VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 4

<< < (4/5) > >>

scout:

--- Quote from: remi on June 26, 2017, 08:39:26 pm ---Thank you! I'm actually kind of jealous of how you write to be honest hahaha. It's so flow-y and eloquent; any tips on how to achieve that in my own?

--- End quote ---

I'm flattered XD. I'd say you already did that in your work this week! There's an actual logical progression in your analysis, and you use words/phrases like foresight, mitigate, desolate, by extension, insinuating, deduce, etc which are slightly nuanced and thus, add more meaning to your analyses.

What I tend to do is I focus on nailing analysis + effect; then the vocab/fluency will follow (simply because good analysis requires precision, and that's what good expression is all about - using very specific words). Also, never underestimate the power of conjunctions.

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 20, 2017, 12:51:52 am ---Hi there,
I wrote an analysis on the picture, not sure if it's any good, but would really like to get some feed back
thank you for your time.

The author cartoonistuses visual persuasionwould have been safer had you been like "author's piece was accompanied by the cartoon" but I can see why you'd think that the cartoon was done by the writer -- small oversight on my part (sorry!!!) to convince the audience of the wicked deeds committed by the politicianstoo general a comment arguably. The author displays three specific what do you mean by this? politicians that are rolling up the field and are "smoothing the covers", the author clearly try and avoid evaluative statements like this attempts to make nah generally speaking go for stuff like compels or positions as opposed to "make" -- which acknowledges that the reader has their own free-will and the writer can't actually MAKE the readers do anything. the audience feel angryer and hatred towards the politicians. Moreover, the author appeals to the audience how does the writer appeal to the audience? though Australia's greatest asset, The Great Barrier Reef, and links it to the well known painting of "The Scream". The painting is meant to exhibit horror and fright to the audience and make them understand the consequences of the Adani mineis too vague a statement -- be more specific .The writer emphasizes death through the scream painting and the radioactivity sign on the ship that is highlighting the word "ADANI"unnecessary description. The radioactive sign is a representation of death and danger, the author uses this iconic symbol to their advantage unnecessaryand elaborates the dangers of Adani. The author overall is targeting the readers' national pride, the Reef and is displaying how much of a threat it is to support the politicians and the Adani mine.generally speaking you'd want to end your analysis with a discussion of the effect on the reader which seems to be missing here.

again thank you for your time and sorry if there are mistakes  :(

--- End quote ---

More to come (cos I've come to realise that marking in small chunks > trying to mark everything in one go -- sorry for the wait to everyone still waiting on feedback from me!!!).

scout:
To: HopefulLawStudent   From: your LA Club students

We know that uni is tougher than the humble VCE, so thank you for making every effort to help all of us! We really appreciate your time and energy... and care :). Long live HLS! *makes virtual cheerleader moves*

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 20, 2017, 09:52:05 am ---Hi, here is my analysis, but I didn't get to analyse the cartoon,
but if my analysis is too long you don't have to analyse the whole thing.
Also, would you be able to give some tips to be more selective with my analyses

RE: selectivity. When you look at what techniques you want to discuss: remember that you need to talk about a combination of both obvious techniques (good ol rhetorical questions, inclusive language, etc) but on top of that, you also need to discuss the more subtle ones that not everyone will talk about (e.g. connotations, enumerations, etc). Also generally speaking, when you go to analyse stuff you should aim to talk about at least one thing per every 3 - 4 lines of written material. Like there shouldn't be whole chunks of the written material that you don't touch at all in your response.

The recent approval of the Adami Mine Coal by the Queensland government has resulted in a furore amongst the Australian public. In response to the approval, Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill both wrote condemning letter to the editors criticising the Adani mine project. is good - under exam pressure though you may choose to condense those two sentences into one but up to you.Titled ‘When a bird in the hand is not worth it’, Callinan iodiomatically (or conversationally) as this is a formal piece of writing, do try to avoid using brackets where possible. Like it probably isn't going to be an issue but just in case you get a superrrr picky assessor. contends the Adani coal mine will lead to environmental consequences that will have detrimental impacts on all Australians. Could you be even more concise here?Similarly, Angela Gill disapproves of the Adami mine proposal and empathetically urges for politicians to reconsider their decision because the mine project will be a great threat to the environment.repetition from: "lead to environmental consequences that will... Australians". Avoid repetition where possible!!! Supporting both letters, Hugh Munch’s cartoon (12/04/2017) sternly communicates the Adani Coal mine is a source of immense pressure, not only to the environment but also to the government.Overall -- is good.

Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be a consequence of the Adani mine. The authoralrighty minor thing: author refers to someone who has written a book or a bunch of books. Do we know that C has written a book? No (well I don't think so anyway). Therefore --> referring to her as the "writer" is technically more correct than referring to her as the "author" begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principle. Arguably that underlined bit is too vague. Be as specific as possible. Rule of thumb to measuring whether you've been specific enough is if you were to take the "is to be a troublesome case ... principle" bit, and were to chuck it verbatim into some other AA/LA response, would it be glaringly obvious that that isn't applicable to the written material? In this case, not really. Therefore you could probs be more specific here. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance What do you mean by this? Think you mean "as defying" but even then it seems a bit clumsily worded. I think something along the lines of "By portraying the Adani mining proposal as incongruent with..." Like that prob would've worked better.socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent future.That's cute but what do you mean by this? I'm not 100% sure. By portraying the proposal as a threat to the individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion This is arguably you injecting your own opinion and evaluation here and unfortunately for AA/LA, we don't care what you think -- we don't need your evaluation here because your response is supposed to be an objective piece of writing. on the proposal from the outset of the letter.

Callinan’s letter primarily constitutes of a rhetorical question clumsily worded. that establishes the denigrating approach towards the Adani mine What do you mean by this? as it is simply juxtaposed against a ‘struggling’ population that are left to survive on a ‘degraded’ planet with ‘precious’ water and ‘clean’ air. Rule of thumb: If you quote anything, you should aim to analyse it. Like every now and then you can prob get away with not analysing a quote but don't do it too often. Like you would've been fine I think cos the quotes seem to fall under your analysis of the juxtaposition but I think the only reason this came up was because I'm struggling to understand what it is that you're trying to juxtapose to begin with. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers and appeals to their sense of safety for their children as they are described to be ‘struggling’ and portrayed as vulnerable as a result of the future worker’s jobWhat do you mean by this? Not 100% clear.. This allows the writer to scapegoat Misused scapegoat here. Scapegoat is someone (i.e. a person) who is assigned the blame or made to take the fall for something. You can't scapegoat an idea/reason.the reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befall on the future worker, and elicit guilt within... for intending danger to the children. This guilt is then designed to be a stimulant for the then-impactedWhat do you mean by this? readers to perceive the Adami coal proposal as a threat to the future society and feel indignant towards the threatening and dangerous idea.too vague.

The demographic of the article is then broadened to include the whole readership What do you mean by this? If you're trying to say that the reader is now the general public - no, don't do that. Your audience is never gonna be as general as "the general public" or some equivalent. and the writer in one plane What do you mean by this? with the use of inclusive language, ‘us,’ to accentuate that the ‘struggle’ see previous comment re: quoting that is shared amongst all Australians and makesAvoid using makes. Generally speaking go for stuff like compels or positions as opposed to "make" -- which acknowledges that the reader has their own free-will and the writer can't actually MAKE the readers do anything. the reader more receptive towards Callinan’s opinion. Not the sort of analysis you want or need to be doing. The use of loaded language such as ‘precious’ and ‘clean’ How are they loaded? EXPLAIN. intensify the value of natural resources, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet.'see previous comment re quoting Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds What do you mean? the readership to grow an appreciation for the rare entities on the planet, and dismiss the Adani Coal mine in order to protect the environment.  good

Concluding her piece with reference to the proverbial birds, Callinan bitterly states the birds are ‘dead’ referring realisticallyNo -- evaluation to the environmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to. Whwat do you mean?The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine a damaging presence for Australia.    This sentence is arguably too long but besides that the point you're making here is VERY GOOD.

Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appallingWhat do you mean? If this isn't a reference to the tone, then what you seem to be doing is evaluating which you shouldn't be doing. And if it's supposed to be a ref to the tone... well.. you need to make it clearer that it's a tonal reference cos in this context could be seen as evaluation. letter opposing the proposal however, rather than antagonising the mine itself, she attacks the politicians who have approved of the coal mine. She antagonises misused. antagonise = alienates the politicians as criminals who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility of the human race juxtaposed against an action that is morally despised by the global society. too vague but otherwise this sort of analysis is good. Although the audience is specifically targeted towards AustraliansThis audience is too general, arguably. Try and be more specific with your audience if possible. Like surely the writer isn't targeting every Australian out there. , which then shifts to politicians, the victimisation of all of mankind reaffirms the destructive element of the coal mine. sentence = too long. Also - unnecessary repetition between "destructive element..." and previous stuff.

In much the same way, the author makes an appeal to the safety and wellbeing of ‘children and grandchildren,’ however chooses to target the children of the politicians. Designed to not only evoke concern and fear for the reader’s own children, this attack is also employed to illuminate the incompetence of these politicians and coax readers to evaluate the coal mine was trulyevaluation a detrimental decision by these politicians. Unlike the first letter, Gill uses first person to capture the disgust and ‘[shame]’ Is this a quote? The square brackets suggest otherwise but the use of 'these marks' suggest it's a quote = confused = she feels towards living under these politician’s rules. The use of a high modal verb ‘am’ indicates the beginning of an apoplectic tone which influences the Australian laymen to ponder the extremity of these politicians’ incompetence, as a fellow community member (Gill) is outraged by this decision.  Sentence too long and avoid brackets The attack towards the politicians’ logic is further attacked for ? readers to evoke fury by describing their thinking as a ‘reduced’ and narrow passage of thought unnecessary elaboration/explanation of quote. and self- absorbed traits which an important decision- maker of society should not uphold.

To conclude the letter, a virulent plea is directed towards politicians to ‘think’ of their ‘moral responsibility’ for the ‘future.’ The direct command pressures the Australian politicians to feel shame for ignoring the ethical responsibility urge them to reconsider their decision which the author attempts to portray as ego- driven.

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Hannibal on June 22, 2017, 01:37:08 pm ---Note: Didn't really treat this as a comparative - sort of did each piece separately. Any feedback is welcomed :)


Margaret Callinan, through her frank letter to the editor, intimates that the perverse environmental corollaries of building the Adani mine does not justify the employment that it will bring. good By commencing her letter with the adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," she strives to highlight that it is better to be content with what we have as opposed to being driven by avarice. Because Don't start your sentence with Because ever. Cos then it's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment. of the proverbial nature of this laconic sentence, the writer encourages the readership to consider this underlying moral, and apply it to their views on the Adani mine decision. An opportunity for the reader to contemplate upon the ethicality of the decision is then presented, with Callinan asking them to question whether it is worth having jobs at the expense of having "precious little clean water to drink." This vivid imagery of society being precluded from accessing such a basic human right, is likely to alarm pragmatic members of the readership as to the magnitude of the issue too general - be more specific! , and how it could possibly affect them, permeating a sense of worry and anxiety. By using the descriptor "precious," it augments the idea that clean water is an essential resource worth protecting, attempting to appeal to the reader's defensive instincts, in order to manoeuvre them into a position in which they can see verbose the pernicious threat that constructing the Adani mine poses.Also sentence overlaps with some of the ideas you'd previously discussed unnecessarily - do try and cut back on unnecessary repetition where possible. sentence also arguably too long/verbose but otherwise good. Furthermore, by conceding that the proposal does have its positives in that it will provide employment, the writer highlights that his view is well-considered and not overly biased. Callinan uses this concession as a platform for rebuttal, by juxtaposing the benefits of the scheme for workers with the tangible harm it will ensue upon the "worker's children." In comparing these two stakeholders, she seeks to underscore that children are more vulnerable than their parents, and as such of a greater priority to protect, thus conveying that on balance the harms of the proposal outweigh the benefits. Could you make this more concise? This is as when clumsily worded. the readership visualises "children" having "no clean air to breathe," Callinan strives to horrify them with the sheer repulsiveness of the thought, hang on.... explain your thinking here. Horrify them with what thought? How have you gone from no clean air to horrify? EXPLAIN. Btw why have you quoted children? Seems like a bit of an odd thing to quote. given many members would have children and families of their own.

