I know you all love to critique and mark a LANGUAGE ANALYSIS..

[Slumdawg]

Hi, could you please critique plus grade my essay out of 10. Help is much appreciated.

It was completed in an hour and fifteen minutes and I haven't done a language analysis for a while so excuse any errors you find. I put an attachment for the actual article but I'm not sure if it worked, it's from the 2008 Insight practice exam..

I really wasn't sure about where to put the paragraph analysing the cartoon, since the cartoon is at the start of the article I put it at the start of the essay. Also the tone and mood of the writer changes so having it as the penultimate paragraph kinda didn't seem correct.. But let me know if it's a really really bad idea so I know for future essays..

Thanks guys..


The current greenhouse gas emissions battle has divided much of the Australian public. In response to a ‘greenhouse levy’, local businessman Bob Walsh details the useless nature of his local mayor’s plans in his article “Solar Sellout” - featured in his local newspaper. By attacking the “radical environmentalists” in a cynical tone, Walsh targets working class readers to share his ideals of free will and independence. In addition, the repeated attacks on the Mayor and the evidence provided, leaves the reader disillusioned to the insincere promises made. The focus is continually shifted to the mayor in an effort to call the reader to action and rally support against his “frivolous” decisions. The accompanying cartoon further reinforces Walsh’s beliefs in a satirical and yet concerning manner, to communicate a message of injustice.


The supplementary cartoon is placed at the start of the article; before the audience has even read the article they are given a feel for the argument Walsh will put forth and the issue at hand. It depicts the mayor as an affluent gargantuan who continually takes money from the feeble locals. By having the mayor shaded in half-light, his double-sided actions become obvious to the concerned viewers. As the mayor brandishes a weapon to cut the community power lines, negative connotations are instilled in the reader’s mind. Associating the act of switching to solar energy with a sharp knife. The illustrator continues to support Walsh’s viewpoint by drawing the mayor’s pockets overflowing with money, in doing so, the mayor is portrayed as greedy and egocentric. The expensive business suit pictured accentuates his self-indulgence; in contrast, the locals are wearing simple cheap clothing to signify the great disparity in wealth between the mayor and the public. Furthermore, the overbearing size of the mayor insinuates his domineering and forceful personality, something that Walsh repeatedly argues, that he’s “forcing people to bow” down to his “radical” plans. The underlying message reinforces Walsh’s contention that the mayor is taking the public’s hard-earned money for his own selfish desires, as shown quite clearly, as the mayor literally takes money from the locals.


Walsh’s dogmatic approach to his opinion piece aims to leave the reader with no other option but to agree with his contention. In his opening argument, Walsh immediately establishes a clear line between the council and the “innocent citizens”. The use of the word “innocent” depicts the citizens as victims, in an effort to demonstrate Walsh’s understanding of their situation.  The description of the “mayor and his cronies”, highlights the schism between the council and public, to force the reader to pick a side in the debate. While the negative connotations associated with the term “cronies” further encourages readers to view the council in a disapproving manner, and hence side with Walsh on the issue at hand. Walsh’s continual attack of the opposition with derogatory language such as “lazy”, “lefties” and “hippies” accentuates the discrepancies between the council and the target audience - local Greenville members. The featured cartoon stresses this point, as the locals are depicted as small weak figures, whereas the mayor is illustrated as a greedy goliath. This broadens the gap between the two groups, while ultimately engenders a feeling of hostility towards the council and their plans.


After several attacks on the council, Walsh shifts his focus to the poor locals, while offering statistics from the “Australian Greenhouse Office” to debase the Mayor’s endeavours. Walsh outlines that the real problem lies in “Greenville’s infrastructure”, with a detailed list of places in need of a “facelift” being given such as the local library, school, etc. Therefore providing the reader with an alternative outlet to focus their attention; to where Walsh believes it’s truly needed. By offering them a solution, the reader is likely to deduce that Walsh has thoroughly researched the issue and this course of action is what’s best for the community. The reference to data from a source of authority adds weight to Walsh’s argument, in an effort to shock readers he states that installing solar systems would only reduce emissions by “just 5.1%!” The exclamation point emphasises the measly percentage, to really hit home this alarming revelation. In revealing this fact, Walsh simultaneously implies the mayor isn’t telling the full truth or hasn’t wholeheartedly investigated the effects of such a drastic change. With either of these possibilities, the reader is expected to lose trust in the mayor and consequently lose faith in his solar scheme.
 

