Hi, I have my comparative argument analysis SAC tomorrow and I go to a disadvantaged public school where my teacher been continuously failing to give feedback. She said my work falls between the 24-32 range if done in SAC conditions and keeps telling me to use more comparative meta language, and not discussing my analysis and structure. I was hoping if you could and provide feedback in how I’ll achieve a higher grade, I’d appreciate this heaps! This is based on an opinion piece and subsequent comment on recycling.

Polarising public discourse has proliferated as a result of the actions taken to recycle plastic in Australia, notably condemning the measures currently in place to acknowledge Australia’s significant plastic problem. Weighing in on the debate, Helen Millicer’s opinion piece written on the Sydney Morning Herald Sun entitled “Recycling plastics requires changes that are drastic.” Millicer forcefully contends that we all have a joint responsibility to encourage plastic recycling schemes that are not at the detriment of Australia. In a disapproving and critiquing yet ardent tone appealing to a mainly moderate to progressive audience, Millicer hopes to garner the support of Australian’s who are regular consumers of plastic to incite critical conversation on the impact of ineffective recycling methods. In response, a1494 scathingly opposes the need to recycle in a comment to the same newspaper, vehemently arguing that putting plastic into roads is not efficient recycling and instead we should dump plastic into landfills to minimise harmful effects. By adopting an agitated and judgemental tone, a1494 striking contrast appeals to a more conservative to moderate audience who do not place much value on alternative recycling methods as a way to optimise the environment, yet are still environmentally aware and are solution driven. The dichotomic arguments are similar in the sense that they both critique Australia’s current notion of recycling suggesting more contrasting but viable solutions to combat repercussions of current processes.

From the outset, while Millicer argues that plastic recycling is not encouraged by the Australian government, a1494 contends that depositing plastic into the roads is a glorified way for the government to repute themselves as environmentally conscious. Millicer strategically commences with a staggeringly low statistic stating only “13 per cent” of plastic is recycled. This draws attention to the severity of our plastic issue thereby casting a negative light on Australia’s lack of actions towards combatting such a serious issue. This positions the audience in particular, our future generation whose futures may become jeopardised to feel a sense of disappointment at inaction. Similarly, a1494 attacks major supermarket giant, “Coles and Woolies.” To directly focus on “the problem” with their plastic schemes that trick consumers to think their plastic waste is being safely recycled. This positions the audience to feel a sense betrayal at the deception, which may lead to feelings of distrust and unease in the name of Coles and Woolworths. Similarly, Millicer’s mentions Coles’ recycling initiative, “Redcycle,” however is a sharp contrast to a1494’s stance on Coles, stating that “the sudden pause” was a “sad dose of reality.” Millicer ardently lauds ‘RedCycle’ for its extensive contribution to Australia’s recycling ‘success’. Opposingly, this prompts the audience to place trust in Coles inclining them to support them in gaining a competitive edge over Woolworths. a1494’s satirical use of “something” demonstrates an inconclusive solution to a significant issue, drawing on the Australian government’s reluctance to research viable solutions, casting them as lazy, cunning, and evasive. Enticing the democratic audience who placed trust in an expectedly dependable authority to resent and question the government.

Embracing a more pragmatic tone, Millicer emphasises that changes are not efficient which ceases productive developments. Comparatively, a1494 contends that the recycling schemes are not considered logistically, leading to ramifications that are at Australia’s detriment. Millicer postulates
2 / 2
Australia’s heavy hand on plastic usage declaring that, “we are top global gobblers.” The use of metaphor reveals Australia’s astounding plastic emission global position, evoking a sense of guilt in Australians as the figure bolsters the necessity to make commitments to a prevent additional accumulative plastic waste in Australia, this harbours feelings of unity to achieve the common goal of preventing further insidious damage. Likewise, a1494 appeals to community in particular a readership of environmentalists ranging to compassionate parents stating that, “dust will go into your yard, the waterways, the animals, the plans, you and your children.” a1494 proposes that this issue is not small scale but will affect a large demographic of readers, highlighting the seriousness and thus urging for a new alternative to be sought. Compounding Millicer’s argument is an image presenting a plastic bag in the foreground of a deep dark oceanic background. The dark shading demonstrates dullness and dreariness to foreshadow the dark effects a singular seemingly benign plastic bag can have on the livelihood of marine life. This draws parallels into the symbol that plastic if not disposed right, can end up making irreparable changes to our environment. Similarly, a1494’s utilisation of a rhetorical question, “do you want your house to be on plastic road.” By directly addressing the audience through a question with a self-implied obvious answer, allows a1494 to build a rapport and thereby encourages them to become more receptive to oppose depositing plastic into roads.

Cultivating a final resounding call to action, with an appeal to more pragmatic readers, Millicer challenges Australia contending it must re-evaluate its recycling collection scheme which is plagued with errors. Whereas a1494 proposes the solution that plastic disposal in landfill is safer than depositing plastic in roads. By transitioning from an opinionated tone to a logical and rational tone stating that “other countries have efficient, low-cost, effective collection.” To further her creditability and subtly undermine Australia’s pale efforts in comparison to other counties. This guides her readers to feel a sense of responsibility and thus motivation to get a move on better recycling schemes. In contrast, transitioning from a logical and frequent emotive tone to an uncontrolled outburst, “if you don’t want your plastic waste, then put your plastic into the rubbish bin, not the recycle bin – then they will end up in landfill, not in plastic roads.” Millicer unequivocally leaves readers feeling her pent-up anger and infuriation in response to what seems right but is “doing untold environmental damage.” The cumulative impact of repetition of “we must” and “we need” helps assert the fact that the entire readership are all driving factors in paving the way for a cleaner Australia, thus Millicer drawing significance to our collective action to call out the Australian governments outdated processes. a1494 questions, “what science has been done to prove that plastic roads cannot cause cancer? None.” The mentioning of the sensitive topic of cancer, draws audiences who have personally experienced the dreadful cancer to view plastic roads as detrimental and thus compels them to scathingly oppose the idea of plastic roads.

By adopting a predominant logical style, both authors criticise the current modes to recycle plastic, and thus propose alternatives to refurbish the processes in accordance with what optimises the health of the people and the environment. Ultimately, Millicer’s more progressive audiences may respond by advocating for practical measures from the Australian government, while a1494’s comment may resonate with those with conservative and more traditional views.