4/20/2022
Dear Mr. President
I regret to inform you but another huge fire is drastically hurting your country as well as the world as a whole. This tragedy has been going on for weeks on end and is barely being covered by any news outlets anywhere. I am talking about the Amazon rainforest which holds around 390 billion trees and produces 20 percent of the oxygen around the entire world. The Amazon is on fire with an estimated one and a half soccer fields being destroyed every minute.
The Amazon is a crucial part of preventing global warming and is not getting nearly enough attention as it should. If the amazon were to get as much donations to prevent the fires as the fire in London had this issue could help preserve the ecosystem that is housing 500 indigneious tribes. This issue needs to get a lot more attention as this issue can hurt the entire world yet has barely been spoken about in the past three weeks. The issue in London had however spread worldwide in the span of three minutes. We need to help the Amazon as it is the future for everyone.
Sincerely, Colby Chute
The form, structure and language in both the news article and my letter both have multiple similarities and differences. The form of both texts had been informative texts with the purpose to inform people about what is going on in the Amazon rainforest. This form is seen through both texts stating the importance of the rainforest through statements like “it is the future for everyone,” and “There’s no point in preserving history if we’re just gonna watch the future of our planet slip away.” Both these statements have had the attempt to inform everyone of the issue and state its importance and the global effect that it will have on everyone. The news article however had taken a more formal approach on informing people of this topic by using facts to back up their points such as “While it was not possible to measure the size of the area affected by fires, thick smoke in recent days has blanketed several cities.” The letter however had tried to take a formal approach on the topic but it had come across as somewhat informal as I had used more emotive language to show the importance.
The structure of these two texts are very different as the news report is structured in small and short paragraphs while the letter is structured with a greeting and a closing statement. The letter had started off the text with “Dear, Mr. President” which shows my attempt at speaking to the targeted audience as well as starting off the letter in the proper format. The news report had very short paragraphs divided into each topic and statement that it was making. The news report also had multiple statements quoted from people showing how other people feel about this topic and what they want to happen.
The language used in both these texts display how these two texts are conveyed and inform people about the topic. The vocabulary used in both these texts is very different as the letter had used more emotive language to try and bring people together such as “We need to help the Amazon” while the news report states facts as well as other people's opinions instead to try and inform people about this huge problem. The letter also uses the second tense to try and speak to the president of France through statements like “I regret to inform you but another huge fire is drastically hurting your country.” This tense allows the letter to seem more personalized and aimed towards the president of France. The news report however uses the third tense in most of the text in order to state the facts without being directed towards anyone. The news report also uses the first tense in the quotes because the statements had used words like ‘I’ and ‘we’re.’
Hey Colby! To start off, your blog was great!
ReplyDeleteQuestion (a) A01: I would say that you have an detailed understanding of the text, you distributed the audience correctly as you said, “Dear Mr. President”, you also stayed within the pronouns of''I `` and''you `` by doing this you are either speaking about what you think and are directly talking to your audience. You had a great variety of context, as you provided information from the excerpt that you read in your own words. To wrap up your A01 score, you hit the nail on the head for the meaning. Everything was relevant, I would give you 4marks.
Question (a) A02: The context is relevant to the audience and purpose and the ideas are developed in an effective way. The reasoning behind this is that you most definitely did a great job in addressing the correct audience. Every claim you made, made sense in the being that your meaning was on point. You also ended your letter in the correct form as you said, “Sincerely, Colby Chute”, which is something that I forgot to do. Good job 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 form, structure and language in both the news article and my letter both have multiple similarities and differences.” This was a great introduction to the topic, good job. I feel as though you have a clear reference to characteristic features as you quoted a healthy amount of times, but had too much quoted at one time. For example one time you quoted an entire sentence, “There’s no point in preserving history if we’re just gonna watch the future of our planet slip away.” when you could have just said, “ our planet slip away.” and explain the rest in your own words. But with that being said your understanding of the two texts were great and you stayed on the topic the whole time. The only advice I would give you in the future, instead of only talking about the form, structure, and language I would add in the audience too. Describing the different audiences is very beneficial. I would give you 4 marks.
Question (b) A03: You had a clear comparative analysis of elements of form, structure, and language. While you did talk about all of these factors, you did not create a detailed explanation of any of them. In comparing them you provided evidence, quotations from each text, but did not have an elaborated and detailed explanation of each. If you would have expanded just a little more than you would have landed on the “detailed” area. Additionally I think you got a little confused about the difference between form and structure as you stated, “letter in the proper format.” While you were speaking about structure. The comparison you could have done here was the difference in the amount of information that was contained in each paragraph. Moreover, you had a clear analysis of how the writers’ stylistic choices relate to the audience and shape meaning. You had quotations for each of the excerpts but lacked a “detailed” explanation. I would give you 6 marks.
Hi Colby, your blog was great and full of information while reading. You correctly identified the audience being the president and say “I regret to inform you”. You also have formal language throughout which makes it actually seems like a letter being written to the president. You use good relevant information from the news report which strengthens each of your points. I would give you 4 marks on AO1. In AO2, your reasoning and evidence is all relevant and developed in a clear way. The letter fit its purpose to inform the president of the situation and you provide information from the news report. “Holds around 390 billion trees.” I would then give you 4 marks on AO2. Your total for part a would then be 8 points.
ReplyDeleteIn part b, you have a detailed understanding of the differences between the texts and give lots of in text cituations and explanations to support each of your points. I would then give you 4 marks. On AO3, even though your provide multiple quotes from the text you didn’t really explain the importance or a detailed explanation. You had a clear understanding of the form, structure, and language but could’ve strengthen your argument by making it a little more detailed. I would then give you 6 marks on AO3. Your total would be 18/25 good job!
Both of your graders scored you entirely too high.
ReplyDelete