Hey guys,
Just wondering if you would have the time to take a read and mark it out of 10....it is the VATE 2010 language analysis...
Thanks!!
The approaching federal election has, as always, provoked a variety of government issues to appear in recent times. The actual election itself has caused some controversy as young people call for the voting age to be lowered. In the case of Melissa Young, a youth spokesperson for “young People Unite”, Young has posted an online article “Lower the Voting age to 16…NOW!” (
www.youngpeopleunite.com.au, May 05 2010) and asserts that young people deserve the right to vote in federal elections. In an enthused and passionate matter, Young appeals to Australia’s younger generations to evoke support for a reduced voting age and to sign her petition.
Young opens her article with a strong hyperbole. She described the year 2050 in which the price of fuel is “$25 per litre on peak days” and claims that “a full body sun suit” is required outdoors. Young employs a considerable amount of exaggeration in describing the Australia of the future in order to shock readers and gain their attention. The exaggerated statements encourage the recognition of the seriousness of the matter at hand and evoke support for action against such a situation.
In an attempt to provide a sense that the voting age needs attention and is a matter that youth should be concerned about, Young provides an overwhelming list of current and future Australian issues. Young comments on “climate change”, the “inevitable population boom”, “future water security” and “driving restrictions” in order to stress the importance of the federal election to young people. A further statement that “every single young person in this country” will be affected invites the perception that actions must be taken by young people. If these issues stand to affect the target audience then the target audience is encouraged to search for power to influence such issues. Young feeds this want of power by stating “we are currently powerless”. In an attempt to provoke anger, an invitation is made to evoke support for a younger voting age.
Primarily, Young makes use of rebuttal to shape her argument throughout the article. Young informs by a means of statistics that the Victorian Electoral Commission believes that young people are not mature enough, lack interest, are ignorant and are not experienced enough to vote. However, Young is quick to rebut the 2004 report in her subsequent paragraphs. The audience may thus recognise such rebuttal as superior over “tradition” and hence, sign the petition.
Young argues that Australia’s “twenty-first century teens” are mature enough to vote. When Young introduces further statistics into her argument she seeks to encourage the perception that indeed, a lower voting age is warranted. Young claims that the U.K electoral commission believes that “many young people are aware enough of the responsibilities associated with voting.” This is used to encourage the recognition of young people as mature. When Young confirms that the statistics are “evidence of a degree of thoughtfulness and maturity”, she not only rebuts the earlier statistics but also appraises the audience. This may provoke readers to recognise the capabilities of the younger generation and hence, see the rationale behind lowering the voting age.
Young seeks to further condone the governments reasoning behind the current voting age by asserting that young Australians do hold interest in politics and government and hence, should have a chance to vote in the federal election. Yet again, Young peppers her argument with statistics and fact. When Young claims that the website the article is found in “gets 15,000 hits per week” and “37,432 young people voted in the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s ‘Youth Decide’ poll”, an attempt is made to provoke a belief that young generations do care about politics. She does this by generalising that the entirety of Generation Y into the statistics mentioned in the article. Secondly, in order to block opposing argument’s rationale, Young makes use of an anecdote that appeals to the target audience of the piece. Young compares “an underperforming student who was ‘switched off’ in the absence of attention from teachers” to that of young people who appear unmotivated in government affairs. When Young does this, she shifts the blame for disinterest from young people to the government. In an attempt to provide a sense that some peoples lack of motivation in voting is sue to “politicians who ignore” them, a invitation is made that may lead audiences to recognise that politicians attention and lowering the voting age will encourage an increase in widespread enthusiasm for government affairs.
The photograph included in the article encourages the idea that Australia’s younger generations are interested in politics. The image features a long, crowded line of young people waiting to cast a vote on their beliefs concerning emission reductions. The people appear happy and enthused as they wait to cast their vote as there is clearly smiling faces and positive, open body language. As the people in the image reflect those concerned in the article, the image makes a direct appeal to the target audience and promotes in the reader’s mind that the young generations of Australia are interested and do want a vote. Hence, the image suggests that lowering the voting age would initiate a positive response in the community.
Young furthers her argument and closes her rebuttal by collectively showing that young people are in fact experiences and not ignorant, opposing the view outlined by earlier statistics. Young colours her argument with the subtle use of sarcasm. When Young states that “A 65-year old retiree has less experience than an octogenarian, too.” And claims that such comparisons of age are “pedantic” in the greater scope of things she encourages recognition that a cut off age is inappropriate when it comes to federal elections. Young makes an appeal to self-interest. Young lists all the rights that young people have such as the right to get married, “work a full-time job and pay taxes” yet, states the obvious that she is not able to “vote in an election which would determine and shape the direction of policies relating to any of those things.” The right to influence or have a say in what one can do is obviously in the interest of the readers. Thus, by Young showing logically that this is currently not allowed, a sense of desire is evoked in readers. The audience may recognise also that the right for those under the age of 18 to vote is simply not a desire but also a necessity if they are to be happy with the governing of the country. This argument links back to the photograph where the right to vote is delivered visually as a positive thing. The blue sunny skies deliver a positive outlook from the image to the audience. This encourages the perception that the right for younger people to vote is beneficial and positive.
As the image and previous arguments call on the audience to agree that the federal election voting age should be lowered, Young calls on those reading the article to initiate change by signing her petition. Young generalizes that the signing of the petition will “make everybody’s 2050 a little brighter.” And hence closes her argument by delivering the universal nature of the appeal. The issue has the ability to affect the entire communities future and hence, should be discussed. By closing through a universal approach, Young links her image from the beginning of the article of a destructive 2050 to that of a brighter one as she implies that “clicking on the link below and signing the attached petition” to lower the voting age within Australia will change the original hyperbole.
Home
Help
Search
Login
