- **Dyphemism** - negative expressions (humiliating/disapproving)
- **Ad hominem** - personal attack
+**Context** - include publication details (publication & date)
+
+## Aristotelian Appeals
+
+- **Logos** - logic, reasoning
+- **Ethos** - character, ethics, authority
+- **Pathos** - emotion, anecdotes
+
+## Structure of arguments
+
+- Order of arguments
+
+### Introductions
+
+### Endings
+
+- Call to action/leaving audience with hope
+
+
+### Segregating discussion
+
+- beginning/middle/end
+- look for tonal shifts
+- consider language techniques & transitions between them
+
+
## Practice responses
### *Pill testing: an indulgence for the elites* - Blake Young
Young begins his piece with a blunt and firm statement, clearly affirming his contention in the first few words. This establishes a bold and confident tone for the author, intended to intimidate readers whilst also presenting a shocking and grabbing statement. Following this, the author expands by discussing general background information of the issue, which adds credibility to the later arguments. The addition context contributed by the second paragraph also broadens the potential audience by engaging those who are less educated or interested in the issue. The author then makes extensive use of metaphors to describe the "strange noise", and then makes a somehwat discriminating generalisation about the "doctors' wives of the leafy suburbs". In the next sentence, he clarifies this, intentionally enclosing the "war on drugs" in quote marks. This is meant to be diminuitive and demeaning towards the opposing idea.
+
+At the start of the next paragraph, Young integrates his personal opinion into the debate ("I have no earthly idea"), whilst further discussing the war on drugs. He does this by guitling readers into submission, referring to "anyone paying attention". This is an example of the generalisation and exaggeration that Young frequnetly uses. Some brief satire supplements this attack with the metaphor of "pillows and nerf guns". This idea is then summarised with a more concise and firm statement criticising politicians - yet another ad hominem attack.
+
+The author then adopts a more logical and analytical tone, and begins the next paragraph with further context. He criticises authorities and exaggerates his point with phrases such as "time and time again" and "wave after wave", as well as the frequent use of adjectives such as "lenient". Following this, a personal attack on legislators makes the author appear more aggressive and passionate about the issue, intended to intimidate and belittle the author's opponents. The argument concludes with a more emotionally manipulative phrase, in an attempt to provoke sympathy for drug addicts. The technique of repetition is also present where the author says "ignored - abandoned".
+
+The next argument begins with a surprising and sharp statement against the opposition. This is included to dispel any rebuttals that readers may be considering after reading the author's first argument. The author follows by pointing out the "assumptions" of counterarguments, intended to portray them in a negative light. This leads into the next statement that presents the author's opinion as the only option for readers, and then uses exaggeration and satire to portray pill testing as ridiculous ("free to enjoy the good fruits of meth labs").
+
+The tone of the article then becomes more educated and logical, marking a shift in the target audience. The paragraph begins a similarly blunt way to the last, but then adopts a more critical and analytical tone which is more likely to appeal to those more educated and logically-minded. One example of this is the use of more educated language such as "carte blanche". However, the author still maintains the attacking, huminilating tone in addition to the logical arguments. Emotional manipulation is also evidnet with the phrase" these advocates shamefully manipulate social grief", and intends to provoke feelings of sympathy and compassion with "the pain we feel at the loss of young life". The logical tone continues with "blinded to reason by a veil of tears", an interesting combination of logical and emotional techniques which broaden the affected audience. The author then appears more authoritative and knowledgeable as he attempts to explain the causes of his opponents' opinions. A more personal attack is then executed, also including an appeal to readers' political affiliations with the discussion of the "libertine left and the libertarian right". The author then appeals to readers' emotions with the mention of "love and community and ovligation", and furthers this with "a life in harmony", creating an idealistic future in readers' minds.
