Could someone please give me feedback on this Language Analysis...

[S200]

Which intro is more effective? How can I improve?

intro 1 ~130 words

The recent debate over tearing down statues has sparked further controversy, with ANU History Prof. Bruce Scates weighing in on the debate in his article “Monumental Errors: how Australia can fix it’s racist colonial statues”. Scates inimically contends that it is not necessary to completely remove or change any of the divisive statues, but that new, additional plaques should be added to the monuments, as has been done in Freemantle, WA. In a concurrent letter to the editor, Ray Davidson, a concerned Australian from Newcastle, argues that we should not seek to change the past, but should learn from it. Scates, being a professor, attempts to cash in on his relation to the historical aspect of the debate, whereas Davidson just honestly expresses his opinion, logically and without rhetoric.

intro 2 ~ 180 words

The recent debate over tearing down statues has sparked further controversy, with ANU History Prof. Bruce Scates weighing in on the debate in his article “Monumental Errors: how Australia can fix it’s racist colonial statues”. Scates inimically contends that it is not necessary to completely remove or change any of the divisive statues, but that new, additional plaques should be added to the monuments, as has been done in Freemantle, WA. He craftily places this contention right at the end of the piece, giving the reader time to absorb a range of ideas and arguments, before clearing up the false dichotomy that has been built up by both factions of the debate, both statue haters and statue lovers. In a concurrent letter to the editor, Ray Davidson, a concerned Australian from Newcastle, apathetically argues that we should not seek to change the past, but should learn from it. Scates, being a professor, attempts to cash in on his relation to the historical aspect of the debate, whereas Davidson just honestly expresses his opinion, logically and without rhetoric.

Article
Comment

[MissSmiley]

Which intro is more effective? How can I improve?

intro 1 ~130 words

The recent debate over tearing down statues has sparked further controversy, with ANU History Prof. Bruce Scates weighing in This is too contemporary. Why not say 'takes a stance' on the debate in his article “Monumental Errors: how Australia can fix it’s racist colonial statues”. Scates inimically great adverb! contends that it is not necessary to completely remove or change any of the divisive statues, but that new, additional plaques should be added to the monuments, as has been done in Freemantle, WA. In a concurrent letter to the editor, Ray Davidson, a concerned Australian from Newcastle, argues that we should not seek to change the past, but should learn from it. Scates, being a professor, attempts to cash in informal. on his relation to the historical aspect of the debate, whereas Davidson just honestly expresses his opinion, logically and without rhetoric. this sounds like you are giving your own judgment, so avoid this. I see that you haven't included both texts' tone words and their audience. Perhaps make your last line this, rather than being subjective about the texts

Article
Comment

Hi S200,
I think the first intro is definitely better, just because it's concise and sharp, with a few minor changes that I've pointed out here. THe second intro has a lot of good analysis, but it's best to keep it for the body paras
Hope my small suggestions give you sort of a set 'formula' to use for writing your intro.

Thanks!

[S200]

Hi S200,
I think the first intro is definitely better, just because it's concise and sharp, with a few minor changes that I've pointed out here. THe second intro has a lot of good analysis, but it's best to keep it for the body paras
Hope my small suggestions give you sort of a set 'formula' to use for writing your intro.
Thanks!

Thanks heaps. I am writing my SAC in about two hours...

Would you have an alternative word to replace "Cash in"?

EDIT - You don't suggest doing that contention analysis in the intro?

[MissSmiley]

Thanks heaps. I am writing my SAC in about two hours...

Would you have an alternative word to replace "Cash in"?

EDIT - You don't suggest doing that contention analysis in the intro?

My pleasure!
Yeah, so don't say this in your intro:

He craftily places this contention right at the end of the piece, giving the reader time to absorb a range of ideas and arguments, before clearing up the false dichotomy great expression! that has been built up by both factions of the debate, both statue haters and statue lovers.

This sentence has really good analysis, but should go in the last body para of the main text analysis.
Also, don't say 'craftily' because again, you can't give a judgement of any kind. (easier said than done!!)

With 'cash in' I think it means something different to what you want to say...
Why not say 'uses his credentials to take part in the historical aspect..."
Again, those lines though,
Scates, being a professor, attempts to cash in on his relation to the historical aspect of the debate, whereas Davidson just honestly expresses his opinion, logically and without rhetoric.
don't need to be in the intro, because you're giving your own judgement.
(You can definitely say that Scates uses his credentials... in your first body para, but just not the 'honestly expresses his opinion, logically and without rhetoric' part.)

Hope I makes sense

[S200]

Thanks Heaps.

[S200]

Final. Does this include tonal perspectives enough do you think?

The recent debate over tearing down statues has sparked further controversy, with ANU History Prof. Bruce Scates takes his stance on the debate in his article “Monumental Errors: how Australia can fix it’s racist colonial statues”. Scates inimically contends that it is not necessary to completely remove or change any of the divisive statues, but that new, additional plaques should be added to the monuments, as has been done in Freemantle, WA. In a concurrent letter to the editor, Ray Davidson, a concerned Australian from Newcastle, argues that we should not seek to change the past, but should instead learn from it. Scates uses his credentials as a Professor of history to gain authority in the debate, logically arguing from his strong historical knowledge, whereas Davidson argues in a more frustrated and irritated manner.

[OZLexico]

You should be more precise about the issue - not "pulling down statues" but challenging the memorials to an incomplete understanding of our colonial past.  Your introduction should at least comment on the form, issue and contention of the article.  You have not identified the audience.  You should also be briefly mentioning the main arguments - you analyse them in the body paragraphs.  I'd avoid calling Davidson's views as "honestly expresses his opinion" - he is expressing a limited understanding of indigenous issues, he is diminishing the status of cultural heritage and suggests that violence and land grabbing are evidence of "diversity".