The purpose of using an analytical terminology is to more accurately analyse an author’s views, values/appeals, techniques and intentions.
You will gain depth by being more accurate – not by writing increasingly complicated sentences. To be more accurate you need to use the right words.
See pp. 77-80 in the Green Book (The Language of Persuasion: become an expert) and Page 37: The Orange Book (The Language of Persuasion: an essay-writing guide)
Helping Sally!
Setting up a paragraph: in the following exercise, Sally was asked:
- to identify the author’s contention and use words to convey their attitude
- to identify the technique that is critical to the author’s main contention (i.e. evidence/appeal etc.). (Students can then give specific quotes and explain the purpose to complete the paragraph.)
Note how I have reworded sentences to help Sally express her point as accurately and clearly as possible.
Corporal punishment: Orange book page 44
Sally: Through his own experiences, Tim Scott discredits the use of corporal punishment on the grounds that it psychologically affects students. His traumatic depiction of the sadistic trainee priest connotes the unnecessary humiliation that is caused.
Suggested improvements: Based on his own traumatic personal experiences, Tim Scott discredits the use of corporal punishment. Scott’s depiction of the sadistic trainee priest raises questions about the perpetrator’s own mental stability and the motivation behind the unnecessary humiliation of students.
Sally: Scott also uses this anecdote to criticise the gratuitous nature of this punishment. His raw and candid reference to the “six of the best” given by the “sadistic trainee priest” connotes the cavalier nature of the violence.
Suggested improvements: Scott’s anecdotal evidence impugns the gratuitous nature of the punishment. His raw and colloquial reference to the “six of the best” given by the “sadistic trainee priest” connotes a cavalier attitude to violence, which would disgust fair-minded members of the public.
Sally: Contrastingly, Pete Samson endorses corporal punishment on the grounds that it leads to better disciplined people. He uses his personal experiences to illustrate that there are no adverse effects and to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Suggested improvements: Contrastingly, Pete Samson endorses corporal punishment on the grounds that it promotes discipline in students. His personal experiences reinforce his point that the punishment is efficient that there are no adverse effects. His personal justification seeks to reassure those who might be alarmed at its re-introduction.
Sally: Samson also supports corporal punishment on the grounds that it is a necessary form of discipline. His depictions of “rat-bags” and “hunting packs” of “out-of-control young adults” instil a sense of fear in the members of the community, who are then more willing to do more than “water off a duck’s back”.
Suggested improvements: Samson advocates corporal punishment as a necessary disciplinary tool. His depictions of “rat-bags” and “hunting packs” of “out-of-control young adults” instil a sense of fear in the members of the community, who are then more willing to do more than “water off a duck’s back”.
Helmets in sport: Orange book page 46
Sally: Based on the findings of scientists, Terry O’Donaghue discredits the benefits of helmets on the grounds that they exacerbate the injuries that may be caused. He quotes a member of Sports Medicine Australia, Dr Rob Reid, who says that “there is no evidence at all that it decreases the number or severity of concussions”, giving credibility to his argument via the findings of an expert.
Suggested improvements: Based on scientific evidence, Mr Terry O’Donaghue discredits the benefits of helmets because they render players more, not less, susceptible to injuries. To increase his credibility, he defers to a member of Sports Medicine Australia, Dr Rob Reid, who says that “there is no evidence at all that it decreases the number or severity of concussions”.
Sally: O’Donaghue then uses the story of Sam Hurley to justify his argument on the grounds that helmets had no effect on an experienced player. He gives the impression that Hurley is experienced by referring to him as one of the “better juniors”, but candidly states that “roughly half of his concussions were sustained while wearing head protection”. This adds substance to the findings of Dr Reid that were previously mentioned, and invites the reader to reconsider whether helmets act as a layer of protection or become a source of injury.
Suggested improvements: O’Donaghue refers to Sam Hurley’s first-hand experience, who is one of the “better juniors”, to justify his defence of the AFL’s policy on the grounds that the helmet had no effect on an experienced player. Candidly, he urges the football fraternity to remain cautious because “roughly half of his concussions were sustained while wearing head protection”. Such anecdotal evidence reinforces the findings of Dr Reid, and invites the reader to reconsider their preconceived opinions about helmets and their level of safety.
Sally: On the other hand, Chris Costas endorses the use of helmets based on his own experiences. His disturbing depiction of his own injuries instils a sense of fear in the reader, encouraging the realisation of the potential consequences of not wearing a helmet, and to take note of his doctor’s opinion.
Suggested improvements: On the other hand, Chris Costas uses his own first-hand experience to endorse the use of helmets. His disturbing depiction of his own injuries instils a sense of fear in members of the football fraternity, and together with the reference to his own doctor’s opinion, football players and parents and urged to reflect upon the potential consequences of being exposed without head protection.
Return to the Green Book: turn to exercise page
Return to the Orange Book: turn to exercise page