An unnerving suggestion made by Walsh - that the council has “increasing control over our lives” -, insinuates a tyrannical regime used by the mayor and his colleagues. This lack of “basic rights and freedoms” is reminiscent of an Orwellian nightmare, therefore creating a disturbing image in the reader’s mind of no power or choice. It calls readers to take action and stand up for their rights and core values. The inclusive language of “our lives”, proposes this issue is very relevant to the reader and the control is not just directed at one person but to the general public. Thereby urging the readers to question the impact this “control” could have on their own lives. Walsh explores this by including a paragraph littered with rhetorical questions just preceding the idea of an autocratic council, to encourage the reader to begin to question themselves, hence instilling doubt and worry in their minds. This appeal to fear is however extinguished soon after by Walsh as he offers an answer to the reader’s concerns.


Walsh concludes his article with a final reference to “expert studies”, with nuclear power being introduced as the only solution to satisfy both the “greenies” and residents of Greenville. Leaving the reader with a lasting solution to the problem, and encouragement to support moves to utilise nuclear power plants instead of returning "to the dark ages".


Word Count: 970

[98.40_for_sure]

to force the reader to pick a side in the debate

The writer doesn't "force" anything... he merely attempts to do so

being given such as the local library, school, etc.

I wouldn't encourage the use of "etc", wrap it all up in a more succinct way

I only skimmed through it, but 6-7/10
There seems to be not enough analysis of impact of the techniques. Clumsy sentence structures. Poor immersion of quotes.

I think i've done an analysis on this piece, shall i post it and you can compare?

[Slumdawg]

to force the reader to pick a side in the debate

The writer doesn't "force" anything... he merely attempts to do so

being given such as the local library, school, etc.

I wouldn't encourage the use of "etc", wrap it all up in a more succinct way

I only skimmed through it, but 6-7/10
There seems to be not enough analysis of impact of the techniques. Clumsy sentence structures. Poor immersion of quotes.

I think i've done an analysis on this piece, shall i post it and you can compare?

Yep post away. I've really neglected language analysis, so your comments are probably valid.

Thanks anyway.

Anyone else care to comment?

[Slumdawg]

Wow yours is very very long. How long did it take you?

Btw, did you want me to critique yours too?

[98.40_for_sure]

Wow yours is very very long. How long did it take you?

Btw, did you want me to critique yours too?

Just use it to compare how the two analysis' differ and why

[Slumdawg]

Wow yours is very very long. How long did it take you?

Btw, did you want me to critique yours too?

Just use it to compare how the two analysis' differ and why

How long did it take to write?

[98.40_for_sure]

A bit over 1 hour

[lynt.br]

Overall you have the right idea but there are some areas where you need to be more specific. Your wording is also a bit awkward in some places.

Some general comments:

In response to a ‘greenhouse levy’, local businessman Bob Walsh details the useless nature of his local mayor’s plans in his article “Solar Sellout” - featured in his local newspaper.

In response to the greenhouse levy, local businessman Bob Walsh published an article, 'Solar Sellout' in the local newspaper that attacks the futility of the proposed tax.

Intro is mostly good. Going from memory on the article but another point to drive home is that the writer is tying to portray the greenhouse levy as a tax-grab. He continually casts aspersions on the mayor's sincerity, insinuating that he is more interested in the levy's financial benefits rather than protecting the environment.

Throughout the article, it also becomes clear that his target audience is right-wing working class members of the community who will feel the strain on their budgets if the new levy is introduced. Throughout the article he continually appeals his audience's hip pocket nerve.

The supplementary cartoon is placed at the start of the article; before the audience has even read the article they are given a feel for the argument Walsh will put forth and the issue at hand.

The prominent illustration at the start of the article immediately grabs the reader's attention.

