VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club Week 3

<< < (2/4) > >>

ringring:
"Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The recent decrease in funding to Australian universities as part of the Liberal Government’s federal budget has sparked discussion within students whether more funds should be spent on universities. In the letter to the editor entitled ‘Say ‘No!’ to University Defunding!’, author Karl Green utilises an outraged and indignant tone to contend that if we don’t take action, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse.
 
Green opens his piece by claiming that the Liberal government is ‘after universities’ immediately provoking feelings of hostility within the audience towards the Liberal party. Negative connotations such as ‘savage attack’ are aimed to further portray the Liberal government in a bad light. The authors use of inclusive language familiarises the issue and places a sense of responsibility on the readers to take action. Green mentions that the ‘Australian university system is one of the best in the world’ thus appealing to the audience’s national pride and encouraging them to act to maintain this status.
 
The writer continues to highlight the injustice faced by university students prompting readers to sympathise with them. He portrays the hypocrisy of the Liberal party by mentioning that a few decades ago, university education was free; ‘something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from’. Green appeals to the audience’s fear when he claims that we could lose our ‘global position as an educational powerhouse’. The author likens the current situation to America's college payment system ‘where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt’ to emphasise that ‘our nation’s future is at stake’.
 
After positioning his readers to be outraged at the funding cuts, Green urges that ‘If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.’ This is intended to alarm the audience and spur them to actively oppose the changes to university funding.
 
 

clarke54321:
Only a small response this week  :'(

With the intent of casting the Liberal Government’s recent budget as ruthless and ultimately injudicious, Karl Green appeals to reader’s sense of frustration. By declaring that the Government is ‘after universities’ and has already pursued ‘a savage attack,’ Green introduces the idea that a kind of antagonistic relationship exists between the bodies. Given that Green has established the Government to be the hostile and aggravating 'predator' to universities, readers are urged to recognise that universities are vulnerable victims to the Government’s actions. To confirm this belief in readers, Green progresses to warn that, even though recent budgetary cuts to university fees ‘aren’t as deep,’ Australian’s should not ‘relax.’ By intimating that the appearance of the newly released budget is thereby disingenuous and worthy of reader’s constant attention, Green strives to incite a further degree of exigency in readers, who are consequently invited to condemn the motives of the Government. This sense of condemnation is fortified by Green, who questions how the Government’s disregard for university funding will benefit ‘the future of our country.’ The use of the inclusive, ‘our,’ seeks to remind readers that the future of not only Australia, but themselves, is reliant on the seemingly deceitful and unfair federal budget. By creating this immediacy, Green endeavours to ignite a deeper sense of motivation in readers to protect their financial rights, and ultimately adopt the belief that the Government be reprimanded for it's recent behaviour.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: ringring on June 10, 2017, 07:43:31 pm ---"Say 'No!' to University defunding!"

The recent decrease in funding to Australian universities as part of the Liberal Government’s federal budget has sparked discussion within amongstudents It's quite specific to just say students. This issue is likely to affect multiple bodies. I'm not sure whether you need the last part of the sentence-----> it disrupts the fluencywhether more funds should be spent on universities . In the letter to the editor entitled ‘Say ‘No!’ to University Defunding!’, author Karl Green utilises an outraged and indignant tone to contend that if we Too informal to use 'we'. Just leave it at: If action is not pursued. don’t take action, we are at risk of losing our global position as an educational powerhouse. Nice intro. You've covered all the main components of the piece well  :)
 
Green opens his piece by claiming that the Liberal government is ‘after universities’which immediately provoking provokesfeelings of hostility within the audience towards the Liberal party. Negative connotations such as ‘savage attack’ This phrase in itself is not a connotation. It carries connotations with it. For example, the word 'attack' evokes ideas of viciousness and cunningare aimed to further portray the Liberal government in a bad lightHow does this make readers feel in turn?. The authors use of inclusive language Evidence of this? familiarises the issue and places a sense of responsibility on the readers to take action. Green mentions that the ‘Australian university system is one of the best in the world’ thus appealing to the audience’s national pride and encouraging them to act to maintain this status This is true, but you could make this stronger by fleshing out the piece of evidence.
 
The writer continues to highlight the injustice faced by university students prompting readers to sympathise with themYou must include evidence before making sweeping statements such as this. He portrays the hypocrisy of the Liberal party by mentioning that a few decades ago, university education was free; ‘something which many of today’s politicians benefitted from’Great point. How would this make readers feel? Is Green encouraging readers to acknowledge that a double standard exists? If so, readers are likely to feel aggrieved.. Green appeals to the audience’s fear This is a quick switch from your last sentence. Ensure that you are finishing your points entirely. when he claims that we could lose our ‘global position as an educational powerhouse’. The author likens the current situation to America's college payment system ‘where undergraduates can find themselves up to $200,000 in debt’ to emphasise that ‘our nation’s future is at stake’. Again, need to bring it back to the reader.
 
After positioning his readers to be outraged at the funding cuts, Green urges that ‘If we continue on this dangerous path, we are at risk of falling behind into economic irrelevancy.’ This is intended to alarm the audience and spur them to actively oppose the changes to university funding. Good understanding of Green's intention.


--- End quote ---

Well done  :) Your understanding of the piece is good. If you can just focus more heavily on intended reader reaction and analyse your evidence to a greater extent, your writing will move to a new level. Keep it up!

clarke54321:
Sorry, I'm battling with the anonymity button again  >:( The above correction is mine.
If you have any questions, please ask me!  :)

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 06, 2017, 10:12:44 pm ---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 reflectsI don't think reflects is the right word here. Perhaps echoes this sentiment in his letter to the editor. 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 effectGood!. 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 universitiesGood identification of argument. But is the the value and need for current universities? Or is it for the funding of 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<---- Bit of a clunky expression the idea that to demolish such sacred resource would be a waste and a tragic loss for the Australian communityGreat! How does this make them think in turn?. 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 careersYou need evidence from the piece to support this belief. Also, to make sure that it doesn't sound like your own opinion, include Green's name. For example, Green exposes the double standard prevalent amongst politicians by......, provoking readers' outrage at their leaders' selfishness which has driven them to make such fiscal decisionsAll good ideas here. Maybe split this sentence into two so that expression doesn't become clumsy. 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 educationTo take this a step further, you could talk about the connotations of these words and then reach the conclusion that they therefore depict a flourishing, inspiring education system, etc. to which the rest of the world aspiredaspires. 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 Look, this is accurate, but it just breaks up the expression of your sentence. I'm probably just being too picky.the desire to maintain that level of success through preserving current universitiesGood.

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 Great. In an agitated voiceBetter to keep to tone. We don't know how their voice sounds, Green warns that as long as the current government remains in power, "universities will face constant attack"Stop your sentence here. It's getting too long,]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 plansGood points, just re-work sentence. 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, Sentence getting too long. But if you wanted to make it a really big sentence, you'd need a conjunction of some kind. That is, you can't just start a new clause with ,frightening  . Instead you might say ,thereby frightening 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;bit of a weird link between sentences going on here 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 societyGreat. 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 Is there evidence in the piece relating directly to the future of children? Or is it just to the future of the nation?. 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. Great

--- End quote ---

This is a great analysis. Your points are really insightful and you have the vocab. to back this up! Just make sure that your sentences don't get too long and that you are concise when making points. If you can work on this, your expression will improve greatly. If you have any questions, please ask. Keep it up!  :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page