VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 2

<< < (2/4) > >>

Anonymous:
The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test on anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticism. 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.

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 of the policy. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her title, 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 issue. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” reaction to the proposed policy belittles the test, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty words 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 society. 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 community. 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, unAustralian mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion with readers’ minds towards their new policy.

Anonymous:
Can't see my original post on here, so I'm going to post it again in case it didn't work:
Hey guys, I really like this idea of posting about argument analysis help on here.
I am trying to practice analysing arguments and sometimes struggle to structure an analysis on an article/opinion piece/whatever piece. I seem to try and include every single point in my argument analysis, and find it difficult to link two things together, thus making the analysis piece far too long with more than 3 body paragraphs. To get an idea of how to structure an argument analysis and persuasive techniques essay, could someone please help me to form a good analysis on this opinion piece: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/seven-reasons-not-to-celebrate-on-january-26-20170120-gtvdxs.html . I'm sure it would give me a great understanding as to how to structure an essay on this area of study for year 12. Thanks! :)

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 21, 2017, 08:16:21 pm ---Can't see my original post on here, so I'm going to post it again in case it didn't work:
Hey guys, I really like this idea of posting about argument analysis help on here.
I am trying to practice analysing arguments and sometimes struggle to structure an analysis on an article/opinion piece/whatever piece. I seem to try and include every single point in my argument analysis, and find it difficult to link two things together, thus making the analysis piece far too long with more than 3 body paragraphs. To get an idea of how to structure an argument analysis and persuasive techniques essay, could someone please help me to form a good analysis on this opinion piece: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/seven-reasons-not-to-celebrate-on-january-26-20170120-gtvdxs.html . I'm sure it would give me a great understanding as to how to structure an essay on this area of study for year 12. Thanks! :)

--- End quote ---

Hey! So we moved your post to the general VCE English board because we're trying to keep this board specifically for the AA Club responses. You can find it here: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?topic=171329.msg949180#new :)

Anonymous:
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.

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. In a reasonable tone, Neupane employs an anecdote of their process as she states that “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.” Through this, Neupane highlights the extensive testing regime to diminish the credibility 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. This notion could 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.

Anonymous:
This is 2 paragraphs comparing 2 news reports on homelessness in Victoria :)

Sebregts conveys that the idea that homelessness is not a choice and aims to eliminate the pre-conceived stereotypes associated with homeless people. The short documentary delves into the lifestyles of four homeless men, heavily personalizing the piece through a personal anecdote, allowing viewers to resonate and connect with the stories of; Shane, Adam, Paul and Aaron, as they learn not only their name but the turmoil they are forced to endure. Viewers are thus more likely to appeal and feel sympathetic towards the homeless, as the men are humanized. Through this distinct connection between the viewers and the homeless men in the clip with viewers being inspired to take action to influence a change to the conditions the homeless are experiencing. The clip is also highly compassionate in its approach, enabling viewers to realise that they could be a victim to homelessness, as it is not connected necessarily with ‘laziness’ or individuals being “drug addicts”, but incontrollable downfalls in life. 

In contrast to this the channel 7 news pieces presents the adverse effect, displaying homeless people as aggressive and an overall danger to society. The news reports utilizes expert opinions, and fuses these with statistics and facts, showcasing that the Victorian government have spent $616 million in creating 19,000 places for homeless people, in order to place the blame on the homeless people themselves, not the government. With the reporter referring to the individuals as “rough sleepers” rather than “homeless”  in order to once again position the viewers to believe that the individuals presented are homeless by choice, directly contrasting the rationale presented in the Sebregts documentary.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page