Sample only – do not write on this topic!
1
This is a sample assignment from a previous version of the unit. THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC YOU
NEED TO WRITE ON.
This document contains:
-A previous assignment topic (pp1-4)
-The assignment of a student who received a High Distinction, reproduced with permission
(pp5-11)
Scenario – Public Response Research
Context Statement
Social tensions are rising in your local area, in response to recent clashes over
whether celebrations should be held to mark Australia Day on January 26, in your
area and more generally. You are employed by a local councillor, Harriet Lee, who
has been asked to chair a meeting of community groups to discuss the issue. It has
been hoped that this would be a peaceful and constructive meeting, and it is
anticipated that most who attend will do so in good faith, but recently, two local lobby
groups on opposing sides of this debate (‘Change for our future’ and ‘Pride in
Australia’) have been distributing leaflets in the area and agitating on social media to
push for protests at the meeting, encouraging their supporters to engage in
demonstrations to disrupt proceedings and prevent their opponents from speaking.
Both groups have been distributing their arguments widely, and Lee is concerned
that they appear unwilling to consider their opponents’ perspectives.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
2
Your Task
You have been asked by Councillor Lee to analyse the arguments these groups are
presenting in the leaflets they have been distributing, and provide her with a clear
understanding of their claims, and guidance on how it would be best to respond to
facilitate a constructive and respectful discussion.
Resources : – You have been provided with a dossier of relevant material (the
leaflets are below, others are available in iLearn). It contains:
• A copy of the ‘Change for our future’ leaflet
• A copy of ‘Pride in Australia’ leaflet
• A copy of recent polls cited in their arguments in support of their positions
• A collection of possibly useful material gathered by one of our junior
researchers ( Feel free to use other materials, if you wish, but this should be
enough to give you some relevant background – You should mainly be
focussing on the arguments contained in the leaflets).
What you need to provide
Councillor Lee thinks this meeting may have significant consequences for the peace
of the community, and wants as much supporting information as possible. What she
really wants from you is to know what the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s
arguments are. She is keen to know if there are any fallacious arguments or
misleading rhetoric that she might point out to counter the claims made in the
leaflets. She is also interested in their use of the surveys they cite. On the
more positive side, she is looking to see if there is any common ground between the
opposing sides, and whether there is any way she can encourage a constructive and
respectful debate, to move forward as a community.
With all that in mind, then, here’s what you need to deliver to Councillor Lee:
• A standardisation of the argument used in the ‘Change for our future’ leaflet.
• A standardisation of the argument used in the ‘Pride in Australia’ leaflet.
• An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, as you’ve
standardised them. (approx. 600-850 words on each argument). You should
consider the strength of the inferences, any fallacies, their use of the polls
they cite and the authors’ use of language and rhetoric.
• A one page (approx. 300 word) “recommendation” briefing. What points
should Councillor Lee emphasise in her response to the arguments? What
points should she make the focus of her own positive response at the
meeting? How can she best encourage a respectful and constructive debate?
(Note that the suggested breakdown of words for each section is only a suggestion,
but you should write 1500-2000 words overall, not including your standardisations).
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
3
LEAFLET 1 – distributed by Change for our Future
IT’S TIME FOR CHANGE!
Each year dawns with a cry from across the nation for a new national day of
celebration, and yet until now our so-called leaders have never responded to the
public will. We’ve now reached a point, though, that the people will no longer be
silenced. We need to release ourselves from the shackles of our racist past and give
up on “Australia Day”, finding instead a new, unifying day of national celebration.
Why do we need this change so desperately?
For a start, many Australians find the celebration of January 26 deeply offensive. For
many Indigenous Australians, the celebration of the British invasion is a painful
reminder of Australia’s tainted history and the ongoing lack of recognition afforded to
the original owners of this land. This view is also widely shared by other Australians,
including one Socialist Alliance councillor in Melbourne who recently likened the
celebration of January 26 to a celebration of the Nazi Holocaust, in defence of her
own council’s rejection of these outdated practices.
