(32'/2) Mini Article Assessment

The TASK: Complete 2 of the three tasks below by following the instructions that proceed each article. Each piece needs to be submitted to Mr Munro however should be peer assessed within class time. 

 

 

Task 1: Mini Article #1

 

Instructions: Write a LA introduction on the article ‘Our Land is Girt by a Wild Lawless Sea

 

3 marks: Student has identified the issue and context

3 marks: Student has identified the text details, intended audience and the tone of the article

1 mark: Student had identified the author’s contention

3 marks: Student had introduced any secondary article and the contention, tone and intended audience if it differs from the primary article

 

Our Land  is Girt by a Wild Lawless Sea          1/1/2011

To the editor of the Herald Sun,

 

 

I call on all Australians to protect our way of life. A way of life that is being threatened by illegal boat pirates and mooching human cargo. My tax dollars shouldn’t go to funding the exorbitant whims of boat people who are increasingly becoming a scourge on our society. My job and indeed no Aussie job should be sacrificed so a two-buck immigrant can be given a fair go. We live in the lucky country. Let’s keep it that way.

 

Andrew Charles

Werribee, Father

 

 

 

Task #2: Mini Article #2

 

Instructions: Identify the contention and 2 supporting arguments on the article ’12 Year Old Betting Bandits’ below.

 

 

2 Marks: Student is able to identify and outline the issue and context of the article.

2 Marks: Student can identify the author's contention and express it in an appropriate manner.

6 Marks: Student can identify 2 supporting arguments and outline the argument in a full sentence that relates to the issue/contention

 

 

12 year old betting bandits

 

To the editor,

I was watching the footy with my son the other day when he tells me the ‘Pie’s are gonna win because Betsport has them at $1.58’ and that ‘we should put 100 bucks on them to pay for dinner.’ When did the financial interests of unethical betting houses trump the rights and future of our children? When does the exploitation stop? When does the government’s financial reliance end? It seems like the only interest that isn’t being considered is our children. Who will repay for the lives, families and financial future destroyed by this government cash grab? The onus is on the government and the consequence of not acting now will be a future of forgotten morals, family violence and entrenched poverty. We need to put a stop to betting during sports so that children, our future doesn’t grow up thinking betting on sports is normal. Let’s not promote a culture of addiction.

 

Joshua Douglas, 4/5/2012

Werribee, Father

 

 

 

 

Task 3: Mini Article #3

 

Identify how persuasive language is employed within the article ‘Junk Food Junkies,’ the contention and one supporting argument is supplied if you need.

 

3 marks: Student has identified how the author opened their piece (the technique), has employed a quote and has identified how this may position readers.

3 marks: Student has identified how the author has used language and has identified how this may position readers (with textual evidence)

3 marks: Student has analysed the image and how the image has been employed to impact the intended reader.

1 mark: One further persuasive technique has been identified (no analysis required)

 

Contention: Davis contends that school canteens need to phase out the sale of junk food to students to ensure the health and wellbeing of our society.

 

Supporting Argument: The author opens by suggesting that junk food sold in canteens can have a large impact on the health of our students.

 

 

 

Junk food Junkies                       The Age, 15/4/2015

 

To the editor,

I had to call the plumber the other day because my gutters were blocked. He called me out after being on the roof to show me a pile of mouldy sandwiches and rotten fruit. Apparently my son enjoys the taste of salty, fatty, sugary school canteen food more than my healthy sandwiches. Why should public schools be risking our children's health, wellbeing and future (not to mention their pocket money) due to entrenched laziness and small financial gains. Canteens need to remove these offending products for the wellbeing of our entire community.

 

Sue Davis,

 

31/2 Practice Article #5: Why I won't be travelling to Indonesia

Why I won't be travelling to Indonesia

OPINION: This morning Australia woke to the news Indonesia had killed two men. An artist and a minister. A brother and a son. Friends, lovers, a husband, drug smugglers.
Today, the country is in shock and many people don’t know what to feel. Some are angry, some are sad. Some are calling for a boycott and some believe they got what they deserve.
All I know is that I won’t be going to Indonesia.
As many people held vigils and made videos in the days leading up to their execution, I felt frustration at the outpouring of emotion that ultimately didn’t prevent their deaths.
I wanted to do something, anything, that would hit Indonesia where it hurts and make President Widodo realise the death penalty is not OK

Today as the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced they would recall Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia, social media is filled with calls to boycott the country and cut the $650 million aid budget — something Ms Bishop said would be left to May to decide.
For me, it’s not about cutting aid. I don’t want people in need to suffer or those who rely on tourism to be forced to close their doors. But I do want people in Australia and Indonesia to realise their actions can force governments to change.
Overnight, Filipina woman Mary Jane Veloso, 30, was spared the death penalty. The single mother of two had been convicted of drug smuggling but maintained her innocence — claiming she was exploited by traffickers en route to a job as a maid in a case that captured the hearts of the Indonesian public.
While her 11th hour reprieve was due to someone coming forward in her case, — which her lawyers argue is a case of human trafficking rather than drug trafficking — who knows how much of an impact the publicity had in encouraging them to speak out?

