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.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Price: Greatest Country on earth,…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: The recent final results of the vote for House of Representatives, where The Australian Labour Party, a…
The recent final results of the vote for House of Representatives, where The Australian Labour Party, a progressive party, beat the other parties by a landslide, has sparked debate about whether Australia is truly the greatest country on earth, as Angus Taylor claims. His opinion piece, “Price: Greatest Country on earth, Angus? Not if you live in Victoria,” published in the Herald Sun on the 20th of February, 2026, adopts a criticising tone to argue that Australia’s national pride is declining, and political leaders like Angus Taylor are boasting and bragging while the country is actually declining. Targeting an audience of traditional and conservative readers, the author intends to instill urgency about the decline of the country’s national pride and values.
Price opens by calling out Angus Taylor’s tendency to brag about Australia being the greatest country in the world, but ignoring that the country’s values are declining. He discusses Taylor’s eagerness to “snatch the leadership” from Sussan Ley, and “talk about immigration and shutting the door” on several groups of people and communities, but no actions regarding either of these claims is to be seen. The author is hinting at the ineffectiveness of Taylor in taking actions on the claims he makes, suggesting that it is now in the hands of the conservative audience, who truly do care about the country’s pride and traditions, to reintroduce the country’s values into everyday life, and show their pride in the country. Alongside questioning “are we brave enough to admit” that who is ‘an Aussie’ needs to be redefined and that the country needs to reconsider how many people, and who should live here, suggests that Taylor himself, needs to admit that these things need to be changed before he can claim that Australia is the greatest country on earth. This is done to instill urgency to act within the audience, and ensure that, unlike Taylor, they are actively working to ensure that the country’s pride and values are upheld.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: The cherrypicking of ‘Australian…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 60%: Published on the progressive website of ‘Women’s Agenda’, on the 2nd of March, 2026, Angela Priestley’s opinion…
Published on the progressive website of ‘Women’s Agenda’, on the 2nd of March, 2026, Angela Priestley’s opinion piece, ‘The cherrypicking of ‘Australian Values’ to conveniently overlook equality, compassion and respect’ sternly exposes peoples tendency to ‘cherry-pick’ some core Australian values, while failing to mention other values that are also clearly listed in the australian values statement. The author exposes this behaviour in relation to recent political events, to an audience that would be progressive leaning and interested in the perspectives of women.
Priestly opens her opinion piece by mentioning the increasing tendency, in which people are picking and choosing Australian values that they want to support. Clearly making note of politicians recent tendency to “throw about” Australian values instills concern and distrust between political leader and the audience, raising the question of whether political leaders are trully supporting the values of this country, or whether they’re simply using certain values when it best serves their intentions. This is a strategic choice by the author to maintan the readers attention, as they become interested in exposing that politicians such as Angus Taylor are only promoting and speaking about values that they personally agree with, and leaving out the values that they do not care for.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: THIS IS ORAL PRESENTATION
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 97.5%: Madam Speaker [Smile Nod] As a member of this parliament, but also (small pause) a voter, tax payer and a…
Madam Speaker [Smile Nod]
As a member of this parliament, but also (small pause) a voter, tax payer and a citizen of this country ; I have the right to ask, which side does Australia actually take, not politically, (pause) legally.
The Magnitsky Law which commenced on 8th December 2021, is a targeted human rights (small pause) and anti-corruption legislation that empowers governments to impose extra-territorial sanctions - such as travel bans and asset freezes - on foreign individuals or entities responsible for grave human rights abuses or significant corruption.
Now [Raise voice] , We as a nation persistently claim to stand by the ‘rule-based-order’. But that so-called (small pause) ‘order’ [use two fingers to denote inverted commas] that we so happen to follow, appears to be an option menu on the war crimes we act against based on ‘who’ [use two fingers to denote inverted commas] committed it, rather than the crime itself.
Right now [Raise voice] , The International Criminal Court - The ICC - has recently issued arrest warrants 2026, for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes and severe violations against humanity while the ICJ - The International Court of Justice - continue to consider allegations under the (very small pause) genocide convention. Arrest warrants are issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for grave crimes against civilians, and Australia’s response, (small pause) well minimal. (small pause)
[Raise Voice] How exactly has our (point to yourself) nation responded to this situation. Well, Australia’s sanctions system appears to operate in a selective manner, or you can say…. (small pause) [face expression] ‘a political fashion’. Australia has placed target sanctions on ‘just’ two far right Israeli ministers by the names Ben Gvir and Smotrich for [enthusiasm] ‘inciting violence’. Meanwhile they sanction over 230 Iranian individuals, listed Iran’s revolutionary guard as a state sponsor of terrorism and expelled Iran’s ambassador. Let me tell you Madam (small pause), does this systemic favoritism not overthrow our moral values as a nation?
