VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Analysing argument essay regarding…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 90%: In response to growing public concern about the role of artificial intelligence in education, Kylie…
In response to growing public concern about the role of artificial intelligence in education, Kylie Moore‑Gilbert, a research fellow and academic commentator, presents an opinion piece titled “AI has destroyed value of a degree.” She contends that generative AI is rapidly undermining academic integrity, enabling widespread cheating, and ultimately devaluing university qualifications. Writing for parents, educators, and the broader Australian public, Moore‑Gilbert aims to alert readers to the accelerating dangers AI poses to genuine learning and the credibility of higher education. Throughout the piece, she adopts a concerned yet increasingly urgent tone as her warnings intensify. To reinforce her argument, Moore‑Gilbert integrates two strategically chosen images: an early photograph of two girls casually using a laptop, suggesting how effortlessly students incorporate AI into their work, and a concluding dystopian illustration of a robot puppeteering a powerless human, visually exaggerating AI’s dominance. These contrasting visuals underscore her contention that AI is simultaneously normalised and overpowering, accelerating the collapse of academic integrity.
Initially, Moore‑Gilbert argues that AI has fundamentally altered education and diminished the value of pursuing a university degree. Opening with the personal anecdote that “My stepdaughter is in her final year of high school,” she personalises the issue, establishing credibility as both an academic and a concerned parental figure. By presenting the issue through a relatable family experience, readers are encouraged to view the problem as immediate and relevant to ordinary Australians. This argument is visually reinforced through the photograph of two girls gathered around a laptop, which normalises AI’s presence in everyday study. The relaxed posture and collaborative engagement depicted in the image embody the casual integration of AI into student life, prompting readers to recognise how deeply technology has embedded itself in academic routines. Furthermore, when she states that students are accumulating “tens of thousands of dollars of debt” only to be “graded on who can write the best AI prompts,” Moore‑Gilbert employs emotive language to portray higher education as increasingly meaningless. This encourages prospective students and parents to question whether university remains a worthwhile investment. Additionally, describing universities as engaging in “widespread, industrial‑scale fraud,” she uses hyperbolic and provocative language, shocking readers into reconsidering the legitimacy of modern higher education and encouraging them to perceive the issue as a systemic crisis rather than a minor educational concern.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: I had to analyse an introduction for…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: To open her opinion piece, Bennet declares that the current gambling reforms imposed by the Albanese government…
To open her opinion piece, Bennet declares that the current gambling reforms imposed by the Albanese government are important, but they lack the magnitude and substantial impact required for Australia’s level of loss. Bennet’s analogy of this ratio, “the equivalent of throwing a bucket of water onto a bushfire”, seeks to minimize the government’s reforms and show how much is really being done, to the audience. The use of “bushfire” signifies the widespread, unpredictability and chaotic nature of gambling throughout all of Australia, while “bucket” shows the lack of action toward the reforms and there minimal impact. Reading this, the audience may feel as though the reforms imposed by Labor and Albanese truly aren’t as impactful as they were made out to be. Following this, the revelation could cause distress and frustration throughout the readers toward Labor’s lack of urgency. Bennet also utilizes the metaphor, “there’s a casino in everyone’s pocket” to show the accessibility of modern day gambling and how the ease in it’s utilization aids Australia’s high gambling loss and addiction rates. The comparison of between something known for loss and widely regarded as somewhere to waste
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Contention: Feeding artificial food to…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 62.5%: The short opinion piece regarding bird feeding by Daphne Lower was published on 2nd October, in a forum…
The short opinion piece regarding bird feeding by Daphne Lower was published on 2nd October, in a forum called Strapleton Community Voice. She argues that feeding artificial food to native birds should be prohibited as it could harm and create imbalance in the bird population. She expresses her concerns when a man with two children was feeding bread to the wild ducks completely ignoring the ‘DO NOT FEED THE BIRDS’ sign. The writer sympathetically appeals to her primary target audience of those who love feeding wild animals without knowing the consequences. It could be said that they also appeal to a secondary audience of everyone in the Strapleton Community. Included above the piece is a photograph of the ‘DO NOT FEED THE BIRDS’ sign to justify her claims that the area is prohibited from bird feeding.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: many people fear ai they shouldnt
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 87.5%: As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the…
As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the relationship between human capability and machine intelligence has moved to the forefront of public discourse. In his New York Times opinion piece, "Many People Fear A.I. They Shouldn't", published on 31 July 2024, David Brooks contends that AI will never truly replace humanity because it cannot replicate the extraordinary complexity of the human mind. Instead, Brooks argues that artificial intelligence should be embraced as a complementary tool that enables people to become "more human." Adopting an intellectually authoritative yet optimistic tone, Brooks seeks to reassure his predominantly humanistic and liberal arts-oriented readership that their anxieties surrounding AI stem not from the technology itself, but from an underestimation of humanity's unique capacities.
