VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 18

<< < (2/2)

MissSmiley:

--- Quote from: clarke54321 on July 10, 2018, 10:01:14 pm ---
Nice effort, MissSmiley. Your use of language and construction of topic sentences have improved greatly since the start of the year. However, you must continue to ensure that you are analysing the text, and not bringing pieces of the piece together for an annotated explanation. Keep up the AA practice  :)

--- End quote ---
Thanks so much Clarke!!  :D
I'll definitely work on your feedback, espeically not trying to quote so much and instead analysing more! :)
Thank you so much!!

addict:
Hi,
Sorry for being late to the club! If I can still get some feedback on this that'd be great :)

The recently introduced plastic ban has returned to the centre of media attention. In response to public attention to the issue, consumers Hayley Diesing and Kylie Stevens wrote letters to the editors contending their support for the ban as a positive movement for environment conservation. While Diesing uses emotional appeals in an attempt to conjure a sense of social responsibility in readers, Stevens adopts a matter-of-factly tone to appeal to trivialise the inconvenience brought about by the ban.

Diesing argues that the public has the responsibility to support the plastic bag ban as it is a move to create a more sustainable future for all. She opens by asserting her authority in the subject “as a supermarket worker” with access to public opinion “first-hand”, before presenting a seemingly ambivalent overview of both those expressing “confusion and frustration” and those “acknowledge[ing]” the “positive step”, positioning readers to view her as not only informed, but also unbiased. She also deploys statistical evidence depicting the detrimental environmental damage caused by plastic bags, repeating the words “100 million” to alert readers to the significance of damage. The vivid imagery of plastic bags “entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck” is calculated to evoke a sense of guilt in the reader as well as to appeal to the average Australian’s protectiveness towards wildlife, leading readers to associate plastic bags with cruelty. Moreover, she employs inclusive language as she asserts that “we want life to be made… easy… but only occasionally consider the effect… on our environment”, attempting to achieve a resonance with readers using by presenting a widely held attitude so that they feel justified, yet obliged to have more environmental awareness. She closes her letter with a call of support for the ban, associating her status “as a young member of society” with her opinion to not only appeal to younger readers’ desire for social acceptance, but also to present herself as a sensible and empowered person to older readers, before she evokes their protective instincts for the “future generation” as an extra incentive to use less plastic.

Similarly, Stevens contends that the inconvenience induced by the plastic bag ban is insubstantial in comparison to the environmental benefits. Just as Diesing uses her profession to her advantage, Stevens lends herself credibility by claiming she is “old enough to remember” a time before plastic bags and lists factual information regarding major retailers’ timelines for the plastic bag ban, positioning readers to view her case as thoroughly researched. While Diesing cites a statistic in passing to use in conjunction with emotive appeals, Stevens relies heavily on statistical evidence from various sources while maintaining a balanced tone. She states nonchalantly that the ban will be an inconvenience “only if you make it out to be” and claims she “didn’t care being charged 10 cents” for a bag, insinuating that the reasonable reader is not entitled to find the ban unjust. Furthermore, she appeals to readers’ respect for frugality by claiming to “accumulate far more plastic bags than what [she] reuse” and that a plastic bottle “gets its own bag”, inclining readers to view free plastic bags as wasteful and unnecessary. She also repeatedly attempts to represent plastic bags as a significance source of clutter at various points in the letter, citing numbers from reputable sources such as Woolworths, Clean Up Australia Day organisers and Plastic Bag Free NSW, not only shocking readers with large numbers such as “7000 plastic bags per minute”, but also presenting various interest groups as holders of the same view to reinforce plastic bags as being a universal problem. Both authors also assert the popularity of the plastic bag ban, Diesing by speaking for “the majority of customers that [she] encounter” and Stevens using an “Omnipoll survey” showing “64 per cent” support as a “promising sign”, reassuring those readers who already show support while appealing to the others’ fear of alienation.

