The ongoing issue of child obesity is once again a hot topic of debate within the media. The editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’ which was published in ‘The Age’ (17/10/2006) postulates that the underlying cause of child obesity lies more with the schools and their respective canteens, subsequently announcing the recently enforced limit and ‘ban’ on junk food sold at school; all for the purpose of combating childhood obesity. However, Michelle Wiese Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ which appeared in ‘The Australian’ (01/08/2006), clearly contends that the blame ultimately lies with the parents of Australian families themselves, hence arguing that the resolution of this issue not only lies with the school canteens and children themselves, but more so the families and parents in particular of Australian children.
The writer of the editorial ‘School life just became more fruitful’
utilizesutilises a pun in the title of their piece. The play on words that school life “..just became more fruitful” directly correlates with the content of the article; more fruit and less
junk. As the word ‘fruitful’ also relates with the positive idea of surplus happiness, it also implies to the readers that this ban on
junk food is a beneficial, welcomed idea. Conversely, it also places
junk food in a
rather negative light. This positions the reader to relate the idea of less junk food and more healthy food together with the notion of happiness; which may instill a better impression of the ban of
junk food at school to the readers.
Maybe rephrase these sentences or think of synonym for junk/junk food because it's making the paragraph look repetitive.The writer, through the use of specific loaded language, highlights the negativity of junk food, its chief role in childhood obesity and the converse positivity of the ban enforced on school canteens. The writer reiterates the idea of this ban on junk food at school as a “positive and welcome step” in the fight against childhood obesity; possibly conveying the assumption and impression to the readers that this ‘ban’ is both a vital and benevolent idea. Conversely, the writer also describes childhood obesity as a “national epidemic”, conjuring the image of junk food as the perpetrator of a spreading ‘disease’. Building up on this idea, the writer depicts junk food as being “..sugar-loaded, salt-loaded and fat-loaded..”, coupling repetition
well with loaded language. In itself, this is an attempt by the writer to disgust readers and to conjure the vivid image of food being ‘weighed-down’ with harmful chemicals and minerals. The readers may then
subsequently feel inclined to regard junk food in a rather
negative light (you've used a similar expression before, by saying "negative manner" and you've used the word negative a bit too often - either change expression or find synonyms), thus possibly agreeing that the ban on junk food in Victorian schools is the
first stepping stone to successfully eradicating childhood obesity (good!).
The writer concludes the piece by appealing to the
readers’reader's sense of urgency. Adding the expert opinion that the Australian Medical Association “estimates that in about 20 years half the country’s children will be obese..”, the writer expands on this idea and informs the
readers’ (I'd suggest having the reader as singular, makes punctuation a lot easier too) - reader that obesity really will consume the country’s children “unless something is done now”. The emphasis on the word ‘now’ is an attempt to instill a sense of fear and urgency within the readers; possibly persuading them to take action
now immediately.
The photo attached with the editorial “School life just became more fruitful” clearly depicts the
negative (once again, be careful not too overuse a word or expression) state of Australia’s eating culture. Deviated from an expected positive eating culture, the picture portrays a pair of obese people with a younger, slimmer person almost ‘sandwiched’ in between. The differences in both age and gender are clearly evident; implying to the viewers that this
is how Australia will be like if nothing is done now...rephrase the end cos it's not fluid, get rid of "now" use something else, it doesn't look right at the end of a sentence. Subsequently, this is an attempt to rekindle the flames of urgency within the viewers; reiterating the fact that both schools and homes must unite in order to prevent and ‘defeat’ childhood obesity. Thus, the viewers themselves may feel inclined to accept that something must be done now in order to combat childhood obesity before it is too late.
Contrary to the previous editorial entitled “School life just became more fruitful”, Bockmann, in her article “Parents blamed for fat kids”
is firm in her belief that the parents are the culprits of childhood obesity. (good!) Bockmann
utilises expert opinion consistently throughout her article. By frequently referring to Peter Clifton, “an internationally
recognized recognised scientist with the CSIRO”, Bockmann attempts to lend further credibility to her own arguments and ideas that the parents are the underlying cause for “fat kids”, thus reinforcing her contention. This is especially evident when Bockmann couples together statistics and expert opinion. She states that Dr. Clifton
cited thatreplace with something else cos it's a bit clunky - maybe discovered that) “..children ate 37 per cent of their daily energy intake at school, but only 14 per cent was lunch bought at the school tuckshop”. By providing the readers with these statistics, Bockmann attempts to explicate the fact that the perpetrator of childhood obesity is not “just the canteen”, but more so the ‘lunch box’. Through doing this, Bockmann makes an attempt to succinctly reiterate her contention to the readers; only this time, with the support of evidence.
Subsequently Consequently, the readers, being subject to these facts, may be inclined to wholeheartedly accept the credibility of Bockmann’s arguments; thus viewing them in a comparatively better light.
Both articles and the attached image work to ‘point the finger’ at either school or home for acting as the culprit of childhood obesity. (good!)However, all three pieces are united in the viewpoint that collaboration from both the State Government in charge of schools and parents of Australian families is a necessity if childhood obesity is to be eradicated. The editorial from ‘The Age’, ‘School life just became more fruitful’, through the efficacious
utilization of a pun, specific loaded vocabulary and appeals to urgency of the readers seeks to explicate the notion that the blame lies with Australian schools, whereas the attached image seeks to ‘build’ on this sense of urgency instilled within the readers through its visual imagery and depiction; in contrast, Bockmann’s article ‘Parents blamed for fat kids’ acts to position the readers to be impacted by the persuasion of a comparatively credible expert opinion that the underlying cause of childhood obesity are ultimately, Australian parents.
Okay, good effort! Can't believe a year 11 is already doing 3/4 english work. My comments are just my own personal opinion so they may not be right but take them as you will.
To me this looks like a 6.5/10, I see how you've tried to alter sentences or change the pattern of them but it can result in bad expression, so if it doesn't sound right in your head - change it! Be careful not to overuse words or phrases, the word "negative" came up at least 6 times so watch out for that.. It's good to use quotes but I think you rely on them too much. Get rid of some of the quotation marks that aren't necessary. Keep writing essays cos by next year you'll be writing 9s and maybe 10s if you keep putting in solid work. Also be weary of American spelling, you used "z" too often in words that by Australia standards are spelt with an "s". Good luck for next year. Let me know if you have any questions 
Home
Help
Search
Login