Brooks opens his argument by reframing anxiety surrounding AI, presenting it not simply as a technological concern but as evidence of society's diminishing appreciation for the complexity of the human mind. Through the contrasting metaphors of the mind as a "computer" and as "its own universe," Brooks rejects the reductionist belief that human cognition can be replicated through algorithms. While the image of a computer evokes mechanical imitation and predictable information processing, the metaphor of a "universe" suggests limitless complexity, creativity and consciousness. This deliberate contrast encourages readers to reconsider the assumptions underpinning their fears of AI, positioning such anxieties as the product of an "impoverished view" of humanity. Rather than alienating his audience, Brooks appeals to their intellectual pride by inviting them to recognise the richness of human cognition beyond computation. Furthermore, Brooks employs extensive enumeration when describing humanity's ability to "love," "bond," "seek goodness," "create beauty," and "find meaning." The cumulative effect of this catalogue overwhelms readers with the breadth of uniquely human experiences, exposing AI's comparatively narrow capabilities as fundamentally inadequate. By constructing humanity as emotionally, morally and spiritually multidimensional, Brooks reinforces the notion that consciousness cannot be reduced to code, ultimately persuading readers that AI is incapable of replacing the essence of human existence.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: many people fear ai they shouldnt
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 90%: As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the relationship…
As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the relationship between human capability and machine intelligence has moved to the forefront of public discourse. In his New York Times opinion piece, "Many People Fear A.I. They Shouldn't", published on 31 July 2024, David Brooks contends that AI will never truly replace humanity because it cannot replicate the extraordinary complexity of the human mind. Instead, Brooks argues that artificial intelligence should be embraced as a complementary tool that enables people to become "more human." Adopting an intellectually authoritative yet optimistic tone, Brooks seeks to reassure his predominantly humanistic and liberal arts-oriented readership that their anxieties surrounding AI stem not from the technology itself, but from an underestimation of humanity's unique capacities.
Brooks opens his argument by reframing anxiety surrounding AI, presenting it not simply as a technological concern but as evidence of society's diminishing appreciation for the complexity of the human mind. Through the contrasting metaphors of the mind as a "computer" and as "its own universe," Brooks rejects the reductionist belief that human cognition can be replicated through algorithms. While the image of a computer evokes mechanical imitation and predictable information processing, the metaphor of a "universe" suggests limitless complexity, creativity and consciousness. This deliberate contrast encourages readers to reconsider the assumptions underpinning their fears of AI, positioning such anxieties as the product of an "impoverished view" of humanity. Rather than alienating his audience, Brooks appeals to their intellectual pride by inviting them to recognise the richness of human cognition beyond computation. Furthermore, Brooks employs extensive enumeration when describing humanity's ability to "love," "bond," "seek goodness," "create beauty," and "find meaning." The cumulative effect of this catalogue overwhelms readers with the breadth of uniquely human experiences, exposing AI's comparatively narrow capabilities as fundamentally inadequate. By constructing humanity as emotionally, morally and spiritually multidimensional, Brooks reinforces the notion that consciousness cannot be reduced to code, ultimately persuading readers that AI is incapable of replacing the essence of human existence.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: many people fear ai they shouldnt
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 77.5%: As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the…
As the rise of artificial intelligence continues to reshape modern society, debate surrounding the relationship between human capability and machine intelligence has moved to the forefront of public discourse. In his New York Times opinion piece, "Many People Fear A.I. They Shouldn't", published on 31 July 2024, David Brooks contends that artificial intelligence will never replace humanity because it cannot replicate the extraordinary complexity of the human mind. Rather than viewing AI as a rival, Brooks argues that it should be embraced as a complementary tool that ultimately enables people to become "more human." Through an intellectually authoritative yet optimistic tone, Brooks seeks to reassure his predominantly humanistic and liberal arts-oriented audience that their fears surrounding AI are both misplaced and rooted in an underestimation of humanity itself.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: many people fear ai they shouldnt
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: As the rise of artificial intelligence has surged, it has prompted a widespread debate over the relationship…
As the rise of artificial intelligence has surged, it has prompted a widespread debate over the relationship between human capability and machine intelligence which has moved to the forefront of public discourse. The opinion piece “many people fear ai they shouldn’t” publish on 31st July 2024 in a New York times column by David Brooks, contends that AI will never truly replace humans because it cannot replicate the complexity of the human mind, and instead will serve as a complementary that allows us to be more human. With an intellectually grounded tone, Brooks aims to persuade humanistic and liberal arts oriented individuals who have this unnecessary fear of Ai instilled in them.
