Exercise 15: At your discretion (parentswatch.com.au) p. 22
- Appeal: fear. The author scares parents by suggesting that they will have disobedient and spoilt children if they do not smack them.
- Appeal: the author makes a moral appeal. Mr Simon believes that parents who smack their children are acting correctly because they are teaching them the difference between right and wrong.
- Appeal: the author appeals to duty of care/ authority. Mr Simon believes that parents should have the authority to discipline their children in the best way possible.
- Appeal: individual rights. The author recognises that some people maintain that children have rights and that they need to be free to explore their world and take risks.
- Appeal: family values. The author believes that a smack helps parents build a sense of trust among family members. It also shows children that they do care, and that sometimes strong discipline is needed as the mark of loving parents..
PRACTISE WRITING YOUR ESSAY: TWO PARAGRAPHS
Paragraph 1:
Main contention: Mr Simon advocates smacking as a useful disciplinary tool.
Purpose: seeks to justify smacking; reassure parents that smacking is useful and non-intrusive; it is necessary.
Techniques (link to the author’s point of view):
- Tone: authoritative; assertive; forthright
- imaginative scenario; depiction of children as selfish and stubborn to prove that they become worse if they are not smacked; creates a climate of fear; and shames those parents who do not set strict boundaries
- colloquial and idiomatic language; and euphemisms
- rhetorical question: to reassure parents that smacking is not harmful
- generalisations
- moral appeals
- appeal to fear
2nd paragraph
- Statistics to show that smacking has widespread support among parents; their use reassures parents who may be hesitant about smacking children.
- Reference to the “mistakes”; reinforces a climate of fear and plays upon parents’ anxieties; jolts parents out of a sense of complacency by showing them that such mistakes can be “fatal”
- Expert opinion: reinforces family values; show positive consequences of smacking; “most loving thing” : has positive connotations to suggest that it is a parent’s duty to set boundaries; the reference to a child who “oversteps every mark you set” implies that if parents do not show strict discipline such as smacking, children will take advantage of them.
Samantha’s example
Chief executive officer, Mr Jason Simon uses an authoritative tone throughout his argument. Mr Simon advocates smacking as a useful tool to discipline disobedient children. Mr Simon pressurises parents to use this technique of discipline against their children. He seeks to reassure parents that smacking is sometimes necessary and useful. Mr Simon uses colloquial and idiomatic language to make the scenario more relatable to the reader. The use of euphemism gives the reader a perspective of seeing that from another angle. Using generalisations, Mr Simon convinces the reader and parents that all children “love to be disobedient” and need smacking as a result of good behaviour. The use of colloquialism is used to persuade readers to agree that smacking is useful. He states that it is part of the duty of parenting. He also justifies smacking by using moral values and by referring to the outcome.
Suggested improvements
The paragraph consists of a list of techniques, with a general or vague connection to the author’s point of view. It is important to prioritise the techniques; start with the most obvious technique and impact; show relationships between the techniques and think about the flow of the paragraph. First practice writing some specific sentences and their purpose.
Sentence practice:
- The author uses relatable examples such as the Simpsons and WiiFit to paint an image of disobedient and unruly children. The purpose is to alarm parents at the consequences of failing to set strict boundaries …
- Colloquial words such as “spoilt brats” and clichés such as “spit the dummy” imply that …
- The rhetorical question, “what is the harm in that”, suggests that …
- The author uses a generalisation such as “children love to be disobedient” to reinforce the image of …
- The reference to the expert, Mr Bill M., also highlights the importance of family values and reassures parents …
- The author alarms/ instils a sense of fear in readers when he states that “some mistakes can be fatal” which could happen if parents become complacent.
Rewrite the paragraph:
Chief executive officer, Mr Jason Simon uses an authoritative tone to advocate smacking as a practical tool to discipline children. Through the depiction of children and a variety of appeals the author seeks to reassure parents that smacking is sometimes necessary and useful. Mr Simon uses colloquial and idiomatic language such as “to spit the dummy” to depict children as selfish and unruly. His generalisation, “they love to be disobedient”, also encourages readers to see them as resistant to authority. For this reason, Mr Simon pressures us to recognise that smacking is necessary. Mr Simon also uses a variety of clichéd references (“spit the dummy”) and appeals to allay concerns parents might have about smacking. For example, the euphemistic phrase, “gentle reminder on the butt” downplays the potential for violence and appeals to family values; it reassures parents that smacking is part of their duty of care as a parent. Morally, parents are encouraged to see smacking as necessary to teach appropriate value systems — “it helps to teach them right from wrong”, and the rhetorical question, “So how can it be harmful” reinforces the point that it is not an aggressive tool.
To reinforce the parents’ right to smack, Mr Simon refers to statistics to show that smacking has widespread support among parents; their use reassures parents who may be hesitant about smacking children. The parents’ rights to smack are also reinforced by expert opinion to further give parents confidence regarding their primary duties. Specifically, Mr Frank Mulheim reinforces family values and believes that smacking is the “most loving thing” parents can do. Contrastingly, the reference to a child who “oversteps every mark you set” implies that if parents do not show strict discipline such as smacking, children will take advantage of them. Also the reference to harm and the “mistakes” that may occur creates a climate of fear and plays upon parents’ anxieties. It jolts those out of a sense of complacency who may be relaxed about letting children take risks. The suggestion that the mistakes can be “fatal” reminds parents of their responsibilities.
Return to Exercise Page: Become an Expert