On January 5, Amy Mackintosh delivers the speech Advance Australia within

reason at the annual University Students for Youth Political Activism meeting held
at The University of Melbourne. The speaker explains the reasons that Australia
should not have to become a republic, contending that Australia should stay as a
monarchy. The audience this speech is delivered to includes students also attending
the meeting. The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the
middle part being more analytical and serious.
On January 5, Amy Mackintosh delivers the speech Advance Australia
within reason at the annual University Students for Youth Political
Activism meeting held at The University of Melbourne. The speaker
explains the reasons that Australia should not become a republic,
contending that Australia should stay as a monarchy. This speech is
delivered to include students as well as to those who attendthe meeting.
The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the
middle part being more analytical and serious.
The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay as a
Monarchy is unbiased and logical. Amy starts her speech off with a colloquial and
sometimes irate tone. The first part of the speech introduces the topic of argument
and explains the speakers contention that Australia staying as a Monarchy is more
practical than becoming a Republic. The title itself is a pun, playing on the widelyknown Australian anthem and the double meaning in within reason, meaning both
that there are limits to how much Australia should advance and also
foreshadowing the reasoning behind the speakers argument. In the first paragraph,
the speaker poses questions to the listener and gets them to think about the issue
regarding politics. In the second paragraph, the author presents the opposing point
of view and gives a few points to support the argument to let Australia become a
Republic although not without the heavy sarcastic question: Which is weird right?.
Then, by going against it with well, no, actually, it wouldnt be, the author brings
the point backwards, making the listeners wonder how the speaker will turn the
tables on the reasons why Australia should become a Republic. With the words, I
am no Monarchist, the speaker sets herself up as a neutral position, with no
personal bias, eliciting belief from listeners. This is further exemplified when the
speaker states that she did not attend the infamous Wills and Kate wedding.
Nearing the end of the first part, the author brings logic and reasoning by stating
that her opposition to the Republican movement is far more reasoned letting the
listener listen more attentively to the subsequent points of argument, being
financial, political [and] logical. Listing the three points of argument, the listener
feels as though they are taking part in an argument for Australia staying as a
Monarchy with a realistic point of view, giving the listener the impression that the
speaker is being fair in her judgment.
The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay
as a Monarchy is unbiased and logical. Amy starts her speech off with a

colloquial and irritating tone. The first part of the speech introduces the
topic of argument and explains the speakers contention that Australia
staying as a Monarchy is more practical than becoming a Republic. The
title itself is a pun, playing on the widely-known Australian anthem and
the double meaning in within reason, meaning both that there are limits
to how much Australia should advance and also foreshadowing the
reasoning behind the speakers argument. (How would the readers feel?
Please write the impacts of the pun. ) In the first paragraph, the speaker
poses questions to the listener and gets them to think about the issue
regarding to politics +to bring listeners into the political content. In the
second paragraph, the author presents the opposing point of views and
gives a few points in the later to rebuttal the argument to let Australia
become a Republic awith the heavy sarcastic question: Which is weird
right?. Then, by going against it with well, no, actually, it wouldnt be,
the author brings the point backwards, making the listeners
wonder( +why the author strongly going against turning to republic)
( please reread the original text and rewrite this one, from what you wrote
the examiner can tell you did not understand the original text) With the
words, I am no Monarchist, the speaker sets herself up as a neutral
position, with no personal bias, eliciting belief from listeners. This is
further exemplified when the speaker states that she did not attend the
infamous Wills and Kate wedding. Nearing the end of the first part, the
author brings logic and reasoning by stating that her opposition to the
Republican movement is far more reasoned , letting the listener listen
more attentively to the subsequent points of arguments of financial,
political [and] logical. Listing the three points of argument, the listeners
might feels as though they are taking part in an argument for Australia
staying as a Monarchy with a realistic point of view, giving the listener the
impression that the speaker is being fair in her judgment.