Adopting a more censuring tone, Angela Gill posits that politicians are blinded by their desire for re-election, to the point where they are willing to endorse immoral proposals such as the Adani mine. By vilifying politicians as committing "crime[ s] against humanity," the writer seeks to dehumanise How is the writer dehumanising them? them as a stakeholder, with the word "crime" implying to the audience that they have done something deserving of justice justice can be both good or bad. Think you mean punishment or some variant here. . This antagonistic characterisation is continued by juxtaposing "politicians" and "(leaders?)," with the use of brackets highlighting that being a leader is what is expected of politicians, but through the question mark Gill reveals need some qualifier here like "his belief" to show that this is not you saying they're failing to meet this expectation (evaluation) but rather Gill saying this. that they are failing to meet this expectation. Thus, by evincing that politicians have ulterior motives while in office, the writer strives to create a sense of suspicion around the Adani mine proposal, attempting to reveal to the readership that it is merely a political tool to gain re-election. unnecessary repetition of previous point. As such, the audience is likely to react adversely to this revealing of disingenuous behaviour clumsily worded., resulting in them channeling this anger towards disapproving of the development of the mine altogethergood.

Contrastingly, the cartoonist employs a more derisive tone; however, he remains aligned with the other two articles in that the cartoon disapproves the construction of the Adani mine. It's focus is slightly tangential however, in that it uses the environmental impact of the mine on the Great Barrier Reef as it's core persuasive device. What do you mean? Through a diminutive depiction of three people terrified of their surroundings, the illustrator seeks to use them as an allegorical representation of society as a whole, encouraging the audience to view the plight of these individuals as indicative of what they may be facing if the Adani mine proposal goes through. Thus, it is likely to imbue a sense of horror within the audience, which is amplified through the grotesqueHow is it grotesque? EXPLAIN. illustration of the Great Barrier Reef. This is as upon seeing this iconic Australian landmark shrunk into a shadow of its former self, What do you mean? Be more specific.the audience is likely to react defensively to seeing this wonder of the world in such a fleeting state,What do you mean? with the cartoonist averring that this is the bleak future that awaits the audience if no action is taken in stopping the Adani mine from being built.


--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: scout on June 26, 2017, 10:27:58 am ---In a concerned tone, Margaret Callinan rejects the Adani coal mine project on the grounds that it will jeopardise Australia's future social and environmental prosperity. She bases her argument on the notion of human survival and the conservation of nature, as she envisages a planet with no basic needs such as "precious little clean water and "clean air." Such appeals to readers' innate survival instincts wait rewind - how does it appeal to readers' innate survival instincts? magnifies the issue into one that is beyond a mere political or economic affair, and thus, Callinan seeks to alarm readers with how relevant the issue is to them. too general - be more specific.Callinan heightens this effect by  forecasting a frightening future where "the rest of us" are "left struggling to survive", painting a spine-chilling image of a society divided into a social hierarchy where coal mine workers prosper in their influx of money and the innocent common people are left to scour for food and water in the remnants of a dying earth. That's cute but it isn't analysis. What you've done there is basically paraphrased/elaborated upon the stuff you've quoted --> "the rest of us" are "left struggling to survive" This pessimistic outlook is designed to unsettle readers, and to subsequently mobilise them to campaign against the building of the mine for the sake of their children's and grandchildren's wellbeing. Good. Callinan concedes that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", in order to demonstrate that she recognises the financial concerns of the politicians and mine workers.Okay more explanation needed. How have you gone fr the quote to "recognises financial concerns..."? Explain your logic. However, the idiom and rhetorical question "But is it really worth having a job at the Adani mine?" adds to the readers' doubts as to the integrity and validity of financial gain from working at the mine, when so many lives risk becoming tainted as a result. By concluding her argument with the same idiom, Callinan emphasises the ubiquitous threat that the coal mine project poses, as she bluntly states that even the "birds in the bush", which symbolise the workers' children and readers, will become "dead to boot." The brusque conclusion adds a sense of decisiveness to Callinan's argument, but also conjures an image of a bleak, lifeless future for the planet should the coal mine project proceed. Consequently, readers are manoeuvred to disapprove of the plan as they are left with the resounding impression that building the Adani coal mine will only destroy Australia. good

