Analytical Essay

[WhoTookMyUsername]

I'm confused as to how to write and start of an analytical persuasive language discussion on a piece of work.

I'm doing 1/2 english and this is my first ever go at a full prose piece for this type of thing (it's just a practice one set by teacher)

Specifically, what kind of sentence should i start of with? A semi - unrelated quote / broad statement or straight into the contention?
And after writing this i found it very stop and start with all the changing of techniques and did not feel i implemented many things well


Thanks a lot!

[Russ]

You need to seriously go back to basics with your language and stop using buzzwords just because you think it will improve your piece.

eg

The idiom ‘On the other hand’ aims to colloquialism the tone and conveys its message on neutral ground whilst emphasising the beginning of a lengthy balanced tone.

Vocabulary will naturally improve over time, don't try to force it into your writing.

Also, you should make sure you know what every word means (ie idiom)

[lexitu]

Read the start, some quick advice:
- Although it's fine to get right into the nitty-gritty you should probably make some sort of acknowledgement of audience, stakeholders, purpose/contention, how the issue arose just to orient the reader as this will inform most of your analysis.
- Careful not to evaluate the effectiveness of the piece - this is not your task!
- Always explain why the author is using something in a specific way that cannot be lifted and applied to another example of statistic use, for example.
- Don't think you have any major issues with essay flow.
- Very good though (I'm not just saying this) and I think you should be able to pick things up very well

An intro could be something like this:

After the recurrence of blah blah blah which prompted a media furore and much public outrage (author) responded with an opinion piece to try and dampen the public backlash. Writing as the (someone with a stake in the issue) she/he attempts to convince the general public and those affected directly by the situation that the changes are minor. The piece appeared in The Herald Sun (date), appropriate for maintaining the paper's right-left wing balance.

Done, concise and that would be an intro out of the way, no fancy shit. I hope I haven't missed something

^ This doesn't relate to your article, I just made it up then (and it was fun).

[LOVEPHYSICS]

I have read the article before. Tell me, what's the contention? That's the single most important aspect you need to include in your piece. Introductory information like tone, audience, background issue are also missing.

All of these can be neglected if you are in ESL, though that said, I am assuming that you are doing mainstream English.

[burbs]

I'm confused as to how to write and start of an analytical persuasive language discussion on a piece of work.

I'm doing 1/2 english and this is my first ever go at a full prose piece for this type of thing (it's just a practice one set by teacher)

Specifically, what kind of sentence should i start of with? A semi - unrelated quote / broad statement or straight into the contention?
And after writing this i found it very stop and start with all the changing of techniques and did not feel i implemented many things well


Thanks a lot!

This is in regard to a piece called 'Time for the Very Last Puff' with the message you would expect.
Also flesh - kincaid 14.5



