VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club Week 3

(1/4) > >>

The Raven:
Background: In the recent government budget, the Liberal party announced a decrease in funding to universities. This would lead to an increase in student fees and decrease the income threshold at which HECs loans would have to be paid back. The funding cuts also means that permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will now have to pay full fee for Australian University degrees without government subsidization. This budget was criticised by university students and all major Australian universities. This letter to the editor piece was published in a local newspaper.


Say ‘No!’ to University defunding!

In the recent federal budget, the Liberal government has shown, once again, that they are after universities. It seems the government has learnt from their last budgetary fiasco after their savage attack on the educational sector led to the removal of Tony Abbott form the Prime Ministership. However, just because their cuts this year aren’t as deep doesn’t mean we can relax. It should be obvious to everyone that as long as the current government is in power, universities will face constant attack. Our Australian university system is one of the best in the world; it has produced renowned scientists, legal experts, and has educated leaders of many countries. The government says they are trying to move Australia forward, but how is reducing investment in the future of our country going to help?

University students are rightfully agitated, but their voices alone cannot save our world-renowned university programs. We should remember that just a few decades ago, university education was free; something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from. We should remember that an accessible tertiary education led to a booming economy and pushed Australia to the forefront of global innovation. If we don’t do something now, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse.

Perhaps the reason these cuts have not garnered as much attention from the public is due to the governments generous spending in other areas. But don’t be fooled! The liberal party has shown they are against the university system, and this new decrease in funding is the start of a dangerous slippery slope to a full-blown USA college payment system where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt! We need to ask ourselves if that is what we want for our children and our children’s children. Our nation’s future is at stake, and around us countries are investing heavily into higher education. If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.

Mr Karl Green

Anonymous:
Recently, there has been uproar after in a recent government budget, the liberal party announced a decrease in funding to universities. In a chronologically structured letter to the editor “Say ‘No!’ to university defunding” Karl Green urgently and irritably suggests that Australians are at risk of falling behind economically and educationally if Australians don’t take action. Green uses inclusive language and repetition to make apparent that it is up to Australians to reject the budget and generate a change. 

Karl Green makes apparent that due to the decreased funding to universities Australia’s fate is at risk. Green employs the use of inclusive language to highlight that “Our nation’s future is at stake”. This makes evident that Australia’s future is at risk as Australia could lose “our global position as an educational powerhouse” as well as being at risk of “falling behind” economically. This prompts the reader to consider the effects of the budget cut on Australia and Australians. This further positions the reader to feel angered by the government’s decision as well as empowered to help alleviate the issue. This leaves the reader invested to assist in making a change.

Green takes an informal approach using a letter to the editor as his medium. This inclines his connection with the reader. The use of urgent and irritable tones help Green associate his views with the views of the public. By employing inclusive language and repetition he reiterates to the reader the danger such a budget cut will have on Australia. Thus, prompting the reader to reject the budget cut to universities.

In conclusion, the letter to the editor aims to inform Australians on the decrease in funding to universities. The use of inclusive language and repetition allows Green to highlight the affects that the decrease in funding will bring to Australians, making apparent its detrimental nature to Australia.

HopefulLawStudent:
IMPORTANT

This board is to be used exclusively for responses to the fortnightly AA material. If you wish to have any other responses marked, please post them up on the English Work Submission and Marking board (https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?board=406.0) where you'll more likely get the help you need in a timelier fashion. All non-AA Club related responses will be moved to that board promptly.

scout:

--- Quote from: remi on May 30, 2017, 10:40:06 pm ---Brief one this week, cos SACs.  :'( :'( :'(

Responding to the recent government budget with decreased university funding, Karl Green’s letter to the editor “Say ‘No!’ to University defunding” criticizes such cuts as regressive for education within Australia. In doing so, he derides the government for making such decision. You've already stated that Green's letter "criticises" the government's actions. Is the final line necessary? Unless you did it to include "derisive", which you could place here instead: "Karl Green's derisive letter to the editor..."

