VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club Week 3

<< < (3/4) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 30, 2017, 12:55:51 pm ---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 GreenThe only time you bring up his first name is when you're introducing him, after that, you just refer to him by his surname. 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”So?. This makes evident that Australia’s future is at risk as Australia could lose “our global position as an educational powerhouse” So? Effect on reader?as well as being at risk of “falling behind” So...?economically. A lot of quoting without analysis going on here.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 issuetoo vague - try and be more specific.. This leaves the reader invested to assist clumsy. in making a change.

Green takes an informal approach using a letter to the editor as his mediumit's probably beyond the scope of the task to analyse the writer's decision to write a letter to the editor specifically.. This inclines his connection with the reader.What do you mean by this? The use of urgent and irritable tones help Green associate his views with the views of the publictoo vague. What are you trying to say here?. By employing inclusive language and repetition evidence? examples?he reiterates to the reader the danger such a budget cut will have on AustraliaWhat danger? You need to explain how you've jumped from inclusive language and repetition to danger.. Thus, prompting the reader to reject the budget cut to universities.

In conclusion, the letter to the editor aims to inform No. It aims to persuade not inform. Important distinction to make!!!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.

--- End quote ---

More to come.

Anonymous:
Hey guys! I'm not sure if anyone's still checking this edition of the Analysing Club, but I'm just starting AA again to get ready for exams so i thought I'd give it a go. If someone could give me some feedback it'd be awesome!!


The Liberal government recently released plans to end the subsidization of university fees. In response, Mr Karl Green’s letter to the editor contends that university funding is vital to a “booming” economy, and that its removal would be detrimental to all members of society. Green employs an indignant and inflammatory tone, and specifically targets politically minded members of the Australian community. Green has three main arguments supporting his contention.

Green’s first main argument is that Australia has a “world famous” university system and has produced “renowned scientists”. He uses the connotations of these words to create a utopic representation of the current university environment. In doing so, he positions the reader to feel as if the system is something to be proud of. This is also an appeal to patriotism: by linking the prowess of our universities to Australia achievement, the reader feels as if universities are an integral part of Australian history. Additionally, he mentions that the previous Prime Minister’s attack on university funding led to his downfall, showing the reader that the universities have been defended before, demonstrating that the vast majority of voters supports university funding, and suggests that they, the reader, should too. Green also begins his use of inclusive language, which is prevalent throughout his piece; he repeatedly uses the pronoun “we” instead of “I” to prompt the reader into feeling that this is an issue that will affect everyone. While presenting this argument, Green’s tone is somewhat indignant, as if wondering how anyone could attack the illustrious university system. Here, his tone servers to make the government’s proposed plan seem outlandish and unfavorable.

Green’s second argument refers to the fact that Australia has always had subsidized education and that, a few decades ago, they were completely free. He employs a subtle ad hominem attack by mentioning that most of the politicians trying to defund universities would have benefitted from the very thing they are attempting to take away. By doing so, he attacks the integrity of the Liberals and insinuates that they are not worthy of the reader’s trust and vote. This reference to university systems of years gone past also appeals to a reader’s sense of equality; if everyone used to have free education, then why shouldn’t we? Green uses cause and effect to link accessible tertiary education to Australia’s “booming” economy, highlighting its importance. Green also has an appeal to fear by stating “we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse”. This appeal also has a financial aspect due to the fact that Green has already linked an educated society to Australia’s wealth, intimating that the wealth of the reader is connected directly to the level of education in the population. This supports the contention, since Green has declared that a cut in funding will lead to a decrease in education levels.

Finally, Green contends that if the Liberal pass their proposed law, Australia will end up with an education system like that found in America. He uses the phrase “dangerous slippery-slope,” with its connotations of a lack of control, and events happening quickly and irreversibly, to reinforce the author’s attempt to establish a sense of dread when the reader thinks about the American system. Here, Green employs his only numeric statistic: $200,000. Such a colossal number conveys an obvious message to the reader: if the Liberals pass their law, nobody, other then a privileged few, will be able to afford a tertiary education. This goes against the Australian sentiment of everybody getting a go, that “if you try hard enough, you can get wherever you want in life”. Therefore, the reader will be instilled with a strong opposition to the law just before Green’s final plea for support: he invokes an appeal to family by asking the reader to think of his/her children and grandchildren. The author presents a trend of decreased university funding and increased cost as fact, therefore the reader is lead to believe that by the time their grandchildren want to go to university, it will be out of their reach. Therefore the reader finishes the piece with a sour taste in the mouth, as they believe the Liberal law will lead to members of his/her family not having access to proper education.

Mr Karl Green’s letter reflects the overall community opinion that the government is unjustly stripping its citizens of the right to an education. Green employs a diverse range of persuasive techniques that combine to effectively support his contention. The reader is left with feelings of animosity towards the Liberal government and is perhaps less likely to vote for the Liberals than they would have been before reading the piece.

Willba99:
forgot to tick the anonymous box whoops

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 02, 2017, 12:49:34 pm ---Hey guys! I'm not sure if anyone's still checking this edition of the Analysing Club, but I'm just starting AA again to get ready for exams so i thought I'd give it a go. If someone could give me some feedback it'd be awesome!!


