http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/nothing-to-be-gained-from-bali-executions/story-fni0fhh1-1227189927852 - Article sorry didn't read it as it's Herald Sun
‘Nothing to be gained from Bali executions’ is an opinion piece written by Pita Panahi (Herald Sun January 20th 2015) regarding the recent controversy of the upcoming executions of the ringleaders of the ‘Bali Nine’, Andrew Chan and Myrun Sukumaran. In her piece Panahi pleads that we and the Federal government ‘must do all it can to save the lives of these two men’. In a sympathetic tone, Panahi contends that there is ‘Nothing to be gained’ as she believes these men have been ‘rehabilitated’. Clear, simple and plain. But you could make it sound a bit more impressive, and include more, deeper stuff - like what audience is being targeted; and a brief summary of her overall arguments (e.g. does she try to appeal to justice throughout? or emotion? or does she mock/ridicule? or does she try to persuade using reasoned logic? What's her overall, main approach or main ways of trying to argue/persuade?). If you don't put a bit more depth and analysis, it sounds a bit shallow and surface-level.
Through her use of evidence ‘Three Muslims beheaded three Christian girls…the ring leader was given a 20 year sentence and his two accomplices…14 years’, Panahi aims to show the absurdity of the Indonesian legal system thus making the executions also seem irrational and corrupt. Great! As a majority of readers would likely believe that ‘beheading three Christian girls’ is a more heinous crime than drug-dealing, it and should receive a fiercer penalty. However whereas these criminals are facing 20 years maximum, Chan and Sukumara are facing death which may provoke feelings of anger. The audience may feel encouraged to help Chan and Sukumara as their punishment seems unethical. The quote at the beginning could be embedded and thus made briefer. e.g. Comparing this situation with evidence/a previous situation, where Muslims ‘beheaded’ three girls and ‘the ring leader was given a 20 year sentence’, Panahi aims to... As most readers would view murder as a more heinous crime than drug-dealing, and thus deserving a fiercer penalty, this appeal to justice could provoke anger/outrage in the audience, who would feel that the drug dealers’ death penalty is utterly unjust. Then another sentence to draw it further.
A note on your final sentence: it’s good because you always have to link back to how it persuades them overall, but quite broad and if you keep saying things like that, it’ll get repetitive.
She further strengthens her above point by stating ‘[the law] would leave many sensible people aghast’. Since the audience doesn’t want to be seen as insensible they’re forced to agree. Her use of inclusive language ‘This is not a system that deserves our respects’ positions the reader to agree with her point of view. Be more specific here about HOW it actually persuades – this is vague and simplistic. Ask HOW inclusive language would impact you. If you were in the audience, why would that make you agree with her? and what bit of her argument would you be more likely to believe. In general, though,unless it’s very strong/a really important thing throughout the whole article, inclusive language probably isn’t that important to analyse.
By using figurative language and imagery wrong technique ‘being yanked from their prison bed in the middle of the night, taken to a remote area, tied to a wooden post before being killed in a hail of bullets.’, the author intends to appeal to the audience’s sense of sympathy for what the two men will be going through. The word ‘yanked’ creates an image of someone being forced or pulled out of bed in an indecent manner while ‘killed in a hail of bullets’ shows the Sukumara and Chan being fired upon rapidly. By placing the audience in their ‘shoes’ they are able to feel compassionate for and compelled to take action before this happens. So with this, think about how it makes you feel. What rhythm does it have? Is it a gentle, restful or emotional sentence? No, it’s very abrupt, sharp sentence, with lots of harsh verbs – yanked, taken, tied and killed. For me, it makes me see their situation more vividly, as I’m directly picturing what’s actually happening. And I feel they’re being treated terribly – it’s not like they’re dying quietly, they’re being utterly, horribly mistreated! So then it might make me feel furious and outraged, and very sympathetic for them. Then, to write that up properly:
By using an abrupt, sharp sequence of verbs – ‘yanked’, ‘taken’, ‘tied’ and ‘killed’ – the author vividly heightens the suffering of the two in the reader’s mind, aiming to arouse outrage and fury at the injustice and mistreatment. This also makes the audience sympathetic towards them, as they feel that the drug-dealers are suffering unjustly... blah blah.