This editorial piece presents a startling image.I wouldn't do this for two reasons - 1) it seems to be slightly subjective, but more because 2) you have just gone straight into it, no introduction of the topic or the article or even the headline. What editorial piece? what is the image of? It audaciously sounds wanky switches from a balanced, fact driven tone to a shocking, aggressive manner used to forcefully convey the hazards of smoking and the necessity of removing it from modern culture. bit confused, read it again and you will see.  This article strongly don't evaluate conveys the harm of cigarettes in a balanced tone didn't you just say the tone? initially by quoting statistics or third parties. oh wait i see that was the image not the article. start with articles first, then image. It don't talk about the article as an entity, instead describe the author's methodlulls the reader into a false sense of balanced security balanced...security? before surprisingly and effectively using this third party evidence what third party evidence? be explicit, use it. as a basis for its extreme and controversial attack and need for adjustment. evaluating too much also sounding a bit muddled This shock recedes as the article returns to a more balanced balanced again?! im sure there a much better words to describe the tone. I haven't read the article but i'd assume something like logical would work. approach to communicate the possible avenues of change for the betterment of society. im a bit confused and had to read this a few times till i fully understood it. try and be more explicit with examples and clear with your writing.
The first sentence “Another week, another 90 deaths from smoking,” is the first hint of more shocking extravagant arguments to follow.i dont see the point of this sentence The almost inconsequential idiomerm paired with a frightening statistic forces the reader to pay attention and think about the consequences of smoking.ok so that is the intended effect, but you could go in more depth about how this positions the reader. The initial message of this article then follows the mainstream why mainstream? whut? balanced approach of an editorial. This mentality allows the reader to be absorbed and confused to an extent by a constant flow of third party quotes and statistics. be explicit and cite the evidence, you can't just tell me they use statistics, show me some and explain what that statistic does! not just confused and absorbed - that could fit for many articles The idiom ‘On the other hand’ aims to colloquialism the tone and conveys its message on neutral ground whilst emphasising the beginning of a lengthy balanced tone.read this again, and look up the meaning of idiom and the correct use of the word colloquial.I think I understand what you were trying to say but it could be done much more fluently. "The colloquial tone..." A change to inclusive 1stfirst person “We” just call this inclusive languageaims to establish the view that as a community we are all responsible for the wellbeing of greater society.good, go on with this point in more depth. The author later congratulates the public by resisting a “futile last-ditch campaign” which proposes the idea that the battle is on a positive trajectory and that the goals are very achievable. seems tacked on for no reason, what does this do, why is it done?
The cementing of the article’s ideas is reiterated by cumulative use of statistics. This substantiates the writer’s claim with a degree of credibility. This excessive manner accentuates the severity and urgency of the issue by insinuating the enormous amount of data correlates with the size of an issue.this and the one above just seem very right-click+synonym to me. I'm sure you know what these words mean and using sophisticated words is all well and good, but let them breath and make sure they are used correctly A distinctive use of imagery to create a repulsive association of cigarettes with “weird, poisonous mushrooms” asserts the need to completely eradicate these damaging eyesores from society. could be written more clearly This imagery is accentuated by the distinctivei don't like repetition of language this much. picture which aims to position the reader to be further repulsed and therefore wishing for change. The author presents an emotive appeal to compassion and the need for action by stating “We cannot allow young people to ruin their lives” and aims to connect with readers on a personal level. This startling imagery compels readers to analyse the impacts of cigarettes and present an unavoidable assertion of a profound need to change.
The author displays a toned down use of the flowery language present but still uses compelling extreme language comparing smoking to “assault” and “child abuse.” This forces readers either to side with his tenuous comparison and therefore emotively support the author’s views of necessity for change, or to out rightly deny his claims which he suggests is childish and unbased. A lack of a balanced argument reiterates the message that there is no conflict: Ciggarettes are very dangerous and should be elimaneted at all costs.
This suggestive common ground further associates the reader with the author and establish a willingness to conform to the changes necessary to elimate smoking all together and “extend bans” around almost all common public ground. The author concludes by justifying these somewhat extreme actions by stating that “Shock tactics are vital” to saving lives and contributing for the better. A conclusive return to plural 3rd person emphasises his earlier message that a collective action is necessary to prevent the damaging effects of cigarette use.
The author compels the wider public and society to act for the benefit of the whole community. A constant fluctuation in tone shocks the reader into supposed agreement and acts to compel readers by seeming to logically deduce conclusions from proven statistics. A constant return to “We” focuses on the need for action as a whole and effectively garners support for the articles aims: to alter and strengthen public mentality to garner support and public sentiment against all cigarette smoking. The author effectively implements persuasive techniques, and combined with a constantly fluctuating tone draws emphasis to the severity and urgency of the matter which is “Ruin(ing) lives.” The author effectively and audaciously argues that acceptance of the dangers of smoking, and the resulting need for its elimination for the improvement of wider wellbeing is crucial.

Don't have time to go through the rest of it but these are my thoughts:
- You seem to have a general understanding of techniques, but are not going into the effect on readers in enough detail.
- You are trying to sound smart and it is really detracting from the flow of the piece, also many words are being used incorrectly. Be simple, if there is a smaller word that does the same thing as the longer word, use that for now. It's one of Hemingway's (i think) rules for writing which makes sense.
- This seemed a bit formulaic, which is expected for a first attempt, so I'm not going to really criticise this.
- You need to be more obvious in your referencing to the article - give evidence for pretty much everything and talk about how it is the author using these techniques. Furthermore, use their last name. O'Brien approaches the issue....

I think you really have the potential to be writing some excellent pieces, and this is a good first attempt - so don't be disheartened by the criticism. Use it to fix this one up and repost it.
Show this to your teacher so he/she can sit down with you and explain the process of language analysis properly.



EDIT: just read the first sentence. In an introduction do this:

-Contextualise the issue - why has this been written?
- Publication details (inc. date)
- Author
- Headline
- Possibly tone
- Contention of the piece (most important)
- If there is an image, acknowledge its existence.

[deanlev]

Does anyone have the file/link to the article 'Time for the very last puff'?

Thanks!!