Aw, thanks Ahmad
I have no idea how to upload so yea. Also I typed it out cos I cbf with the scanner (technology doesn't like me). Any mistakes I kept as is, to show you the stupid things I do when under pressure
Like I said, I very very much doubt it's a 10, but here it is regardless =]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Part One
This article was written, presumably by a teacher, in response to a parliamentary speech advocating compulsory exercise regimes in schools. It argues against this proposal, using a range of persuasive devices.
The article opens with the ridicule of ?this sort of reaction from politicians?, accusing them of ?kowtow[ing] to community pressure? and of implementing ?band aid solutions?, followed by examples of these so-called ?quick fix? solutions. This serves to promote the writer?s point of view by mocking the opposition, by suggesting that politicians are simply puppets to pressure and seek only to implement shallow and badly-considered programs. The author also implies at the hypocrisy of politicians in forcing schools to spend time implementing programs and then ?accus[ing] [the school] of allowing standards to slip!?
Following this are several paragraphs consisting mostly of emotional appeals, supported by the use of logic and reasoning. The author points out that education could be ?seriously disrupt[ed]? by this proposal, before stating the pressure this puts on the school and teachers, using such emotive language as ?struggle to cram? to appeal to the reader?s sense of pity for the teachers and thus persuading the reader to agree. As this is a teacher organisation newsletter, it is safe to assume the majority of the readership would be teachers. Thus the writer appeals to the majority by saying ?anyone who has worked in schools?, encouraging the readers to empathise with th author?s argument and persuading them to understand and agree.
The use of the word ?afford? suggests that school time is a valuable commodity which the politicians are trying to take away, as well as suggesting that the proposed program is unmaintainable by schools and teachers, thus making a further emotional appeal.
Sarcastic language such as ?brains trust? and ?screams of outrage? mocks the opposition, as well as dramatising the possible consequences of the community?s reaction to exposure to UV radiation. By asking questions and immediately answering them, the writer is further pointing out the consequences of this proposal, as well as encouraging the reader to consider these problems themselves. Again, there is a more obvious appeal to the reader?s pity ? ?have pity on the unfortunate teachers? ? an appeal made more effective by the fact that the readers are probably teachers and thus could empathise.
A very strong emotional appeal is made in comparing the proposal to a community government ? ?conjures up images of Mao Zedong?s China? ? thus suggesting that the politicians are living in the past. In demonising the politicians in this way, the writer persuades the reader to be opposed to the government. Strong emotional language such as ?dragging kids kicking and screaming?, ?coerced? and ?physical jerks? suggests that the government is forcing this upon students and thus implying that it is wrong. The ?excuse me? conveys a tone of indignation to this idea, while encouraging the reader to also be indignant.
Following these emotional appeals are arguments based on logic and reasoning, using emotional language like ?screamingly obvious? to keep the reader emotionally involved, but also appealing to their logical thinking. The author suggests that the issue should be the parents? responsibility, reminding the reader that ?all schools? already have ?health and physical education programs? which ?constantly promote healthy messages?. Using logic, the author then mentions a ?bizarre twist? in that students who play sport already ?may choose to opt out?, in an effort to expose the ridiculousness of the proposal as well as supporting the author?s contention that this is not a well thought out proposal.
The author concludes with a mixed logical and emotional appeal, saying that is ?a community problem and not a school problem?, but also using emotional language like ?dump? and ?doomed to end up in failure? to describe the wrongs of the proposal.
The use of ?let?s? involves the reader in the argument and thus persuades them to agree. The final sentence is another emotional appeal, using language like ?lunacy? and a dramatic analogy that ?the operation was a success, but the patient died!? to add some humour to the argument and encourage the reader to laugh at the proposal.
682 words
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's the same one as choc banana's lol
Home
Help
Search
Login