Now, I want to make it very clear [use hands with the gesture], many of those sanctions against the Iranian Regime are indeed justified due to their actions. But the favoritism, undeniable!. When Iran commits brutality, Australia responds swiftly and comprehensively with no problem. When Israel continues to commit several humanitarian war crimes, the response is cautious (small pause), minimal (small pause), delayed (small pause) and sometimes non-existent………. [say slowly to emphasise]
This issue doesn't just regard foreign policy, but legal integrity, and MY [point to yourself] (small pause) yours [point to them], and everyone's [move face outwards] taxes continue to fund this systemic erosion which actively corrodes our legal and moral values as a nation. (say slowly for structure (end to Intro/Hook)
—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[5 second pause for structure (argument 1) ] [walk slightly to a different spot or turn around just to signal this is a next argument]
So ,what does this selective use of the Magnitsky law actually cause and impact us as a nation worldwide you may ask?
Well let's look at the purpose of law. The rule of law is a principle of democratic governance ensuring all individuals, institutions and the government themselves remain accountable to a set of principles. A key principle of a law is equality and fairness - in other words, everyone is treated under the same law regardless of their wealth, political power, or status. This ensures no one is above the law (use fingers to signal above), typically those in power and a higher hierarchy, ensuring everyone's rights are preserved.
So how [RAISE VOICE] could our nation possibly betray that, Madam? We tell everyone Australia follows the ‘rule based order’. But if the government can pick and choose when this law is applied based on ‘who’ did it, it's no longer a rule based order, but a PR-stunt.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: THIS IS ORAL PRESENTATION
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 95%: Madam Speaker [Smile Nod] As a member of this parliament, but also (small pause) a voter, tax payer and a…
Madam Speaker [Smile Nod]
As a member of this parliament, but also (small pause) a voter, tax payer and a citizen of this country ; I have the right to ask, which side does Australia actually take, not politically, (pause) legally.
The Magnitsky Law which commenced on 8th December 2021, is a targeted human rights (small pause) and anti-corruption legislation that empowers governments to impose extra-territorial sanctions - such as travel bans and asset freezes - on foreign individuals or entities responsible for grave human rights abuses or significant corruption.
Now [Raise voice] , We as a nation persistently claim to stand by the ‘rule-based-order’. But that so-called (small pause) ‘order’ [use two fingers to denote inverted commas] that we so happen to follow, appears to be an option menu on the war crimes we act against based on ‘who’ [use two fingers to denote inverted commas] committed it, rather than the crime itself.
Right now [Raise voice] , The International Criminal Court - The ICC - has recently issued arrest warrants 2026, for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes and severe violations against humanity while the ICJ - The International Court of Justice - continue to consider allegations under the (very small pause) genocide convention. Arrest warrants are issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu and former defence minister Gallant for grave crimes against civilians, and Australia’s response, (small pause) well minimal. (small pause)
[Raise Voice] How’ exactly has our (point to yourself) nation responded to this situation. Well, Australia’s sanctions system appears to operate in a selective manner, or you can say…. (small pause) [face expression] ‘a political fashion’. Australia has placed target sanctions on ‘just’ two far right Israeli ministers by the names Ben Gvir and Smotrich for [enthusiasm] ‘inciting violence’. Meanwhile they sanction over 230 Iranian individuals, listed Iran’s revolutionary guard as a state sponsor of terrorism and expelled Iran’s ambassador. Let me tell you Madam (small pause), does this systemic favoritism not overthrow our moral values as a nation?
Now, I want to make it very clear [use hands with the gesture], many of those sanctions against the Iranian Regime are indeed justified due to their actions. But the favoritism, undeniable!. When Iran commits brutality, Australia responds swiftly and comprehensively with no problem. When Israel continues to commit several humanitarian war crimes, the response is cautious (small pause), minimal (small pause), delayed (small pause) and sometimes non-existent………. [say slowly to emphasise]
This issue doesn't just regard foreign policy, but legal integrity, and MY [point to yourself] (small pause) yours [point to them], and everyone's [move face outwards] taxes continue to fund this systemic erosion which actively corrodes our legal and moral values as a nation. (say slowly for structure (end to Intro/Hook)
—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[5 second pause for structure (argument 1) ] [walk slightly to a different spot or turn around just to signal this is a next argument]
So ,what does this selective use of the Magnitsky law actually cause and impact us as a nation worldwide you may ask?
