Paper 1 Question 1 Review
4/19/22
Dear President of France,
As of lately, everyone has heard of what has happened to Notre Dame. The world is truly shocked and uneasy as to what is going on there. But as I’m writing to you I am truly appalled to as of what’s been going on in the Amazon Rainforest.
Within the first two days as Notre Dame has been on fire, the world, billionaires, and citizens have donated over a billion dollars in total for the damage that has been dealt with, which is more than what the building itself was worth. With all the fires that have been burning, the Amazon Rainforest has rarely been talked about on the news or by you.
With the extra money that has been donated to Notre Dame, I’m asking you to please help with the fire that’s been going on in the Amazon. This is our home, our only home that contains life as we know it. With the extra money, species will no longer decay, but rather thrive, trees will no longer be burnt, but rather produce air for the world around us to live, and lastly people will no longer have to fear, but rather enjoy life of the scenery.
I’m begging you Mr. President to take account of the Amazon Rainforest as this can not just save lives, but save the future.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Shahz
The original text is an extract from the Notre Dame and Amazon Rainforest incident, where both places were on fire, which is news articles. On the other hand, mine is writing a directed letter to the President of France explaining the issue being raised.
The original texts form is being written as informal writing, such as explaining an incident or casualty to an audience. An example from the text would be explaining the Notre Dame incident and how ‘when Notre Dame burned, the world stopped.’ My letter is more rather than being more formal writing such as writing more professionally. An example would be me including words like “Mr. President”, and ending with a more casual ending “Respectfully and sincerely” due to this is to a President and not a friend or family member.
Another aspect of form would be that the original text is being written in a third-person point of view, figurative language, such as using words “one person said” or “he said”. The letter that I wrote is being written in first-person point of view, using words like “I am” and “I”.
The news report is slightly different from the letter. First off, both texts have fewer sentences in each paragraph. However, the original text has a subheading “When a fire...divided the internet”, in bold, meaning it is important and is relevant, summing up the text that is being said, rather than the letter just implying a date. The original text also has an “Amazon Rainforest Fast Facts” to inform and educate the reader or audience as to what the Amazon is capable of. The structure I have would be how my writing has a beginning salutation, “Dear President of France”, an ending salutation, “Respectfully and sincerely, Shahz”, and lastly a date, “4/11/22" noting that reader as to when it was written.
The language from the letter and the news report much differs. The news report contains direct speech that is being used more than once such as “I would rather… one person said” and “..help rebuild’ he said”. In these two phrases, it can be indicated that these are being quoted from people on social media as to what they’re feeling and thinking, but also to what is being said. The letter is rather being used the indirect speech so as to not use any quotes or words or sentences that aren’t ‘word-to-word’. Mine is just written in the casual style of any letter.
The news report doesn’t differ much at all from the letter as from the tenses. Both texts talks in the present tense such as how the news report implies “another horrific fire is burning” and in the letter, I also said, “I’m begging you, Mr. President”. These two phrases both correspond together because even though both are talking about the same topic, they both also have the same meaning which is ‘asking for help’.
The letter to the President of France is a call to action informing that the French President needs to take action on what is going on in the Amazon Rainforest. as to what other people are saying about the Notre Dame tragedy. This can also imply a tone or mood that is implying a negative language stating the news report “the world is being destroyed” and the letter stating “this is our home, our only home”. By giving this a ‘negative language’ it can imply to the audience making them think of the consequences of how ‘more than one-and-a-half soccer field’ was being burnt up each minute in the Amazon about the lives, the atmosphere, and especially to the environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHello Shahz,
I think that this blog was pretty good. To start off I think that for part a you had done a decent job writing the letter however I think that you could have focused more on informing the president about the topic as that is what the topic was about. You had taken a more persuasive approach by asking the president to donate money but I think that you could have informed him more about the topic before you had asked this. For AO1 i think that you would have gotten two marks because i think that you had shown a limited understanding of the text so i would give you 2 marks for AO1. For AO2 I think that you had shown a clear understanding of the text and think the letter was somewhat relevant to the topic so I would give you 3 marks for AO2. For part A i think that you would have gotten 5 marks.