There’s no doubt governments respond to public pressure. We’ve seen it in Peter Dutton’s indication he would review the Tyrone Sevilla case after a petition with thousands of signatures asking for him to be granted a visa to stay in Australia. We’ve seen it in the US where legislators were forced to change a law after a backlash from major companies and celebrities over fears it could mean businesses would deny service to homosexuals on religious grounds.
In this case, President Widodo has remained deaf to calls from leaders from Australia and other nations. Pleas from family members and an unprecedented call from Ban Ki Moon, the secretary-general of the UN, couldn’t move him. Perhaps next time, he might listen.
Some say Sukumaran and Chan broke the law, knew the penalty and deserve their fate. That drugs hurt families and there’s no doubt they do. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
Killing on top of killing doesn’t mean salvation. It ignores their obvious rehabilitation, the complex elements that make up a person and means they’re forever defined by something they once did.
It’s not something that should happen to anyone. It’s not worth being put to death. And it’s certainly not worth a cheap ticket to Bali.
Rest in peace.

30/2 Practice Article #4: Vanstone 'Choosing is hard, but its still a lifestyle choice.'

Choosing is hard, but it’s still a lifestyle choice

Amanda Vanstone
Published: March 16, 2015 - 12:00AM

Instead of attacking the Prime Minister over his choice of words, we should tackle the issue of funding remote communities and how we can best maximise the opportunities for young Indigenous Australians.

 

 

We say we want to see a more rational and conciliatory political process with less bif bif and more substance. One example from last week has shown how hard that will be to achieve.

The Prime Minister made a statement about no longer funding lifestyle choices in indigenous communities. The response has been an overwhelming "Let's kick Tony"  rather than "Let's address the issue of funding extremely small remote communities."

"The priority should be Indigenous children's future." Photo: DAVID GRAY
 

So keen are some to attack Abbott that the debate became about the PM rather than the substantive issue. The PM's critics had a choice to attack him or  discuss the substantive issue. Their choice speaks volumes about them.

The attacks on him reveal two fairly common aspects of political debate today. First, the default position is to attribute the worst intentions to the speaker. Abbott's use of the words "lifestyle choices" was unwisely risky. It gave his critics the opportunity to accuse him of  thinking the choices are no more difficult than a whole range of lifestyle choices we all regularly make: whether to walk to work or not, whether to drink less coffee or whether to live at the beach and commute to work. Anyone who knows Abbott's long standing interest and commitment to first Australians knows he understands the very difficult choices many face in remote areas. 

The second aspect is the now common Australian tendency to take offence whenever possible. The process is: claim offence has been taken, claim it was either intended or that a reasonable person would expect offence to be taken, and then seek some sort of redress. Assuming the position of victim allows you to attack the speaker as being nasty, evil, out of touch.

Does anyone really suggest that Indigenous Australians in remote areas don't have any choices? The choices they have for the most part are hard ones, really hard. For many Aboriginal people the choices are hard. None of the options may be ideal, but nonetheless, choices have to be made.  Choices they are, and they are often about lifestyle.

One pathetic attack against Abbott alleged that by querying the need to fund some very small and remote communities he was showing he did not understand the strong cultural affiliation Indigenous Australians have with the land. Nobody I know doubts that affiliation, least of all the PM. To retain that affiliation, it does not mean they must live in an extremely remote area with very few people with an expectation that power, water, health and education services will be readily available. Most indigenous Australians live  in towns and cities. They haven't lost their indigeneity because they are in urban areas.

A very small  percentage live in remote Australia. The communities are not generally very large and are dispersed over enormous distances. Where they have missed out on some educational opportunities and health care, their options are nowhere near as bright as those available to other Australians. But even then it is hard to honestly say that the only choice is to live in extremely small communities. Sometimes groups move out of towns to try and keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, but doing so  may well limit the services and thus opportunities for young children. It's just one example of  hard choices – where neither is ideal, but a choice has to be made nonetheless.

Some live in one community for a good part of the year and move to out stations for the remainder. It is a very expensive lifestyle when power , housing and other services are needed. Even with generous funding the fact remains that services in one place mean there can't be services elsewhere. Governments have to give good value to indigenous Australia, not better value to some and less to others.

Spare a thought for those who because of long term displacement from their traditional lands, are living in remote communities where the traditional owners are from other clans. If they  belong to the clan or family of the traditional owners life may not be peachy.  Which families do you think get first access to housing, health care and any other benefit the elders control? In many of these communities there is not the slightest expectation of equality. Those whose accident of birth and geography gave them advantage, use it.