Well let's look at the purpose of law. The rule of law is a principle of democratic governance ensuring all individuals, institutions and the government themselves remain accountable to a set of principles. A key principle of a law is equality and fairness - in other words, everyone is treated under the same law regardless of their wealth, political power, or status. This ensures no one is above the law (use fingers to signal above), typically those in power and a higher hierarchy, ensuring everyone's rights are preserved.
So how [RAISE VOICE] could our nation possibly betray that, Madam? We tell everyone Australia follows the ‘rule based order’. But if the government can pick and choose when this law is applied based on ‘who’ did it, it's no longer a rule based order, but a PR-stunt.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: write an analysis of the ways in which…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 60%: In the online newspaper ‘Australia Today’, May Tran publishes an opinion piece where she posits the idea that…
In the online newspaper ‘Australia Today’, May Tran publishes an opinion piece where she posits the idea that intergenerational living in the solution to the current housing crisis in Australia. She expresses her opinion a logical and measured tone to encourage local Australian adults to invest in multigenerational housing rather than the current housing dream of living with a single family generation.
Tran questions whether the classic Australian housing dream is realistic, claiming that we should change it. To open her piece, Tran employs a plethora of inclusive language, using vocabulary such as ‘we all aspired’, ‘our own’ and ‘we could’ to establish a clear connection with the audience. This immediately draws the reader into the argument as the audience is given the impression that the issue is relevant to them, and that the author understands them. Additionally, Tran uses a variety of phrases and vocabulary that is associated with fairytales, such as ‘once upon a time’, ‘little piece of paradise’, ‘fantasy’ and ‘dream’ to set a light and playful tone, provoking a sense of wonder and joy into the reader. However, this is quickly juxtaposed with language that has negative connotations such as ‘outdated’, ‘unachievable’, ‘out of tune’ and ‘challenges we face’, diminishing the prior positive tone with a sense of helplessness, as the audience becomes pessimistic towards that idea of fulfilling this idea of a perfect home. This allows Tran to convince the audience that there is another solution, as they are driven to repair this ‘fantasy’. To strengthen this, Tran employs logos, stating that ‘property prices have been going up nearly twice as fast as wages’, this use of indisputable data solidifies the idea that owning a single family home is no longer realistic, encouraging the audience to seek an alternative option. This idea of finding an alternative option is assisted by an image of a looking glass hovering over some cut-out cardboard houses, symbolising the idea of looking for other options through the use of literal imagery.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Here is the verbatim transcription of…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: Appointing her condemnatory argument, Green-Moore targets both socially engaged and apprehensive listeners to…
Appointing her condemnatory argument, Green-Moore targets both socially engaged and apprehensive listeners to uncover common misconceptions about ethical shopping. She initiates her presentation, by employing a welcoming, and appreciative tone to immediately put the listener at ease, aiming to establish connection and lower the defenses of opposing listeners. Leveraging imagery, Green-Moore then urges the audience to “close their eyes and picture” a typical grocery run, this hypothetical scenario aims to evoke pathos in everyday shoppers who are “already familiar” with the experience of buying “all natural ingredients” that are believed to be “great for the environment, ultimately trying to relate to listeners through shared experiences, and create a sense of comfort. However, Green-Moore immediately juxtaposes this sense of comfort, through a jarring tonal shift, to pronounce blind trust in packaging labels as “wrong!”. This sudden revelation, is intended to create doubt and act as a moment of consideration about listeners' own behaviour, and aims for a moment of self-assessment especially amongst like-minded environmental shoppers. Additionally, this dismantles the confidence of refuting listeners,
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Oral Presentation: Should Australia…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 95%: INTRO Politicians, last year Australians went to the polls with energy policy at the heart of the national…
INTRO
Politicians, last year Australians went to the polls with energy policy at the heart of the national debate. The choice was stark: a Labor government doubling down on renewables, or a Coalition vision that dared to say the word that has long been banned in this country, “nuclear”. The Coalition lost. But that does not mean the argument was wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today as a senator, a senator who can see the clearcut evidence. If Australians are serious about reliable, affordable, low emissions electricity for our children, we must invest in nuclear energy.
ARG 1
Critics will tell you nuclear power is too expensive. But in the long run, is it?
