at English, so I do hope that someone else more experienced corrects me if I am wrong in any way.
Just a few points I would like to share for now:
- Make sure you are quite specific. Explain why the author argued this, in what way (how) , and what effect does it have on the reader. You don't necessarily have to list your persuasive devices, as afaik VCAA wants you to write about the author's arguments not what persuasive technique they have used.
- You also need to talk about the author's tone (ie. Al-Abdullah adopts a critical tone.... or Al-Abdullah assertively condemns the government for disregarding...)
Home
Help
Search
Login