Brooks opens his argument by reframing the anxiety surrounding ai, diagnosing it as a technological concern, but as a symptom of diminishing human potential. Brooks does this through his usage of metaphors like “computer mind” or “the mind is its own universe”, he presents this as a sterile and impoverished reduction. He contrasts them together as describing the mind as a universe- unlimited, infinite,- and the computer as something which simply copies and replicates. By doing so, this makes the audience feel insulted if they hold onto this fear. Brooks is essentially accusing his readers of underestimating themselves and their brains. This is a clever manipulation as he makes the readers feels “superior” in a way if they reject the ideology of fearing AI. Moreover, brooks enumeration to depict Ai’s capability seem laughably insufficient. He is using sheer volume and variety to expose the “Impoverished view” he critisied earlier. By enumerating the diverse, instinctual and transcendental functions of the human mind, brooks creates a stark to a singular binary function of Ai. He again frames the human experience as something so impenetrable to be reduced to mere code. The cumulative effect of him listing emotional, biological and existential capabilities, brooks forces his readers to confront the impossibility of replicating human essence. Brooks uses enumeration to emphasise the irony of those who underestimate the human mind the incorrigible nature of our consciousness, he highlights that ai lacks the biological and moral capacity to “think”.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral speech on anti immigration protests
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 77.5%: What does it mean to be a true Australian? If you had asked that question in the 1800s, many people would…
What does it mean to be a true Australian? If you had asked that question in the 1800s, many people would have described a aboriginal or Torres strate islander person, the first people of this land. If you had asked that same question in the 1900s, many people may have pictured someone with fair skin, sun tanned from the Australian climate and perhaps with long hair. Today however, there is no single image of a “true Australian”. Australia has become one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world, and being Australian is not defined by appearance, ancestry or background. A true Australian can be anyone who calls this country home and contributes to its community. So why would anyone feel the need to protest against diversity?
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Background Information: The nation’s…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 72.5%: The concern for Australia's future has prompted a group of young Australian leaders to host the summit Vision…
The concern for Australia's future has prompted a group of young Australian leaders to host the summit Vision 2050, inviting the country's wealthiest people. Billie Pearce, an entrepreneur and one of the organisers of the summit, has given a speech to the powerful and influential guests in an optimistic voice, encouraging them to build their legacy through contributing to Australia.
From the outset, Pearce employs a sincere and upfront tone, applauding the efforts of her guests in achieving their wealth and power. Through referring to her listeners as the "brightest minds" and "most accomplished," Pearce begins by positioning them to view themselves as influential and powerful individuals who have "earned their place in leading the country." However, the sense of honour and accomplishment is then immediately undercut as Pearce reveals that it is those who "made a difference" that are remembered in history. Following with the imagery of the names of individuals engraved onto different places in the community. Pearce destabilises the notion among the wealthy, that they have solidified their name in history through their financial achievements, instead accentuating that it is those who contribute have a positive impact on the community that are truly remembered.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: This is a oral presentation on the…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 90%: The cost of a roof This time last year I spoke on the cost of living, the price of groceries, the bills, and…
The cost of a roof
This time last year I spoke on the cost of living, the price of groceries, the bills, and the everyday struggle to keep your head up. And most importantly rent and how aussies are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Today the median house price in our cities has hit over a million dollars. But this isn't an accident of the housing market, it's a self-inflicted crisis. It's the result of decades of choosing to treat homes like banks and a business instead of homes for people. For our generation, the "Australian Dream" isn't a goal anymore. It's a life sentence of rent.
We're told that if we work hard, we'll get ahead. But data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or (AIHW for short) shows a different daunting reality, homeownership for people aged from 25-35 is plummeting. And there's a simple reason. Our legal and tax system, through specific policies like Negative Gearing, has rigged the game. The Sydney Morning Herald recently pointed out that tax breaks have been a 'losing streak' for the public for nearly a century. We have created a system where it is legally more profitable for an investor to buy their fifth home than for a family in Dandenong to buy their first, creating a situation where the law rewards wealth over people's work.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: This os an oral
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 87.5%: Should AI tools be used in policing and surveillance in Australian cities? Five hundred dollars. Four demerit…
Should AI tools be used in policing and surveillance in Australian cities?