Green argues that the government’s decision was ignorant to of citizens’ interests. He immediately distances them as from “the government” with “their cuts” to insinuate to audiences that the government does not share similar interests with themselves evidence?. This immediately undermines their credibility amongst audiences, and leads them to deduce that their recent university funding cuts were also with unaligned intentions. Angered at such deceit that is contrary to what they expect of their trusted representatives, audiences are hence positioned to oppose their decisions, including that of the university funding cuts. Green then proceeds to further mar their image by depicting them as a belligerent I feel that this is too strong a word; the govt. isn't exactly antagonistic towards unis, it's just targeting them. entity that “constant[ly] attacks” universities. This again plays to the government’s expected benign, harmless image, that only advocates for the good of citizens, itself being contradicted by the suggestions made here. From this, Green conveys to audiences that not only does the government mislead their citizens, but are also unsatisfactory in fulfilling their role, with this inadequacy and faultiness being translated into their funding cuts. Hence, audiences are maneuvered to oppose such flawed changes.   

Interwoven within these criticisms, however, is praise for Australia’s education system. For example, Green labels the “Australian university system [as] … the best in the world”. By itself, this appeals to national pride in so that audiences are positioned to want to protect such system that warrants such commendation for their country --> But why would readers want to protect such system, in terms of its contribution to Australian society?. However, when paired with Green’s attack of the government, it serves to amplify the already predisposed distrust towards them and their decisions. --> I'd say: stick to the one argument OR explain how the conflicting language devices interact to support this particular argument - e.g. Green has created a positive image of Aus --> hence, his subsequent condemnation of the government reinforces the urgent need to protect Australia's endangered university system.


--- End quote ---

I like the concision of your analysis :)  At times, though, I feel that you go straight into the intended effects without including or fully fleshing out evidence. But I understand that you're very occupied at the moment. All the best for your SACs remi!

Anonymous:
Response to "Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The Liberal Party's announcement to decrease funding to universities in its recent budget has caused uproar among university students and major Australian universities alike. Karl Green reflects this response in his letter, as he contends in a concerned tone that university "defunding" will be detrimental to Australia's future and therefore, must not come into effect. Through his appeals to readers' fears and ambitions for Australia, Green warns Australian students of the threat that such policy poses to their education.

To emphasise the value and the need for current universities, Green claims that Australia's universities have moulded many generations of successful and influential citizens in its history. Proudly, he attributes the success of "many of today's" politicians to Australia's "world-renowned" universities, which presents Australia's educational institutions as a truly invaluable asset to its society. This instills in readers the idea that to demolish such sacred resource would be a waste and a tragic loss for the Australian community. Also, the fact that the very politicians who were nurtured in such institutions would choose to demolish their driving force exposes their hypocrisy and ingratitude towards those who launched their careers, provoking readers' outrage at their leaders' selfishness which has driven them to make such fiscal decisions. Furthermore, Green conjures a vibrant image of Australia's society brought about by its quality universities, with the words "booming", "forefront" and "powerhouse" painting Australia as a flourishing country and as the epitome of education to which the rest of the world aspired. Such inspiring words intend to appeal to readers' national pride, and positions them to regard the current university system as having been instrumental to their success thus far. This in turn instills in them the desire to maintain that level of success through preserving current universities.

Green subsequently contrasts his positive image of Australia to a more ominous one, arguing that the government's new funding scheme threatens the country's future success. In an agitated voice, Green warns that as long as the current government remains in power, "universities will face constant attack", with the word "constant" especially generating fear in readers for their now insecure future, and encouraging them to be vigilant of the government's brash plans. Green further adds to readers' sense of anxiety and urgency as he foreshadows the start of a "dangerous slippery slope" escalating to a "full-blown" financial crisis for university students, frightening them with the thought that they will eventually become penniless. Indeed, Green reproachfully claims that "around us" countries are heavily" investing in higher education; Green thus appeals to readers' patriotism as before, but this time, to generate disappointment and embarrassment at the country's lack of investment in such an important aspect of Australian society. Ultimately, Green calls upon his readers to act for their "our" children's sake, with his inclusive language uniting his readers and appealing to their common, innate desire to provide the best opportunities for their future children. In this way, Green mobilises his readers to protest against the government's defunding of universities, which he establishes as damaging for Australia's future prosperity.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page