[English] "cage fighting is a virtuous sport" language analysis

[cltf]

Yo, you need to set this up like the other threads, look at any of them to see what I mean by this. Read this and this too.
- Burbs

Should people not have the choice to participate in violent sports if they wish to? “Cage fighting” is dismissed by many of it’s as “human cockfighting”. However, philosopher Damon Young disagrees in his article published in ‘The Age’. Young is philosophical in his approach that “mixed martial arts” is a “virtuous sport”, thus he calls for the ban on it be lifted.
Young begins the article by alluding to the “timeless” rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney. Moreover, he implies that Melbourne’s status is at risk because Sydney has “one thing great thing Melbourne doesn’t” that is “cage fighting”. In doing so, Young attempts to fire up Melbournians and hence sway them to join his argument for the legalising of fighting in cages, so Melbourne can continue to “rival” Sydney.

Subsequently, Young attempts to present cage fighting as a “dignified” sport to the readership, as he describes it as a sport of “goodwill, passion and skill”. To further support this point, he alludes to the fan base of Ultimate fighting and how it has “captivated” large audiences and is a “bona fide international sport”, swaying readers that question whether “cage fighting” is a real sport or not. Young describes that Australia is a country of “physical prowess”, thus he attempts to lead the readership to realise that in a country that prides itself for physicality and not acknowledge “mixed martial arts” as a sport would be ignorant. In addition, Young tries to convince the readers that the sport is “noble”, because it is not a “brawl” but a sport consisting of “well-trained, disciplined athletes”.

Young draws parallel to popular cultural sports like “rugby, AFL and hockey” and highlighting that all involve blood, in order to down play the violence and gore within “mixed martial arts” in the mind of the reader. He proceeds to use a “study” to highlight that “cage fighting” is a safer sport than “boxing”, because the “lower knock-out rate…prevents brain damage”, positioning that readership to feel that cage fighting is safe.

Through the repetition of the idea that “cage fighting” is a sport of “virtues” that “entails mastery” and “courage”, Young hopes to reinforce in the mind of the reader that mixed martial arts is a gracious sport. To further sustain this point of view, he alludes to the “Aristotle” whom he highlights also agrees to the virtues expressed in mixed martial arts. Young emphasises that cage fighting is a sport that draws origins and principles of “temperance…generosity…mercy…magnanimity” of “Greek and Christian traditions”, reiterating the nobility of the sport.

Young uses visual language to try and make readers envisage the beauty of the sport, when he describes the “beautiful excellences of  body” as being “sculpted abdomens, clean jaw lines”, combined with “elegance of perfectly executed” manoeuvres. In doing so, he tries to let readers visualise the graciousness of the sport. Furthermore, Young uses emotional positives words to frame “cage fighting” as a dignified sport because of its “existential insight” that can help “rejuvenate and reaffirm one’s sense of self”, this comprehensively strengthens the notion of “nobility” in the readership.

In his concluding statements, Young appeals to the logic in the reader that are against “cage fighting” pointing out that just because there are “fans screaming for blood” it is “no grounds” for criticising the sport and its athletes. And he emphatically argues that “mixed martial arts is not a ‘cockfight’” and alliterates it is a “fair and free fight” once again reinforcing the idea that it is not a sheer violent sport.

Damon Young relies heavily on the repetition of the notion that “cage fighting” is a “virtuous”, dignified sport, to tries and present the argument that “mixed martial arts” is a real sport with redeeming qualities, thus it should not be banned.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/forget-the-cheap-shots-cage-fighting-is-a-virtuous-sport-20100411-s0ot.html

[cltf]

Novels: Year of Wonders, Richard III, Rugmaker, Secret River
Context: Encountering Conflict
SS Aim: 40+

___________________________________________________________________

[schmalex]

Okay first off I think it needs proofreading for basic grammar and word usage and things.

Should people not have the choice to participate in violent sports if they wish to?  Completely unneccesary. Get rid of this, and don't ask your readers questions.

Also, don't use quotes to explain the writer's contention. It's apparently supposed to be in your "own words". Also, his labelling of the sport as virtuous isn't really his "approach", it's his contention. Also, don't write "thus, he calls for the ban to be lifted". Technically "thus" means that you shouldn't even have to explain it, but clearly you do.

Subsequently, Young attempts to present cage fighting as a “dignified” sport to the readership,

similarly, don't use quotes here. Other than that, it looks good.

