(a)
04/19/22
Dear French President,
As you know, the historical building of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris suffered a horrendous fire. Thankfully within two days of the blaze, over one billion dollars was raised to help rebuild the cathedral. The money was pledged by celebrities, billionaires, and other generous donors from around the globe.
Though this makes me question, what makes our world's rainforest, and the environment less critical than a building that can be reconstructed?
For three long weeks, the single largest tropical rainforest in the world was destroyed. Our Amazon rainforest provides us with twenty percent of the oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. Though no celebrities, billionaires, or generous donors stepped in to help. Thankfully, citizens worldwide took to Twitter and other forms of social media, spreading the hashtag, ‘PrayforAmazonas.’
President, I ask you to ask yourself one question, ‘Is there a point in preserving history if we’re just gonna watch the future of our planet slip away?’
We must take action where the action is needed. We only have one Earth, and we must do everything in our power to save it.
Thank you for your time, Madi M.
(b)
This news report that was published on an Australian news website contained information about two large fires, one in Paris and one in South America. This report had a solid structure, language, and form.
The structure was written in chronological order, following each event one by one. The writer first spoke about the fire of Notre Dame; “...earlier this year, donations poured in across the world at such rapid rate, more than one billion dollars was raised in just two days.” After this event took place the author transited into the ‘backlash’ that has been generated on social media because of this occurrence.
Horrific fires were burning in one of the world’s most crucial natural landmarks, yet no one extreme action was taken. “For three whole weeks, the single largest tropical rainforest in the world is being destroyed.”
Next, the writer transitioned into opinions from other people on this topic; ‘I would rather see Notre Dame totally destroyed and see the Amazon forest protected forever.’, ‘There’s no point in preserving history if we’re just gonna watch the future of our planet slip away.’ Another angered civilian wrote, ‘Billionaires emptied their pockets to help rebuild,’ he said, ‘Meanwhile, the Amazon has been burning for three weeks. The difference is that we don't get to build a new earth. When it's gone, it's gone.’
Focus then switched to fires located in Sao Paulo, a major city in Brazil; “Officials figures show nearly 73,000 forest fires were recorded in Brazil….” This shows us the spread of fires and their growth throughout our globe.
The form of this extract was a news report. This means that it included a headline and factual information. For example, in bold letters, this writing started with, ‘When a fire destroyed the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris, the world knew in three minutes. But this most recent disaster has divided the internet.’ That headline forms a base knowledge of what the news report entails.
There were numerous different language elements, lexical choices, and grammar in this news report as well. There were nouns, adjectives, and amelioration along with pejoration word use. Every lexis used correlated with the prompt at hand.
For example, some amelioration words that were used were 'preserving' when talking about the history of our Earth. Another was 'protected.' This was used when discussing the fate of our rainforests. 'Goodwill' was used when discussing the actions of the generous people who donated to help rebuild Notre Dame.
Some pejoration words include, 'dramatic' which was used when speaking about Notre Dame's structural repairs. 'Destroyed' was used when talking about the aftermath of Notre Dame. 'Backlash' was used when discussing the tragedy on social media.
My letter written to the French President was very similar to this news report. They used the same information and details, along with viewpoints. One main point that was conveyed throughout both extracts was – that we only have one Earth. Considering my main data source was this news report from Australia, it was difficult not to have similar knowledge and opinions.
a) AO1
ReplyDeleteYour letter gave background information about both the cathedral and the Amazon Rainforest fires. You also questioned the French President which could motivate them to take action. However, I would have avoided using the same question as the news report. I would have come up with my own. Second, I felt that your writing was too spaced out. Try condensing your writing.
AO2
While there weren’t any grammatical errors in which I saw, the writing itself seemed to touch upon the surface and did not feel that it would move the President. I felt like you could have elaborated more on the issue rather than setting yourself up by saying, “I ask you to ask yourself one question…”
Score: 6/10
b) AO1
Your paragraphs were very short and should have included more elaboration. This could have lengthened your responses and made them stronger.
AO3
There was pretty much zero contrasting between the two texts. At the very least, you could have talked about the formatting and structuring of new reports and letters. Also, there was very limited analysis. For instance: “Horrific fires were burning in one of the world’s most crucial natural landmarks, yet no one extreme action was taken. “For three whole weeks, the single largest tropical rainforest in the world is being destroyed.”
Score: 3/15
A
ReplyDeleteAO1: You had a clear understanding of the text. You wrote in the correct form. There was clear reference to characteristic features. For example, you started your blog with the date and ‘Dear French President,’.
AO2: You had a clear expression with no errors that impeded communication. The content is relevant to the audience and purpose. You stayed on topic throughout your letter. Your ideas were also clearly developed.
Score: 6/10 marks
B
AO1: There seems to be a clear comparative understanding of the news report, not so much on the letter. You had clear references to characteristic features.
AO3: There was very minimal comparison. While you had a good analysis for the news report, you didn’t have much for the letter. In fact you only had a four sentence paragraph talking about how ‘similar’ the two texts are. Make sure you are comparing both of the texts with extensive detail on the real test.
Score: 6/15 marks
Overall Score: 12/25 marks