Language Analysis...Is this allowed?

[dejan91]

I was wondering if we were allowed to comment/analyse on aspects of a piece we found to be counter-persuasive?

The criteria says "analysis of ways in which language used to persuade readers', so I'm not sure. I've heard you are allowed to, but then again I've heard you weren't...

[ice_blockie]

I'd strongly recommend against directly assuming something to be counter-persuasive i.e. don't say "the use of such language incites backlash against the author" or "readers will not be persuaded by such ideas". This is the same idea as not directly assuming that they definitely will persuade the reader, i.e. don't write "the reader is definitely persuaded" or "the reader will support the author" but rather write "likely to support" so qualify your statements.

In terms of counterproductive techniques, I would frame it in the context of how it would persuade some but not all, as I don't think someone is that stupid to contradict themselves unless for a reason. So either point out that reason "the author employs such use of seemingly contradictory sensationalist evidence to highlight..." or say how it may persuade and may not "while some may be persuaded by this rhetorical language" others upon deeper analysis may see through this tactic..." But only 1 or 2 sentences max. Don't drag the point as you don't want to make out that you think the author is an idiot - after all they're writing the media piece published in a newspaper - you're writing a flimsy language analysis for school. Which one's more credible?

Overall I would avoid it. I don't like it. But do it if you must in the ways I've pointed out.

[krzysiek]

What ice blockie said is definitely what I would consider correct, for the most part. However, I do believe that it is an important element of an analysis piece to acknowledge, even slightly, if the author is seeming to be biased or otherwise not so persuasive at some point in the piece. In my opinion, this just shows in-depth 'analysis' which is essentially what the marker would be looking for.

Just my opinion,

[dejan91]

Ok, yeah that makes sense It's just that this one editorial used evidence supporting the opposition and it just didn't seen to make sense. But then again, I think this fits in with the 'seemingly contradictory evidence' in a way.

[lynt.br]

Ok, yeah that makes sense It's just that this one editorial used evidence supporting the opposition and it just didn't seen to make sense. But then again, I think this fits in with the 'seemingly contradictory evidence' in a way.

Usually this is called selective use of evidence. The writer will generally only choose flimsy arguments from their opposition so that they can easily rebut them or to appear balanced while the arguments that they present from the opposing viewpoint are clearly flawed or illogical which makes their own arguments seem superior in comparison.