VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 5

<< < (3/4) > >>

The Raven:

--- Quote from: scout on July 06, 2017, 10:13:05 pm ---In an impassioned tone, Dr Tom Brown insists that the Medi-Info Card will be vital in preventing tragic, unnecessary deaths. His argument relies primarily on his personal experience Argument can't really 'rely' on personal experience, evident in his emphatic repetition of "I know" to stress his understanding of the pain suffered by victims who did not have their medical history records at hand. This, coupled with his "35 years' experience" which opens his email, positions readers to perceive that he truly understands medical patients' needs and hence, adds credibility to his views. Dr Brown seeks to augment his portrayal A bit awkward as a caring doctor by lamenting an unfortunate case of medical emergency, where he recalls an epileptic patient who had been neglected by "everyone around him" under the impression that "he was drunk". This ignorance of a man Dr Brown portrays Phrasing is a bit awkward here as completely innocent and powerless – given the uncontrollable nature of epileptic fits – generates sympathy from readers for the utterly helpless man. Furthermore, Dr Brown's use of the endearing term "lad" to refer to the patient further amplifies the man's benign depiction, appealing to readers' sense of mateship by mobilising them to advocate for a Medi-Info Card so that the man should not suffer again. Dr Brown delves further into the preventability of the epileptic patient's torment, crying out desperately "How a Medi-Info Card would have helped him!" The hypothetical "would" compels readers to imagine the alternative possibility of the patient using his Medi-Info Card to swiftly circumvent his painful suffering; this revelation, compounded by Dr Brown's use of an exclamation mark, positions patients to realise, with a sense of urgency, that the Medi-Info Card is a practical necessity for ailing Australians.

Having established the usefulness of adopting a Medi-Info Card, Dr Brown then appeals to readers' rights to authentic, accessible healthcare, claiming that the Card is safe and will bring much-wanted medical security into its users' lives. His appeal to "all" Australians "young or old, sick or well, in the bush or in the city, close to home or far away" not only aims to present Dr Brown as having everyone's interests at heart, but also to subtly illustrate how the card will surpass any social, economic or physical barriers to bring healthcare to every single Australian. Good!This idea of timely, easily obtainable healthcare owing to the Medi-Info Card is likely to appeal to readers who have been horrified by Dr Brown's earlier, unsettling depiction of unaddressed medical emergencies, brought about by unavailable medical records. Dr Brown aims to further garner readers' trust, by showing that he recognises readers' mutual desire for safe, stress-free medical care; he affirms that all Australians "should be allowed to live their lives free from anxiety" and "need to know that their medical information... is safe and secure." Here, his use of the emotive word "free" and the alliterated "safe and secure” – all three connoting honesty and integrity – aims to reassure readers that the Medi-Info Card is reliable. Dr Brown ends on this inspiring tone – unlike his opening frustrated tone phrasing is a bit awkward. You use the xyz - abc - xyz technique twice here and in quick succession. Try to rephrase if possible – by confidently declaring that the Medi-Info Card will mean "peace of mind for everyone." This notion positions patients to associate the Card with an idealistic sense of serenity; a serenity that may not exist in their lives plagued by illness. Thus, enlightened readers may come to embrace the Medi-Info Card which Dr Brown portrays as the gateway to their happiness.

Christina Singh, however, adopts a more cynical tone, viewing the Medi-Info Card as a potential means to discriminate against certain groups in society. Her main strategy is her use of a hypothetical scenario, in which she depicts a “Ms Hopeful” – supposedly an eager employment candidate – being denied a job by “Mr Employer” based on private information accessed from her Medi-Info Card. The use of the anonymous, status-based titles “Ms Hopeful” and “Mr Employer” perhaps emphasises how the Medi-Info Card will compel society to judge one another based on their material qualities, such as their professions, rather than their unique characters This is a bit too broad (unique characteristics / material qualities) what is specifically being judged here?. Indeed, Mr Employer is shown demanding Ms Hopeful’s card before even asking “why [she is] interested in applying for [the] position”, an image that acts to disturb readers with the dystopian idea of a bleak, future world governed by an obsession with black and white credentials. This bleak dystopia claim is probably a bit too strong Thus, Singh strives to alarm readers with the Medi-Info Card’s potential to extinguish individual passion and personalities, which is symbolised by “Ms Hopeful’s” very name. Good but the phrasing in the last sentence is a bit awkward

