VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2017 AA Club - Week 6
amigos:
--- Quote from: clarke54321 on July 14, 2017, 06:05:09 pm ---Well done! To improve, just make sure you are explaining things clearly. I think you can achieve this by cutting down on sentence length. Short and sharp sentences are great! Keep up the good work :)
--- End quote ---
Thanks heaps for the feedback clarke54321! I have 2 questions:
- What do you mean by not being too speculative?
- What's a more correct word I could've used instead of "discredit"? I honestly can't think of one. :-\
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: amigos on July 14, 2017, 06:45:33 pm ---Thanks heaps for the feedback clarke54321! I have 2 questions:
- What do you mean by not being too speculative?
- What's a more correct word I could've used instead of "discredit"? I honestly can't think of one. :-\
--- End quote ---
1) Sorry. It probably wasn't too clear. What I mean is, try not to make conclusive statements. For example, it is better to say 'This endeavours to inspire a sense of anger in readers....' than 'This angers audiences.' How can you be sure that 'evidence X' would anger readers? To say that it would, would be speculative.
2) I think discredit didn't sit well because of the sentence itself. The expression was a bit off. But now I'm looking back, it probably wasn't too bad a choice. Apologies for the confusion.
Hopefully this cleared things up :)
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: zhen on July 13, 2017, 09:34:26 pm ---I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.
Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife"this part is a bit clunky. To be honest, I don't think it is even necessary. Especially since you're not analysing it., contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter throughby establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, whichI get that you're relating this to the word 'disgust.' But given that there are two subjects in the previous sentence, it is not all that clear. Therefore, I'd try and isolate the noun 'disgust' just for clarification purposes. has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article but how? How do the connotations lead to this?. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public good. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections inof his character.before you move on, elaborate on the evidence in the previous sentence. How does her acknowledgement of his faults and imperfections make her seem logical? However, Kramer extol's extolsFred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the seemingly misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice nice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through I think 'by' sounds smootherunderscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", a label that connotes superiority connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of himthis sentence is waay too long ;D I think you could break it into two! But great ideas nevertheless. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flintstone, no need for the comma.with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conductthe expression is a bit off here. Perhaps you can just rework your order of ideas, Kramer dichotomises the two individualsmaybe stop the sentence here and finish off with this conclusion----->, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another. great. You could even include the effect on readers in this last sentence. It would just reinforce author intent.
--- End quote ---
Great analysis! Just ensure that you are thoroughly teasing out evidence and linking ideas in a logical fashion. Keep up the great work :)
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: scout on July 14, 2017, 12:23:47 pm ---A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone nice contextualisation. You could probably make this even more concise to avoid the extra sentence length.. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confrontsHmm...this verb doesn't sit too well. It seems a bit hostile. Perhaps addresses would work better Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone,<----- watch the flow between these two clauses -----> Not entirely clear presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character. nice intro
Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions and thus, portrayingportrays his views as impartial. Hang on... don't leave this previous sentence just yet. Why is he trying to present himself as impartial?However, Kramer proceedsBit of a jump here from the previous sentence. I get you're linking it to the topic sentence. But make the link clearer to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the possessive this title in itself can have negative ideas attached. Just make sure it doesn't conflict with your analysis---> positive connotationstitle "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority - demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner too informal and conclusiveof his family; start a new sentence instead.this is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressivelovely analysis. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent dispositiongood.
Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviourare the two qualities really independent?. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal feed more from your evidence. You've used lots of quotes, but the examiner has to make the links for you. of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitudetrue, but try not to be subjective. 'This portrayal of relentless servitude.....' to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women. nice
--- End quote ---
A very original piece of analysis. Just continue to make sure that you follow all the way through with evidence. Keep up the great work :)
HopefulLawStudent:
Very good job clarke54321 on your feedback! Would defs +1,000,000 if I could. On top of your solid feedback, I would also like to add:
--- Quote from: amigos on July 11, 2017, 09:52:20 pm ---Bit rusty, but here's my go. :)
Sports reporter Sally Jenkin’s comments about NRL player Ray Rice’s assault of his then fiancé has sparked questions over the appropriateness of its comparisons to cartoon caveman character ‘Fred Flintstone’. In the letter to the editor “Giving caveman a good name”, Martin Kramer rejects Jenkin’s assessment, arguing that it is unfitting to equate the benign character to someone such as Rice who has been domestically violent.
Kramer seemingly What do you mean by this? begins by contextualizing his piece through citing irrefutable background information, such as the “July 29 Sports column” in question, with no apparent rhetorical benefit. What do you mean by this? In doing so, his opening label of Rice’s actions as “reprehensible” is also presented as context information and thus undeniably true. Kramer reinforces this effect clumsily worded as he then establishes Rice’s high status as a “Baltimore Ravens running back”. This angers audiences that an expected role model has been accused of such sordid acts, undermining their trust in such individuals which in turn leads them to believe that they are capable of assaulting their partners.This bit is unclear.
