Paper 1 Question 1 - Amazon Rainforest
PART 1:
4/19/22
President Of France
(Before we start the letter, I want to inform readers of my blog that there are some parts of the Amazon that are owned by France)
Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. President of France,
Wildfires are very common all over the world and inhabitants of the world tend to neglect attention to them. Even though many people rushed to raise money for the Notre-Dame cathedral that was burnt in a fire, many have blatantly ignored the raging fire that is going on in the Amazon Forest. Parts of the Amazon are owned by France so this ignorance is happening on your soil.
This doesn’t only affect all the wildlife, villages, and nature found in the forest. Around 20% of all the oxygen on earth comes from this forest and having it burn down would be detrimental to the Earth we live in as we know it. The Amazon Forest is the heart that keeps all of us breathing pure air.
I am writing this letter to try to push you to make a difference and save this beautiful forest. Not only will this save this famous forest that contains so much life, but it will also save our Earth for future life to thrive.
Sincerely,
Andrew M.
PART 2:
Between the news report and my letter there are some similarities, but mostly there are many differences. While both pieces of literature are focusing on the same topic, the Amazon Rainforest, each author approached the topic in very different ways and elements such as form, structure, and language.
First of all, the form between the two writings are obviously very unique from each other as one is a letter and one is a news article. A letter starts with the date, name of the recipient, address of the recipient, etc. all on the top right of the letter. Then you directly address the recipient with “dear ___”. Letters are meant to be personalized so that’s why I used “your forest” to invoke an emotion in the intended audience (the president of France) to change his mindset and help. On the other hand, newspaper articles sum up a lot of information for readers to understand easily and for the public mass. News articles are not directed towards a certain person like a letter. Instead, they are targeted at the general public and written in a way to describe and sum up an event. As far as form, a letter would be the best way to direct a message, especially with a topic so serious.
Second of all, the structure of the two pieces of writing are somewhat similar but still different in their own respective ways. The biggest difference would be the number of paragraphs found in each writing. In the letter, I used larger, fewer paragraphs to convey my message across and I tried to keep each subsection of the subject respectively separate in their own paragraphs. However, the news article was filled with very short, numerous paragraphs, 16 to be exact. This makes it easier to read, but easier to get lost in the writing as the structure isn’t as organized as the letter. Also, sentence structure is very different as I kept my sentences longer and stable, and the article had short sentences.
Finally, the language in each writing is very different. The article uses larger, “fancier” words such as “goodwill”, “crucial”, “blanketed”, and other words like this to keep a professional tone as news sources should have. Also, the linguistic choices that the author of the article made helped convey the previously mentioned idea that the news article wants to describe the situation to the public. This can be supported by the author describing the rainforest as “the planet’s lungs” which is descriptive and makes the public understand the importance of the Amazon rainforest burning down. On the other hand, my letter isn’t really focused on proper language or being descriptive, it is written for the purpose of informing the president of France that he needs to take action to save the rainforest. I didn’t have to sum up the situation because I’m confident that the president knows what is happening.
Overall, while both have their own set of differences from one another, they have the same message behind them; We need change. In this case either form can be effective, but it depends on the audience that you are targeting.
AO1:
ReplyDelete3/5. You show a clear understanding of what needs to be done and what needs to be said. But I don't feel that this was expressed effectively, as stated in my AO2 comment below. I feel that you should write out who your audience is and what the best way to impact them would be in order to plan for better execution.
AO2:
2/5. Your content is mostly relevant to the audience and purpose, but there are also parts in your writing that are unneeded and do not pertain to the audience, for example, 'Parts of the Amazon are owned by France so this ignorance is happening on your soil.' While this line is true, it is irrelevant to say because it is addressed to the president of France, someone who definitely knows this fact already. In terms of expression, I would say that your sentences are too wordy. 'Not only will this save this famous forest that contains so much life,' rewording this or separating some parts may make some of the sentences better.
AO1:
3/5. You show a clear understanding of the texts and make clear references to characteristic features of the text. But in terms of audience and purpose, you only discuss your own writing and fail to fully explore the purpose of both writings, which would have gotten you more points.
AO3:
6/10. You do a great job at comparing both sources equally and discussing form, structure, and language. But I feel that you only really covered the basics of each field. There was no diversity from other papers. Another reason why I didn't score you at a level 4 understanding is because of the line, 'but easier to get lost in the writing as the structure isn’t as organized as the letter.' I'm not deducting points because you said this, but you should try to find why this type of structure is good for a newspaper rather than find why it's bad for a letter. This way you can show that you understand how a newspaper's structure is designed in a specific way.
14/25
Andrew’s blog
ReplyDeleteHey Andrew,
Overall this blog was ok. Your part A included the correct tone and ended with a call to action for the president, which I thought was effective. Your part B lacked quotes and was not very effective. These are the scores I would give you.
Part A
AO1: For this section of Part A I would give you a 3 out of 5. It was clear that you understood the assignment and you correctly referenced many parts of the article that talked about the Amazon forest. You said that ‘Parts of the Amazon are owned by France’ which was not mentioned in the writing.
AO2: For this section I would also give you a 3. Some of the content that you mentioned I do not believe to be relevant or necessary. I believe that you spoke too much on the actual forest fire itself, and when you said ‘Wildfires are very common all over the world’ which I do not believe intensified the severity of the situation.
Part B
AO1: For this section I would give you a 3. I would like to give you a 4 or 5 but I have to give you a 3 because you did not have a good reference to the characteristic features. You mentioned that your form was unique to that of a letter, however you did not talk about many other things pertaining to the characteristic features.
AO3: For this section I would give you a 7. This was the strong point of your writing. You did well comparing the different elements of both writings. You also explained how each style was chose in order to have a specific effect on the reader.
Good job.
16/25