VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 15

<< < (2/2)

MissSmiley:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 18, 2018, 04:56:30 pm ---So sorry I came across that way. Interpretation in English is very fluid, so you may in fact be right, and I may just be pushing the wrong ideas onto you - in the midst of critiquing, I did get the occasional thought that a few of my comments should go into my LA piece. Obviously this is indicative of me not being able to accept other's ideas if they differ from my own (which may not be correct). The failing is on my part, not yours. I just wanted to repay your kindness when you critiqued my pieces in previous weeks, but seems like my plans backfired.

This is why I requested someone more qualified to re-critique your piece

--- End quote ---
Oh no, please don't be sorry!
And it was very nice of you to check my writing as well, after I checked yours :)
No no! Please don't feel your plans backfired!

I didn't mean to imply this at all :)
Don't worry - it was just me speaking to myself that I needed to improve :)

All good!

Anonymous:
With duck shooting season drawing nearer, The Age has published an editorial with the assertion that "this cruel and barbaric sport" should be banned. Sparked by this, Hutchison has also made a comment in which she passionately condemns the labelling of duck shooting as a "sport".

The Age begins with the argument that the current state of duck shooting and any actions taken in relation to it are unacceptable and inadequte. In starting off with evidence of "improved environmental conditions" and the subsequent increase in duck population, the author sets readers up to be disappointed when this action is reversed by duck shooting. Compounding on this effect, the reference to how "10 ducks a day… will provide adequate protection for game duck populations" incites within readers a profound anger, as they realise the limit has little to no effect and that therefore its only purpose was to promote the idea that the killers did indeed care to some extent for the ducks. In then making the comparison between the "15 wildlife officers" and the "22,000 registered shooters", readers are urged to see how inadequate and understaffed the department is at upholding bag limits, and therefore cements the idea that the limit is moreso just for show, which would elicit distrust in duck shooting organisations. Furthermore, the potential for this season to be the "biggest massacre… on record" promotes fear within readers, as it implies a negative trend that may continue to grow. In thereby siding with "RSPCA - and the ducks", of which RSPCA is a credible source, a dichotomous relationship is created, which forces readers to choose a side, and would lean them to favour the Age, along with RSPCA. Therefore sympathisers to the cause are positioned to develop trust in the Age, especially when it claims that duck shooting is "bad news… for  the ducks". To add to this, their resolute stance since 1992 shows the level of unwavering belief they have concerning this matter and so encourages readers to do the same.

The Age then goes on to contend that it's incomprehensible that duck shooting still exists today. Accompanied by the use of statistics dating back to 1995 of major states within Australia banning duck shooting, he suggests that the continuation of such a sport is archaic within Australia in the 21st century, and therefore should be abolished. In juxtaposing this with how Victoria boasts itself as a "proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking", not only does the use of alliteration "progressive public policies", due the repetition of the "p", make the statement stick in the readers' minds, but the overall phrase also unveils the hypocritical nature of Victoria, and so readers are prompted to side with RSPCA on the matter. The author targets the Victorian government when he claims that banning the sport is a politically viable option for them, as a poll found that "75% were in favour of a ban", a no. which not many would dare to dispute.

Shifting to a more adamant tone, the author's argument that duck shooting is plainly a cruel "sport" that's "not open to question", literally gives no option for readers other than to accept his opinion. The use of "cruel" and "sport" within the same sentences brings up the contradictory nature of the phrase, as one has a brighter feel and connotes a fun experience, while the other gives off a more malicious vibe. Since readers should be able to infer that the reference to duck shooting as being a sport is representative of the marketing surrounding it, in which the positive portrayal aims to affect people's perspective of it, they're more inclined to align with the ducks. The string of strong word choices that follow, and the images that they paint of "lingering and painful deaths" elicit within readers a sense of guilt and sorrow, as they have a negative connotation that alludes to a torturous experience.

This is comparable to Hutchison's comment, in which he takes on a different route to highlight other incidents of hypocrisy. The repetitive nature of the listing of Victoria's multiple exploitations "involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses… the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds" works to overwhelm readers with the magnitude of the statistics. Readers are also prompted to feel guilty when Hutchison exposes their hypocritical nature in reference to "Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering". Such negatively connotative words give the impression of barbaric acts that should be condemned, so when readers are led to apply that to duck shooting, a sense of guilt and shame ensues. Hutchison then goes on to make an association between the "sport" and "killers" instead of "hunters", which connotes a position in which one maims for food, rather than for fun. In doing so, she likens duck shooters to merciless killers of weak and defenceless animals, and thereby seeks to elicit reader's support.

Both the Age and Hutchison heavily rely on evidence to sway the audience into siding with them.  In doing so, they aim to influences readers into advocating for the banning of duck slaughtering along with them.

