VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 5

(1/4) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:
So last AA Club instalment was a little late, and this one's a little early so hopefully they all balance out. The hope is that one of these days, I'll actually manage to post on Monday. If you haven't been contributing up til now: this is as good a time as any. As of today, there are 124 days until your English exam and 124 opportunities for you to maximise your English study score and this is as good a place to start as any. Also, you guys are welcome to go back to previous weeks and post responses there. I'll get around to feedback-ing those responses as soon as I'm able. :)


--- Quote ---Background: The following has been adapted from a super old past VCAA English exam (like not even joking, this material is almost as old as I am that’s how old it is). It's so old that it's highly unlikely that you'd get it as a practice exam or anything so I shouldn't have spoiled anyone's practice exam. It’s about a proposed introduction of a compulsory Medical Information Card which is like an electronic storage system of the sort of information you’d expect in a medical record that would remove the need for paper storage and allow for an individual’s medical history to basically follow them wherever they went. The following is an email response and an article from a Melbourne newspaper considering the merits of the MI card.

--- End quote ---

Pro-tip: you don't need to analyse more minor stuff like the formatting of the email cos that doesn't really count as a visual.

Anonymous:
My language Analysis is very rusty, so apologies for the following, but thank you for any feedback. Also, I wasn't sure how long this was suppose to be and if it was suppose to function as a full essay or not so don't mind the immediate and shoddy conclusion.   

As the possibility of a mandatory Medi-info (M-I) card looms, a division in society thus ensues; asking the question of whether the card would allay issues which arise from a lack of medical information, or form the basis for new manifestations of discrimination in everyday life. These contentious views can be perceived through both, Dr. Tom Brown, who, offering a sense of ethos, champions the introduction of a mandatory M-I card in a poignant email, and Christina Singh, who vehemently condemns such an introduction as a gateway to discrimination in an opinion article posted within a Melbourne newspaper.

Brown begins his piece by ardently arguing that the introduction of a mandatory M-I card would offer "peace of mind" and enhance the ability to which he could do his job. Subsequently, Brown first draws on his ethos as a "doctor with over 35 years experience", his authoritative nature and perceived expert opinion encouraging readers to take his stance . This is accentuated by Brown's assertive nature, the rhetoric of "I know" in his first paragraph leaving the audience with no room to protest, and subsequently cajoling them to support the aforementioned implementation. Brown coalesces this authoritative  nature with an array of emotional pleas. Drawing on an anecdote about a man who suffers epileptic fits which are mistakenly recognised as inebriation, Brown elicits a sense of sympathy for the "lad" "who can no longer feel confident when he goes out", using not only the evoked sympathy, but also the endearing "lad", to position the audience to want to alleviate the man's "anxiety" and subsequently, similarly champion the implementation of an M-I card.

Conversely, Singh argues that the card would instead foster new areas for discrimination. Similar to Brown, Singh uses poignant imagery to position her audience, first drawing on the hypothetical "Ms. Hopeful" who is denied a position based purely on her M-I card; simultaneously eliciting both a sense of fear in the audience, who do not wish to lose job opportunities based on arbitrary medical conditions, and appealing to their sense of justice, as Ms. Hopeful has clearly been the victim of unfair prejudice. This portrayal is exacerbated as Singh draws on heavily connotative language such as "frightening" and "discrimination" in order to once again compel her audience, through both fear and their sense of justice, to "take a firm stand" against M-I cards.

Thus, both Brown and Singh reflect contrasting views within Melbourne society. With both Brown and Singh utilising similar techniques, such as emotive language or evocative imagery, in order to position their audience to be for or against the possibility of mandatory M-I cards. Brown's idyllic "peace of mind for everyone" and Singh's alarming future, a reflection of the contentiousness which categorises the debate. 

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on July 03, 2017, 03:50:31 am ---My language Analysis is very rusty, so apologies for the following, but thank you for any feedback. Also, I wasn't sure how long this was suppose to be and if it was suppose to function as a full essay or not so don't mind the immediate and shoddy conclusion.   

