Introduction Structure for LA

CCTAP: C: Context C: Contention T: Tone A: Audience P: Purpose

Recommended Structure:
In response to the fervent / ongoing / controversial / ubiquitous debate concerning...(CONTEXT),
(author’s name), (Author’s profession or status in society), published a (text type*) in the (type of
newspaper) titled, “Title of Article”. In a … and … TONE / Manner, the author contends / conveys
/ argues / asserts that (CONTENTION*)... . The author aims* to target (AUDIENCE) , urging
them to recognise that...

* Not that important, can just put article but identify whether they posted a blog post or published
an article
* Difference between contention and purpose: When you introduce your contention you want to
identify whether the author is on the affirmative or negative team in regards to the context eg. are
they say yes or no, what’s their stance.
* Aims = PURPOSE is to just persuade the particular target audience so that’s why I’ve grouped
them in together.

Intro Example 1:
In response to the controversial debate concerning the introduction of an all girls’ football team
within the highly traditional Maringa Football Club, Sam, the club president, presents an innovative
speech. In a respectful and open-minded manner, Sam contends that an all girl’s football team is an
irrefutable opportunity for the club. Sam aims to target parents who are hesitant to make such an
abrupt change to the club, urging them to recognise the discrimination present in preventing girls
from being in a community that will experience plentiful benefits from their inclusion. However, in
a mocking and assertive tone, Bill condemns Sam’s suggestion, conveying that girl’s football teams
are a waste of money, time and facilities.

Intro Example 2:
In response to the tragic deaths of young adults at festivals, Dr Sam Ohe presents his article in The
Age entitled, 'There's merit in a pill-testing-trial' (1/3/2019). In a professional and logical tone, Dr
Ohe contends that "professionally run pill testing facilities" should be set up "at music festivals." Dr
Ohe aims to target those who are highly educated or conservative in a society, specifically trying to
explain the unprecedented benefits of pill testing in saving lives to those who are aged from their
forties to fifties and are thus unaware of festivities. In addition, Dr Benny Monheit replies to the
editorial in a professional and logical tone that similarly argues that the government is being
apathetic towards pill testing. Finally, although in agreement with 'The Age' and Dr Monheit,
Rebecca Kaiser from Erskineville provides a mocking response, condemning the elderly of their
ignorance.
Dealing with Multiple Articles
Comparative Language ALWAYS: In stark contrast / In feisty retaliation to… / Contrastingly /
Similarly / In Parallel to / In a similar approach / In a like minded manner
Opposing Arguments:
To belittle the previous proposition that…
…questions the ideology of the (previous source’s) assertion
…denounces the… (declares wrong)
…attempts to undercut the pointed accusations
To increase the magnitude of her following statement she considers the opposition.
Fortifying her arguments by diminishing the impact of the opposition…
Deconstructing the opposing argument that…
…presents the (previous argument) as detrimental to follow
…brings the severity of the issue to the forefront which was dismissed by the opposition
…Implies an air of desperation
Similar Arguments:
fortifies, strengthens, supports, celebrates, praises, uplifts…(when referring to previous arguments)
Semi-Similar Arguments:
- Offers an evaluation of the previous argument by reinforcing the idea that…by highlighting the
specific argument of…
- Reconstructs the previous argument to add more depth by exploring…
- Adopts a similar stance however chooses to focus instead on the…which broadens the scope of
the first author

EG: In feisty retaliation towards Kate Carnell’s proposal of penalty rates, the two comments by
Danny and Jack brings the severity of the issue to the forefront; displaying through their objection
the outraging effect the cut will have towards the “lowest paid workers” in Australia. Their
comments imply an air of indignation towards Carnell by degrading her arguments as “piss
weak”, “narrow” , flawed” establishing doubt within the reader on the validity of Carnell’s
previous claims of credence. Jack disparages Carnell’s issue by highlighting the cut’s effect on
“nurses, airmen and emergency services”, displaying Carnell’s insufficient view, failing to inform
the cut’s effect on those who are vital personnel for the functioning of our nation and its wellbeing.

- Through the objection of A1, A2’s (tone) urges ( audience / new?) to do something different than
what A1 says.
- In agreement with A1, A2 (tone) urges (audience / new?) to consider a new argument…, which is
an extension upon A1.

Potential Effects on the Reader when acknowledging the opposing argument: The author
exposes / critiques readers for their blind allegiance to...
- Readers feel Ashamed / Embarrassed / Guilty for their blind allegiance to the first author’s
argument without considering the other possible implications / consequences that are in
opposition to their argument.
- Readers feel as if they have been taken advantage of / exploited / manipulated by the attraction of
the author’s profile / status
- Readers become outraged at being passive readers by so easily trusting the first author and are
inspired by the comment to be active thinkers in this issue. Become aware of the benefits towards
being critical thinkers towards this issue. → Readers undergo a self-evaluation of where their
true beliefs lie; with the first author’s or with the comment