Five hundred dollars. Four demerit points. And a grainy, black-and-white photo of a hand on a steering wheel. Last week, my friend opened a letter from Victoria Police that claimed he was breaking the law. The catch? He wasn’t even holding a phone.
And it’s not just him. A few months ago, 22-year-old Queensland software engineer Hugo Burton also received a fine after an AI camera incorrectly detected that his passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt properly, even though they were wearing it correctly. The mistake led to a costly and time-consuming court appearance.
This could be you or me, or any other Victorian in a driver’s seat.
Assalamualikum 12D
These cases raise questions worth asking ourselves.
Is the system ready to be deployed in our streets?
Today I will be discussing why Australia should reconsider its use of AI in policing and surveillance .
As a daily commuter myself, I strongly condemn the current use of AI surveillance across Australian cities. The evidence clearly demonstrates that these systems are still unprepared, costing us our privacy, making unfair mistakes and more importantly eroding our trust in the government.
First and foremost, AI surveillance strips us of our privacy in public places. Every day, as commuters, we move through various different places assuming that we are not being watched or tracked. Unfortunately, that's not really the case. You are being monitored in every single place, whether you like it or not, and it is being stored in some random companies database. Just because you're in public doesn't mean being tracked, catalogued, or stored in some database we never agreed to.
According to The Guardian, Clearview AI , a facial recognition software, scraped over fifty billion photos from social media platforms like Facebook. It did this without gaining permission from users and offered the resulting tool to Australian police forces for trial.In 2021, our own privacy regulators ruled this illegal and ordered the company to delete Australian’s images and to immediately stop collecting more.However there is no evidence suggesting that Clearview ever complied with the regulator and in 2024, regulator simply gave up pursuing the case stating that they lacked the necessary resources.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: 'We're a great nation. Let's remind…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 72.5%: The Bondi massacre at the end of 2025, in which 15 Jewish people were killed, has sparked debate about who we…
The Bondi massacre at the end of 2025, in which 15 Jewish people were killed, has sparked debate about who we are as a nation, our values, what we stand for, and what we are expected to uphold as citizens. In response, McGuinness has written an opinion piece, ‘We’re a great nation. Let’s remind ourselves why that is,’ published in The Age on the 4th of January 2026. He adopts a disappointed tone to express to his moderate to progressive-leaning audience that Australia needs to rearticulate its guiding principles and redefine Australia as a nation so that there will not be a repeat of the Bondi massacre. Building a strategic sequence of arguments, the author attempts to downplay the complaints of Australian citizens compared to other countries, urging the reader to reconsider their complaints, recognise the benefits of living in Australia, and show their appreciation and gratitude through living out the values of the country.
McQuinness opens by contextualising why Australia needs to redefine itself with the example of the Bondi massacre, during which “fifteen Jewish people were slain by Islamist terrorists.” The use of negative connotations of “slain” and “terrorists,” the author is reminding the reader of the horror of that day, encouraging them to question, if Australia is a “great nation,” as mentioned in the title by McGuinness himself, and how the nation allowed this to happen, encouraging the reader to agree with the authors contention that Australia does need to rearticultate it’s values. Hence, positioning them to be more open-minded to the following arguments that the author is to present. He also uses the positive connotation of “wonderful” to characterise the good things about Australia, highlighting that when something negative happens, the public may tend to become hyper-fixated on that, but McGuinness passionately reminds the audience that Australia is a “successful” country, particularly in comparison to others, promoting the audience to be more appreciative and grateful of the country that they live in, rather than picking apart each and every flaw. The following arguments that McGuiness presents are examples of Australia’s prosperous position compared to other countries, encouraging gratitude from the reader, and giving them a reminder of how lucky they are to live in Australia.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Defence lawyers using mental health as…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 75%: In recent years, there has been increased scrutiny on the court, especially in Victoria, on its orders of…
In recent years, there has been increased scrutiny on the court, especially in Victoria, on its orders of suppression as the media and the public advocate for transparency within the judicial system. Rebekah Cavanagh weighs in on this debate in her opinion piece titled, “Defence lawyers using mental health as an excuse to hide the names of accused his ridiculous” (2026) where she contends that the increasing misuse of suppression orders is not staying true to the Open Courts Act as the public is not provided the right to know the proceedings of the court. In a largely indignant, but occasionally sarcastic tone, Rebekah reaches out to socially engaged readers and the greater Victorian population to inform them of the exploitation of the court system that occurs in order to maintain secrecy through a predominantly condemnatory argument.