As the possibility of a mandatory Medi-info (M-I) card looms, a division in society thus ensuesWhat do you mean by this, exactly? This just seems to be unnecessarily vague and super general. ; misused the semicolon which then throws off your entire sentence. A semicolon is most commonly used to link (in a single sentence) two independent clauses that are closely related in thought. asking the question of whether the card would allay issues which arise from a lack of medical information, or form the basis for new manifestations of discrimination in everyday life. These contentious views can be perceived through both, Dr. Tom Brown, who, offering a sense of ethos, champions the introduction of a mandatory M-I card in a poignant I'd personally argue that the email isn't really poignant (poignant being "evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret." email, and Christina Singh, who vehemently condemns such an introduction as a gateway to discrimination in an opinion article posted within ina Melbourne newspaper.

Brown begins his piece by ardently arguing that the introduction of a mandatory M-I card would offer "peace of mind" try and avoid quoting without analysis wherever possible and enhance the ability to which he could do his job. Subsequently, Brown first draws on his ethos as a "doctor with over 35 years experience", his authoritative nature and perceived expert opinion encouraging readers to take his stance "encouraging readers to take his stance" is arguably too general, and this sentence seems a bit clumsily worded but actual idea behind it is good.. This is accentuated by Brown's assertive nature, the rhetoric of "I know" I personally feel that it might be worth you further contextualising that quote. in his first paragraph leaving the audience with no room too informal arguably for an AA essay? to protest, and subsequently cajoling them to support the aforementioned implementation. Brown coalesces this authoritative  nature with an array of emotional pleas What do you mean by this?. Drawing on an anecdote about a man who suffers epileptic fits which are mistakenly recognised as inebriation, Brown elicits a sense of sympathy for the "lad" "who can no longer feel confident when he goes out", using not only the evoked sympathy, but also the endearing "lad", to position the audience to want to alleviate the man's "anxiety" tbh anxiety seems like a bit of a weird thing to quote here especially considering that you're just quoting here for the sake of quoting, no actual analysis of anxiety and subsequently, similarly why similarly? champion the implementation of an M-I card.

Conversely, Singh argues that the card would instead foster new areas for discrimination. Similar to Brown, Singh uses poignant imagery to position her audience, first drawing on the hypothetical "Ms. Hopeful" who is denied a position based purely on her M-I card;see previous comment about semi-colons simultaneously eliciting both a sense of fear in the audience, who do not wish to lose job opportunities based on arbitrary medical conditions, and appealing to their sense of justice, as Ms. Hopeful has clearly been the victim of unfair prejudice. Is good. My only concern is that this sentence is waaaay too long.This portrayal is exacerbated as Singh draws on heavily connotative language such as "frightening" and "discrimination" cute but what are the connotations of "frightening" and "discrimination"? EXPLAIN. in order to once again compel her audience, through both fear and their sense of justice, to "take a firm stand" see previous comment about quoting without analysis.
 Like try and avoid doing it too often because what you're basically doing is flagging missed opportunities for analysis.against M-I cards.

Thus, both Brown and Singh reflect contrasting views within Melbourne society. This is the sort of vague and super general statement that you probably wouldn't want to have in your AA essay. Specificity is key here! With both Brown and Singh utilising similar techniques, such as emotive language or evocative imagery, in order to position their audience to be for or against the possibility of mandatory M-I cards. Brown's idyllic "peace of mind for everyone" and Singh's alarming future, a reflection of the contentiousness which categorises the debate.  this sentence is clumsily written and a tad too verbose. Otherwise though, good job!


--- End quote ---

Keep those responses coming, guys! :)

Isla77:
Written by a medical practitioner, Dr Tom Brown, the e-mail elaborates on the significance of having Medi-Info Card, by primarily focussing on its benefits to members of the general pubilc. From the onset of his piece, the doctor puts strong emphasis on his expertise. "35 years" in the job clearly shows his decades long involvement in the field, assuring the reader of his credibility. His trust and knowledge in the medical field is reinforced by repeatedly stating  "I know", which also serves to covey his confidence in observing his patients and empathising with their "suffering", "weariness and confusion". Such revealing of his competence as a "family practitioner", someone close and trusted by the general public, shows both his ability to sympathise and understand the needs of people. Having established this reliance, he shares a story of a patient who was not able to get "the vital help" because of the absence of his Medi-Info Card. The adjective "vital" indicates the necessity of the treatment he did not receive during the unfavorable happening, highlighting on a situation where the card could have been extremely useful.