It depicts the mayor as an affluent gargantuan who continually takes money from the feeble locals. By having the mayor shaded in half-light, his double-sided actions become obvious to the concerned viewers. As the mayor brandishes a weapon to cut the community power lines, negative connotations are instilled in the reader’s mind. Associating the act of switching to solar energy with a sharp knife. The illustrator continues to support Walsh’s viewpoint by drawing the mayor’s pockets overflowing with money, in doing so, the mayor is portrayed as greedy and egocentric. The expensive business suit pictured accentuates his self-indulgence; in contrast, the locals are wearing simple cheap clothing to signify the great disparity in wealth between the mayor and the public. Furthermore, the overbearing size of the mayor insinuates his domineering and forceful personality, something that Walsh repeatedly argues, that he’s “forcing people to bow” down to his “radical” plans. The underlying message reinforces Walsh’s contention that the mayor is taking the public’s hard-earned money for his own selfish desires, as shown quite clearly, as the mayor literally takes money from the locals.

You have the right idea but the wording can be brushed up a bit. I would change the words/phrases in read.

 I think you need to be clearer as to what the intended effect on the audience is. You mention it is designed to portray the mayor as greedy, callous and domineering. This is intended to provoke public animosity towards the mayor. The mayor is supposed to look after the town's well being, however this mayor is portrayed as only interested in his own financial gain.

Walsh’s dogmatic approach to his opinion piece aims to leave the reader with no other option but to agree with his contention.

I disagree. Personally whenever I read something that is overly dogmatic and one-sided I find myself wholly unconvinced. I definitely agree that the article is written very forcefully but it's not like readers are going to bombarded into submission. I think many readers may be turned off by what could be seen as an overly dogmatic or bull-headed approach. It might be worth giving that a mention in the conclusion (something along the lines of 'some readers may find the article too aggressive which may present the author as overly obstinate.')

While the negative connotations associated with the term “cronies” further encourages readers to view the council in a disapproving manner, and hence side with Walsh on the issue at hand.

Be a bit more specific here. "cronies" is a great word to pick out because it is so heavily loaded. It portrays the mayor as a thug who intimidates the public. This reinforces the visual which portrays the mayor towering over the town residents. This is an attempt to breed public hostility towards the mayor.

Walsh’s continual attack of the opposition with derogatory language such as “lazy”, “lefties” and “hippies” accentuates the discrepancies between the council and the target audience - local Greenville members.

"lefties" and "hippies" are not necessarily derogatory terms. This is why I said earlier that his target audience appears to be the political right. This is more an attack on anyone that supports the levy. He is suggesting the opposition is not to be taken seriously because they are overly idealistic and out of touch with the hardships of working class life.

This is another example of how some readers may find the author overly dogmatic. The idea that if you are not in support of the author, you must be a "leftie" or a "hippie" is bound to turn off some readers.

After several attacks on the council, Walsh shifts his focus to the poor locals, while offering statistics from the “Australian Greenhouse Office” to debase the Mayor’s endeavours. Walsh outlines that the real problem lies in “Greenville’s infrastructure”, with a detailed list of places in need of a “facelift” being given such as the local library, school, etc. Therefore providing the reader with an alternative outlet to focus their attention; to where Walsh believes it’s truly needed. By offering them a solution, the reader is likely to deduce that Walsh has thoroughly researched the issue and this course of action is what’s best for the community. The reference to data from a source of authority adds weight to Walsh’s argument, in an effort to shock readers he states that installing solar systems would only reduce emissions by “just 5.1%!” The exclamation point emphasises the measly percentage, to really hit home this alarming revelation. In revealing this fact, Walsh simultaneously implies the mayor isn’t telling the full truth or hasn’t wholeheartedly investigated the effects of such a drastic change. With either of these possibilities, the reader is expected to lose trust in the mayor and consequently lose faith in his solar scheme.

For the most part this is a good paragraph. Try to repeat what you did here.
 

An unnerving suggestion made by Walsh - that the council has “increasing control over our lives” -, insinuates a tyrannical regime used by the mayor and his colleagues. This lack of “basic rights and freedoms” is reminiscent of an Orwellian nightmare, therefore creating a disturbing image in the reader’s mind of no power or choice. It calls readers to take action and stand up for their rights and core values. The inclusive language of “our lives”, proposes this issue is very relevant to the reader and the control is not just directed at one person but to the general public. Thereby urging the readers to question the impact this “control” could have on their own lives. Walsh explores this by including a paragraph littered with rhetorical questions just preceding the idea of an autocratic council, to encourage the reader to begin to question themselves, hence instilling doubt and worry in their minds. This appeal to fear is however extinguished soon after by Walsh as he offers an answer to the reader’s concerns.