On the outset, Cavanagh opens with three consecutive quotes that serve as examples of lawyers attempting to suppress information. By stacking these phrases as verbatim evidence, she showcases her experience in courtrooms that has lasted for a “decade”, establishing her credibility and thus allowing the reader to be more receptive to her following arguments. The sarcasm serves as an early tonal signal to clearly communicate to the audience of the piece’s highly critical register and to prime them to view “suppression” and “kicking journalists out” in the bitter way Cavanagh does. By stating that suppression does not give a “chance to test any evidence”, she bolsters her contention that the orders are undermining the values of the court system as verdicts should be carried using unbiased logic that relies on empirical knowledge which the orders potentially take away, positioning readers to view lawyers and the judiciary with skepticism.
Subsequently, Cavanagh promotes the benefits of journalists in courtrooms by showing its representation of the government’s Open Courts Act. She appeals to the audience’s sense of justice by linking journalism to “legislation” which intends to base her argument in the country’s legal system and hence, strengthens her authority. This is further enhanced by the use of the modal verb, “should”, which presents her wish for journalists to be “welcomed” as a right. In the following paragraph, Cavanagh juxtaposes her ideal with the metaphorical “veil of secrecy” as she adopts an accusatory register. This dichotomy enables the audience to evaluate the discrepancy in the two situations of “information we are privy to”. By explaining the Open Courts Act beforehand, she provides readers with the information to realise the exploitation that Cavanagh intends to expose, by themselves, creating a stronger understanding of her argument.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: presenting an argument
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 95%: INTRO We award soldiers a Victoria Cross for "extreme acts of valour in the presence of the enemy." We…
INTRO
We award soldiers a Victoria Cross for "extreme acts of valour in the presence of the enemy." We celebrate them on ANZAC Day. We ask them to be the lions that protect us. But what happens when we drag that lion from the battlefield, put it in a cage, and prosecute it for having claws?
The lion in question is Ben Roberts-Smith. For years, he was our national hero. Today, he is the face of allegations that shock the conscience - acts that, by any objective moral standard, are indefensible. But we must look beyond the individual to the institution. My contention is that the hyper-fixation on one man is a convenient distraction from the systemic, institutional failures of a leadership that abandoned its duty of care. By focusing our outrage on one corporal, we are ignoring a rotted chain of command. We have turned Ben Roberts-Smith into a scapegoat to avoid confronting a much darker reality.
FIRST ARGUMENT
To understand the soldier, we must first understand the SASR. It is an elite, abnormal machine. The SAS selection process is deliberately designed around extreme physical and psychological stress, all to find those who remain "predatory" under pressure. We spend millions training these men to be the "tip of the spear," yet we are scandalised when they don't return from their tenth deployment ready for a quiet life in the suburbs. Of course, the Rules of Engagement exist to govern these extremes—but we must ask if they are being interpreted with the tactical realism they require. To judge the psychological and tactical realities of an elite combat unit as though they occurred in ordinary civilian life is a profound logical fallacy. It is the first step in creating a scapegoat for a war we no longer wish to understand.
SECOND ARGUMENT
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: this is my oral piece can you tell me…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 60%: [Chunk 1 — Hook + Persona] You're doing the weekly shop with your mum. She picks up a bottle of olive oil. A…
[Chunk 1 — Hook + Persona]
You're doing the weekly shop with your mum. She picks up a bottle of olive oil. A flashy yellow "Down Down" sticker sits on it so of course, it goes in the trolley. Except in May this year, the Federal Court found Coles had been raising the price, holding it just long enough, then dropping it back down and calling it a discount. Thirteen out of fourteen tickets examined were ruled misleading. And it's not just Coles Woolworths is facing the exact same allegations in court right now, for the exact same trick. This isn't a small operator cutting corners. Coles and Woolworths together make up roughly two out of every three dollars spent on groceries in this country. This isn't a story about one bottle. It's millions of dollars in manufactured trust.
Honourable judges, teachers, and fellow students I'm speaking to you today not as a lawyer, not as an economist, but as someone who trusts this exact shop with my own family, who has stood in front of that same yellow sticker and believed it. And I want to show you how this plays out twice: once on the shelf, and once on the screen. Because if we let both slide, we're teaching an entire generation that being lied to is just the cost of buying something.