January 26 is also irrelevant to who we are now as a nation. Australia has a broad
multicultural population, our citizens having come to Australia from all points of the
globe, so British settlement is simply irrelevant to modern Australia.
It has also become clear that the celebration of January 26 has no significant popular
backing. Recent research has shown that support for that day as our national holiday
is now minimal. A nationwide representative poll conducted by Research Now and
released in January by the Australia Institute found that most people don’t even
know what January 26 commemorates, and they just don’t care. The researchers
found that Australians do want a national day we can celebrate, but it needs to be
national day that we can all celebrate.
So why do we continue with this inappropriate celebration, favoured only by the
racist and the ignorant? It’s offensive, irrelevant and unpopular and it’s holding us
back as a nation.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
4
LEAFLET 2 – distributed by ‘Pride in Australia’
PRIDE IN AUSTRALIA, PRIDE IN AUSTRALIA DAY
Fellow Australians, we urge you to be strong and keep faith in Australia Day, and
maintain the proud tradition of our national day of celebration.
If you listened to the left-leaning media outlets (and we all know that means most of
them), you’d think that there was widespread support for forsaking our proud national
day, Australia Day, but recent research reveals the truth. Support for change is fake
news, popularised by a noisy minority who are intent on undermining our national
identity and culture.
What evidence is there of this leftist conspiracy, you might ask? A recent nation-wide
survey released by the Institute for Public Affairs, found that 70% of our fellow
Australians want those pushing for change to stop interfering and leave Australia
Day exactly as it is. The fact that the left keep pushing for change as though it had
popular support just shows that these professional trouble-makers are out of touch
with real Australians, and are trying to change our great nation for their own
purposes, to meet their own agendas.
And make no mistake, once they have their way on Australia Day, this won’t be the
end of it. Soon we’ll be unable to commemorate ANZAC Day, unable to salute the
Australian flag, unable to publicly identify ourselves as Australians without fear of
causing offence and being called bigots. The evidence that this is where we’re
heading is clear, since we’ve already started seeing similar groups to those
complaining about Australia Day trying to change the flag, and disrespecting ANZAC
Day.
Something else you may not have considered is that this isn’t really just about
changing our national holiday – It’s about terminating it! No-one agitating for change
has any clear ideas about when we should hold Australia Day. One recent survey
released by the leftist radicals at the Australia Institute made all sorts of clueless
suggestions about what day might be appropriate. One of the suggestions was “The
day we became a Republic” as a good day to for our national holiday! Wake up,
people! We’re not a Republic! What this means is that if we lose January 26, we lose
our national holiday altogether. We lose our chance to come together as a
community at the beginning of each year and celebrate our great nation with our
mates. And isn’t that what Australia is all about?
We all want what’s best for the unity of Australia. Don’t be afraid to stand up to the
politically correct elite: It’s time to end this divisive debate and go back to celebrating
Australia Day proudly like our fathers and forefathers did.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
5
PHL137 Final Assessment
Standardisation
‘Change for our Future’
1.1.1 To celebrate Australia Day on January 26 is a reminder to Indigenous
Australians of the painful history of British settlement
1.1.2 To celebrate Australia Day on January 26 fails to recognise indigenous
Australians as the original occupants of Australia
1.1 It is offensive to many Indigenous Australians to hold Australia Day on January 26
1.2.1 A local council in Melbourne rejected plans to celebrate Australia Day on
January 26
1.2.2 A councillor involved in the decision compared celebrating January 26 to
celebrating the Nazi Holocaust.
1.2 Many non-indigenous Australians consider it offensive to hold Australia Day on
January 26
1 Many Australians consider celebrating Australia Day on January 26 offensive
2.1 January 26 marks the date of British settlement in Australia
2.2 Australia is comprised of people coming from many nations other than Britain
2 Celebrating Australia Day on January 26, is no longer relevant in a modern Australia
3.1. The poll found that most people don’t know what January 26 commemorates
and they don’t care.