Singh then proceeds to refute Dr Brown, asserting that the Medi-Info Card will undermine users’ rights to privacy and security. Her foreboding claim that more “insidious” uses of the card will “creep in” aims to horrify readers and elicit a sense of urgency, as the negative words connote the card’s criminality.Phrasing is a bit awkward, criminality might not be the best word as the card itself is not 'illegal' or committing any criminal actions Singh declares that the card has “already” lured some “gullible” people, alerting readers to the very present threat it poses and thus, deterring them from embracing a card that has been associated with exploitation. Use of quote adjectives here is good but doesn't really show how they influence the reader or support the argument Indeed, Singh appeals to readers’ desire to not be taken advantage could be simpler: desire for independence / desire for autonomy of by calling upon “all who value our free society” to reject the card, negating Dr Brown’s association between the card and liberty Has Brown made a link between the card and liberty? Peace of mind =/= liberty. Singh’s use of the inclusive pronoun “our” suggests that such response is a societal duty, manoeuvring readers to denounce the Medi-Info Card, which Singh has portrayed as potentially corrupt and dangerous to their community. The card itself is not corrupt: link more to potential uses of the card

--- End quote ---

Overall great piece that touches on all major arguments and ideas. Phrasing could be tightened and there should probably be clarification about the potential criminal 'uses' of the card rather than the card itself being illegal. The suggestions made in the other feedback were useful as well. Keep up the great work!

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: clarke54321 on July 08, 2017, 01:25:13 pm ---In response to the proposed implementation of a compulsory Medical Information Card, Robert Brown submitted an email. Sounds a bit awkward here - consider splitting the issue into one full sentence and mentioning the email in the next sentence. Employing a predominantly earnest tone, Brown earnestly contends that the M-I card will cater for easy access to medical records and fundamentally, increased safety and wellbeing for civilians. Conversely, Christina Singh disparages the prospect of the M-I card; (should be a comma here) dismissing it as a proposal that will encroach on the basic privacy rights of Australians.   

With the intent of establishing the necessity of the M-I card, Start with outlining a sub-argument in your topic sentence. Try not to include examples/quotes just yet. Brown immediately informs readers of his ‘35 years’ experience’ as a medical professional. By providing such a statistic, Brown endeavours to imply highlight his extensive knowledge and understanding of health matters, which is further fortified by the repeated, ‘I know.’ nice Given the sincere conviction of the phrase and its recurring nature, readers are thus urged to confront the notion that emergencies are widespread and frequent occurrences. If you want to make this point, you need to justify it, i.e. with evidence from the email. Indeed, Brown continues by recalling the ‘weariness’ inflicted upon elders ‘day after day.’ Great integration of quotes! With the idiom ‘day after day’ connoting a sense of tiring inexorability in itself, Brown compounds the very ‘weariness’ endured by patients. As a result of this manifestation, readers are compelled to recognise that a future without M-I cards will be overwhelmingly burdensome and exhausting.

By emphatically addressing his concern to ‘all Australians,’ Brown progresses to argue that M-I cards are relevant to all individuals. Certainly, Brown’s seemingly endless list of juxtapositions, ‘young or old’ and ‘in the bush or in the city,’ implicitly awakens readers to the idea that the M-I is not a type of luxury to be enjoyed by only some. Awesome Rather, Brown pronounces that every Australian ‘should be allowed’ to live with the M-I. Here, the verb ‘should’ further encourages readers to perceive the card as a fundamental health right for all. This sense of inclusive benefit is stressed again by Brown, who champions the card as a kind of dynamic mediator between his ‘work as a doctor’ and his ‘patients’ lives.’ By stating that the M-I will ‘dramatically’ ‘improve’ his capability as a doctor, Brown insinuates (w.c. - insinuates is usually associated with things that are negative or manipulative) that his patients too will reap ‘[dramatic]’ benefits. This inextricable link created by Brown, thereby prompts readers to acknowledge that neither doctors or themselves will prosper and develop without the M-I card. To this end, Brown subtly passes responsibility onto readers, who are thus galvanised to invest their support in the M-I proposal for the future’s welfare.
 