Dr Brown wishes the best for "all Australians", that they are "free from anxiety". This unconditional care reveals the generous side of him, and presents himself as a likeable person. Doing so assures the reader that someone who wishes the best for everyone is willing for them to have the Medi-Info Card. He respects the rights of patients, to "talk to their doctors" and "know their medical information", even more disclosing his good-natured character. He then explains that his job too, would benefit from the implementation of Medi-Info Card, that his work would "improve dramatically", indicating the massive impact that this simple action can bring. Only focusing on the positive aspects, the author indicates that this is a win-win situation, urging the effective use of the card. Again turning his attention back to his patients, he portrays his confidence and faith in the card, which he believes will "surely bring" safety to people. Thus, Brown positions patients as his utmost concern in signifying on the importance of having the Medi-Info Card.

In contrast, an opinion piece by Christina Singh denies the significance and importance of the Medi-Info Card. Her emotional and intense tone is equipped with her appeal to freedom and justice, she guides "all who value our free society" to have a doubt on the usage of the card. She alarms and almost frightens the reader that this ideally triggers "warning bells" from them, an emergency device only used in dangerous situations where immediate action is required. Upon elaborating on the harmful effects of the widespread usage of the card, Singh does not hesitate in using exaggerated adjectives to impose her disagreement with the change. She argues that the possibility of discrimination is "patently obvious", implying that all should predict that this is likely to occur. She explains of another possibility, of personal information being sold for malusage, as being "frightening", sharing her internal emotion and attempting to influence the reader to think in the same manner, sparking a sense of fear. All this endeavours to convince the reader that the Medi-Info Card will do more harm than good.




Any comments or corrections will be appreciated!
By the way I went to your ATARNotes English lecture a few days ago and it was very helpful! I was able to receive many tips that will be useful for me for both Unit 4 and the final exam, so thank you so much!

amigos:

--- Quote from: Isla77 on July 04, 2017, 09:32:08 pm ---Written by a medical practitioner, Dr Tom Brown, the e-mail elaborates on the significance of having Medi-Info Card, by primarily focussing on its benefits to members of the general pubilc. From the onset of his piece, the doctor puts strong emphasis on his expertise. "35 years" in the job clearly shows his decades long involvement in the field, assuring the reader of his credibility. His trust and knowledge in the medical field is reinforced by repeatedly stating  "I know", which also serves to covey his confidence in observing his patients and empathising with their "suffering", "weariness and confusion". Such revealing of his competence as a "family practitioner", someone close and trusted by the general public, shows both his ability to sympathise and understand the needs of people. Having established this reliance, he shares a story of a patient who was not able to get "the vital help" because of the absence of his Medi-Info Card. The adjective "vital" indicates the necessity of the treatment he did not receive during the unfavorable happening, highlighting on a situation where the card could have been extremely useful.

Dr Brown wishes the best for "all Australians", that they are "free from anxiety". This unconditional care reveals the generous side of him, and presents himself as a likeable person. Doing so assures the reader that someone who wishes the best for everyone is willing for them to have the Medi-Info Card. He respects the rights of patients, to "talk to their doctors" and "know their medical information", even more disclosing his good-natured character. He then explains that his job too, would benefit from the implementation of Medi-Info Card, that his work would "improve dramatically", indicating the massive impact that this simple action can bring. Only focusing on the positive aspects, the author indicates that this is a win-win situation, urging the effective use of the card. Again turning his attention back to his patients, he portrays his confidence and faith in the card, which he believes will "surely bring" safety to people. Thus, Brown positions patients as his utmost concern in signifying on the importance of having the Medi-Info Card.

In contrast, an opinion piece by Christina Singh denies the significance and importance of the Medi-Info Card. Her emotional and intense tone is equipped with her appeal to freedom and justice, she guides "all who value our free society" to have a doubt on the usage of the card. She alarms and almost frightens the reader that this ideally triggers "warning bells" from them, an emergency device only used in dangerous situations where immediate action is required. Upon elaborating on the harmful effects of the widespread usage of the card, Singh does not hesitate in using exaggerated adjectives to impose her disagreement with the change. She argues that the possibility of discrimination is "patently obvious", implying that all should predict that this is likely to occur. She explains of another possibility, of personal information being sold for malusage, as being "frightening", sharing her internal emotion and attempting to influence the reader to think in the same manner, sparking a sense of fear. All this endeavours to convince the reader that the Medi-Info Card will do more harm than good.




Any comments or corrections will be appreciated!
By the way I went to your ATARNotes English lecture a few days ago and it was very helpful! I was able to receive many tips that will be useful for me for both Unit 4 and the final exam, so thank you so much!

--- End quote ---

Not HLS, but here's my feedback.  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page