3.2 The poll shows that support for January 26 is minimal
3 The celebration of Australia Day on January 26 does not have popular support
C Australia Day should no longer be held on January 26
‘Pride in Australia’
1.1 A recent national survey found that 70% of Australians want to continue
celebrating Australia Day on January 26
1 Only a small minority of Australians support changing the date of Australia Day from
January 26
2.1 Groups like those who want to change Australia Day also want to change ANZAC
Day and the Australian flag
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
6
2 If we change the date on which Australia day is held more demands for change will be
made
3 If we concede to further demands for change Australians will unable to demonstrate their
patriotism without causing offence or being labelled bigots.
4.1 A recent survey released by those supporting change suggested that Australia
Day should be held on the day that Australia became a republic
4.2 Australia is not a republic
4 Those wanting to change Australia Day do not have credible alternative
5 If we proceed to change Australia Day without a credible alternative our national holiday
will be lost
6 If we lose our national holiday we lose the opportunity to celebrate as a nation
7 Celebrating as a nation is an important part of Australian values
C Australia Day should continue to be held on January 26
Argument analysis
‘Change for our Future’
Evaluation of the inferences
Main argument
The main premises provide a reasonable basis to accept the conclusion provided that the
sub-arguments offer substantive evidence in support of the claim and the analogical
argument has strong positively relevant similarities.
Sub-arguments supporting Premise 1
Premise 1.1 provides strong reasons for why Indigenous might find it offensive to celebrate
January 26 but is weakened by a failure to provide supporting evidence that many
Indigenous Australians find it offensive.
Premise 1.2 provides relatively weak evidence that many non-indigenous Australians share
the view that celebrating January 26 is offensive. Sub-premise 1.2.1 provides evidence of
the actions of a single council in Victoria. This is a hasty generalisation, the sample is too
small.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
7
Sub-premise 1.2.1 linked to sub-premise 1.2.2 draws an inference that the decision taken by
the council was due to January 26 being seen as offensive. However this inference is weak
given the limited information and sample size; only the view expressed by single council
member is provided.
The argument from analogy in sub-premise 1.2.2 is positively relevant in that both are
events for which a celebration might reasonably be seen as offensive. However, it relies on
an assumption that Australia Day is held merely as a celebration. There are negatively
relevant differences that weaken the analogical inference. Australia Day is an event with
multiple meanings to different sections of the community not just celebration.
Sub-premises 1.1 and 1.2 make normative claims regarding the offensiveness of holding
Australia Day on January 26. Sub-premise 1.1 provides strong arguments for accepting this
view but sub-premise 2.2 relies on implicit assumptions and an analogical argument that on
closer analysis only weakly supports this claim. Neither sub-premise advances reasons to
accept the claim regarding the views of many Australians.
Sub-argument supporting Premise 2
The inferences made are weak. No reason is given for believing that British settlement is
irrelevant to this or any other population. The argument does not adequately deal with
history and tradition as normative reasons for continuing to celebrate on January 26.
Sub-argument supporting Premise 3
The research cited in sub-premises 3.1 and 3.2 was based on a sufficiently large and
representative sample size allowing for gender, age and geography.
The way in which the claim in sub-premise 3.1 has been made is misleading. While only 38%
of people gave the correct answer 11% were pretty close. A more balanced interpretation is
that almost half of the people surveyed know what January 26 commemorates. There is
nothing in the research that indicates that people don’t care what January 26
commemorates.
Sub-premise 3.2 misrepresents the findings of the research. While the poll found that 56%
of those surveyed don’t mind when Australia Day is celebrated this statistic does not reflect
a lack of support for Australia Day being held on January 26.
Evaluation of the rhetoric
Word Choice
The argument uses January 26 rather than Australia Day (apart from one euphemistic usage)
to suggest that it is not a day of celebration for all Australians.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
8
The argument repeatedly uses the word celebration in connection with Australia Day to reenforce the analogic argument made in paragraph three.