Panahi aims to argue against the prevalent contentions that they could have ruined lives by reminding the audience that the ‘victims’ are not ’involuntary’. She makes the point ‘drug users also make choices’. By making the consumers seem equally as guilty, any readers who would like to see them executed may be inclined to save them instead. Until you got to the last part of that sentence, it was good. You then jumped a bit to make a general statement without explaining thoroughly. Ask yourself how making consumers seem guilty would make readers want to save the pair. Well, by blaming the consumers rather than drug-dealers, she’s taking the blame off the dealers so that they don’t look as guilty any more. If it’s not entirely their fault, then they’re not as bad, and the readers may think they don’t deserve a punishment as much, and therefore the readers will be more inclined to save them.
Panahi concludes her article with describe what sort of language this is, e.g. a forceful statement‘every effort must be made to save them from execution’ to create a sense of urgency and responsibility. The use of ‘save’ indicates they’re in danger appealing to the audience’s sense of humanity whereas ‘must’ instead of should manipulates the audience to agree as it has a stronger connotation and a sense of urgency is added. Panahi finishes her article with her contention and a statement in the audience’s mind which may urge them to take action to ‘save’ Sukumara and Chan. This last sentence is quite broad and general, not adding to your analysis. Remember the main point of everything you say and do is to ANALYSE in-depth how it will impact the reader; be more specific, rather than just saying ‘this may encourage them to do something/agree’ – anyone could say this, you want to stand out as someone who understands better how the author is specifically manipulating the reader.
To improve:1. Focus even more on impact on the reader, and explaining in depth how the author's language choices, tone, argument, appeal to justice etc. would make the audience feel. Step into their shoes; ask yourself, with every technique/language thingy you look at, 'How would this make me FEEL, or THINK, or want to DO something? How, specifically, would this make me more likely to agree with what the author is arguing?'
2. As you commented, you need to discuss more tone and usage of language. Her tone, for instance, appears (from your analysis anyway) to be often sympathetic; but in sections it sounds outraged. She's trying to do two things: make them feel sympathy for the plight of the drug dealers, but also feel furious/outraged at the injustice and mistreatment. So it's not just a sympathetic tone. When talking about tone, also, explain how it impacts the reader and makes them feel. To find the tone, think about how you would read it out loud. Like would you read it sadly and quietly, or loudly and angrily, or with a sneer in your voice?
3. You've picked out selected little things or sentences to analyse; you've then analysed them well. But I think one thing you need to do is to find out the author's overall argument/contention, and then split the article into 3-5 chunks, each chunk being a different argument or way of persuading. Like, a paragraph on his appeal to justice (e.g. comparing with the 3 beheaders + there's probably more to group with this in the article), another on an appeal to their emotion and sympathy for the dealers (like the sequences of verbs, and again I'm sure there's more in the article that you could analyse).
4. Make it
longer by covering more of the article. It could be more in-depth and cover more of her arguments and methods of persuading. Just randomly analysing a sentence here and there misses the overall thrust, and also ends up short, choppy and shallow.
5. Try compiling a word bank with some words gained from reading other people's essays and using a Thesaurus. Then try to use some of these 'bigger' words occasionally in your writing.
Goods:1. Basic language, very simple and easy to understand. While it's not highly sophisticated, I understood far more of this than another person's I just marked, which had wider/higher vocab, but confused me. Clarity is your high point! You don't waffle or say stuff you don't understand but sounds 'nice'.
2. You clearly realise the aim is to find a quote, then analyse how it impacts the audience. You don't just list or describe what the author's doing.
yo guys. English isnt my greatest subject. I basically havent done any english work for the past two years cause partly my teachers and partly i was lazy, actually i shouldve failed year 10 english on attendance. I dont have an english background or go to any fancy school (our average atar is like 40 
) and this is my first practice analysis, i know it doesnt have 127467 letter long words but i do want to get better, so please dont judge 
I already know i didnt do style or tone well if any.
Finally, I haven't judged you (don't think all that red = I think you're hopeless) - I felt totally lost last year! You don't need to say you're hopeless, your stuff made good sense, you know how to write proper English, and you know what you're doing - it's just a bit basic and needs deepening. Don't stress about your school or past - I didn't go to a great school, and wrote like 4 essays in years 9-10. It's kind of stupid to blame your school or your past for you not doing so well - if you work hard and rely on yourself, you can conquer. You can get better! If you're interested, see my post
Surviving English, Unshattered.
Hope I've helped somewhat
and not discouraged you; you don't need to be discouraged! All the best!
Home
Help
Search
Login
