PAPER 1 Again...
Question 1 A 4/19/2022
Dear French President
A world catastrophe was made with the Notre Dame Fires in Parris. Rainforests are being destroyed as well as homes to animals and us human beings. This has been causing backlash in their country causing a need for new homes and lots of money to be raised for food and clothes.
However the fires burning homes have not been the only issue, it has taken the world 3 whole weeks of burning flames for the world to take charge in the burning in one of the biggest landmarks in history of rainforests. We need to start a movement as the burning of our nations ´lungs´ has been started and it has taken its sweet time for us to take charge and start saving.We should step up and start a movement to help save people and our animals from these catastrophic fires burning all over tropical rainforests.
B-
Beginning my analysis I will be going over the differences in Form, structure, and language in the way both excerpts are written.
Discussing the dissimilarities begins with form as an article is written informally with factual evidence that is supposed to be shown by the writer, however in a letter it is written formally with conversation to the person of which it is being written to. Words showing factual evidence in the article is,¨nearly 73,000 forest fires… the highest number for any year since 2013.¨ This shows evidence of formal evidence in the article meanwhile in the letter written by me it has words such as,¨We¨ talking to the president and referring to myself in a more talkative and vocal way.
The structure of both the article and the letter were very different. The letter had sort of longer paragraphs and was spoken in shorter sentences to represent more of a dialogue almost, between the writer and the person receiving the letter. Furthermore, the review on the rainforest was showing shorter paragraphs and a quicker stance to show off its points as there was more to discuss with factual information.
Focussing on the language and writing style of both excerpts, Transitioning my writing to the Tone discussed in both excerpts begins with the article when the writer uses words like¨rapid¨ and ¨catastrophe¨ to give a sensitive and worried tone to show how fast the fire happened and how bad the fire affected everyone. The tone stays the same throughout the article and stays in a sense of urgency to help people understand how bad the fires were.
The writer in the article uses metaphors and alliteration to give off more an effective way to describe how important the rainforest was and how bad of a thing it was that it got destroyed. ¨the planet's lungs¨ was the statement showing this. Throughout my letter I give off a sense of urgency that the president needs to do something about the issue and it depends on him for a change to be made, meanwhile in the article it is just informing people about the damage.
Question a)
ReplyDeleteThe letter could be more personal with phrases like ‘I’
You show a clear understanding of the text with meaning, context, and audience. This is done by including a date and ‘Dear French President’. You clearly understood what the question was asking as you include background information on the fires, as well as the personal feelings towards the president. For example, you use phrases like ‘we need’ and ‘we should’, showing that you are including the president in your feelings.
While you do include a date and opening, you do not include a closing statement to the President.
You show a clear reference to characteristic features as you make comments on the ‘fires burning homes’ and how ‘rainforests are being destroyed’.
Unfortunately, you did not include the main point of the news report; being that the Notre-Dame tragedy was found out much earlier and had more support than the Amazon fires. Including this would have made your response much better. However, this shows that you didn’t fully understand how the letter should be written.
Overall, I give you 2 marks for the AO1 score.
For AO2, I give you 2 marks also. The response was very short and while it followed the assignment, there were main parts missing.
Question b)
To start, you mention that a news report was written informally, however I disagree. While the report may have included some quotes that included informal language, the rest of the text is formal.
I think that when discussing the evidence used in the text, you could expand greatly on how this affects the audience and why the author included it. You can also bring it into the form and structure. However, I feel that you left some points unfinished.
When you talk about the structure of the article and the letter, your points come off very briefly. You need to be adding specific details and reasoning to back up your statements. Other factors, such as audience and purpose need to be included.
I like how you include a reference to the metaphors used in the article.
I also like how you quote words like ‘rapid’ and ‘catastrophe’.
Overall, I would say that you had a clear comparative understanding of the texts; however there was limited reference to characteristic features. Therefore, I will be giving you 2 marks for the AO1 level.
For AO3, you had somewhat of a clear comparative analysis of elements of form, structure and language. While you have points on all three, they are limited. I will be giving you 5 marks for the AO3 level.
For question b, your final score is 7.
Hi Troy!
ReplyDeleteIn your first paragraph you only discuss the fires occurring at Notre Dame, which only covers part of the five W’s. In your first paragraph you should be discussing all of the 5 W’s, and this can be accomplished by mentioning the fires in the Amazon rainforest. Throughout your entire letter you never directly state the name of the “Amazon rainforest”, which makes it unclear for the audience (the president). In your letter you also use many run-on sentences which impedes on your communication. A letter should also be written in first person, and you wrote in the second person using “we”. You do slightly call the president to action by stating, “we should step up and start a movement”, but this still leaves it unclear to the French President as to what he should do.
Part a… AO1: 3/5
AO2: 2/5
You begin by stating “an article” and I’m assuming you are referring to the report, but be careful, as they may impede on your communication.You continue to state that “we” is referring to yourself, but it is actually in the second person. When reading your analysis I didn’t see you write much about structure. Here you could have written about the readability or if it is chronological. Moving on, when you write about the tone you could also mention the persuasive writing. You write about the tone being “sensitive” and this can also contribute to the persuasive language used. You then state that a metaphor is being used and you quote it, but you don’t explain the metaphor. You also mention alliteration but give no examples.
Part b… AO1: 2/5
AO3: 4/10
Troy,
ReplyDelete(a) For AO1, I would give you two marks in total considering your limited understanding of the text (meaning/context/audience). You also displayed a ‘limited’ reference to the characteristics features are shown.
The context of your letter included all things necessary like the date, along with ‘Dear Mr. President, though failed to include an ending like, ‘Sincerely, Troy’ or something similar. This is a curial part of the letter format that you forgot.
The context included throughout your letter was also limited and lacked certain information. The transition from one event to another was quite fast. For example, “A world catastrophe was made with the Notre Dame Fires in Parris. Rainforests are being destroyed as well as homes to animals and us human beings.” Here you switched from the fire at Notre Dame to the rainforests being destroyed. Next time I suggest working on the flow of your sentences and structure.
(a) For AO2, I would give you 2 marks considering your expression was clear but didn't flow as easily as it could’ve.
(b) For AO1, I would give you three marks considering you have a ‘clear’ comparative understanding of both texts. You spoke about the form, structure, and language of each writing piece; “The structure of both the article and the letter was very different. The letter had sort of longer paragraphs…the review on the rainforest was showing shorter paragraphs and a quicker stance to show off its points as there was more to discuss with factual information.”, “Discussing the dissimilarities begins with form as an article is written informally with factual evidence that is supposed to be shown by the writer, however in a letter, it is written formally with the conversation to the person of which it is being written to.”
(b) For AO3, I would give you five marks considering your ‘clear’ comparison of elements of form, structure, and language. You spoke about all three and provided information to back up your opinions.
One example of this was your analysis of language. You included how the author discussed metaphors and alliteration – ‘the plant’s lungs.’
Overall good job :)