Loaded words/euphemisms
The phrase ‘British invasion’ is used to emphasize the brutal aspects of European
colonization to support the argument regarding the offensiveness of January 26. In the
fourth paragraph the phrase ‘British settlement’ is used, this shift in emphasis is to support
an argument regarding the irrelevance of British settlement.
The phrase ‘so-called leaders’ is used to emphasize the lack of political leadership on the
case for change in order to stir the reader to action.
‘Australia Day’ is placed in quotation marks to call into question the legitimacy of the day as
a day of national celebration and to further support the main argument.
Emotionally charged language
Words such as we and our are used ‘our so-called leaders’, ‘we’ve now reached a point …
will no longer be silenced’ and ‘we need to release ourselves … ‘ to appeal to the readers
desire to be on a side that fights for justice. The passage creates an expectation of
opposition and conflict ‘we will no longer be silenced’ the effect is to encourage the reader
to want to fight for change.
The rhetorical question ‘Why do we need this change so desperately’ is used to connect the
emotional priming that takes place in the first paragraph to the rational core of the
argument which follows. It sets the reader up to be more willing to accept the case for
change.
Phrases such as ‘Australia’s tainted history’ are used to create a slanting effect to portray
British settlement in a wholly negative way in order to support the offensiveness argument
made.
The passage concludes with the use of ‘why’ and ‘our’ to similar effect in the introduction.
The rhetorical question ‘why do we continue … favoured only by the racist and ignorant?’ is
an ad hominin attack on opponents to change and is designed to minimise the legitimacy of
arguments from the opposing side
‘Pride in Australia’
Evaluation of the inferences
Main argument
The standardisation consists of two sets of linked premises; premises 2 and 3 and premises
4, 5, 6 and 7. Premise 1 provides an independent reason for believing the conclusion that
Australia day should continue to be held on January 26. The conclusion makes a normative
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
9
claim that Australia Day should continue to be held on January 26. The strength of argument
rests on the causal relationships in the sets of linked premises and the inference drawn from
the statistics supporting sub-premise 1.
Sub-argument supporting Premise 1
Sub-premise 1 is not an accurate representation of the cited research. The research
questioned respondents on whether they believed Australia Day should be celebrated on
January 26 .It did not ask whether this should continue to be the case. There is an
operationalisation issue with this question as it is possible respondents may have
interpreted it as asking whether the day itself should be celebrated.
There is also an issue with priming in research; the questions preceding the central question
asking respondents about their pride in being Australian and Australia’s history. This
sequencing is likely to bias respondents favourably to the question about retaining January
26 date by associating it with positive feelings of national identity and tradition.
Sub-argument supporting premise 2
The inference that this premise makes is weak, no reason is given in sub-premise 2.1 (to
accept that changing Australia Day will lead to further demands for change on other issues.
No relevant target property of either the groups or the issues has been proposed to support
the claim.
Linked premises 2 and 3
Linked premises 2 and 3 commit a slippery slope fallacy as well as a fallacious appeal to pity
(see rhetorical analysis). They argue that further demands for change will be the
consequence of conceding on the issue of a national holiday; the first step in the casual
chain leading to the next. The is no reason (or evidence) to believe this assertion.
Sub-argument supporting premise 4
The sub-arguments if true would give some grounds for accepting the premise however
they are a strawman of the research findings. While 35% of respondents thought that a
better alternative was a day Australia became an independent nation only 10% of
respondents nominated ‘Australia becoming a republic’; a minority view of those suggesting
change. At least 14% of respondents nominated events that haven’t happened. The
argument does not substantively address the merits of changing the holiday based on a
contingent event.
