Paper 1 Question 1
1a)
Taylor Drott
423 Spinnaker Drive
Marco Island, 34145
4/19/2022
President Emmaneul Macron
748 Royalty Lane
Paris, 25845
Dear President Macron,
I write to you today in concern of the Amazon rainforest. Over the past three weeks the rainforest has been fled with horrific forest fires. These fires pose a threat to our precious rainforest, and there has been a lack of effort to raise awareness towards this threat. A change needs to be made.
As you may recall, a fire stumbled through the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris earlier this year. Within just three minutes of the first flame donations were made. Billions of dollars were raised for the cathedral. This raises the question of why awareness was raised then and not now.
The Amazon rainforest provides valuable resources for our survival. It produces 20% of the oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere and it contributes to the slow of global warming. It is a vital piece in our lives.
More recently, the Amazon rainforest has had 73,000 forest fires. This has also caused smoke to blanket across several cities. I ask that you begin aiding the fire by raising awareness towards the tragedy. Your status can help spread the news quickly and efficiently.
With best regards,
Taylor Drott
1b)
The main conflict addressed in both my letter and the report is the two large fires. One of these fires was in Paris and one was in South America or the Amazon. The purpose of both pieces of writing was to raise awareness and gather the attention of the world, similar to how the Notre-Dame fire was addressed.
When addressing the form of the letter, I found it important to consider who I was writing to. In this case, I was writing to the French President. Since I was writing to him, I used the first person and second person. I used the first person to call the French President to action. An example of this includes me stating, “I ask that you…”. I also wrote in the second person to explain the issues occurring. This allows the same information to be known across the board.
The form of the report contained obvious differences. An example includes the report being written in second person. The purpose of a report is to discuss the conflict and the events.
Moreover, the structure of the report and letter are composed uniquely. The report is structured in a chronological order. It begins discussing the “fire (that) tore through Notre-Dame” and it ends the article discussing what has occurred in “recent days”. This reflects the linear structure within the report.
On the other hand, the letter is structured as a list of reasons leading up to the call to action. The letter is more of a persuasive piece for the president, while the report is slightly persuasive but it still remains informative. A similarity between both the structure of the report and the letter is the high readability. Both contain short and concise paragraphs, which makes it easier for the audience to read.
Both pieces of writing are different in many ways, but one of their similarities includes the formal language used. The news report is reporting events to its audience. A letter can be either formal or informal, but the audience of the letter is the French president. With the President’s authority, the letter had to be written formally. A simple example of this is the way I ended the letter by stating “with best regards”.
As previously mentioned, reports tend to be more informative but there is still persuasive language used in the report. When describing the Notre-Dame fire the word “generous” was used to describe the donations made. Additionally, when describing the Amazon rainforest the word “crucial” was used to highlight the need to keep it protected. This is still informing the reader, while using persuasive language.
The letter also uses persuasive language to call the French President to action. Similarly to the word “crucial” in the report, I used the word “vital” in my letter. This again addresses the importance of the Amazon rainforest to the reader.
To add, there was also objective language used in both the letter and the report. It was actually the same objective language that was used. An example of this includes the “73,000 forest fires” being stated in both pieces of writing. Both used this statistic for the same purpose of stating the most recent events.
a) AO1
ReplyDeleteYour response effectively addressed the problem, and was straightforward in telling the French President his role in the regard to the fires. However, since the letter is supposed to be formal, I would recommend changing the number to written words. I also noticed you used really short sentences which are direct, but also choppy.
AO2
You used effective expression in order to address the reader by means of informing the President of what he should do. The structure went from rainforest to cathedral. To stay organized, I suggest writing in chronological order.
Score: 7/10
b) AO1
Your analysis was very clear to read and understand. Your paragraphs were shorter and explained your points very quickly. I would recommend adding more elaboration other than just a sole sentence.
AO3
The first thing I noticed was that you claimed you used both first and second person. However, the phrase “I ask that you…” only uses first person. Think of the second person more as an instruction rather than just the word “you.” Also, you discussed the statistics at the end such as “73,000 forest fires” and described it as “objective language.” However, this is not objective language, it is emotive language. When I saw your letter, I saw you added addresses. You should have compared the headlines of the news report to these.
Score: 8/10
Total: 15/25
A
ReplyDeleteAO1: There was a clear understanding of the text and who the audience was. You wrote in the correct form. You started your letter ‘Dear President Macron’, you even added the address.
\AO2: You had an effective expression. There weren’t any errors that impeded communication. All content is relevant to the audience and purpose. All ideas are developed clearly. You stayed on task throughout all of your letter.
Score: 7/10 marks
B
AO1: You had a clear comparative understanding of the two texts. You had clear references to characteristic features.
AO3: You had a clear comparative analysis. You talked about the form, structure and language and didn’t focus on just one. You also analyzed both texts instead of just one of the texts. You had effective quotes that backed up your points.
Score: 9/15 marks
Overall Score: 16/25 marks