Body 1:
The opening clause in the title of William’s Opinion piece derisively disparages the government by
referring to them as a ‘nanny’ state. She uses the idiomatic expression, ‘kill the buzz; to appeal to the
younger, more radical, demographic of ‘trendsetting, e-scooter riders. By disappointing her already
frustrated audience who are just free from the long-life lockdowns as a result of the global pandemic,
she makes her audience feel frustration and anger towards the “nanny government” and support her
contention. In doing so she also introduces the reader to the idea that the government and legislature
are not only out of step with current contemporary public opinion but are also autocratic in their
response to it. However, refuting this assertion, Jazzpolice, suggests that Sydney siders require
strong road user legislation because motor vehicle drivers would not share the road with bike users
‘here without traffic lights. Like Jazzpolice, Williams divides road users into two broad categories,
those who are impatient and selfish car users, ‘annoyed by delivery drivers, phone starers, and the
headphone deaf’ and those, such as e-scooter riders, who she reverently refers to as individuals who
are ‘deserving of admiration and gratitude. By positioning her target audience which are e-scooter and
bike users above the other road users who are irresponsible, she makes her audience feel proud of
themselves and supports her contention. In the same vein, Jazzpolice, in support of Williams, also
Sydney road-users by aggressively describing them as ‘mean drivers’ and ‘self-entitled road hogs,
tending to further differentiate between responsible road users who she thinks are her and cyclists,
from the “annoying” and irresponsible road users, in order to support William’s contention and
convince her target audience who are the cyclists and those how she believes are “responsible”.
Thus, Williams paints this issue as both divisive on the roads and in the political arena.
Body 2:
Williams criticizes the “nanny” government for the over regulations and emphasizes the
innocuousness of e scooters towards any aspect with value and manner. She uses the empathizes
and triples "rules, mandates and sub-clauses " to criticize the government for over-regulation, their
selfish intent of wanting to preserve safety for the people that initiate captivity, and she aggressively
indicates that the results of this over-regulation that is nothing more but to be “being crushed by the
stifling bureaucracy of state government." By doing so she changes the perspective and attitude of
her audience towards the government and persuades her target audience who are responsible road
users who she believes are e scooter- riders. Then, she uses tone shifting and shifts her tone towards
much calmer position that intends to show that, “There’s so much to love about e-scooters.” in
order to convince her audience that e – scooters are not harmful. She uses the testimony of an expert
photographer (Bradley Kanaris) to emphasize the innocuousness of e scooters towards any aspect
with value and manner, as one of the most important characteristics of e scooters is that it is,
“Eminently sustainable “Alongside this, she also supports her argument by the photograph of the Escooter which is partly green coloured that symbolises sustainability. By doing so this would make the
readers or audience to see the writer's position seem more credible and her contention much more
believable. In the same vein, Jazzpolice, in support of Williams contention and argument puts the
burden of being harmful on the other road users aggressively describing them as “annoying” and
“unpredictable” Therefore, she appeals to a common sense that the other road users like ‘self-entitled
road hogs” are the actual irresponsible individuals who need to “grow up” not the E- scooters and bike
users. By doing so she makes it hard for the readers to disagree with and persuades them to support
her contentions. Thus, Williams illustrates the innocuousness of e scooters towards any aspect with
value and manner
Body 3:
Any issue involving social problems is a highly emotive one and both writers take full advantage of
this to suggest to readers that the E – scooters are for everyone, and “it crosses all the boundaries of
race, class, wealth and gender.” Williams understands the views and values of her audience and the
social injustices that are currently concerns the people about these issues. Therefore, she uses
inclusive language to emphasise that “We” e -scooter riders promote diversity, show respect to all
audience members, and support a positive tone. Furthermore, she strengthens her contention and
argument by the accompanying photograph that shows a female riding the e-scooter to show the
gender equality . So, by using inclusive language such as “we” she can persuade her audience to
support her contention and argument by including the reader, or by creating a sense of solidarity or a
sense of responsibility. However, by not entering this debate, jazz police aggressively suggests that
not everyone is going to be responsible enough to use them and describes the irresponsible road
users as “unpredictable “and “annoying”. Thus, both writers gain the attention of their audience by
taking advantage of social issues.
Conclusion:
Ultimately then, both authors aim to make their readers see their point of view. Williams contends that
e- scooters should not be legalised and in support of her contention she a intends to argue that there
is clear difference between the responsible road users meaning E – scooter users who all deserve
admiration and gratitude, and other irresponsible road users who are “annoying, she also argues the
innocuousness of e scooters towards any aspect with value and manner, and finally she argues that
e-scooters are for everyone. Jazz police also supports Williams in some parts of her text that is
response to the Williams text. Similarly