Paper 1, Question 1
04/19/22
Dear Mr. President,
Recently I have been informed about the fire at the Notre Dame Cathedral. When I heard about this information I couldn’t believe it! This situation has brought attention to not only me but throughout the whole world and is a catastrophic event that will be remembered. This topic has been very relevant through social media and is a tragedy of one of the world’s most crucial landmarks. Unbelievably it only took three minutes to get everyone’s attention. Thankfully, many generous celebrities and billionaires have helped to donate more than enough money to pay off the costs of the structural repairs.
While the fire at the cathedral only took three minutes to get the world’s attention, I believe there is another issue that is just as urgent. For three weeks, the largest tropical rainforest in the world has been getting destroyed. This amazon provides 20% of the oxygen in the atmosphere. It also is a vital role in slowing global warming since it is the largest rainforest on the planet. While it’s rather easy for billionaires to donate their money for the Cathedral to get rebuilt. We only have one earth and when it’s gone it’s gone.
Sincerely,
Mallory Hormel
The overall form, structure, and language of my letter and the news report have many similarities and differences. The structure of the news report is in short detailed sentences. “Within three minutes of the first flame.” The writer focuses on one main point which was provided in each paragraph. This then could make it easier for the reader to follow along on all the points of their argument about the Amazon rainforest. My letter, on the other hand, is structured as longer and more detailed paragraphs. This focuses on numerous points in each sentence and tells the reader exactly what my thoughts and feelings are towards the events. The news report is structured by starting off and focusing on the Notre Dame cathedral burning then switches and rather focuses on the Amazon rainforest destruction. In my letter, the same topic switch is present in order to make the reader compare and contrast the effect of the two.
The form of the news report is to raise awareness and bring attention to everyone about the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. “We don’t get to build a new earth.” The writer wants the reader to be able to see the clear issues if the destruction of the rainforest keeps continuing. It is a call to action and everyone reading needs to do something about this problem. The purpose of the letter is to get the French President’s attention about the Amazon rainforests. “Another issue that is just as urgent.” The letter is to hopefully influence the president to do something about the issue being faced and to get more attention to the destruction.
The language used in both the news report and the letter is very emotional. The news report, often repeats the phrases “catastrophe” and “tragedy” when discussing the two fires. Also, it refers to the cathedral as the “most crucial natural landmark” to exaggerate its importance when in comparison to the rainforests. In my letter, I included the repeated phrases “tragedy” and “crucial landmark” to give a very dramatic effect as well while reading and how there needs to be awareness of the situation right away. I also included “We only have one earth and when it’s gone it’s gone,” to deny the possible solution of money which was the result of the cathedral burning. The use of the words “earth” and “oxygen” makes the problem come off as more important and relevant and how it affects society.
Question 1 (a)
ReplyDeleteAO1 - 3 marks - Clear understanding of text (meaning and context,) it was lacking in the audience aspect. Clear reference to characteristic features.
AO2 - 2 marks - Clear expression and content is mostly relevant to audience and purpose. I feel like you should have focused more on the Amazon a little more than the Notre-Dame fire. I felt that it was lacking a little when discussing the issues with the attention contrast between the two disasters.
Question 1 (b)
AO1 - 3 marks - Clear comparative understanding of texts (meaning/context/audience/) Great job explaining how certain choices affect the audience and comparing the differences between the texts. Clear reference to characteristic features.
AO3 - 5 marks - Limited analysis of form/ structure/ and language with limited comparison. You showed a minimum of one example of each but It wasn’t enough. Also I think you confused form and purpose. You were talking about the form of the news report then switched to the purpose of your letter without discussing its form. Clear analysis of writer’s stylistic and how they affect the audience.
13/25
(a) 6/10
ReplyDeleteAO1: I would give you 4 marks. Your understanding of the original text is very clear. This is shown through the extensive use of facts taken from the original article. For example, you brought up that the Amazon has been burning for three weeks straight and it has gone unnoticed.
AO2: I would give you 2 marks. While your expression is very clear, and full of emotive language that serves the purpose of the letter, it lacks the ‘call to action’ needed to fulfill said purpose of the letter. This letter is not urging the president of France to do anything, it is just informing him on what is happening. Nothing is specifically mentioned that the president should do to take action. The points brought up that would support him taking action are very strong, it just needs that one statement of what you believe he should do.
(b) 8/15
AO1: I would give you 3 marks. Comparative understanding of texts is clear because of the use of multiple pieces of evidence.
AO3: I would give you 5 marks. You make very good references to the audience throughout your analysis. For example, the reader’s ability to follow along when discussing structure in the first paragraph and the effect that certain lexis such as ‘tragedy’ and ‘crucial’ have on the reader in the language paragraph. The analysis just lacks comparison because not a lot of points were talked about. Many other points such as formality, tense use, point of view, and the lack/use of the author’s opinion could have been mentioned to strengthen the comparison.
Total: 14/25
Mallory, your blog is clear and shows a basic understanding of the text provided and the language used to write a letter, however there is room to improve your language choice.
ReplyDeleteFor Question 1(a) for AO1 you scored 1/5 marks because your letter is vague in describing its purpose and where the information you use came from. Your language needs to be more formal for example the use of exclamation marks wouldn’t be suggested for the letter’s context
For Question 1(a) for AO2 you scored 2/5 marks for your language effectiveness and the use of language in the purpose of describing the need for help and the call to action to the President of France. The language can be improved to address the president and demonstrate the purpose of asking for help with this global concern. You also must explain where the information you use comes from because the news report is relevant in the letter. Your letter must also be formatted into shorter paragraphs.
For Question 1(b) for AO1 you scored 2/5 marks because of your limited understanding of the texts and the distinct differences between them. You state that there are ‘many similarities and differences’ between the texts, however your distinction of the different characteristic features could be more detailed and explain the purpose of language in both texts.
For Question 1(b) for AO3 you scored 4/10 marks for your analysis of form, structure, and language in both the student response and the news report. Your description of the characteristic features lack detail and you need to be more specific at times. For example, your explanation of the use of ‘emotional’ language could discuss what emotion and how it is used for the specific audience. If you are more descriptive and analyze more aspects of the texts in comparison your response could score higher,