Singh, however, scornfully undermines Brown’s idealistic future with the M-I sounds a bit awkward. Also, consider the way you phrase this,
 as Singh's piece is independent to Brown's email, not in response to., by casting the card as a deceptive invention. good In employing a seemingly jocular pun in her headline, ‘M-I card- or YOUR Card,’ Singh seeks to quickly engage reader attention and then unveil a more serious concern. i get what you are trying to say but maybe write something like simply: 'Singh emphasises the seriousness of this concern' rather than using phrases like 'engage reader's attention...' Indeed, the capitalised and thus protruding word ‘YOUR,’ endeavours to engender a sense of exigency in readers, who are compelled to question just how personal and secure the card is. This alarm created by Singh thereby diverges again, word choice. Singh's piece is independent from Brown's piece. from the tranquil and assured manner of Brown, who maintains that the card will bring ‘peace of mind for everyone.’ Given this palpable contrast, readers are thereby inclined to receive Brown’s idealistic vision/prediction/forecast of a carefree future with an inkling of scepticism. Such an inclination is bolstered by Singh, who constructs a mock job interview to allude to the card’s discriminatory nature. With the employer bluntly declaring that the employee ‘don’t call [them]’ after analysing the M-I, Singh indicates that the private information held on the cards may have the potential to jeopardise future job prospects for Australians. In turn, Singh attempts to inspire acute levels of doubt in readers, who are positioned to perceive the card as an inequitable and invasive tool. Hence, far from the ‘improved’ future postulated by Brown, Singh establishes the M-I as a prospect that will thwart the opportunities of some.

Shifting to a cautionary tone, Singh further portrays the M-I card as an impingement upon Australians’ privacy. By propounding that the card will obstruct ‘our free society,’ Singh aims to make the threat of the card more central to readers, what do you mean by this? be more specific as indicated by the inclusive ‘our.’ In doing so, readers are coerced careful with words like this. 'coerced' means to persuade someone to do somehting using force or threats - not really the case here to reflect on a future without freedom and thus endure a subsequent feeling of trepidation. This thereby seeks to erode Brown’s own appeal to liberty with the M-I card, which he avers will enable all to ‘live free from anxiety.’ That is, by inducing a sense of anxiety in readers regarding the M-I card, and thus the very feeling Brown claims will be eliminated by the proposal, Singh subtly illuminates a contradiction in Brown’s assertion. To this end, Singh urges readers to recognise that Brown’s understanding lacks thorough consideration and is thereby weak. Singh proceeds with this attack against Brown, by stridently stating that ‘possibility for discrimination’ with the M-I is ‘patently obvious.’ Given the overtones of mockery which flood the phrase, ‘patently obvious,’ Singh ardently intimates that to not acknowledge the likelihood of discrimination would be exceedingly ignorant. In turn, readers are manipulated to condemn Brown’s conclusive belief that the M-I will ‘surely bring’ security, and ultimately perceive the card as a risky proposition. I kind of got what you were saying in this paragraph. This was a good paragraph, but some of it was a bit confusing at times and disconnected.

Hence, while Brown relies on his reasoned tone to present the M-I card as a logical and progressive prospect for future safety, Singh opts for a more zealous one. good contrast With this, Singh vehemently depicts the M-I as a threat to readers, and thereby forces (positions? prompts? encourages? you can't really force anyone to do anything - at least not in this case) them to question the credibility of Brown’s viewpoint.


--- End quote ---

Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up :)

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on July 09, 2017, 04:39:26 pm ---Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up :)

--- End quote ---

Thanks very much for the correction!

I definitely agree that the fourth body paragraph is a bit disconnected and confusing. After looking back, I feel as though this comes from the sentence that starts with, 'that is,' which you've striked out. I'm trying to link the idea in this sentence back to one in the sentence before the last (feeling of trepidation). How could I have made a tighter link and one that is more concise?

Hopefully this makes sense! :)

heids:
I absolutely love how everyone's helping out here, not just HLS - such AN spirit 8) Thanks all!

gisele:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on July 09, 2017, 04:39:26 pm ---Overall, a very strong analysis! Keep it up :)

--- End quote ---

above anon comment was me btw oops forgot to click off anonymous :P :P

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page