To further support this point, he alludes to the fan base of Ultimate fighting and how it has “captivated” large audiences and is a “bona fide international sport”, swaying readers that question whether “cage fighting” is a real sport or not.

this is a bit messy. Maybe make this two sentences.

Basically, you quote a little too much. If you're going to quote something, analyse it really closely. Examiners don't want to see a repeat of the article. Also, your writing is disorganised, with ideas all over the place, although they are good ideas.

First off, sort out what the writer is trying to do. Dot point the points he is trying to make and the techniques he is using (it's often good to write a paragraph on tone if you're out of ideas.) Then start all of your paragraphs with a very general statement about what your paragraph is saying. Then become more specific and use some evidence. Once you bring in evidence, explain exactly what the quote you've used is doing. Then repeat the process. I believe lynt.br has a really good thread on this. Basically, your analysis of the article is fine, you've just made it messy and hard to follow at time. Read it aloud to yourself. Does it sound right?


"Young uses visual language to try and make readers envisage the beauty of the sport, when he describes the “beautiful excellences of  body” as being “sculpted abdomens, clean jaw lines”, combined with “elegance of perfectly executed” manoeuvres. In doing so, he tries to let readers visualise the graciousness of the sport. "

This part is quite good, but you should either extend on that point, or create a new paragraph for what you next have to say.

Furthermore, Young uses emotional positives words to frame “cage fighting” as a dignified sport because of its “existential insight” that can help “rejuvenate and reaffirm one’s sense of self”, this comprehensively strengthens the notion of “nobility” in the readership.

You've alread explained that he's trying to make the sport seem dignified. Put it in the same paragraph, because you're making the same point. Then organise the rest of the essay so that you're not repeating yourself, but instead putting stuff with the same sort of idea in the same paragraph Good luck, and pm me or comment here if you need clarification on anything. I'm a bit tired, I might not have explained myself well.

[Water]

Firstly, you should be doing your language analysis based on the work given by the co ordinator
Anyways..


Should people not have the choice to participate in violent sports if they wish to? Huh? Your meant to analyze the essay, whats this all about? “Cage fighting” is dismissed by many of it’sGrammar as “human cockfighting”. However, philosopher Damon Young disagrees in his article published in ‘The Age’Where's the title of the article. Young is philosophical in his approach that “mixed martial arts” is a “virtuous sport”, thus he calls for the ban on it be lifted Feels too short for some reason, the issue is vague..
Young begins the article by alluding to the “timeless” rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney. Moreover, he implies that Melbourne’s status is at risk because Sydney has “one thing great thing Melbourne doesn’t” that is “cage fighting”. In doing so, Young attempts to fire up Melbournians and hence sway them to join his argument for the legalising of fighting in cages, so Melbourne can continue to “rival” Sydney. You have tried to explain, and give the effect. No Technique? Weak transitioning from sentence to sentence

Subsequently Why is it subsequently? Clearly, the author is in support of cage fighting?, Young attempts to present cage fighting as a “dignified” sport to the readershipReadership? Huh?, as he describes it as a sport of “goodwill, passion and skill”. To further support this point Wordy, could be condensed, he alludes to the fan base of Ultimate fighting and how it has “captivated” large audiences and is a “bona fide international sport”, swaying readers that Grammar? question whether “cage fighting” is a real sport or not His purpose is to sway the readers to support him?. Young describes that Australia is a country of “physical prowess”, thus Why are you saying Thus again? he attempts to lead the readership ....? to realise that in a country that prides itself for physicality Too much stuff in one sentence, could be the confusion of the wordiness and bad grammar and not acknowledge “mixed martial arts” as a sport would be ignorant. In addition Why are you linking? This is not a new technique or statement. Your doing the effect of the technique, Young tries to convince the readers that the sport is “noble”, because it is not a “brawl” but a sport consisting of “well-trained, disciplined athletes”.

Young draws parallel to popular cultural sports like “rugby, AFL and hockey” and highlighting that all sports that involve blood*? involve blood, in order to down play the violence and gore within “mixed martial arts” in the mind of the reader. He proceeds to use a “study” Clearly better word than study? to highlight that “cage fighting” is a safer sport than “boxing”, because the “lower knock-out rate…prevents brain damage”, positioning that readership again? say this to yourself, positioning that readership to feel that cage fighting is safe.

