2 ARTICLES: ON DRUG TESTING WELFARE RECIPIENTS
POINTS FROM TODAY’S SESSION
- Identify viewpoints. (See the Table below)
- You must sharply identify the viewpoints in order to write a really smart comparison.
- Analyse the similarities and differences (See Page 5 for our analysis of the Structure for Comparison)
- See “structure” below – it is critical to work with key ideas/views; I find it easier to zoom in on the problem and the solutions. And compare each.
- Teachers are looking for more comparison – you can only do this if you identify the viewpoints.
- In order to avoid overlap, you must try to focus on a different points
- Overall, you must not be generic – you must be analytically precise with regards to viewpoints, the underlying argument techniques and specific word choices.
- If you go for a bit more comparison, you will do a bit less word-level analysis. (You can’t cover everything)
STRUCTURE FOR COMPARISON
Paragraph 1: (Article 1 and the image)
Anderson: the problems: the plan is costly and impractical; it is harsh and will not work efficiently.
Anderson opens with a typical image of drug-addled welfare recipients who wreak havoc because of the scourge of ice. (examples and use of emotive language)
Purpose: this challenges our stereotypical assumptions
This image contrasts with the visual image: of a vulnerable drug addict who is resting with his head hidden; he appears desperate, forlorn and forsaken.
Purpose – the system is letting down our most vulnerable.
Paragraph 2: Article 2’s viewpoint/main contention and a point of difference (Article 2)
Article 2: By way of contrast, Michael Fox endorses the proposal to drug test welfare recipients on the grounds that drug addicts must be made accountable; they should be made to use the cashless card.
This viewpoint reinforces the stereotypical image of welfare recipients who are a drain on society.
Purpose – he seeks to play on anxieties people have about the waste of money.
Article 1: However, this view is countered by Anderson – re the money – 900 to test people is exorbitant – plus her comparison with New Zealand proves that often there is only a small proportion of drug affected recipients… challenges the stereotype and encourages us to rethink about the …
Paragraph 3: Solutions; Article 1 and Article 2 (a point of difference – the children)
Article 1: Anderson’s solution – she advocates greater compassion and open-ended discussions/ better policies – purpose – think of something decent – appeals to social values …
Article 2: Contrastingly Fox’s solution – directs compassion towards the children – only in so far as they should be removed and kept out of harm’s way (protected from their parents) – purpose – provide some hope and reassurance that the cycle of drug addiction can be prevented.
Return to Orange VCE Membership Program