+
+Young then returns to a more ridiculing and abrasive tone, stating outirght that his opponents are "talking crap". This exaggeration is included to further convince those who may have been "on the fence". Simple, clear language is then used to discuss the obective approach of drug prohibition. An affirmation that "of course, they should be helped" also reassures readers that the author is not dismissing moral concerns, which may be caused by the more attacking language used earlier. He then uses the analogy of "urban terrorists" in an attempt to create a very negative impression of the perpertrators.
+
+Th next paragraph introduces an appeal to public opinion, leveraging the idea of "herd mentality". This is evident in the emphasis on the community's response to the issue. A specific anecdote is then used, the case of Brett Whitely, which adds further credibility to the author's claim. He describes this anecdote as "wholeheartedly positive", suggesting readers should similarly respect such actions. The opposition is then described as "ferocious", a hypocritical but demeaning statement.
+
+### *I ran a police force...* - Michael Palmer
+
+Target audience - educated, parents, non-drug users, people with prior experience with the issue, primarily NSW
+Contention - "Unashamedly a ferocious advocate for reducing the atrauma and damage caused by drug use" - pill testing reduces harm, improves lives of vulnerable people
+
+Supporting arguments
+
+1. There are no silver bullets
+2. Personalise the despair
+3. We are honour bound to do more
+
+Pill testing is an issue which has attracted broad and passionate debate, concerning both young people and their parents. As a contemporary and pressing issue, there is much discussion from authorities and the general public. One such example is an article written by Michael Palmer, *I ran a police force and I'm not soft on drugs..*, published by ABC in March 2019. The article intends to appeal to a wide audience - it contains both emotional and logical techniques, several provocative images, and employs the authority of the author as "a retired Australian police officer".
+
+Palmer starts his article with an firm but factually-phrased introduction, which helps less educated readers to become invested in the issue and introduces the author's contention. Credibility is gained by the reader from the start of the piece, which is done by citing the "wide support" and "chorus" for the author's opinion. The second example also reveals the use of a metaphor. Following this, rhetorical question is posed, encouraging thought for readers. The words "futile", "exacerbate" and "alleviate" are sophisticated, which creates a spectrum of complexity in author's language, allowing him to appeal to a wider audience. A blunt statement then signifies a more logical and analytical section, including an expert opinion which helps to garner authority. However, Palmer also uses more emotive language, such as the inclusive phrase "a majority of Australians".
+
+Following this, the author states his contention in a more explicit and personal way, using the first person to encourage a personal connection. Strong language is also used to emphasise the author's passion, enforcing that he is "unashamedly a ferocious advocate". This emotional manipulation is further enhanced by the phrase "needless loss of [..] lives". More context is then added to the author's discussion as he adopts a more objective tone, and then compares "bad guys" and "concerned guys" - an example of colloquial and accessible language, once again expanding the piece's readership.
+
+The first major argument in the piece concerning "silver bullets" is intended to create a negative view of the government, whilst also favouring those who take action on the issue. The first sentence gives context, but the phrase "had the courage" is clearly favourable towards the deputy coroner, indicating the relative position of the author's views. The second paragraph introduces the idea of "silver bullet remedies", a metaphor which is familiar to most readers. The consideration of this concept, whilst helping the author's point, also makes readers feel that Palmer is of a considered and analytical viewpoint, adding to his credibility. A relevant image of pill testing kits provides context and emphasises the everyday prevalence yet complacency with which the issue is treated. The argument ends with a strong call to action, using an easily-understood figure of speech.
+
+Palmer's second argument is titled "Personalise the despair", indicating a shift to a more emotive tone. The author expands his debate by calling readers to "personalise the despair", and attempts to evoke feelings of sadness and concern with language like "raw reality". Despite the use of more emotive language in this argument, the author maintains a straight and seemingly objective tone when relaying the "decision of a father". This helps the piece to appear more objective since it is simply relaying events, however, a more opinionated analysis follows. The inclusion of a direct anecdote supports the author's opinions by exaggerating its significance, but also creates a personal connection between readers and the issue. The verbatim quotes enhance the impact of this empathy.
+
+