Paper 1 Question 1
4/19/22
Dear, Mr. Macron
It should be immediately brought to your attention that the single most important lung for oxygen on this planet is dying as we speak. Right now, the Amazon rainforest is being burned down at a rapid rate and isn’t stopping anytime soon, we need you to take action as president and assure that this catastrophe doesn’t continue.
The fire has been burning for over three weeks, now consuming more than one-and-a-half soccer fields of forest being destroyed every passing minute. With your own people's backing of the #PrayforAmazoanas, you have more than the green light to commence help for this forest immediately!
`The rainforest is over 5.5 million square kilometers and produces 20% of the world’s oxygen. With over 16,000 tree species and 390 billion trees in the Amazon, we cannot stand to waste any single one of them. So we ask you to step in now, as there is no time to waste on this essential habitat that is being torn apart, especially in the times of global warming.
Sincerely, Your People
The overall format, structure, and language of the news report are quite different from the features of the letter written. To begin with, much of the information included in the news report was the relay of facts and evidence to show the difference in communal reactions to Notre-Dame’s cathedral burning, versus the delayed reaction to the burning of the largest rainforest in the world.
The format of the news report is made up of a large sum of small paragraphs with snippets of information useful to the narrative that they produce, which seems to be that the people should pay more attention to all catastrophic events and not just the ones that have to do with them directly. This can be shown by the overwhelming amount of information they use, giving a heavy emphasis on the logos of the article. In writing things like “The Amazon is often referred to as the planet’s lungs, producing 20 percent of…” This factual line is then followed by why the information given is important; a very useful and important structure for a news report.
In similarity, despite the physical layout of the two texts, the letter written is also inclusive of facts to try and convince the reader as well. Writing sentences like “The rainforest is over 5.5 million square kilometers and…” Shows evidence as well to buff the logos aspect of their writing. But logos isn’t the only important rhetorical feature included in the letter.
Unlike the mostly factual based news report, the letter written contains a lot of pathos to appeal to the reader. This is seen multiple times, for instance in writing “So we ask you to step in now, as there is no time to waste…” This call to action is a direct request to the reader of the letter (Emmanuel Macron) so that the reader will feel like it has to be done, this time restraint is also included in saying “... there is no time to waste…” Which makes the time restraint clear and the request demanding.
This show of pathos is also included in a less demanding and more subtle notion at the end when the author wrote “Sincerely, Your People” This is to show the reader that it’s not just one person who is requesting the help to the rainforest, the people back you. This plays into both pathos and ethos in that the people are being backed up by one another making the credibility strong in numbers.
Another example of this ethos in the balance of the letter is in the use of the #PrayforAmazoans movement. This brings even further credibility to the people that live in the areas affected by the burning of the rainforest, which makes it contextually stronger.
This ethos isn’t only present in the letter written though. The facts given in the news report also show credibility. Although sources aren’t present, facts are listed at the end of the report which were also included in the letter written. These facts bring logos and ethos to the arguments given by both the letter and the news report, showing that both of these texts had emphasis on both ethos and logos, but the letter had a lot more pathos since it was supposed to be more personal.
Hey John! Your blog was very good.
ReplyDeleteQuestion (a) A01: The context that you used was great, you hit the nail on the head for what the prompt was asking for. It is obvious with that, that you had a detailed understanding of the text and presented the correct context, audience, and meaning. With you opening in saying “Dear, Mr. Macron” It shows that you attracted the correct audience. And staying on topic, with only writing about what you read shows that you were correct with the meaning and context. Good job. The only thing that I would suggest for the future is that you would speak a little bit more. I know that there is a word count, but even just a few more words and elaboration added on to your sentences and claims would have been great. With that , I would give you 4 marks.
Question (a) A02: I would say that your expression was effective and had no errors that impede communication. With that , your tone was clear and the way that you addressed your audience was great. Continuing with that. Everything you said flowed great and your structure was perfect. Additionally, the content is relevant to the audience and purpose, as everything you spoke about came from the excerpt you read meaning that you stayed on topic. All of your ideas are developed in an effective manner, meaning that everything was to the t of making sense and fully expressed. I would give you 4 marks.
Question (b) A01: The start off, your analysis was great as you took into account to tell the audience what they were about to read. As you stated, “The overall format, structure, and language of the news report are quite different from the features of the letter written.” This was a great introduction to the topic, good job! In your layout of the comparison of both texts you did well, as soon as you stated a calm about one except you immediately mentioned the other and compared them, which is exactly what you are asked to do and distribute very well. You also did a great job in quoting both texts, while I feel as though that your quotes are rather long, you still did a good job. I would give you 3 marks.
Question (b) A03: In relation to speaking about the comparative analysis of elements of form, structure, and language lacked in your understanding of what each word means. For example you stated, “The format of the news report is made up of a large sum of small paragraphs with snippets of information useful to the narrative that they produce,...” WHich this is a great point to make but is not form, while it is structure. Form is the type of writing it is, in this scenario it is a news report. Continuing with that, your comparison on these specific factors where all over that place, in the future it would be better equipped for your paper if you kept an order and identified when you were talking about “form, structure, and language” and have individual paragraphs that only spoke in comparing both excerpts under those categories. The only thing that you lacked in connecting the audience into each excerpt. You should have a paragraph that highlights the audience and their effect off of each text and what the writer is trying to make them think/feel. Overall a great job and I would give you 6 marks.
Good job! 17/25 marks.