VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2017 AA Club - Week 2
Anonymous:
This is just my introduction! Please critique.
The issue about whether the government intends to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone seeking Australian citizenship has gained ongoing coverage in the Australian media. By acknowledging the views of the general public, Shiva’s opinion piece titled “why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” clearly advocates in a forthright and rational tone, that international students should not need the English proficiency test in order to gain citizenship to Australia.
zhen:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 21, 2017, 09:44:23 pm ---In recent news, the government has announced that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone who is seeking an Australian citizenship. In a letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brushed approach?” Shiva Neupane logically contends that the English proficiency test should not be mandatory due to its unfair and unnecessary nature. Decent introduction which introduces the issue and the piece.
Shiva Neupane makes apparent that the majority of foreigners have to pass numerous English language tests prior to the English proficiency test, making it redundant I feel like saying thus making it redundant will be a bit better. In a reasonable tone, Neupane employs an anecdote of their process as she states that I think you should avoid stuff like the writer states that and then placing a quote after. I feel like the writer highlights that... or the writer draws the reader's attention to the fact that... is better “They have to pass the international English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application.” You should shorten the quote and really only use the important parts of the quote. Through this, Neupane highlights the extensive testing regime to diminish the credibility It doesn't really diminish the credibility of the test. It just portrays it as useless that the English proficiency test should offer. This positions the reader to consider that the amount of testing is vigorous and consequently the English proficiency test should be deemed unnecessary. Good analysis This notion could I don't know about your teachers, but my teacher doesn't like such an words like could or might make the audience feel outraged on behalf of newcomers as the process is unfair and pointless. These thoughts and feelings may then also encourage the audience to reject their support for the English proficiency test. This is ok, but it's a bit generic and obvious.
--- End quote ---
This was a great effort and you've really got the fundamentals down and some great analysis in this argument analysis. There are just some minor issues that I pointed out. Anyway good job. :)
clarke54321:
In his letter to the editor, Shiva Neupane emphatically contends that Australian proficiency tests be made obligatory only for those who settle in Australia without a student visa.
By casting the proposed legislation as an ‘unfair, broad-brushed approach,’ Neupane immediately alerts readers to the overly-generalised and consequently unfair nature of the proposition. Endeavouring for these sentiments to be met with confidence by readers, Neupane is quick to dispel questions of bias, by declaring that he ‘supports the current policy’ despite English not being his ‘mother tongue.’ In affiliating himself with those subject to the visa application and intimating that there is merit and justification within these policies, Neupane strives for readers to recognise that his views are not tarnished by bigotry. In turn, readers are coaxed to adopt Neupane’s sceptical tone and are thereby encouraged to actively scrutinise how the Government will ‘enshrine its proposed illogical rules.’ In conjunction with this scrutinising, Neupane’s use of the adjective, ‘illogical,’ which connotes ideas of irrationality and unfoundedness, assists readers in reaching the ultimate conclusion that the Government’s proposals are flawed and thereby inequitable.
Through the use of an anecdote, Neupane progresses to expose the double-standards evident in Australian society. By recalling his colleagues’ inability to accurately spell words such as ‘cucumber’ and ‘zucchini,’ Neupane urges readers to reflect on the ‘extremely poor’ language proficiency of those Australians whose mother tongue is English. To bolster the notion that this fact is not rare, but indeed common, Neupane adopts the hyperbolic idiom, ‘for donkey’s years.’ Consequently, Neupane attempts to kindle a sense of shame and disappointment in readers, who are prompted to recognise that, when contrasted to the years of ‘working and studying’ of international students, the abilities of some Australians are even lower than those who are compelled to sit English proficiency tests. To this end, readers are inclined to perceive the Government’s new changes as one predicated on ‘vested political-interests’ and one that will flush Australia of its ‘sacred morality,' given that the abilities of international persons are treated with seeming ignorance.
Please note that my introduction would never be this short in a regular argument analysis :)
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 21, 2017, 05:10:28 pm ---The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test onfor anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticismby whom?. In response, Shira Neupane’s letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” contends in a pragmatic yet disapproving manner that the proposed policy is “illogical” and should only apply to migrants who are not on student visas. Neupane’s letter targets Australian voters and the Australian government itself, primarily appealing to their democratic and national values in an attempt to reveal the policy’s flaws. Really nice reference to target audience :). Just make sure you're not being too definite. So perhaps you could say Neupane's letter is likely to....