[Chunk 2 — Influencer story]
Now picture this: you're scrolling, and someone you follow raves about a product, so much that you're keen to tell your friends. Except this March, the ACCC handed down Australia's first ever fine for exactly this kind of deception. A company called Photobook Shop had been paying influencers with free products, then instructing them not to mention it. In one case, they took a review that admitted the product was "a bit fiddly" and cut those words out, so all that was left was the praise. It looked organic. It wasn't. Adding to this, when the ACCC swept 118 influencer accounts, 81 per cent were flagged as potentially misleading.
[Chunk 3 — Who's affected + concession/rebuttal]
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Should AI be allowed in classrooms?
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 87.5%: Why AI belongs in our classrooms Hook: Imagine it is 1972. A student walks into a classroom carrying a clunky…
Why AI belongs in our classrooms
Hook: Imagine it is 1972. A student walks into a classroom carrying a clunky plastic box with glowing red numbers: the first pocket calculator. At the time teachers were horrified. They claimed it would “rot the brain” and destroy our ability to think.
[PAUSE] Yet today, in almost every VCE math classroom, that tool isn't just allowed-it is indispensable. Today we stand at a similar crossroads with generative AI. We can either retreat into the past, or we can lead our schools into the future.
Contention
As a student currently enrolled in the VCE program I can personally say that AI tools such as ChatGPT should not only be allowed in schools but should be integrated into our curriculum. To ban AI is to ignore the reality of our modern reality and to disadvantage students who are about to enter a workforce where AI literacy is no longer a choice, it is a requirement.
Argument 1 (logic and the workforce)
If we take a look at this through a lens of pure logic, the argument for a ban quickly falls apart. According to recent data from the Australian Department of Education, a staggering 75% of high school students” are already utilising AI within their day to day lives. Throughout history, logic tells us that when a tool reaches near universal adoption, prohibition is no longer a viable strategy but more so a fantasy.
Argument 2 (Why? Higher order thinking and work efficiency)
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: ARGUMENT ANALYSIS TEXT 2 Putting…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 85%: Following the Minns government’s trial to remove shark nets from Sydney beaches, Rachel Merton MLC published…
Following the Minns government’s trial to remove shark nets from Sydney beaches, Rachel Merton MLC published the opinion piece “Putting people before sharks a net gain for all” in The Daily Telegraph on 29 July 2025. As a Liberal member of NSW parliament, Merton writes from a political perspective and strongly criticises the Labor government’s decision. Her piece is mainly directed towards NSW residents, beachgoers, local businesses and people who are concerned about beach safety. Merton contends that removing shark nets is irresponsible because it puts environmental concerns above human safety, and she argues that shark nets should remain in place until other alternatives can provide the same level of protection
Merton argues that the Minns government’s decision to trial the removal of shark nets is dangerous because it risks the safety of NSW beachgoers. She immediately describes the decision as a “reckless capitulation to green ideology”, using attacking and critical language to make the government appear weak and careless. The word “reckless” suggests that the government is not thinking properly about the consequences of its decision, while “capitulation” implies that Labor has surrendered to environmental pressure rather than standing up for ordinary citizens. This creates an angry and serious tone, encouraging the audience to feel that the government has betrayed beachgoers. Merton further states that the government is “gambling with lives”, which positions the removal of shark nets as a life or death issue rather than just an environmental policy. By using this fear-based language, Merton pushes NSW residents to believe that keeping shark nets is necessary to protect families, swimmers and children. Therefore, Merton develops her contention that removing shark nets is irresponsible because it places citizens in danger
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Multiculturalism is fundamental to our…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 75%: The onset of a number of anti-immigration protests in early 2025 has sparked debate about whether…
The onset of a number of anti-immigration protests in early 2025 has sparked debate about whether multiculturalism is a part of Australia’s identity. Dr Anne Aly’s opinion piece “Multiculturalism is fundamental to our Australian identity”, published on her official government ministerial website (16/10/2025), adopts a disappointed tone to argue that the singling out of Australia’s Indian community during these protests is saddening because multiculturalism is fundamental to the country’s identity. Targeting an audience who would be interested in the opinions of a progressive, multicultural politician, she seeks to express the meaningful contribution of migrants, specifically Indians, within our communities.
Aly opens by establishing a sense of shared values and a connection with her audience to display her own love and appreciation for the multiculturalism in this country. By highlighting that she was “dismayed” seeing the anti-immigration protests, she proudly expresses her disapproval of this behaviour to establish to the reader that she is a politician who they can trust and connect with because of her passion and support for diverse communities. Paired with her unshakeable mindset that Australia has an “inalienable right to belonging”, the author is attempting to showcase her fearless support for people of multicultural backgrounds, showing that she will not allow people to be told they do not belong. This is to build the audience's support for her, not only as the author of this article, but as a politician, because they’re encouraged to feel safe, supported and fairly represented by someone who holds similar values to theirs.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral presentation about gambling…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 97.5%: Intro Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch…
Intro
Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch with your mates. Before a single player's even touched the ball, you've already seen three ads telling you the odds, pushing a bonus bet, or promising money back if your team loses the first quarter. That is not an exaggeration. That is just what watching footy looks like in Australia right now.