For your analysis I think that it was decent. I think that the comparison was a little hard to read at some points but I think that some of your points were pretty strong. I do think that you could have used more comparisons comparing the two quotes from the two different texts in order to further your analysis. For AO1 i would give you 2 marks as the analysis had shown a limited comparison of the two texts as well as characteristic features. For AO3 I also think that you had a limited analysis of the two texts and the stylistic choices that the writers had used so I would give you 4 marks for AO3. For part b i would give you 6 marks. Overall that's 11 marks out of 25. Great job!
ReplyDeleteDear Shahz,
You had a clear knowledge of the first half of the rubric for part a, and I got the impression you were attempting to execute. I felt your letter was excellent, and you clearly grasped the prompt; nevertheless, the reason you didn't receive a lengthy explanation, which would have earned you 3 points, is that you became less and less formal as the letter progressed. An Example of this is when you started the letter with “Dear President of France…”, but later you used language such as “I’m begging you Mr. President…”. Now the syntax “im begging you Mr. president” isn't terrible but it's not a Professional enough to put in a letter to a president.
For AO2 For the first part of your I think you had a clear expression in agenda that was clear and understood by the audience. It was Clear expression, with occasional errors which did not impede Communication. Content is relevant to Audience and purpose; ideas are developed clearly. 3 point
Part B
In the reflection section of the essay, you demonstrated that you understood both readings and that you extended and bronded your understanding to the reader in both texts. You primarily concentrate on language and form, paying little attention to structure. When writing, one thing you can concentrate on is not leaving anything out because they are all significant. "My letter..." ""Mr. President"..." is from your letter and this is from the newspaper, ""I would prefer... one person said" and "..help rebuild' he said" are examples of when you incorporated both texts in your reflection. You performed a fantastic job of discussing both, which demonstrates to the reader that you comprehend what the texts are saying.
However, I award you 3 points on AO1 since I don't feel your texts were detailed, and while you did provide nice examples, they weren't really effective, and I believe it could have been done better.
I feel you performed better on AO3, and the reason for this is that you may have had more samples of the original text and your text when you went into further detail. Now, although it may appear that I am contradicting myself, I am not. The reason I'm not is because AO1 is about your ability to comprehend a wide range of literature; sure, I utilized some samples from your reflection to calculate your score, but that was because it was near the beginning of your analysis. As well as your letter. However, I feel that as you continued to write, you gained greater understanding at the conclusion of your analysis.
"Both texts communicate in the present tense, such as how the news broadcast indicates "another awful fire is blazing," and I also mentioned in the letter, "I'm imploring you, Mr. President," towards the end of your analysis. These two statements are related because, while they are discussing the same subject, they also have the same connotation, which is 'asking for assistance.'" Despite the fact that this is a long quote, it provides the reader with an insight that was not present at the start of the study. You also included language, shape, and organization in the same line as the audience. However, it was brief and easy to comprehend. Example ““I would rather… one person said” and “..help rebuild’ he said”. In these two phrases, it can be indicated that these are being quoted from people on social media as to what they’re feeling and thinking, but also to what is being said. The letter is rather being used in indirect speech so as to not use any quotes or words or sentences that aren’t ‘word-to-word’. Mine is just written in the casual style of any letter.” I give you 6 points in AO3, you did better than there weren't any buzz words.
In the end you received 15 out 25.
Part A-
ReplyDeleteAO1: For AO1, I am giving you 2 points because you had a limited understanding of the text, which was conveyed to me through your writing because you did not provide any data/important facts on the Amazon that were provided from the news report. When stressing a proposition like this to an important figure such as the President, you need to prove to them why they should care about an issue you are presenting.
AO2: For AO2, I am also giving you 2 points because you were still able to get your point across even with all your errors and your content was not fully appropriate for your audience. To start off, "everyone has heard of what has happened to Notre Dame" is both too casual and too vague. Something more along the lines of "the world knows of the terrible fire in Notre Dame" would sound better because it is more formal. I would also be careful on specifics such as "the Amazon Rainforest has rarely been talked about on the news or by you" considering you received your information from a NEWS report and this specific information was not even provided in the report anyway....
Part B-
Before I start with AO1 and AO3, your syntax made no sense and you need to expand your diction.
AO1: I give you a 2 because you understood the base of both texts, however, you need to work on expanding your ideas so you can convey this to the reader through your writing. Also, you were slightly incorrect with your point on how the news report is more casual than you letter because they are about the same.
AO3: Like I said in AO1, you need to work on expanding your ideas and your analysis between the two texts in terms of which one was more formal was incorrect. You also never explicitly wrote about structure or how the audience impacted your writing.
8/25