Both authors seek to persuade readers to support the plastic bag ban. While Diesing focuses on the environmental impacts and social responsibility related to the issue, Stevens promotes a more practical standpoint. Both authors write a short sentence near the end of their pieces as they call readers to action, with Diesing stating that “actions can only start once we realise the effects” and Stevens claiming that “it’s a small way towards making a big difference”. While the statements are cliche and somewhat general, it invites readers to draw on their own experiences of meaningful change, and thus support the plastic bag ban as a sensible action for the wider society.

scout:

--- Quote from: addict on July 17, 2018, 08:52:04 pm ---
The recently introduced plastic ban has returned to the centre of media attention. In response to public attention to the issue, consumers Hayley Diesing and Kylie Stevens wrote letters to the editors contending their support for the ban as a positive movement for environment conservation check expression - 'contend [that]...' . While Diesing uses emotional appeals in an attempt to conjure a sense of social responsibility in readers, Stevens adopts a matter-of-factly tone to appeal to trivialise the inconvenience brought about by the ban good contrast

Diesing argues that the public has the responsibility to support the plastic bag ban as it is a move to create a more sustainable future for all yes. She opens by asserting her authority in the subject “as a supermarket worker” with access to public opinion “first-hand”, before presenting a seemingly ambivalent overview of both those expressing “confusion and frustration” and those “acknowledge[ing]” the “positive step”, positioning readers to view her as not only informed, but also unbiased this kind of analysis of writer credibility is all well and good, but it's quite common among AAs. So, I would shorten this and tack it on at the end of another, more important, piece of analysis - kill 2 birds with 1 stone :). . She also deploys statistical evidence depicting the detrimental environmental damage caused by plastic bags, repeating the words “100 million” to alert readers to the significance of damage. The vivid imagery of plastic bags “entangled around a defenceless animal’s neck” is calculated to evoke a sense of guilt in the reader as well as to appeal to the average Australian’s protectiveness towards wildlife yes, but that effect could also be achieved if the writer had spoken of plastic bags killing Australia's native animals. What is particularly disturbing about this imagery? , leading readers to associate plastic bags with cruelty. Moreover, she employs inclusive language as she asserts that “we want life to be made… easy… but only occasionally consider the effect… on our environment”, attempting to achieve a resonance with readers using by presenting a widely held attitude so that they feel justified, yet obliged to have more environmental awareness this is an explanation of the quote. You were on the right track with the achieving resonance comment. What is she trying to get readers to feel by reading their minds? Does she want them to feel proud of their attitude? Or perhaps more ashamed than proud? . She closes her letter with a call of support for the ban, associating her status “as a young member of society” with her opinion move to here (split infinitives)to not only appeal to younger readers’ desire for social acceptance make this connection clearer, but also to present herself as a sensible and empowered person to older readers, before she evokes their protective instincts for the “future generation” as an extra incentive to use less plastic.

Similarly, Stevens contends that the inconvenience induced by the plastic bag ban is insubstantial in comparison to the environmental benefits good. Just as Diesing uses her profession to her advantage, Stevens lends herself credibility by claiming she is “old enough to remember” a time before plastic bags and lists factual information regarding major retailers’ timelines for the plastic bag ban, positioning readers to view her case as thoroughly researched too general. How does this specifically contribute to Stevens' contention? e.g. does that sense of nostalgia evoked by Stevens allude to the feasibility of living without plastic bags, and even reverting to paper bags? . While Diesing cites a statistic in passing to use in conjunction with emotive appeals, Stevens relies heavily on statistical evidence from various sources while maintaining a balanced tone how does this change the effect of his arguments vs Diesing?. She states nonchalantly that the ban will be an inconvenience “only if you make it out to be” and claims she “didn’t care being charged 10 cents” for a bag, insinuating that the reasonable reader is not entitled this means the reader doesn't have the right to find the ban unjust. Not sure how you came to this conclusion - try reading the quotes and thinking about their meanings again to find the ban unjust. Furthermore, she appeals to readers’ respect for frugality by claiming to “accumulate far more plastic bags than what [she] reuse” and that a plastic bottle “gets its own bag”, inclining readers to view free plastic bags as wasteful and unnecessary. She also repeatedly attempts to represent depict/portray/present plastic bags as a significant source of clutter at various points in the letter, citing numbers from reputable sources such as Woolworths, Clean Up Australia Day organisers and Plastic Bag Free NSW, not only shocking readers with large numbers such as “7000 plastic bags per minute”, but also presenting various interest groups as holders of the same view to reinforce plastic bags as being a universal problem. Both authors also assert the popularity of the plastic bag ban, Diesing by speaking for “the majority of customers that [she] encounter” and Stevens by using how about 'invoking'? an “Omnipoll survey” showing “64 per cent” support as a “promising sign”, reassuring those readers who already show support while appealing to the others’ fear of alienation.