The speaker makes the listener believe that staying as a Monarchy would be in the
better interest of Australians. The tone of the speech changes from an outraged
tone into a serious and resigned tone. In this part of the speech, the author presents
points of which the argument for Australia staying as a Monarchy is made. Starting
off by striking the audiences hip pocket nerve, the speaker shocks the listeners
with the massive amount of money, $2.5 billion. Upon hearing the value, the
reader is instantly forced against the idea of [wasting] their money. By mentioning
the more practical uses of the money, being education, health [and] foreign aid,
the speaker shows the listener what kind of use the money would be better spent
as. After this, the speaker draws upon a clich, if it aint broke, dont fix it to give
the listeners a simple understanding of the point of her argument, being that
Australia shouldnt become a republic. Using positive emotive language peaceful,

stable and democratic, the speaker gives the audience a positive impression of
what entails with Australia staying as a Monarchy. Then by explaining the way the
election process [prevents] political corruption the speaker gives the audience the
impression that without the Republic, Australia will fall into the aforementioned
political corruption. Going on to explain more logic by asking the rhetorical
question Why risk new system? to let the audience ask the question to
themselves and finding that doing anything but letting Australia stay as a Republic
is the wrong decision. In the last paragraph of the second part, the speaker refers to
the Governor General as a useful person to Australia by pulling historical evidence
in 1975 when the budget had failed to pass through the Senate and the
Governor General was the man for the job. The people listening to the speech
would be more agreeable with keeping the government as a Monarchy as opposed
to changing it and risking any government that is corrupt or incompetent. Thus
ensuring the contention that staying as a Monarchy would be in the better interest
of the Australian people.
The speaker makes the listener believe that staying as a Monarchy would
be in the better interest of Australians. The tone of the speech changes
from an outraged tone into a serious and resigned tone. In this part of the
speech, the speaker presentsAustralia staying as a Monarchy as it is
made. Starting off by striking the audiences hip pocket nerve, the
speaker shocks the listeners with the massive amount of money, $2.5
billion. Upon hearing the value, the reader is instantly forced against the
idea of [wasting] their money. By mentioning the more practical uses of
the money, being education, health [and] foreign aid, the speaker shows
the listenerthe better and practical way to spend the tax payers money .
After this, the speaker draws upon a clich, if it aint broke, dont fix it
to give the listeners a simple understanding of the point of her argument,
that Australia shouldnt become a republic + as current system is almost
perfect by using peaceful, stable and democratic to strengthen the
current advantage political system, Then by explaining the way the
election process [prevents] political corruption the speaker gives the
audience the impression that without the . ( correct it by yourself
please. Are you thinking while writing this sentence?) . The speaker
logically explained asking the rhetorical question Why risk new
system? to invite lthe audience to think themselves and finding that
change Australia into a Republic is the wrong decision. ( there is no first
and second part in the reading article, it is you synthetically divide the
article into several parts to organize your writing, do not write 1st part ,
2nd part again in your analysis, use linking words such as furthermore,
moreover, then, in addition. ) In addition, the speaker refers to the
Governor General as a useful person to Australia by pulling historical
evidence in 1975 when the budget had failed to pass through the
Senate and the Governor General was the man for the job. The people