Yes, nuclear plants carry high upfront construction costs. On paper you would never consider nuclear energy. Their operating lifespans stretch to 60 or even 80 years. Wind farms and solar farms can run for a maximum of 25 years. Hydro farms have an expected lifespan of 45 years. It would take the operational lifespan of an offshore windfarm and a hydro farm just to match the lifespan of a nuclear reactor. Nuclear energy also is more consistent through its lifespan, according to a blog posted by the U.S department of energy. Nuclear energy runs at maximum capacity more than 92% of the year while wind and solar run 35% and 25% of the year respectively. When you look past the initial price tag, nuclear energy isn't an expensive gamble. It’s a multi-generational investment that outlasts and out-powers the competition
ARG 2
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Climate Change
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 85%: Baum continues her speech by further attacking the government for their actions towards cutting funding for…
Baum continues her speech by further attacking the government for their actions towards cutting funding for CSIRO’s scientific research. She accompanies a visual presenting a boat at medium shot, exemplifying the mass study towards marine life, which was dedicated by Baum in classifying this “hard-earned profession” as an amount unable to “ever [be] recogis[ed]” by the government to display the lack of over-reliance on external funding. Portraying the government as a greedy figure because they are unable to fund action towards climate change in the future, and instead provoking excuses towards Australian voters to characterise them as collecting rather than distributing, Baum instils aggression within her constituents and Australian voters concerned about climate change. They are positioned to view the government as a repulsive force in that rejecting their importance in funding these high-level companies when required. Compounding her argument with a contrasting tone when acknowledging how the funding is “allocated to other social services” in the opinions of the audience, which reject this proposal, amplifying the concern that the private funding can ensure the “best resources and greater incomes” to maximise the research around climate change,
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Background Info: On an average day,…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 80%: In attempts to mitigate the increase of the disproportionate amount of Aboriginal children being incarcerated,…
In attempts to mitigate the increase of the disproportionate amount of Aboriginal children being incarcerated, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), published a report (2024), contending that Australia's punitive youth justice system criminalises vulnerability rather than addressing its root causes. In addressing the general public and policy makers, the organisation posits that Australia’s youth justice system is failing because it ignores the systematic social factors driving children into it. The organisation then reframes children involved in the system from criminals to vulnerable victims of circumstance. Furthermore, by contrasting the costs of incarceration against those of early intervention, the organisation highlights possible economic efficiency. Finally, the organisation denounces the violation of international human rights.
The AHRC begins its critique by dismantling the notion that youth crime is a vacuum of individual choice;, rather it is a symptom of societal prejudice. By employing a hostile compounding of “poverty, homelessness, abuse, [and] mental health challenges”, the organisation attempts to overwhelm the reader with the reality of a vulnerable child's environment, suggesting that offending is basically a byproduct of such “intersecting disadvantages”. The accumulation of hardships serves to stimulate the reader’s sense of injustice, aiming to shift the blame from a child to a society that allows such conditions to exist. This textual plea is reinforced by an accompanying visual metaphor depicting a solitary child sitting under a bridge contrasting with a bright, expansive sky. The compositional choice to place the child as a small, isolated figure within the dark, functions as a visual hyperbole for the systematic prejudice that undermines them. By stripping the image of any signs of support or community infrastructure, the organisation visually manifests the “neglect” described within the text, compelling the audience to feel a protective urgency. Moreover, the report adopts an exasperated tone through the rhetorical question: “if we know the causes, why do we continue to ignore them?” Through this the organisation aims to position the government's current inaction as not merely a policy oversight, but as a deliberate and irrational neglect of “expert consensus". By labelling the current system as “not fit for purpose”, the AHRC addresses the reader as a rational observer, inviting them to view punitive measures as a primitive and ineffective response to a crisis that requires “earlier” holistic support. Therefore, the organisation asserts that the failure of the system is a choice, consequently portraying the status quo as an active perpetuation of injustice.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: "Sophocles presents leadership as a…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 75%: With climate change increasing more progressively, a future is not confirmed for younger generation. This issue…
With climate change increasing more progressively, a future is not confirmed for younger generation. This issue has been brought up by a scared mother in a comment section of a blog post which discusses how the government should be focusing on protecting our earth. The comment replied to a post titled ‘the earth is our home’ and followed a vulnerable and desperate tone to encourage readers to support her and fight for the younger generations future. The comment made public on the online post is most likely to capture the attention of other parents and younger individuals who often use media.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: 'Macbeth is a victim of forces beyond…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 87.5%: In his tragedy 'Macbeth', written at the cusp of the Jacobean era and set in the 11th century, Shakespeare…
In his tragedy 'Macbeth', written at the cusp of the Jacobean era and set in the 11th century, Shakespeare tells the story of the Thane of Glamis who is rewarded for his brave efforts in battle. At the start of the play, Macbeth is vulnerable to external forces of power including the witches prophecy and his manipulative, masculine wife, who both have ambitions for him to become king. These compel and force him to make decisions that have irreversible consequences in his life. However, as the play continues, Macbeth takes charge in his own decision making, placing him in control. This causes him to become tyrannical, contributing to his demise and death. The play ultimately serves as a caution for regicide and letting ambition consume oneself.