Both authors seek to persuade readers to support the plastic bag ban. While Diesing focuses on the environmental impacts and social responsibility related to the issue, Stevens promotes a more practical standpoint again, nailed it. Both authors write a short sentence near the end of their pieces as they can you reduce that to a couple of words? e.g. call readers to action, with Diesing stating that “actions can only start once we realise the effects” and Stevens claiming that “it’s a small way towards making a big difference”. While the statements are cliche and somewhat general, it invites readers to draw on their own experiences of meaningful change how exactly? Also this kind of line would fit better in your BPs where you're actually analysing the opinion pieces, and thus support the plastic bag ban as a sensible action for the wider society.

--- End quote ---

Hi! You got the contention of each writer right, but consider structuring your piece around the arguments of each contention. Also, insightful analysis is the key so don't worry too much about labelling every persuasive technique if that will help you focus more on dissecting each quote you analyse. When dissecting each quote, ask yourself why the writer chose the particular expression they used.

Anonymous:
Reading people's replies on here is so intimidating.. anyway I haven't done LA in a long time and suck at it so any feedback is appreciated!

The ban of plastic bags has recently been a policy implemented by many supermarket stores across Australia; a policy endeavoured to improve the sustainability of the natural environment. Deising provides her opinion on the matter in the form of an opinion piece entitled “Majority of shoppers see merit in plastic bag ban”, whereby she firmly contends that this policy is a favourable one among many, as its benefits are feasible and many consumers see the advantageous notion behind this policy. Using logic and practicality, Deising uses a logical and zealous tone to display her perspective.

 Deising uses her position as an employer in this field to validate her argument, as readers will be more inclined to consider her perspective as “a shop worker”. Deising uses her profession to further extrapolate her knowledge on the opinions of consumers as she deals with them “first-hand”. She asserts that “unsurprisingly” (as with everything in the world, there will be proponents and oppositions) some consumers dislike the plastic bans due to their “confusion” and “frustration”. By using words such as “confusion”, Deising highlights the consumers opposing plastic bag bans as people who are confused and thus unaware of the merits of this newly implemented policy. She then juxtaposes these “frustrate [ed]” consumers with the “majority” of customers who “acknowledge” the merit of plastic bags bans, as signposted by her title. Deising concludes that although oppositions exist, the majority of people see the advantages of banning plastic bags, thus inclining readers to want to align their viewers with the “majority”.
 
Furthermore, Deising brings attention to the fact the life must not simply be based on comfort and made to be “as easy as possible”, and that we should be aware of the repercussions more than just “occasionally”. She asserts that people against this policy are against something greater, which involves the overall preservation of our planet. This shows readers that the ban of plastic bags is more significant than simply the comfort and the feelings of being “cheated” into buying plastic bags, as it is a step towards a sustainable planet for the coming generations. Deising employs the use of imagery to showcase the adverse effects of plastic bags such as the “etangle[ment] around a defenseless animal’s neck” or the pollution of “our beaches”. These images depict the fact that the “100 million marine animals” being affected as a result of humans are “defenceless”,inclining readers who are conscious, to act, thus mentioning that this awareness can only bring about action once “we realise the effects”. Finally, Deising states her role as a “young member of society” to highlight the importance of sustaining our planet, as a responsibility of all members of society regardless of age for a more sustainable future. This alerts readers to the fact that a young individual seems to be greatly conscious about the preservation of our environments, thus compelling readers to take great care as well.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page