Language Analysis Essay

Skin cancer is an important part of life in Australia. Most spend plenty of time in the sun hoping to get a tan, the others know the dangers of undergoing such acts ant avoid the sun all together. In the article “We know about the risk of baking in the sun, don’t we? Published in 2008, the writer talks about the necessity of stronger and more controlled ‘sun-smart’ throughout children’s lives in the education system of Australia. He is very tough on the parents of the children, shadowing them and pointing them out and accusing them of having low powers in their sun safety both in primary and secondary school.

“We know about the risk of baking in the sun, don’t we? Is a rhetorical question about people’s lifestyles the writer addresses to the audience who implies that the answer is “yes”. “Don’t we?” serves to question the reader and to show them as ignorant. That is, if they assumedly “know” about the risk of baking in the sun, they will question their motives as to why they continually do it, consequently provoking feelings of guilt. The writer uses different lengths of sentence to propel his visions such as “It is worth it, because the risk is real.” That is used to scare the reader and put them into a position to question what they have done in regards to the safety of their children.

In regards to school policies, he alienates his parental readers and to add a sense of fear to his argument regarding the lack of physical health in the sun smart policies in schools. Although schools require students to wear hats during sports lessons and lunch breaks during terms three and four of the school year, it is simply not enough to keep our children safe from the sun’s harsh rays, schools do not usually carry supplies of sunscreen to allow children to re-apply throughout the day, nor do they allow children indoor areas to stay in as it is regarded as an OHSC issue. the writer goes on to talk about how big a deal this is with our part of the world being host to a gap in the ozone layer, meaning we can burn a lot easier than other countries.

The writer uses sarcasm as a ploy to shame Australians and talk about the system of sun safety. “Take a bow”, for earning the “dubious distinction” of “skin cancer capital of the world”. This is clearly his way of showing the that the public of Australia should be disappointed and embarrassed of this title and is obviously in complete sarcasm, showing that the current system has to be re-vamped. He tries to finish the article by suggesting a revival of the sun smart system. This change has a relaxing result on the reader, which is why, finally, the writer says “it’s just that the messages need to be refreshed, and soon.” Repeating his argument gives an effect on the reader that the change must be made.

“We know about the risk of baking in the sun, don’t we?” speaks of the issue we are facing in schooling systems around Australia with their policies not being strong enough to protect the children, and secondary schools having to continue to implement these sun-smart policies with greater force. The writer seems to be targeting the education board associated with sun smart policies. Parents of the children who go to these primary and secondary schools would be avid supporters of this cause.