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 20, 2018, 10:56:23 pm ---With duck shooting season drawing nearer, The Age has published an editorial with the assertiontry and be even more explicit by referring to this as the contention that "this cruel and barbaric sport" <-- where possible, present the contention in your own words (show your understanding of the piece as a cohesive whole) should be banned. Sparked by this, Hutchison has also made a comment in which she passionately condemns the labelling of duck shooting as a "sport". Very nice and succint. To improve, incorporate the tones of each repsective author

The Age begins with the argument that the current state of duck shooting and any actions taken in relation to it are unacceptable and inadequte nice topic sentence. To elevate it further, see if you can be even more specific. In starting off with evidence of "improved environmental conditions" and the subsequent increase in duck population, the author sets readers up to be disappointed when this action is reversed by duck shooting excellent observation, but lead the reader through the steps. Where does the author suddenly undercut this idealised prospect?. Compounding on this effect, the reference to how "10 ducks a day… will provide adequate protection for game duck populations" incites within readers a profound anger, as they realise the limit has little to no effect and that therefore its only purpose was to promote the idea that the killers did indeed care to some extent for the ducks very nice analysis. Build on this reader effect in the next sentence--->. In then making the comparison between the "15 wildlife officers" and the "22,000 registered shooters", readers are urged to see how inadequate and understaffed the department is at upholding bag limits, and therefore cements the idea that the limit is moreso just for showavoid colloquials- "on the surface" or "a mere portrayal" , which wouldseeks/endeavours/strives to (be tentative) elicit distrust in duck shooting organisations. Furthermore, the potential for this season to be the "biggest massacre… on record" promotes fear within readers, as it implies a negative trend that may continue to grow. InI'd encourage you to incorporate more of the active tense into your piece. Variation will heighten the quality of your writing. thereby siding with "RSPCA - and the ducks", of which RSPCA is a credible source how do you know this? Refrain from subjective statements, a dichotomous relationship is created, which forces readers to choose a side, and would lean them to favour the Age, along with RSPCA. Therefore sympathisers to the cause are positioned to develop trust in the Age, especially when it claims that duck shooting is "bad news… for  the ducks" <---flesh this out. Your reader should not be left to speculate (ie. join the dots). To add to this, their resolute stance since 1992 shows the level of unwavering belief they have concerning this matter and so encourages readers to do the same.Quite a nice paragraph  :)

The Age then goes on to contendleave this kind of language to the intro. Perhaps declares/states/avers/argues that it's incomprehensible that duck shooting still exists today. Accompanied by the use of statisticsyou must include these in your analysis dating back to 1995 of major states within Australia banning duck shooting, he suggests that the continuation of such a sport is archaic within Australia in the 21st century, and therefore should be abolished. In juxtaposing this with how Victoria boasts itself as a "proud leader in progressive public policies on matters such as road safety and smoking", not only does the use of alliteration "progressive public policies", due the repetition of the "p", make the statement stick in the readers' minds, but the overall phrase also unveils the hypocritical nature of Victoria, and so readers are prompted to side with RSPCA on the matter woah  :o Very long sentence! Try and split your ideas up. And just as a reminder, try and be original when elaborating on the impact of alliteration..<---you could strengthen your writing by x10 if you linked every sentence  :) ---> The author targets the Victorian government when he claims that banning the sport is a politically viable option for them, as a poll found that "75% were in favour of a ban", a no. which not many would dare tobe likely to dispute.

Shifting to a more adamant tone, the author's argument that duck shooting is plainly a cruel "sport" that's "not open to question", literally gives no option for readers other than to accept his opinion leave this type of analysis to the crux of the body paragraph. The topic sentence should really only encompass a main argument (and maybe a corresponding technique that you believe is pertinent) . The use of "cruel" and "sport" within the same sentences brings up the contradictory nature of the phrase, as one hasthe latter (direct your readers) a brighter feel and connotes a fun experience, while the other gives off a more malicious vibe and so what are readers asked to do? Understand the contrived nature of the sport? Tease it out!. Since readers should be able to infer that the reference to duck shooting as being a sport is representative of the marketing surrounding it, in which the positive portrayal aims to affect people's perspective of it, they're more inclined to align with the ducks. The string of strong word choices that follow, and the images that they paint of "lingering and painful deaths" elicit within readers a sense of guilt and sorrow, as they have a negative connotationyou've only just mentioned connotations- be more versatile. You could even say this provokes an image of a torturous experience or animates this. that alludes to a torturous experience.

This what is "this" referring to?is comparable to Hutchison's comment, in which he takes on a different route to highlight other incidents of hypocrisy this is a nice comparative TS, but again, try and be more specific. The repetitive nature of the listing of Victoria's multiple exploitations "involving the death of 4000 sheep, racing horses… the killing of hundreds of kangaroos and the shooting of hundreds of ducks and endangered birds" works to overwhelm readers with the magnitude of the statistics absolutely.. it creates the idea of inexorable oppression. How are readers supposed to react? If you can elaborate on reader effect more, I think you'll find it easier to link the sentences.. Readers are alsoyou needed to mention this intended effect in the previous sentence. prompted to feel guilty when Hutchison exposes their hypocritical nature in reference to "Japan's cruelty in whale slaughtering". Such negatively connotative words give the impression of barbaric acts that should be condemned, so when readers are led to apply that to duck shooting, a sense of guilt and shame ensues. Hutchison then goes on to make an association between the "sport" and "killers" instead of "hunters", which connotes a positiontry not to capitalise too much on connotations. Instead, look to appeals or implicit allusions. in which one maims for food, rather than for fun. In doing so, she likens duck shooters to merciless killers of weak and defenceless animals, and thereby seeks to elicit reader's support.

Both the Age and Hutchison heavily rely on evidence to sway the audience into siding with themplease avoid this type of language. It is very vague. Always aim to produce an authentic analysis..  In doing so, they aim to influences readers into advocating for the banning of duck slaughtering along with them.

--- End quote ---

Very nice effort! Please don't hesitate to clarify any concerns :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page