Neupane commences by arguing that those who arrive in Australia on student visas have already proven their proficiency in English, making the policy redundant for them. Her blunt, matter-of-fact voice, as she systematically outlines the application process for Australian citizenship, illustrates the repetitiveness of the continual English tests, implying to readers the futility Great point, but expression here is a bit clumsy of the policy. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her titleProvide evidence of this question., which encourages readers to evaluate and contest the meaningless purpose of the policy. Augmenting her rational stance, Neupane admits that she understands and endorses the government’s current policy, despite being a foreigner herself; this serves to present herself as an impartial observer of the issueWhat does this do to readers?. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” reaction to the proposed policy belittles the testGood point. But bring it back to what it does to the reader. Are they too positioned to then belittle the proposals?, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty Not sure whether lofty is the right word herewords which are reduced to mere political rhetoric.
Shifting her tone from pragmatic to sarcastic, Neupane proceeds to argue that many Australians themselves are far from the standard of English proficiency expected of foreign students. Her anecdotal reference to hospitality workers being unable to spell even work-related words – such as “cucumber” and “zucchini” – paints a satirical image of unprofessional Australian service. This, juxtaposed against the image of highly qualified and motivated migrant students, prompts readers to realise the injustice of the policy, as it thwarts the potential migrant students have to contribute to Australian societyReally great point. Just fix up expression in the last part of this sentence. It doesn't entirely make sense.. This line of argument is substantiated by Neupane’s hyperbolic statement – that she has “donkeys’ years”’ worth of experience in this country – as it places her on the same level as her Australian readers and thus, portrays her view as truly reflective of the Australian communityHow does this make readers feel?. Her connection to her Australian readers is strengthened by references to fairness and to the “sacred morality” of multiculturalism, which carry connotations of purity and integrity, and which present her as a woman truly aligned with Australian morals. In contrast, the government’s “vested political-interests” suggests that Australia’s leaders are driven by an egoistic, unAustralianBit too informal mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion Would it be just doubt and suspicion, or something more? It could even be disgust or detestation of the Government's actions, given that they appear to be driven by mere egotism with readers’ minds towards their new policy.
--- End quote ---
This is a really good analysis. You've pulled out evidence very well. Just make sure you're always bringing it back to the reader and how they are likely to respond to the writing. Well done! :)
scout:
--- Quote from: clarke54321 on May 23, 2017, 09:48:13 pm --- In his letter to the editor, Shiva Neupane emphatically contends that Australian proficiency tests be made obligatory only for those who settle in Australia without a student visa.
By casting the proposed legislation as an ‘unfair, broad-brushed approach,’ Neupane immediately alerts readers to the overly-generalised and consequently unfair <-- another word. Maybe 'insensitive', which can lead to injustice? (Otherwise it's like defining a word using that same word) nature of the proposition. Endeavouring for these sentiments to be met with confidence by readers, Neupane is quick to dispel questions of bias, by declaring that he ‘supports the current policy’ despite English not being his ‘mother tongue.’ In affiliating himself with those subject to the visa application and intimating that there is merit and justification within these policies, Neupane strives for readers to recognise that his views are not tarnished by bigotry good :) albeit a bit repetitive. Is 2 lines necessary for this point? . In turn, readers are coaxed to adopt Neupane’s sceptical tone and are thereby encouraged to actively scrutinise how the Government will ‘enshrine its proposed illogical rules.’ In conjunction with this scrutinising, Neupane’s use of the adjective, ‘illogical,’ which connotes ideas of irrationality and unfoundedness, assists readers in reaching the ultimate conclusion Would adding a single word lead readers --> conclusion? Perhaps expand on how Neupane demonstrates the "illogical" nature of the policy and the subsequent effect on readers, even if it's just through her language (e.g. "I cannot understand... I am baffled") that the Government’s proposals are flawed and thereby inequitable.
Through the use of an anecdote, Neupane progresses to expose the double-standards evident in Australian society. By recalling his colleagues’ inability to accurately spell words such as ‘cucumber’ and ‘zucchini,’ Neupane urges readers to reflect on the ‘extremely poor’ language proficiency of those Australians whose mother tongue is English. To bolster the notion that this fact is not rare, but indeed common, Neupane adopts the hyperbolic idiom, ‘for donkey’s years.’ Good :)Consequently, Neupane attempts to kindle a sense of shame and disappointment in readers, who are prompted to recognise that, when contrasted to the years of ‘working and studying’ of international students, the abilities of some Australians are even lower than those who are compelled to sit English proficiency tests. Link effect back to argument (even though this is followed by a link sentence) To this end, readers are inclined to perceive the Government’s new changes as one predicated on ‘vested political-interests’ and one that will flush Australia of its ‘sacred morality,' given that the abilities of international persons are treated with seeming ignorance.
Please note that my introduction would never be this short in a regular argument analysis :)
--- End quote ---
Good job - your analysis is perceptive and concise, which is key! And you are consistently referring to the effect on the reader, which is great. Only some separate, minor areas to clarify. :) P.S Thanks for your very specific feedback on my analysis (the one before yours. Didn't tick the box...)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version