Through the repetition of the idea of the idea is unnecessary that “cage fighting” is a sport of “virtues” that “entails mastery” and “courage”, Young hopes to reinforce in the mind of the reader that mixed martial arts is a gracious sport. To further sustain this point of view , he alludes to the “Aristotle” whom he highlights also agrees to the virtues expressed in mixed martial arts Bad wording, weak sentence. Young emphasises that cage fighting is a sport that draws origins and principles of “temperance…generosity…mercy…magnanimity” of “Greek and Christian traditions”, reiterating the nobility of the sport. What next? effect? explainiation? I don't get it..

Young uses visual language to try and make readers No try and make, get to the point envisage the beauty of the sport, when he describes the “beautiful excellences of  body” as being “sculpted abdomens, clean jaw lines”, combined with “elegance of perfectly executed” manoeuvres. In doing so, he tries to let readers visualise the graciousness of the sport Stating the obvious. Furthermore, Young uses emotional positives words to frame “cage fighting” as a dignified sport because of its “existential insight” that can help “rejuvenate and reaffirm one’s sense of self”, this comprehensively strengthens the notion of “nobility” in the readership. You explain two techniques, yet I feel both have not been in depth

In his concluding statements, Young appeals to the logic in the reader that are against “cage fighting” pointing out that just because there are “fans screaming for blood” it is “no grounds” for criticising the sport and its athletes. And he emphatically argues that “mixed martial arts is not a ‘cockfight’” and alliterates it is a “fair and free fight” once again reinforcing the idea that it is not a sheer violent sport. Effect on the reader

Damon Young relies heavily on the repetition of the notion that “cage fighting” is a “virtuous”, dignified sport, to tries and present the argument that “mixed martial arts” is a real sport with redeeming qualities, thus it should not be banned. You also rely heavily on the repitition of "virtuous and dignified through your article. Vary abit more





Overall Comment: This was a very hard piece to read as it was peppered with grammar and syntax errors. You also tend to move from one technique to another when neither of them are fully explained in depth. There are times when you appear to be rushing this language analysis, through "thus", which is apparent throughout your article right to the end and repeating as I said before "virtuous and dignified." The reader of your piece wants to know more, you need to tell what it does to the reader. You seem to reiterate, that the sport is x y z , every single time. I suggest reading other language analysis essays who score 7+, and try to emulate their essays. Also seek to understand the structure of LA. It is very simple. Redeeming factors is that you appear to be able to spot out some techniques.

Score: 3 - 4

[werdna]

Harsh much? It wasn't THAT bad. It was a good essay.

[schmalex]

Harsh much? It wasn't THAT bad. It was a good essay.

If all you say is "good essay", nobody learns anything. You need to point out what's bad, or there's nowhere to improve.

[werdna]

That was in response to the score Water gave. I know that my comment wasn't 'useful' by any means. I'm too tired to mark anything.

[cltf]

Thanks guys, really insightful, and sorry for not following what the coordinator set.

[schmalex]

That was in response to the score Water gave. I know that my comment wasn't 'useful' by any means. I'm too tired to mark anything.

Oh okay then. I wasn't sure if you were saying the criticism was harsh. I wouldn't worry about rankings too much at this point anyway, I find they just freak you out.

[HERculina]

Hm, i actually think this work is worth a bit more than 3-4/10. maybe 5?  :angel:
The first line of your intro was a big no-no. Rhetorical q. made it sound like you was the one writing an opinion article :/
you're meant to ANALYSE not persuade us. I think for an intro you should at least include author's contention, the audience, wider issue of the article, title of piece youre analysing...

The second paragraph was OK, but it felt like you was just listing quotes, because you had to.
And i noticed that you kept repeating "Young uses", "Young attempts", "Young blabla..."
Instead of writing the persons name, maybe just write "the writer" in a few parts to vary word choice.
Your conclusion was also too short. It was only a single sentence :/
a conclusion should at least be two lines long.

You need to analyse the techniques into A LOT MORE DETAIL. Overall, i thought your expression and vocab was quite good (high average) but the structuring of it put you down. Maybe read some of the work in the English Work Examples and Directory (http://vce.atarnotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,8375.0.html). This helped me understand how to write an essay.

I read your Wikileaks speech beforehand and i thought it was GREAT. So ye, just work on your structuring of writing a language analysis cause i think you have potential to improve throughout the year