The Liberal government recently released plans to end the subsidization of university fees. In response, Mr Karl Green’s letter to the editor contends that university funding is vital to a “booming” economy, and that its removal would be detrimental to all members of society. Green employs an indignant and inflammatory tone, and specifically targets politically minded members of the Australian community. Green has three main arguments supporting his contention. this part isn't necessary. Good introduction, which covers all prime areas. If you can, try and introduce some passive voice to add variety/zest to your writing  :)

Green’s first main argumentthis gives off a 'listy' feel. Try and jump straight into the argument. Ie. To open, Green argues that.... is that Australia has a “world famous” university system and has produced “renowned scientists”. He uses the connotations of these words be specific. What connotations? to create a utopic representation of the current university environment. In doing so, he positions the reader to feel as if the system is something to be proud of good.. This is also an appeal to patriotism: by linking the prowess of our universities to Australia achievement, the reader feels as if universities are an integral part of Australian history I think this point would be more strong if you brought the appeal and connotations together. The connotations of 'world famous' and 'renowned scientists' build to the appeal; thus fortifying reader pride. AdditionallyTo further galvanise his readers to.... (Additionally is a bit jolting/disconnected), he mentions that the previous Prime Minister’s attack on university funding led to his downfalluse direct evidence from the article, showing the reader that the universities have been defended before, demonstrating that the vast majority of voters supports university funding, and suggests that they, the reader, should toothis is weak because of the lack of evidence. Also too long.. Green also begins his use of inclusive language, which is prevalent throughout his piece; he repeatedly uses the pronoun “we” instead of “I” to prompt the reader into feeling that this is an issue that will affect everyonethis is very generalised. Provide context of where these examples are. In turn, you can link the persuasive device (inclusive language) to the argument. This adds much more strength.. While presenting this argument, Green’s tone is somewhat indignant, as if wondering how anyone could attack the illustrious university system. Here, his tone servers to make the government’s proposed plan seem outlandish and unfavorableyes, but where can we see this in the text. Evidence needed!!.

Green’s second argument'listy' issue again refers to the fact bit of an odd expressionthat Australia has always had subsidized education and that, a few decades ago, they were completely freeIs this really an argument? Or is it just fact?. He employs a subtle ad hominem attack by mentioning that most of the politicians trying to defund universities would have benefitted from the very thing they are attempting to take awayyes, but evidence needed! Where can we see this. When you work closer with the text, your analysis will become more nuanced/sophisticated. By doing so, he attacks the integrity of the Liberals and insinuates that they are not worthy of the reader’s trust and vote. This reference to university systems of years gone past also appeals to a reader’s sense of equality; if everyone used to have free education, then why shouldn’t we? too informal! Rather--->Prompts readers to question why......Green uses cause and effect to link accessible tertiary education to Australia’s “booming” economy, highlighting its importance There is no substance here. Closer analysis needed---> Jumping too quick to next line. Green also has an appeal to fear by stating “we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse”good use of evidence, but reduce it to shorter quotations.. This appeal also has a financial aspect due to the fact that Green has already linked an educated society to Australia’s wealth, intimating that the wealth of the reader is connected directly to the level of education in the population. This supports the contention, since Green has declared that a cut in funding will lead to a decrease in education levels. How are readers thus positioned?

Finally, Green contends that if the Liberal pass their proposed law, Australia will end up with an education system like that found in Americatry and be more specific. Why is that something detrimental?. He uses the phrase “dangerous slippery-slope,” with its connotations of a lack of control, and events happening quickly and irreversibly, to reinforce the author’s wait, the writer is the author?attempt to establish a sense of dread when the reader thinks about the American systemgood! To make the point even stronger, try and separate into two sentences.
. Here, Green employs his only what relevance does it hold that it is his 'only' statistic?numeric statistic: $200,000. Such a colossal number conveys an obvioustoo subjective. message to the reader: if the Liberals pass their law, nobody, other then a privileged few, will be able to afford a tertiary educationtry and smoothly integrate this message into your analysis.. This goes against the Australian sentiment of everybody getting a goinformal, that “if you try hard enough, you can get wherever you want in life”. Therefore, the reader will be instillednot the right verb here. Maybe...Readers are coaxed to oppose the actions.... with a strong opposition to the law just before Green’s final plea for support: he invokes an appeal to family by asking the reader to think of his/her children and grandchildreneivdence needed. The author presents a trend of decreased university funding and increased cost as fact, therefore the reader is lead to believe that by the time their grandchildren want to go to university, it will be out of their reach. Therefore the reader finishes the piece with a sour taste in the mouthtoo informal. Perhaps leaves them embittered/frustrated/vexed, as they believe the Liberal law will lead to members of his/her family not having access to proper education.

Mr Karl Green’s letter reflects the overall community opinion try and refrain from making subjective comments. While this may be true,
you can never be surethat the government is unjustly stripping its citizens of the right to an education. Green employs a diverse range of persuasive techniques that combine to effectively support his contentionbit general. The reader is left with feelings of animosity towards the Liberal government and is perhaps less likely to vote for the Liberals than they would have been before reading the piece.


--- End quote ---

Well done on the analysis! Although there are quite a few corrections, they are done with the intent of being constructive. You are very good at identifying techniques and intended effects on readers (something that quite a few struggle with). To improve, I suggest that you weave more evidence into your piece. This will allow for greater close analysis and thus greater depth. If you can work on this, your writing will improve greatly; given that you already have a strong understanding of author intent. Keep up the good work!  :D

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: clarke54321 on September 04, 2017, 09:58:16 pm ---Well done on the analysis! Although there are quite a few corrections, they are done with the intent of being constructive. You are very good at identifying techniques and intended effects on readers (something that quite a few struggle with). To improve, I suggest that you weave more evidence into your piece. This will allow for greater close analysis and thus greater depth. If you can work on this, your writing will improve greatly; given that you already have a strong understanding of author intent. Keep up the good work!  :D

--- End quote ---

Thanks so much for the feedback! i agree with all of it

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page