Language Analysis Help

[MAAR]

G'day fellas, I'm not gonna lie, I'm terrible at language analysis. I never seem to be able to find the techniques, and I can never incorporate them into my body paragraphs well. Could you please provide me some feedback on my recent language analysis?
Thanks



Become a superhero – save a life today!

The low amount of organ donors in Australia recently sparked controversy in the media and was chosen as a topic by a year 11 student who wrote an essay on this subject for a persuasive writing competition, discussing the issues around it, direct at residents who are currently not organ donors. In a persuasive and informative tone, the student discusses the fact that Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the developed world, informing people that such a small thing such as registering with the Australian Organ Donor Registry could make such a significant change.

As the persuasive competition winner, Charlotte Forss’ persuasive and well-thought-out arguments is given instant credibility due to the logical structure of each arguments, along with the evidence and statistics provided.

The year 11 student opens the argument by appealing to fear with his rather horrific statistics that hundreds of Australians die each year because of such a small problem that can be easily solved. Through his repeated use of inclusive language such as “only one of us” and “someone’s son, daughter or father”, he aims to appeal to family concerns, which would be aimed at parents or even children themselves, intending to appeal to the general population, aiming to get children, parents and basically everyone who is not registered with the Australian Organ Donor to register. By listing a statistic such as “2000 Australians are waiting for organs” is used to provide evidence to support the argument, intending to show the reader some credibility, hoping to side the reader along with the author. Charlotte Forss throughout this argument appeals to community values, when saying “someone’s grandfather, someone’s child” which widens the audience of the readership and shows that everyone who isn’t a donor and has loved ones should sign up for their own benefit, but mainly for people in need; in this case, the community.

Donating and organs and tissue in the event of your death could help save and improve the quality of up to 10 people. Forss’ concerned and amazed tone on how many lives can be changed by a simple organ transplant seeks to bring out people who are not on the registry and making them feel as if they need to discuss this issue with other people, especially with their families. After reading this argument, Forss’ audience are more likely to embrace the message and make a small yet significant change. The phrase “an amazing legacy to leave” is used as a cliché, which allowed Forss’ to express her opinion to the readers quickly.

She finishes her argument by addressing any concerns that people who would be planning to sign up for organ donation would have, ruling out all the myths and doubts. Although her tone is not aggressive, it is assertive, as she makes clear that “doctors won’t try so hard to save your life” is completely untrue, which appeals to fear and insecurity, intending the reader to side with the author, eliminating any doubts. Forrs’ uses heavy repetition of exclusive language such as “your life” and “your organs”, which aims to emphasize the issue that is being discussed and to draw attention to what really is at hand, organs. The use of emotive language when “your life” is being discussed is used so that this persuasive technique can appeal to people’s emotions and trigger an emotional response. By using statistics and evidence of vows and medical tests, it improves her credibility when elaborating on her argument, encouraging the reader to side with her viewpoint. Potential donors are now more likely to associate organ donation as being much more favourable.


In a logical and well-presented manner, Charlotte Forss effectively persuades the audience of Australians who are not registered on the Australia Organ Donor, with the help of relevant statistics and evidence. The fact that Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation out of any developed country is definitely alarming to nearly all readers, and Forss effectively used this technique, along with family and generally emotional appeals to try and get more Australians to register and make an impact.

[Cranium002]

G'day fellas, I'm not gonna lie, I'm terrible at language analysis. I never seem to be able to find the techniques, and I can never incorporate them into my body paragraphs well. Could you please provide me some feedback on my recent language analysis?
Thanks



Become a superhero – save a life today!

The low amount [is amount the best word here, possibly not] of organ donors in Australia recently sparked controversy in the media and was chosen as a topic by a year 11 student who wrote an essay on this subject for a persuasive writing competition, discussing the issues around it, direct at residents who are currently not organ donors. [sentence a bit too long here - can be shorten down] In a persuasive and informative tone, the student discusses the fact that Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the developed world, informing people that such a small thing such as [word choice needs editing here] registering with the Australian Organ Donor Registry could make such a significant change.

As the persuasive competition winner, Charlotte Forss’ persuasive and well-thought-out argument [s - not needed] is given instant credibility due to the logical structure of each arguments , along with the evidence and statistics provided. [vague sentence - need to be specific]

The year 11 student opens the argument by appealing to fear with his rather horrific statistics[,] that hundreds of Australians die each year because of such a small problem that can be easily solved. [Find another word for such - corresponding to] Through his repeated use of inclusive language such as “only one of us” and “someone’s son, daughter or father”, he aims to appeal to family concerns, [be more specific here] which would be aimed at parents or even children themselves, intending to appeal to the general population, aiming to get children, parents and basically [basically is not a recmmended word to use here] everyone who is not registered with the Australian Organ Donor to register. By listing a statistic such as “2000 Australians are waiting for organs” is used [syntax incorect here - not coherent and fluent in sentence structure] to provide evidence to support the argument, intending to show the reader some credibility, hoping to side the reader along with the author. Charlotte Forss throughout this argument appeals to community values, when saying “someone’s grandfather, someone’s child” which widens the audience of the readership and shows that everyone who isn’t a donor and has loved ones should sign up for their own benefit, but mainly for people in need; in this case, the community.