I like the comparison with the 'Orwellian nightmare'. I think this definitely plays to reader's distrust of authority and fear of an overly paternalistic government/council. There is a trend against government/council intervention in our lives and people are becoming more protective of their rights and freedoms. The suggestion that the mayor is impinging on these freedoms triggers that distrust of authority.

Walsh concludes his article with a final reference to “expert studies”, with nuclear power being introduced as the only solution to satisfy both the “greenies” and residents of Greenville. Leaving the reader with a lasting solution to the problem, and encouragement to support moves to utilise nuclear power plants instead of returning "to the dark ages".

This feels tacked on. I would either flesh this paragraph out of combine it with another paragraph.

You also want a stronger conclusion. In my conclusions I preferred to discuss the likely reactions the article will provoke from different audience groups. This article is going to be most well received by its target audience - working class families who are concerned about their financial well-being. Other groups, however, may find the article too forceful.

I know you asked for a mark out of 10 but I generally avoid giving numerical marks. Your teacher is better for something like that because I don't know the marking scheme examiners use.

[Slumdawg]

Overall you have the right idea but there are some areas where you need to be more specific. Your wording is also a bit awkward in some places.

Some general comments:

In response to a ‘greenhouse levy’, local businessman Bob Walsh details the useless nature of his local mayor’s plans in his article “Solar Sellout” - featured in his local newspaper.

In response to the greenhouse levy, local businessman Bob Walsh published an article, 'Solar Sellout' in the local newspaper that attacks the futility of the proposed tax.

Intro is mostly good. Going from memory on the article but another point to drive home is that the writer is tying to portray the greenhouse levy as a tax-grab. He continually casts aspersions on the mayor's sincerity, insinuating that he is more interested in the levy's financial benefits rather than protecting the environment.

Throughout the article, it also becomes clear that his target audience is right-wing working class members of the community who will feel the strain on their budgets if the new levy is introduced. Throughout the article he continually appeals his audience's hip pocket nerve.

The supplementary cartoon is placed at the start of the article; before the audience has even read the article they are given a feel for the argument Walsh will put forth and the issue at hand.

The prominent illustration at the start of the article immediately grabs the reader's attention.

It depicts the mayor as an affluent gargantuan who continually takes money from the feeble locals. By having the mayor shaded in half-light, his double-sided actions become obvious to the concerned viewers. As the mayor brandishes a weapon to cut the community power lines, negative connotations are instilled in the reader’s mind. Associating the act of switching to solar energy with a sharp knife. The illustrator continues to support Walsh’s viewpoint by drawing the mayor’s pockets overflowing with money, in doing so, the mayor is portrayed as greedy and egocentric. The expensive business suit pictured accentuates his self-indulgence; in contrast, the locals are wearing simple cheap clothing to signify the great disparity in wealth between the mayor and the public. Furthermore, the overbearing size of the mayor insinuates his domineering and forceful personality, something that Walsh repeatedly argues, that he’s “forcing people to bow” down to his “radical” plans. The underlying message reinforces Walsh’s contention that the mayor is taking the public’s hard-earned money for his own selfish desires, as shown quite clearly, as the mayor literally takes money from the locals.

You have the right idea but the wording can be brushed up a bit. I would change the words/phrases in read.

 I think you need to be clearer as to what the intended effect on the audience is. You mention it is designed to portray the mayor as greedy, callous and domineering. This is intended to provoke public animosity towards the mayor. The mayor is supposed to look after the town's well being, however this mayor is portrayed as only interested in his own financial gain.

Walsh’s dogmatic approach to his opinion piece aims to leave the reader with no other option but to agree with his contention.

I disagree. Personally whenever I read something that is overly dogmatic and one-sided I find myself wholly unconvinced. I definitely agree that the article is written very forcefully but it's not like readers are going to bombarded into submission. I think many readers may be turned off by what could be seen as an overly dogmatic or bull-headed approach. It might be worth giving that a mention in the conclusion (something along the lines of 'some readers may find the article too aggressive which may present the author as overly obstinate.')