Gambling ads have wormed their way into every part of our sporting culture, and the damage goes way beyond annoying. Australians lose more per person on gambling than any other country on Earth, over a thousand dollars per adult, every single year. And these companies are chasing people who can't even legally place a bet yet, which is most of us in this room. So, here's my position. Gambling advertising is a deliberate strategy built by an industry that profits off addiction, and it needs to be banned. Not paused. Not phased out. Banned.
Argument 1: Normalisation
My first point is this. Gambling ads have normalised betting so completely that for our generation, watching a match and having a bet feel like the exact same activity. Odds flash up mid-game, bookies' logos sit on our favourite jerseys, and ad breaks turn into betting infomercials with a bit of footy squeezed in between.
And it's working exactly how they want it to. The Australia Institute found almost one in three kids aged twelve to seventeen have already gambled. Think about that: one in every three children. That's especially alarming because it shows betting has become normalised through sport before young people are even old enough to gamble legally. The moment they turn eighteen, that figure jumps to one in two. Last year alone, more than 900,000 teenagers gambled. That's enough people to fill the MCG nine times over. Together, they lost an estimated $231 million.
This isn't just a statistical trend; it is a lived reality. Consider the experience of many young Australians, including a close friend of mine, who started with a "harmless" two-dollar bet on the footy back in Year 11, just for a laugh with the boys. Fast forward to now, and he reckons he can't watch a game properly unless he's got money on it. That's not him being weak-willed. That's exactly what years of gambling ads are built to do: tell him that having a bet means you belong.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral presentation about gambling…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 97.5%: Intro Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch…
Intro
Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch with your mates. Before a single player's even touched the ball, you've already seen three ads telling you the odds, pushing a bonus bet, or promising money back if your team loses the first quarter. That is not an exaggeration. That is just what watching footy looks like in Australia right now.
Gambling ads have wormed their way into every part of our sporting culture, and the damage goes way beyond annoying. Australians lose more per person on gambling than any other country on Earth, over a thousand dollars per adult, every single year. And these companies are chasing people who can't even legally place a bet yet, which is most of us in this room. So, here's my position. Gambling advertising is a deliberate strategy built by an industry that profits off addiction, and it needs to be banned. Not paused. Not phased out. Banned.
Argument 1: Normalisation
My first point is this. Gambling ads have normalised betting so completely that for our generation, watching a match and having a bet feel like the exact same activity. Odds flash up mid-game, bookies' logos sit on our favourite jerseys, and ad breaks turn into betting infomercials with a bit of footy squeezed in between.
And it's working exactly how they want it to. The Australia Institute found almost one in three kids aged twelve to seventeen have already gambled. Think about that: one in every three children. That's especially alarming because it shows betting has become normalised through sport before young people are even old enough to gamble legally. The moment they turn eighteen, that figure jumps to one in two. Last year alone, more than 900,000 teenagers gambled. That's enough people to fill the MCG nine times over. Together, they lost an estimated $231 million.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral presentation about gambling…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 92.5%: Intro Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch…
Intro
Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch with your mates. Before a single player's even touched the ball, you've already seen three ads telling you the odds, pushing a bonus bet, or promising money back if your team loses the first quarter. That is not an exaggeration. That is just what watching footy looks like in Australia right now.
Gambling ads have wormed their way into every part of our sporting culture, and the damage goes way beyond annoying. Australians lose more per person on gambling than any other country on Earth, over a thousand dollars per adult, every single year. And these companies are chasing people who can't even legally place a bet yet, which is most of us in this room. So, here's my position. Gambling advertising is a deliberate strategy built by an industry that profits off addiction, and it needs to be banned. Not paused. Not phased out. Banned.
Argument 1: Normalisation
My first point is this. Gambling ads have normalised betting so completely that for our generation, watching a match and having a bet feel like the exact same activity. Odds flash up mid-game, bookies' logos sit on our favourite jerseys, and ad breaks turn into betting infomercials with a bit of footy squeezed in between.
