Hey guys,
I just got back from overseas.
asdfqwerty,
I think the main thing to take away from the visual is, as you rightly identified, the speech bubble. The most potent effect is the irony in the adviser's remark. By comparing the incident with the persecution that the asylum seekers are escaping from, it intends to shame, or induce outrage, in Australian audiences.
Also look at:
- expressions
- uniformity of clothing
- frame (who is where and their relationship)
tiff_tiff,
Sometimes an article can contain more than one contention. The best way to find the main contention is to first ask yourself what the issue is. The contention has to fall on one side of the issue or another. For example, "wearing school uniforms" might be the issue; and "students must wear school uniforms" is a contention. "Students should wear school uniform most of the time" is another contention that falls on the same side of the issue, but is slightly different. At some stage in the piece, the writer may have said "principles are responsible for the collective spirit of the school"; which is another contention, but not the main contention.
Bestie & Dahello,
I personally really like Waleed's writing. I do not always agree with his contentions, but his writing is eloquent and a good mixture of fact, logic and emotive appeals. Without going into the whole article, Aly intends to illuminate the mechanisms upon which our detention centres operate. He contends that it is designed to be a punishment to deter future arrivals, not as a legitimate point of processing.
He challenges the reader with what they do not have exposure to. He often induces shame, guilt or doubt in the Australian reader's mind. I suggest that you follow the steps listed in the guide posted at the beginning of this thread and see if that makes the whole process easier.
All the best to you all,
Yang