Kramer then juxtaposes this despicable portrayal of Rice with Fred Flintstone’s “venerable” character. Using such a word that presents the character as almost antithetical How does it present the character as antithetical? EXPLAIN. to Rice immediately discredits Jenkin’s comparison as illogical and implausible. This is then further validated as Kramer highlights that “any fan” – individuals who from experience and knowledge could make an informed judgement What do you mean by this? This section just seems super vague and breaks up the flow of your sentence and it's unclear what this adds to your sentence. – would share this sentiment. Nevertheless, Kramer proceeds to further undermine Jenkin’s comments by portraying Fred Flintstone as a devout husband who would “wear out his feet” and “work until the whistle blew” for his wife. Avoid quoting without analysis. This willingness to go to both physical and effort What do you mean? extremes in turn presents their relationship as endearing and affectionate – thus making Fred Flintstone incapable of the actions he has been compared to by Jenkins.Clumsily worded.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: zhen on July 13, 2017, 09:34:26 pm ---I'm really rusty with argument analysis, since it was the first SAC I did.
Martin Kramer's letter to the editor, "Giving cavemen a good name", critically rejects Sally Jenkins' description of Ray Rice physically assaulting his fiancee as "going all Flinstone on his wife", contending that Fred Flinstone should not be associated with such deplorable actions. Kramer commences his letter through establishing the fact that Jenkins' article provoked "disgust" from its readers, which has connotations of hatred and outrage, thereby undermining the contents of the article. In doing this, Kramer positions the reader to view Jenkin's article unfavourably due to the implication that it was not well received by the general public. unnecessary. Furthermore, Kramer endeavours to position the readers to perceive her views as logical and objective, through acknowledging Fred's "faults" and addressing the imperfections in his character. However, Kramer extol's Fred Flinstone's behaviour, portraying him as a man who "loved and respected his wife", thus juxtaposing his Flinstone's respectful and compassionate behaviour with the misogynistic actions exhibited by Rice. Kramer further elaborates upon this, through underscoring the fact that Fred refers to his wife as a "queen", connoting superiority, hence accentuating the respect and consideration he demonstrates towards his wife, which prompts the reader to view Flinstone as a respectable character rather than the chauvinistic character present in Jenkins' depiction of him. Watch your sentences; they got too long-winded and rambly towards the end of this paragraph. Through contrasting his depiction of Fred Flinstone,no comma here with his portrayal of Rice as a person exhibiting "cavemen behaviour", which alludes to uncivilised and savage conduct, Kramer dichotomises the two individuals, therefore asserting the notion that they are disparate and should not be compared with one another.So? Effect on readers?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: scout on July 14, 2017, 12:23:47 pm ---A video recording of Ray Rice's past abusive attack on his then fiancée has been released, sparking outrage from the American public, including a response from sports reporter Sally Jenkins who likened Rice to renowned, television character Fred Flintstone. In his letter to the editor "Giving cavemen a good name", Martin Kramer confronts Jenkins' comment, contending in a stern, reprimanding tone that Rice's actions cannot be compared to Flintstone's as the two individuals have completely opposite personalities and mindsets. He targets those who, like Jenkins, harbour disparaging views of Flintstone, presenting him in a positive light to encourage them to re-evaluate their preconceptions of the character.
Kramer begins by highlighting Fred's respect and love for his wife as the feature that distinguishes him from Rice. He briefly concedes that Fred "had his faults", recognising that the character did occasionally warrant disapproval for his actions be careful here because you're just paraphrasing/elaborating upon the quote "had his faults". and thus, portraying his views as impartial. So? However, Kramer proceeds to evoke awe and inspiration in his readers by recounting how Fred had looked upon his wife, Wilma, as "his queen." Readers may, indeed, view Fred with reverence, as the title "his queen" - connoting nobility and authority -The dash here is unnecessary. demonstrates that Fred had viewed his wife as his equal, despite being the breadwinner of his family. This is in contrast to Jenkins' claim that Rice had gone "all Flintstone on his wife", where the preposition "on" connotes Rice's dominance over his wife and compels readers to agree that Fred is incomparable to this man who has been portrayed as oppressive. More importantly, Kramer aims to generate warmth in readers from the endearing title "his queen", with the possessive pronoun "his" implying the couple's intimacy and thus, compelling readers to realise that Fred's loving, respectable nature cannot be associated with Rice's more violent disposition. Lovely analysis but missing the bit where you explain: So? Effect on reader?
Kramer expands on Fred's dedication to his wife by illustrating his consistent, hard-working approach to life that separates him from Rice's volatile behaviour. He appeals to readers' courage when describing how "every day", Fred would "wear out his feet" and "work until the whistle blew", specially so he could "head home to Wilma". This romanticised, heroic portrayal Problem: you've thrown a lot of quotes at your assessor and then left me to connect the dots instead of spoonfeeding me info. of Fred exhibits his tenacity and his honest commitment to bringing food to the table for his wife and family. Such relentless servitude too subjective? to Wilma positions readers to believe that Fred is rather progressive in his treatment of women, and therefore, is not analogous to Rice's more archaic attitudes towards women.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version