And it's working exactly how they want it to. The Australia Institute found almost one in three kids aged twelve to seventeen have already gambled. Think about that: one in every three children. That's especially alarming because it shows betting has become normalised through sport before young people are even old enough to gamble legally. The moment they turn eighteen, that figure jumps to one in two. Last year alone, more than 900,000 teenagers gambled. That's enough people to fill the MCG nine times over. Together, they lost an estimated $231 million.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral presentation about gambling…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 87.5%: Intro Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch…
Intro
Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch with your mates. Before a single player's even touched the ball, you've already seen three ads telling you the odds, pushing a bonus bet, or promising money back if your team loses the first quarter. That is not an exaggeration. That is just what watching footy looks like in Australia right now.
Gambling ads have wormed their way into every part of our sporting culture, and the damage goes way beyond annoying. Australians lose more per person on gambling than any other country on Earth, over a thousand dollars per adult, every single year. And these companies are chasing people who can't even legally place a bet yet, which is most of us in this room. So, here's my position. Gambling advertising is a deliberate strategy built by an industry that profits off addiction, and it needs to be banned. Not paused. Not phased out. Banned.
Argument 1: Normalisation
My first point is this. Gambling ads have normalised betting so completely that for our generation, watching a match and having a bet feel like the exact same activity. Odds flash up mid-game, bookies' logos sit on our favourite jerseys, and ad breaks turn into betting infomercials with a bit of footy squeezed in between.
And it's working exactly how they want it to. The Australia Institute found almost one in three kids aged twelve to seventeen have already gambled, a number that jumps to half the moment they turn eighteen, a statistic that is especially alarming because sport is one of the main ways young Australians are repeatedly exposed to betting promotions, normalising gambling long before it is legal. Over 900,000 teenagers gambled in the past year alone, enough people to fill the MCG nine times over, spending an estimated $231 million between them.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: oral presentation about gambling…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 90%: Intro Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch…
Intro
Picture this. It's Friday night, the siren's about to go for the first bounce, and you're on the couch with your mates. Before a single player's even touched the ball, you've already seen three ads telling you the odds, pushing a bonus bet, or promising money back if your team loses the first quarter. That is not an exaggeration. That is just what watching footy looks like in Australia right now.
Gambling ads have wormed their way into every part of our sporting culture, and the damage goes way beyond annoying. Australians lose more per person on gambling than any other country on Earth, over a thousand dollars per adult, every single year. And these companies are chasing people who can't even legally place a bet yet, which is most of us in this room. So, here's my position. Gambling advertising is a deliberate strategy built by an industry that profits off addiction, and it needs to be banned. Not paused. Not phased out. Banned.
Argument 1: Normalisation
My first point is this. Gambling ads have normalised betting so completely that for our generation, watching a match and having a bet feel like the exact same activity. Odds flash up mid game, bookies' logos sit on our favourite jerseys, and ad breaks turn into betting infomercials with a bit of footy squeezed in between.
And it's working exactly how they want it to. The Australia Institute found almost one in three kids aged twelve to seventeen have already gambled, a number that jumps to half the moment they turn eighteen. Over 900,000 teenagers gambled in the past year alone, enough people to fill the MCG nine times over, spending an estimated $231 million between them.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Argument analysis
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: As mental health concerns arise specifically amongst youth, the question is whether current interventions…
As mental health concerns arise specifically amongst youth, the question is whether current interventions towards youth mental health show any improvement. Dr Lucy Foulkes published an opinion piece on The Guardian, May 21, 2025, contending youth mental health programs show little improvements and carry negative implications, thus those who are genuinely struggling should be given priority. Dr Foulkes persuades readers in a measured and urgent tone to abandon universal lessons in favour of struggling teens support, and for policymakers and parents to push for a change in approach to further support the youth.
Lucy Foulkes opens her piece by presenting imagery of a child who is visibly struggling mentally, hanging his body by only a fence representing his mental state showing a call to help for children like him with mental health deteriorating. Foulkes utilises the picture to highlight the children who should be prioritised rather than teaching “en masse”, when mentally struggling kids can then benefit from the school mental health programs. She aims to engage parents by creating a sense of sympathy through her anecdote. Foulkes intends to inform parents that this rising issue applies to both their children and a school’s students. Subsequently, she reinforces her credibility by stating her profession as a psychologist. She presents herself as trustworthy and comprehensive, giving more reasons to the reader to listen to what she has to say. Through concession, Foulkes acknowledges how it is a seemingly solid approach in an unbiased tone, proving her argument as fairly constructed and well researched. Foulkes then debunks the false assumption rather than opening with criticism, intending to lower the reader’s guard to maintain their focus before she lays out the evidence backing her argument.