I will underline key sections and discuss these in red. Rewording, if any, will be in green.
In early June 2010, Julia Gillard had - watch your tenses, this sentence sounded wrong with the 'had' in there scrapped Howard’s unpopular and controversial asylum policy - there is no point outlining this event if you're not going to outline what Howard's policy was - at current, this first sentence adds nothing to the analysis . The incumbent Prime Minister then proposed a new legislation that would tackle the core problem and eradicate any future attempts of illegal immigration from outside countries. Since then, the newly integrated relaxed policy has sparked public outrage and has become a contentious and ambivalent issue amongst the Australian public. - in my opinion, way too much contextual evidence The opinion article piece , “Don’t blame me, blame Julia,” published on December 17th, The Age in the Herald Sun by Andrew Bolt criticizes the fundamental - unnecessary, doesn't matter if the flaws are 'fundamental' or minor flaws of the implemented policy. Bolt stamps his contention that - weak expression here the new legislation must be re addressed to not so that it does not mislead or threaten the lives of asylum seekers. His tone is initially of regret and belligerence to engage his audience – young adults and educated civilians, through provocative language. However he later shifts to a sarcastic and satirical tone to offer logic and reasoning in his proposed solution and to provoke anger and outrage in his intended audience at the government’s lack of action and incompetence.
The reproaching and clichéd headline “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” epitomizes the severity of the issue. The author cleverly, parallels the headline with Gillard’s own negligence of not accepting fault and postponing the issue through enquiries that “would take weeks, even months”. There are also humorous and comedic aspects within the headline. Bolt engages and captures the attention of the reader through the popular finger-pointing slang “Blame Julia Gillard.” - excellent! By directly attacking a person of high position and authority, Bolt arouses curiosity and admiration - is this really the right word? from the reader through his gallantry. It also positions the author as courageous and gains respect - through my eyes, denouncing someone of high authority, no matter through what means, is nothing admirable or respectful from the reader through the bold and upfront headline. An enlarged image sided beneath the headline is both confronting and tragic. The author illustrates a boat batted against the ocean before it is engulfed, exemplifying the very concern of Gillard’s policy. It is intended to arouse discussion amongst his audience and to invoke a moment of reflection in the reader. - excellent analysis By reflection, the author conveys to the reader the fatal flaw in Gillard’s policy - it victimizes and misleads asylum seekers to believing believe that they are welcomed. By accompanying a powerful and metaphoric image with an abrasive headline, the author positions himself as serious, deeply concerned and ardent in the issue. - why are you repeating all this? All these attributes - headlines and visuals are not attributes combined promotes the author’s position in the eyes of the reader as well-researched through the photography. It adds credibility in to - watch your prepositions the author’s arguments and subconsciously implants a negative mindset of Gillard’s policy in the reader prior to reading his article. - fantastic intended effect.
Rhetorical questioning questions highlights the unreliability of the new legislation in place. By questioning, “But why? And if not now, when?” - be more specific with your quoting; what are these questions referring to? You need to weave your quotes into your sentences; the two bolded sections do not match in expression and the two clauses do not flow on it lambasts Gillard and her government’s inaction. The reader is invoked - doesn't make sense a sense of guilt and shame for once siding with the opposition, refusing to acknowledge and being complacently ignorant of the issue. The technique - avoid stating this also strengthens the author’s image as confident and firm thereby appearing as a leader. This is designed to form a bonding of loyalty and evokes empathy between the author and his audience, thus compelling his readers to side with him and his proposed solution. Statistics is are drawn on to reinforce the author’s contention by recounting the high mortality rate of asylum seekers. The author emphasizes “three a year...to almost 200 this year alone” illustrates the necessity and urgent call for change in the legislation. In the minds of the reader, the statistics is are both alarming and deplorable. It heightens They heighten the author’s position as a whole to appear as knowledgeable, well researched and leaves no doubt in the reader in trusting the author because of the great injustice slammed upon asylum seekers.
An appeal to fairness is employed to paint the Gillard’s government - avoid the passive voice if you can, and try to use active voice as much as possible as it will make your writing far more sustained and controlled as indifferent and repulsive. The author exposes - exposes what? the government as he denounces “Gillard pretended to be horrified.” He mocks caring - what do you mean? Gillard as hiding behind a mask to appear as concerned and outraged. However, the author illustrates to the reader, the contradiction that Gillard presents as she offers no response to the issue and will only resume “conversation…When [she] is fully informed by the facts.” - try to avoid paraphrasing if you can, this sentence would have been more readable and would have flowed better if you blended the quotes within By distancing herself from the issue, she immediately is is immediately portrayed as apathetic and is willing to compromise the lives of the asylum seekers for enquiries that could take “even months, to arrive.” She - I know you're talking about Gillard here, but make it clear to your reader that you are! not only undermines her own position in the issue, but sparks disgust and anger in the reader for neglecting the urgency to rectify the legislation - doesn't make sense . The author provokes the reader to feeling feel exploited and “lured” for blatantly accepting the government’s promising policies that have been proven to be unreliable and damaging to the image of Australia.
The author effectively - avoid evaluating the piece constructs his article through a series of techniques. He employs a powerful image, unsympathetic rhetorical questioning, a confronting headline and an appeal to fairness to solicit the pressing need for change in the legislation. By returning to his headline in his - poor expression here emotive conclusion “But it’s always too soon to blame what’s already killed so many- Gillard’s Laws,” the author provokes the reader to feel that there is still much to be desired from the government to remedy the controversial issue that has long plagued Australia’s foreign policies.
A firm essay. There are some problems with your verb endings and plural forms in the essay, which I've underlined above. Other than everything above, this is a really good essay. You've got specific intended effects, which is good to see.
Final score: 7.5/10.
Home
Help
Search
Login