Linked premises 4, 5, 6 and 7
Together premises 4, 5, 6 commit a false dilemma fallacy. While it may be a reasonable
inference that Australia Day will cease to function as a national day of celebration if changed
to a date without popular support. it is not necessarily the case that the loss of national
holiday would mean the loss of the opportunity to celebrate as nation.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
10
Evaluation of the rhetoric
Word Choice
The words ‘we’, ‘our’ and pride are used to appeal to a readers sense of inclusion and
national pride and to encourage resistance to change. This can be seen in the title ‘Pride in
Australia, Pride in Australia Day!’, ‘proud tradition of our national day’ and ‘celebrating
Australia Day proudly’. Australia Day is used consistently in keeping with the patriotic
sentiment of the argument.
The use of we in the final paragraph ‘we all want what’s best’ is used
The word ‘unable’ is repeated in the fourth paragraph, the effect is to reinforce the terrible
consequences to individual liberty in the mind of the reader. It distracts from the slippery
slope fallacy being committed in this part of the passage.
Loaded words/euphemisms
Phrases such as left-leaning media and leftist radicals are used to suggest that change is
coming from an extreme ideological point of view and so should be rejected.
Noisy minority, professional trouble makers and politically correct elite are used to down
play the extent of any popular support for change and to paint the case for change as one
outside of mainstream political dialogue.
The phrase leftist conspiracy picks up on the ideological argument to take it one step further
to suggest that there is another (read real) agenda; ‘undermining our national identity and
culture’ giving further weight to the argument that any and all change should be resisted.
Emotionally charged language
The leaflet uses emotionally charged language urging resistance to change; ‘be strong and
keep faith’ and ‘stand up to the politically correct elite’. The effect is to treat the issue as a
fight and to encourage the reader to do so. Language such as ‘make no mistake’ ‘this won’t
be the end of it’ creates a sense of urgency and anxiety.
The phrase ‘Wake up, people!, We’re not a Republic!’ and the word ‘clueless’ is designed to
portray those arguing for change as stupid and to instil a sense of indignation in the reader,
inclining them to reject arguments for change.
Appeals to tradition are made by referencing ANZAC Day, the flag and mateship. The threat
of losing Australia Day is conflated with the loss Australian identity; The rhetorical question
‘Isn’t that what Australia is all about?’ links these values to support the argument.
Sample only – do not write on this topic!
11
Recommendation
In responding to ‘change for our future’ concerns regarding the hyperbolic language used
especially in the opening and closing paragraphs should be raised. It undermines the
credibility of the main line of the argument.
The ‘change for our future’ camp violates the freedom rule in labeling those supporting the
status quo as racist and ignorant. Labelling those who oppose change in this way only
engenders hostility and acts as a roadblock to achieving mutual understanding and
resolution of the issue.
Change for our future will need to be prepared to defend the claims that January 26 is
irrelevant to a modern Australia and that most people are ignorant of what it
commemorates or be in violation of the ‘call to defense’ rule.
In responding to ‘pride in Australia’ it should be pointed out that labelling those supporting
change as ‘leftists’ and part of a ‘conspiracy’ is in violation of the ‘freedom rule’ and fails to
deal with arguments regarding the impact of British settlement on Indigenous Australians.
The ‘pride in Australia’ camp violates the ‘unexpressed claim rule’ in claiming that those
advocating for change will seek to prevent the commemoration of ANZAC day or saluting
the flag. It also breaches this rule by misrepresenting the research findings regarding
alternatives for Australia Day.
By adhering to the Common Ground rule; both parties could move forward. Both sides want
a day of national celebration that is unifying for all Australian’s. It would allow for a mutual
recognition of the importance of history and tradition and an acknowledgment that British
settlement has been problematic for indigenous Australian’s. This could facilitate the
exploration of alternatives that; respect history, represent a changing Australia and be
unifying for all.
1995 Words
[Button id=”1″]
WE WRITE ESSAYS FOR STUDENTS
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project
Write My Essay For MeIf you are seeking for fast and reliable essay help, you got on the right page. You can order essays, discussion, article critique, coursework, projects, case study, term papers, research papers, reaction paper, movie review, research proposal, capstone project, speech/presentation, book report/review, annotated bibliography, and more. From now on, you can stop worry and forget about writing assignments: your college papers are safe with our expert writers