Donating [and - not needed] organs and tissue in the event [instead of event - The donation of organs and tissue, in this such circumstances apparent, has been illustrated by the author to have saved and improved the quality of life of up to 10 people] of your death could help save and improve the quality of up to 10 people.  [sometimes sophiscated language used in the right way can save you some marks] Forss’ concerned and [yet would be a good word here] amazed tone on how many lives can be changed by a simple organ transplant seeks to bring out people who are not on the registry and making them feel as if they need to discuss this issue with other people, especially with their families.  [ Your sentences are too vague and casual here] After reading this argument,  [Can't say after reading this argument as a starting text, remember you are analysing not telling your mate a story] Forss’ audience are more likely to embrace the message and make a small yet significant change [punctuation needs checking]. The phrase “an amazing legacy to leave” is used as a cliché, which allowed Forss’ to express her opinion to the readers quickly.  [Why does the author uses this in the article]

 [Not a good connective here - Can say Moreover, "author" aligns herself with the audience to address the concerns....] She finishes her argument by addressing any concerns that people who would be planning to sign up for organ donation would have, ruling out all the myths and doubts.  [Too casual] Although her tone is not aggressive, it is assertive, as she makes clear that “doctors won’t try so hard to save your life” is completely untrue,  [say what are you trying to analyse - Should not say Although her tone is not..... ]which appeals to fear and insecurity,  [potentially]  intending the reader to side with the author, eliminating any doubts. Forrs’ uses heavy repetition of exclusive language such as “your life” and “your organs”, which aims to emphasize the issue that is being discussed and to draw attention to what really is at hand, organs. The use of emotive language when “your life” is being discussed is used so that this persuasive technique can appeal to people’s emotions and trigger an emotional response. By using statistics and evidence of vows and medical tests, it improves her credibility when elaborating on her argument, encouraging the reader to side with her viewpoint. Potential donors are now more likely to associate organ donation as being much more favourable.


In a logical and well-presented manner, Charlotte Forss effectively persuades the audience of Australians who are not registered on the Australia Organ Donor, with the help of relevant statistics and evidence. The fact that Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation out of any developed country is definitely alarming to nearly all readers, and Forss effectively used this technique, along with family and generally emotional appeals to try and get more Australians to register and make an impact.


 A pretty alright piece. I would recommend you to check your style of writing. Yes, it is a language analysis piece. However, you are too casual and vague at times and could be more specific to detail with what you're trying to mention in the text. Language Analysis is primarily about you analysing text and explaining the analysis in third person instead of first person. In many occasions of the text, you have used the word "such" to an excessive degree and should instead use words like corresponding, aforementioned, aforesaid, shown "here". In the piece, you're very good at picking up the various tones and techniques the author uses, however, you will need to consider how this impacts on the audience, and what's the main underlying message that the author has with this set of "quotes".

Some questions you may consider to ask yourself when you're analysing are:

• Does the piece have effective topic sentences that make the initial focus clear?
• Are the topic sentences precise and well-worded?
• Has the student avoided jumping into close analysis too soon?
• Do the topic sentences outline a concept specific to the material as opposed to a very general concern relating to the issue instead of the material?
• Have the quotes been well-integrated, and do they fit the grammar of the sentences they’re in?
• Has the student modified quotes with [square brackets] and ellipsis […] Where appropriate?
• Are the quotes the right length, and has the student selected the most relevant language to include as opposed to inserting a whole chunk of the piece in their work?
• Do the quotes support the analysis being conducted?
• Does the piece use a sufficiently varied amount of evidence and avoid using the same language multiple times, where possible?
• Has the piece made succinct and obvious connections between different points of analysis?
• Does the piece have a sense of flow in the way it transitions both within and between paragraphs?
• Does the piece adopt a structure that is suitable to the task?
• Are the paragraphs (if multiple) roughly even and balanced in terms of what they’re covering?
• Does the piece begin and conclude in an appropriate way?

Hope this helps

[OZLexico]

I agree, you have a few problems here.  I think your statement of the author's contention lacks clarity, though you have identified the form, issue and a  range of tones she uses.  Your topic sentences need improving - they should focus closely on the specific arguments of the author.  You can refine these by asking yourself "according to Foss, who is affected by the issue (of organ donation)?" ie potential donors, organ recipients and families.  Once you've done this you can see which argument and persuasive techniques are directed at each of these groups.  You have identified a range of tones and how these might influence the audience, however is there more than one audience (judges of the essay competition as well as potential organ donors)?  You have not made any comment on the image and how this might contribute to the persuasive strategies of the author.  Keep working at the effect of the combination of persuasive techniques e.g. where you've mentioned an appeal to family and community values that uses inclusive language and statistics, this is intended to encourage a wide range of readers to see themselves as able to provide a solution to the problem of low donation rates (by signing up as donors) and to help them more strongly identify with people on the waiting list.  You also have problems with fluency and sentence structure.  This might be improved if you re-read and edit carefully - decide exactly what you are trying to say.  You should also avoid evaluating the argument - the task is to analyse it.