Angela Gill shares Calliman's belief that the Adani coal mine plan is a threat to Australia's society and environment. However, she targets the Labor Government The Libs are in power atm. So if you're gonna ref to the government, it's Liberal government. If you're trying to ref to the previous Labor government, you'd need to make it clear that they aren't currently in power. But don't stress, you won't be required to have any background issue for your exam.  :) , arguing in a condemnatory tone that politicians are skirting their "moral responsibility"Don't quote without analysis. by endorsing the project. Gill's main tactic is her attack at avaricious politicians, as she establishes from the outset that they have committed a "crime against humanity." Here, her allusion to international human rights legislation widens the context of the politicians' sins to a global one, in the same way that Calligan draws upon humans' rights to clean air and water. Likewise, readers may view the Adani coal mine project itself as corrupt and a breach of humans' basic rights. The appeals to their sense of moral justice may impel them to denounce the coal mine for its unethical nature and its sinister motives. Gill augments her argument by relentlessly degrading Bill Shorten for allowing his egoism to take precedence over Australia's welfare, as she claims that he was driven by the desire to "win the next election." Such portrayal of calculating reasonwhat do you mean?, compounded by the fact that Gill was actually once a Labor voter, adds credibility to Gill's argument and seeks to discredit any belief in readers' minds that the politician had acted out of Australia's interests. In fact, when viewed in tow with Calliman's letter, which portrays Adani coal mine workers as overly self-concerned, readers may come to realise that the coal mine will only ruthlessly appease the money-hungry people of this countryunnecessary verbosity. In effect, this seeks to evoke readers' repulsion at the immorality of Australia's leaders and workers, and to generate an outcry against the plan for the good of the common Australian.

In an ominous tone, Pope's cartoon echoes Calliman and Gill's views that building the Adani coal mine will leave the environment in irreparable ruins. To sway readers to share his view, unnecessary comment Pope relies primarily on his haunting depiction of the Great Barrier Reef which, in its unnatural colours, reinforces Calliman's fear of losing "precious little clean water." Specifically, the speech bubble "Did I hear what?" draws readers' attention Avoid this sort of analysis where you say that writer/cartoonist is drawing reader attn to something towards Pope's allusion to Edvard Munch's renowned painting "The Scream"; this, coupled with the disturbing mix of abnormal colours in the water, illustrates that unspeakable cruelty of Adani coal mine supporters How have you gone from abnormal colours = unspeakable cruelty? Not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that you need to take us through your logic and explain it. and implies that nature has suffered excruciating pain wrought by such vile your opinion. We don't care if you think we're vile. ;) So either make clear that this is the cartoonist's view or just don't have these sorts of comments. humans. Hence, Pope suggests that any frantic attempt from the Adani coal mine stakeholders to bury their sins not a big fan of the informal/colloquial "bury their sins" and tbh not 100% sure what you mean by this comment or how you've reached this conclusion. will not reverse the permanent damage that has already been done. Furthermore, Pope's cartoon reflects Calliman's view that the cost of the mine will spread to all corners of Australia, as it portrays the Adani coal mine submarine puffing smoke that frames the entire cartoon. With this confrontational ideaEvaluative. Don't do it. in mind, readers may feel horror at the extent politicians and workers would go to satisfy their own immediate concerns, manoeuvring them to downright condemn the wickedly portrayed participants of the coal mine project.

--- End quote ---

Everyone who submitted something for this week should have had feedback by now. If not, speak up cos I'll have accidentally missed it.

Also - remember when I said that the next instalment of the AA Club will be on this coming Monday? I lied.

It'll probably be Friday night or Saturday morning to coincide with the start of the ATARNotes' HeadStart lectures (btw if you're going to any of the English lectures, I'll be the English lecturer so feel free to come up and say hey).

scout:
Hi HopefulLawStudent,

Much gratitude for your feedback :). Based on your comments, I've reworked some of my lines - can you please check if I've clarified my logic here:

......Callinan bases her argument on the notion of human survival and the conservation of nature, as she envisages a planet with no basic needs such as "clean water" and "clean air." The idea that such fundamental resources key to human life will become a scarcity due to the mine works to alarms readers, as they come to realise that the mine directly threatens their survival.

Image: ....Pope's allusion to "The Scream" painting, coupled with the sea's bland colours highlights how the mine will warp the natural beauties of the environment, impelling readers to defend Australia's renowned wildlife from such exploitation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page