While the negative connotations associated with the term “cronies” further encourages readers to view the council in a disapproving manner, and hence side with Walsh on the issue at hand.

Be a bit more specific here. "cronies" is a great word to pick out because it is so heavily loaded. It portrays the mayor as a thug who intimidates the public. This reinforces the visual which portrays the mayor towering over the town residents. This is an attempt to breed public hostility towards the mayor.

Walsh’s continual attack of the opposition with derogatory language such as “lazy”, “lefties” and “hippies” accentuates the discrepancies between the council and the target audience - local Greenville members.

"lefties" and "hippies" are not necessarily derogatory terms. This is why I said earlier that his target audience appears to be the political right. This is more an attack on anyone that supports the levy. He is suggesting the opposition is not to be taken seriously because they are overly idealistic and out of touch with the hardships of working class life.

This is another example of how some readers may find the author overly dogmatic. The idea that if you are not in support of the author, you must be a "leftie" or a "hippie" is bound to turn off some readers.

After several attacks on the council, Walsh shifts his focus to the poor locals, while offering statistics from the “Australian Greenhouse Office” to debase the Mayor’s endeavours. Walsh outlines that the real problem lies in “Greenville’s infrastructure”, with a detailed list of places in need of a “facelift” being given such as the local library, school, etc. Therefore providing the reader with an alternative outlet to focus their attention; to where Walsh believes it’s truly needed. By offering them a solution, the reader is likely to deduce that Walsh has thoroughly researched the issue and this course of action is what’s best for the community. The reference to data from a source of authority adds weight to Walsh’s argument, in an effort to shock readers he states that installing solar systems would only reduce emissions by “just 5.1%!” The exclamation point emphasises the measly percentage, to really hit home this alarming revelation. In revealing this fact, Walsh simultaneously implies the mayor isn’t telling the full truth or hasn’t wholeheartedly investigated the effects of such a drastic change. With either of these possibilities, the reader is expected to lose trust in the mayor and consequently lose faith in his solar scheme.

For the most part this is a good paragraph. Try to repeat what you did here.
 

An unnerving suggestion made by Walsh - that the council has “increasing control over our lives” -, insinuates a tyrannical regime used by the mayor and his colleagues. This lack of “basic rights and freedoms” is reminiscent of an Orwellian nightmare, therefore creating a disturbing image in the reader’s mind of no power or choice. It calls readers to take action and stand up for their rights and core values. The inclusive language of “our lives”, proposes this issue is very relevant to the reader and the control is not just directed at one person but to the general public. Thereby urging the readers to question the impact this “control” could have on their own lives. Walsh explores this by including a paragraph littered with rhetorical questions just preceding the idea of an autocratic council, to encourage the reader to begin to question themselves, hence instilling doubt and worry in their minds. This appeal to fear is however extinguished soon after by Walsh as he offers an answer to the reader’s concerns.

I like the comparison with the 'Orwellian nightmare'. I think this definitely plays to reader's distrust of authority and fear of an overly paternalistic government/council. There is a trend against government/council intervention in our lives and people are becoming more protective of their rights and freedoms. The suggestion that the mayor is impinging on these freedoms triggers that distrust of authority.

Walsh concludes his article with a final reference to “expert studies”, with nuclear power being introduced as the only solution to satisfy both the “greenies” and residents of Greenville. Leaving the reader with a lasting solution to the problem, and encouragement to support moves to utilise nuclear power plants instead of returning "to the dark ages".

This feels tacked on. I would either flesh this paragraph out of combine it with another paragraph.

You also want a stronger conclusion. In my conclusions I preferred to discuss the likely reactions the article will provoke from different audience groups. This article is going to be most well received by its target audience - working class families who are concerned about their financial well-being. Other groups, however, may find the article too forceful.

I know you asked for a mark out of 10 but I generally avoid giving numerical marks. Your teacher is better for something like that because I don't know the marking scheme examiners use.

God, are we all lucky to have you here lynt.br, all of your comments were really clear and I'll be taking them all on board. I like the idea of your conclusion, I was really confused about what to write. Thank you very very much!