listening to the speech would be more agreeable with keeping the

government as a Monarchy as opposed to change it and risk any
government that is corrupt or incompetent. Thus ensuring the contention
that staying as a Monarchy would be in the better interest of the
Australian people.
The writer gives the impression that Australian identity is able to withstand a
Monarchy type government. The tone becomes prideful as in the last part of the
speech, the pace picks up in national delight. By starting off the part with the
speaker talking about how the Monarchal origin of Australia doesnt not [infringe]
on our sense of national identity, and drawing in the audience with positive
inclusive language and listing off typically Australian behavior such as attending
beaches and barbeques, [and] the underdog, the speaker makes the audience
feel their national pride and exemplify their love of their country. Aussies are of
State is a powerful ending to the paragraph, strengthening the audiences resolve
to stay as a Monarchy out of defiance. More evidence pertaining towards the
support of Monarchy, being the 1999 referendum shows the listeners that even
the public did not want to change, making them believe, through hard evidence,
that becoming a Republic is not required. But a is realistic presents the
comparison between Republic and Monarchy, with one being portrayed as simply a
nice idea and the other as World Peace and realistic. The contrast shows the
listener that staying as a Monarchy is objectively better than being changing into a
Republic. In the final paragraph, the speaker tells the audience directly that there
is no shame in sticking with what we know works, an appeal to tradition. Due to
the system having nothing wrong with it, the listeners would appreciate its
existence nonetheless. Finally, on the closing slide of the speakers presentation,
the audience is presented with an Australian flag without the Union Jack and the
caption beneath written: Whats the difference? The flag is a representation of
what the existing Australian flag would look like if Australia was not a Monarchy.
People who agree with the speaker would find that this strengthens her argument as
they would think that there is something obviously wrong with image of their flag.
For people who disagree with her argument, would believe that the missing area of
the flag is a wake-up call to keep the government as a Monarchy as without the
Monarchy, there would be something missing. The final question of Whats the
difference? explains the fact that the lack of Monarchy would leave Australia with
an important part missing, thus, letting the listeners believe that Australia should be
able to have the Monarchy type government.
The writer gives the impression that Australian identity is able to
withstand a Monarchy type government. The tone becomes proud and
confident as in the last part of the speech,t. By starting off the part with
the speaker talking about how the Monarchal origin of Australia doesnt
not [infringe] on our sense of national identity, and drawing in the
audience with positive inclusive language + quotes and listing off typically

Australian behavior such as attending beaches and barbeques, [and]

the underdog, the speaker makes the audience feel their national pride
and exemplify their love of their country and the readers would think that
regardless of the political system, the Aussie lifestyle and culture will not
change, thus , no need to change the current political system. Aussies
are of State is a powerful ending to the paragraph, strengthening the
audiences resolve to stay as a Monarchy out of defiance. More evidence
pertaining towards the support of Monarchy, being the 1999 referendum
shows the listeners that even the public did not want to change, making
listeners believe through hard evidence, that becoming a Republic is not
required. But a is realistic presents the comparison between Republic
and Monarchy, with one being portrayed as simply a nice idea and the
other as World Peace and realistic. The contrast shows the listeners
that staying as a Monarchy is objectively better than being changing into
a Republic as the readers can feel that the current system can strengthen
the world security. In the final paragraph, the speaker tells the audience
directly that there is no shame in sticking with what we know works, an
appeal to tradition. Due to the system have nothing wrong , the listeners
would appreciate its existence nonetheless. Finally, on the closing slide of
the speakers presentation, the audience is presented with an Australian
flag without the Union Jack and the caption beneath written: Whats the
difference? The flag is a representation of what the existing Australian
flag would look like if Australia was not a Monarchy. People who agree
with the speaker would find that this strengthens her argument as they
would think that there is something obviously wrong with image of their
flag as they have already got so used to see the national flag with Union
Jack on. For people who disagree with her argument, would believe that
the missing area of the flag is a wake-up call to keep the government as a
Monarchy as without the Monarchy, there would be something missing.
The final question of Whats the difference? explains the fact that the
lack of Monarchy would leave Australia with an important part missing,
thus, letting the listeners believe that Australia should be able to have the
Monarchy type government.

Throughout Amy Mackintoshs speech, Advance Australia within reason, she

makes the argument that Australia should stay as a Monarchy by using evidence,
logic and emotive language. The speakers, as a result of this would comply with her
contention.
Throughout Amy Mackintoshs speech, Advance Australia within
reason, she makes the argument that Australia should stay as a
Monarchy by using evidence, logic and emotive language. The listeners ,
as a result of this would comply with her contention