VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 4

<< < (5/5)

Anonymous:
Hi there, I really hope I'm not too late, but I did an analysis of the first article. Any feedback will be welcomed. Thank you in advance

In her letter to the editor, Margaret Callinan frankly conveys: that although the Adami Mine will bring forth future employment it will bring further damaging consequences for the environment hence it should not be accepted. Likening the coal mine to the ‘bird in the hand’ proverb in the title and stating it’s not ‘worth it’, the writer strives to highlight the questionable aspect of the mine project prompting readers to doubt the benefit of the project from the outset. Callinan attempts to builds upon the negative view by using emotional- loaded language such as ‘struggling’ and ‘survive,’ to portray a dystopian future in which the readership will be left vulnerable and weak. This foreboding imagery is designed to instil panic and anxiety into the Australian laymen as their future’s safety is threatened by the Adami Mine project. To further augment her imagery, Callinan repeats clean whilst describing the planet’s water and air to emphasise on the value of these features. Repetition of ‘clean’ forebodes that Adami Mine will disturb Earth’s natural sources and amplifies these sources’ worth thus depicts them as element worth protecting. Designed to appeal to the readers’ defensive instincts, the audience is manipulates to reject the coal mine as it vilified as the cause of the degradation  .
In order to widen her audience from environment carers, the writer aims to appeal to parents. She criticises the future miner workers endangering their children, positioning readers to question the workers parenthood and logic. By alienating the future workers’ for their lack of parenting skills, the future workers are too positioned to view their employment as a detrimental effect on their children and the environment.

scout:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 29, 2017, 11:15:14 pm ---Hi there, I really hope I'm not too late, but I did an analysis of the first article. Any feedback will be welcomed. Thank you in advance

In her letter to the editor, Margaret Callinan frankly conveys: that although the Adami Mine will bring forth future employment it will bring further damaging consequences for the environment hence it should not be accepted. Likening the coal mine to the ‘bird in the hand’ proverb in the title and stating it’s not ‘worth it’, the writer strives to highlight the questionable aspect be more specific. What about it is questionable? of the mine project prompting readers to doubt the benefit of the project from the outset. Callinan attempts to builds upon the negative view by using emotional- loaded emotive language such as ‘struggling’ and ‘survive,’ to portray a dystopian future in which the readership will be left vulnerable and weak good. This foreboding imagery is designed to instil panic and anxiety into the Australian laymen as Callinan suggests that their future’s safety their future safety, or the safety of future generations? is threatened by the Adami Mine project. To further augment her imagery, Callinan repeats clean whilst describing the planet’s water and air to emphasise on the value of these features explain your reasoning - how does repeating "clean" = value . Repetition of ‘clean’ forebodes that Adami Mine will disturb Earth’s natural sources explain or add context around the quote 'clean' because I'm not quite sure how the repetition of "clean" alone directly = disturbed natural resources and amplifies these sources’ worth thus depicts them as element worth protecting. <-- repetition of previous point - could combine. Designed to appeal to the readers’ defensive instincts, the audience is manipulates to reject the coal mine as it vilified as the cause of the degradation.
In order to widen her audience from environment carers, the writer aims to appeal to parents to add to this, why might she have done that?. She criticises the future miner workers endangering their children, positioning readers to question the workers parenthood and logic <-- be more specific. You could also add to this by mentioning how guilty and shameful the miners themselves will feel, at having endangered their own children. By alienating the future workers’ for their lack of parenting skills, the future workers are too positioned to view their employment as a detrimental effect on for their children and the environment.


--- End quote ---

You're consistently referring back to the effect on readers - that's the key, so great job :)  You could clarify some of your reasoning here and there.

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: scout on June 27, 2017, 08:56:45 pm ---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 this is a pretty neat example of tautology.
 If something is fundamental than it's sort of implied that it'll be key to human life and vice versa. TBH though the fact that you'd previously talked about "no basic needs" covered that point already so I don't really feel like you needed to then go on to call it "fundamental" and "key to human life" -- unnecessary repetition. will become a scarcity scarcedue 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.

good. :)


--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 29, 2017, 11:15:14 pm ---Hi there, I really hope I'm not too late, but I did an analysis of the first article. It's never too late to jump on the AA Club bandwagon :) Any feedback will be welcomed. Thank you in advance

In her letter to the editor, Margaret Callinan frankly conveys: the colon is unnecessary here. Generally you'd use the colon in 3 instances.

* between two main clauses in cases where the second clause explains or follows from the first:
* to introduce a list:
* before a quotation, and sometimes before direct speech:This isn't really any of those instances so no colon.

that although the Adami Mine will bring forth future employment it will bring further what do you mean by "further"??? damaging consequences for the environment and hence it should not be accepted. Likening the coal mine to the ‘bird in the hand’ proverb this isn't as clear as you'd want it to be. Like it's not 100% clear what you're trying to say here.in the title and stating it’s not ‘worth it’, the writer strives to highlight the questionable aspect of the mine project prompting readers to doubt the benefit of the project from the outset. Callinan attempts to builds upon the negative view by using emotional- loaded language How is it emotion-loaded language? TOO VAGUE.
 BE MORE SPECIFIC. EXPLAIN. such as ‘struggling’ and ‘survive,’ to portray a dystopian future in which the readership will be left vulnerable and weak. This foreboding imagery is designed to instil panic and anxiety into the Australian laymen as their future’s safety is threatened by the Adami Mine project. To further augment her imagery, Callinan repeats clean Is this a quote? whilst describing the planet’s water and air to emphasise on the value of these featurestoo vague - be more specific. Repetition of ‘clean’ forebodes that Adami Mine will disturb Earth’s natural sources Explain your thinking more --> how have you jumped from repetition = disturb Earth's natural sources and amplifies their worth??and amplifies these sources’ worth thus depicts them as element worth protecting. Designed to appeal to the readers’ defensive instincts, the audience is manipulatesd to reject the coal mine as it vilified You can't really vilify a person.
 You can vilify a person, yes, a thing, not so much.as the cause of the degradation  .
In order to widen her audience from environment carers What do you mean? "Environmentalists" prob woulda worked better., the writer aims to appeal to parents. She criticises the future miner workers endangering their children, positioning readers to question the workers parenthood and logic. What do you mean by this? Be clearer in your writing. By alienating the future workers for their lack of parenting skillsWhere are you getting this? Substantiating your point with a quotation here would've been v good. And does this not contradict your previous point of "the writer aims to appeal to parents" and what you go on to say that "workers are positioned to view their employment as detrimental to their children and the environment?", the future workers are too positioned to view their employment as a detrimental effect on their children and the environment. SO...?


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page