The perspective that is most important to me is that of the children. Imagine an indigenous kid at 15 who has been living in a remote place and travelsto out stations regularly. In the process she has little education, inadequate healthcare, and maybe doesn't realise a pair of glasses would make life a lot easier.  Consequently she has  fewer opportunities than others. Can you look her in the eye and happily say that's her lot in life because we were too weak to insist that she had proper care, education and protection that should be the birthright of every Australian?

The reality we all have to face is that we do not have a blank canvas. We must deal with life as it is, with the hand we have been dealt. Indigenous Australians, especially in remote areas face hard choices. So do governments.

It is just a fact of life that schools, health care and other services cannot be provided everywhere for extremely small numbers. It is equally true that parents must  make education and care of their kids a priority.

 Our priority should be the long-term opportunities for children. Some might say that we should do everything we can to help small remote communities live as they do now. I say if you think that's in the best interests of the children, fair enough, but I just cannot believe you will be able to put forward a credible argument. The ultimate question is not how would these communities like to live today, but how can we maximise the opportunities for young Indigenous Australians?

Amanda Vanstone was a minister in the Howard Government.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/choosing-is-hard-but-it8217s-still-a-lifestyle-choice-20150313-14377x.html

 

29/2 Article Analysis Basics

When Analysing an article within a language analysis you are looking to identify and describe...

What: What is being argued? (Issue, Context, Arguments, Contention)
How: How it is being argued? (PLTs, Tone, Language)
Why: Why is it being argued or presented in this way (The intended effect on the reader)

In a Language Analysis you need to address each of these elements. You must identify the WHAT and the HOW and analyse WHY it is being argued in this way.

Relation to the LANGUAGE ANALYSIS ESSAY structure.

INTRODUCTION: Establish your understanding of the article

I: Issue and Context (What)
T: Text details (What)
A: Audience (What)
C: Contention (What)
T: Tone (What) and its effect on the intended reader (Why)

BODY PARAGRAPHS: Identify the author's arguments and analyse how and why the author presents the argument.

BP1: How the author presents their first argument.

Identify the author's first argument: Refer to the author, relate to the issue.(What)

Identify how the author opens their piece (How) and analyse why the author presents the piece in this way. (Why)

Identify a persuasive technique the author uses (How) the present their first argument and analyse why it is done in this way. (Why)

Identify an example of persuasive language (How) and analyse why it is done in this way. (Why)

BP2: How the author presents their second argument.

Identify the author's second argument: Refer to the author, relate to the issue.(What)

Identify a persuasive technique the author uses (How) the present their second argument and analyse why it is done in this way. (Why)

Identify an example of persuasive language (How) and analyse why it is done in this way. (Why)
Analyse the image and explain why it has been embedded within the persuasive article.


BP3: How the author presents their third argument.

Identify the author's third argument: Refer to the author, relate to the issue.(What)

Identify a persuasive technique the author uses (HOW) to present their third argument and analyse why it is done in this way. (WHY)

Discuss a shift in the tone of the article. (What) and how this would impact the intended reader. (WHY)

Identify how the author close their piece (What), analyse why the author closes the piece in this way and how it would impact the intended reader (Why)
CONCLUSION

Restate the author's contention, tone and how the reader is left feeling.

(28/2) My Argument/His Argument

Making sure we always relate our discussion to the article.

Similar to being explicit with your topic sentences and always relating to the SAQ, when we complete LA essays we need to ensure that we explicitly relate our discussion to the article.

We always want to ensure that we are analysing the language used by the author in order to position readers and make their argument and we want to make this clear when writing our response.

You must identify the author whose argument you are analysing; it is NOT your opinion.

Example:

1.       Alcoholic marketing in society is damaging people’s health

2.       It could be argued that alcoholic marketing in society is damaging people’s health

3.       Sinnerton argues that alcoholic marketing in society is damaging people’s health

In the example above both numbers 1 and 2 do not explicitly relate to the author, both statements appear to be the opinion of the student.. However in number three the student has explicitly said that ‘Sinnerton argues’ making a clear distinction that this is ‘Sinnerton’s’ argument and not the students.

(27/2) Comprehension Questions #1: Parents stop letting kids drink, please.

Article: Parents Stop Letting Kids Drink, Please.
Completed: 13/4

Instructions: Complete Questions 1-9 in response to the article 'Parents Stop Letting Kids Drink, Please.'

 

1.Who is the author of the article?

2.What is the title of the article?

3.Where was the article published?

4.What is the issue the article is addressing?

5.Why is this issue a problem within society?

6.What is the author’s contention?

7.What is one reason the author provides for his contention?

8.Who would you suggest the author is addressing the article at?

9.What do you think is the authors tone and how does it effect the intended audience?