The witches act as the first external factor that sow the seeds for Macbeths tragic end. They prophesise that Macbeth will become 'king hereafter'. Macbeth is at first sceptical of the witches and their supernatural powers, suggesting that he does not need to take any action as 'if chance will crown [him] king, why, chance will crown [him] without [his] stir'. This infers that he is at the mercy of fate, and that he should not take any action to make the prophecy become true. This suggests that the witches, and the supernatural are in power over Macbeth, placing him passive to their force. At this stage in the play, Macbeth is untouched by 'deep desires', however he is pleased with what they prophesise, as he requests they 'tell [him] more', suggesting that they have triggered his ambitious streak.
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: Explore the significance of this passage.
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 70%: In ‘my people’, Oodgeroo Noonuccal explores the significance of the poem, “Integration – Yes!”. Integration –…
In ‘my people’, Oodgeroo Noonuccal explores the significance of the poem, “Integration – Yes!”. Integration – Yes! Is a poem that highlights the themes of cultural pride, conformity, and identity. Cultural pride is displayed through the semantic field used with indigenous treasures, for example, “customs”, ”dances”, ”songs”, “crafts”, and ”corroborees”. Noonuccal argues that integration would only occur if both parties’ “sacred myths” are kept together, and not removed or outshined by the other. In addition to cultural pride, Noonuccal presents the idea of identity through the semantic field of aspiration and oneness, such as “integration”, “uplifting”, “So black and white may go forward together”, “harmony”, and “brotherhood”. Noonuccal uses the semantic field to make the reader understand her point of view and her direction of how she wants Australia to be, as in the early 20th century, the
VCE · Language Analysis
Language Analysis: AFP slammed for turning…
VCE Language Analysis essay scoring 82.5%: Following a career marred by allegations of war crimes, Ben Roberts-Smith was arrested in a widely-publicised…
Following a career marred by allegations of war crimes, Ben Roberts-Smith was arrested in a widely-publicised affair in April. In an opinion piece for news.com.au (AFP slammed for turning Ben-Roberts-Smith into a media circus), Caleb Bond argues that the prosecution and publicised nature of the arrest of Ben Roberts-Smith is both purposeless and damaging. He directs this piece to a centre-right audience, inclined to be empathetic but also questioning of authority, with an intention of placing criticism on institutional motives in the Ben Roberts-Smith case therefore undermining audience support for the prosecution.
Bond’s first substantive criticises the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith as purposeless and damaging, encouraging the audience to discredit the legitimacy of the prosecution. Bond inaugurates his article by rhetorically questioning ‘why should the court have to rule on this in the first place’, directly addressing the reader and questioning their justification of the practical benefits of prosecuting Roberts-Smith, subtly shifting their position to skepticism of the prosecution. Bond pre-emptively shields his critique by conceding that shooting unarmed prisoners must not be ‘condoned, encouraged or allowed to become commonplace.’ The tricolon establishes moral credibility in order to reframe skepticism of the prosecution as principled rather than permissive. Bond shifts to criticism of the Roberts-Smith prosecution as impractical, stating that it ‘does nothing to help anyone’, and that it ‘will do nothing to prevent that kind of behaviour in the military’. Through repeated negation, Bond utilises the already-established rapport with his audience to build upon the prior forcing of audience questioning to encourage their conclusion of the prosecution’s purposelessness. This is reinforced through a second rhetorical question in, ‘So what?’, building on Bond’s earlier assertions of the prosecution’s limited gains, to encourage the audience to question whether, due to its apparent lack of purpose, the marginal benefit warrants the use of the courts. To conclude the article, Bond consummates his questioning of the prosecution with the assertion of it being a ‘trial for show’ to ‘prove that we don’t like war crimes’, aided by his positioning of the audience to question the purpose of the charges, therefore persuading them to see the prosecution through a politically-motivated, and therefore illegitimate, lens. Throughout the first substantive, Bond argues that the charges against Roberts-Smith are purposeless and without benefit, positioning the readership to criticism of the prosecution.