Part A)
Apr 19, 2022
Dear French president,
It has been brought to the world's attention that there have been wildfires, but the reason as to why I am writing this is because if we have the technology to let the whole world know within 3 minutes. Why can't we have better technology for stopping the wildfires?
Now it's not like you don't have the money for the new technology that could be brought because of the world's celebrities and billionaires and other donors. Maybe we don't need new technology while the fire is happening, but taking more precautions before a wildfire has time to take place.
After the fire in Notre-Dame; when all the money came in from all the celebrities, billionaires and others. Only a couple of weeks later after that there was a fire in South America. That fire single handedly took out the largest tropical rainforest alone. Named the amazon rainforest.
With the amount of money that is being donated, if the world can come up with that great deal of money, we should have a better plan of taking care of the land that is being Destroyed by the fires. If we know the harm that these fires have, you should be able as the French President to make an impact on how the world should go about this.
You should be taking charge because you understand what we can and cannot do to help save the land from wildfires.
Sincerely,
Payton rice.
Part B)
Form :
Both writings can have a similar format, but they can also be quite distinct. The reason I say that is because the first is a news story that explains why and what has transpired with the recent wildfires. The second was written by myself and is in the form of a letter sent to the President of France. The fact that each of these may be set in relative tones explains why they can be comparable. Also, the point of view in which both are set might be similar. They can, however, differ due to grammatical or syntactic differences in the text itself.
Throughout the intertext, the form utilized in the newspaper story maintains the same primary idea. "Social media users...", "within three minutes of the first flame...", and "celebrities, millionaires, and other..." are examples of this. These three newspaper excerpts suggest that the author is attempting to demonstrate that today's technology has had a significant influence on how we handle wildfires. You can see that I concentrate on one primary point in the letter that I wrote. In the letter I emphasize on the idea that if we are getting money from all these affluent individuals why can't we do a better job of preserving our land from the wildfire that is taking place. An Example of this is when in the letter I say “Now it's not like you don't have the money for the new technology…” and “when all the money came in from all the celebrities, billionaires and others.” These are examples of when I kept my many ideas. My letter is a concise part of writing.
Structure:
When it comes to the paragraphs, the two manuscripts have a fairly similar structure. Both trucks have short and succinct paragraphs that are both concise and to the point. There are 15 quantities of lexis in one of the newspaper paragraphs. Example: “The world was made aware of the catastrophe within three minutes of the first flame.” By using short and powerful paragraphs, you may go right to the point and tell the audience what your aim and goal are without insinuating anything. I also have extremely brief paragraphs in the letter that I wrote. When you read my letter, you don't have to guess what my agenda is. Example: “You should be taking charge because you understand what we can and cannot do to help save the land from wildfires.” That is an example of one of my short paragraphs, but it also demonstrates how well I communicated my views.
A subject sentence appears in both manuscripts. When the newspaper writes "when a fire tore through Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris...", for example, it continues. That was taken directly from the article. "It has been brought to the world's notice that there have been wildfires..." is my topic line from my letter to the French president. Phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, syntax, and context are the five major components of language. These elements, together with grammar, semantics, and pragmatics, work together to generate meaningful communication between people. These are all elements that bothe of the texts have.
Language:
Syntax has to do with the language part of this because of lexis that comes into play due to the fact that you have to have a full concept, a topic, and a verb. A statement must be comprehensible on its own. Complete sentences are also referred to as independent clauses. A clause is a collection of words that can be used to form a sentence. Examples of this in the newspaper are : “For three whole weeks, the single largest tropical rainforest in the world is being destroyed.” The language that is used in the letter is first and second person. Example: “I” and “you”. As you can tell there aren't a lot of differences between the two texts.
Hi Payton! To start off, you did your blog well.
ReplyDeleteQuestion (a) A01: To start off your blog is off topic, as soon as you stated “Why can't we have better technology for stopping the wildfires?” your blog is immediately off topic, as the prompt is to only write about the information/issues that were brought up in the excerpt, and that was never a topic. And you continued to speak about this in the rest of your blog, making your AO1 Score 1 mark, due to you being off topic you stand with, minimal reference to the characteristic features of the excerpt as only some things were correct. Additionally the audience was correct as you stated, “Dear French president” but meaning and context lacked.
Question (a) A02: The context is mostly relevant to audience and purpose; ideas are developed in a limited manner, you understood the idea that you were to speak to the president, nailing the correct audience part as you stayed with the correct the pronoun of “you” when speaking to him, but because you were off topic in the idea that you wrote about things that were not brought up in the excerpt that you read you are automatically in the 2marks - 1 mark range. As you have some relevant things in your blog, you are able to bumped up to the 2 marks range, in the future I would reread the prompt and make sure that you are on topic the entirety of the time.
Question (b) A01: To start off with the actual structure of your analysis, The way you distributed your analysis could have been better. Instead of saying “Form: …” just simply write an introduction sentence to let your audience know what you are going to be talking about. And then use transition words like; moreover, additionally, and continuing to make your actual piece of writing stronger. I also would say that some of the things you wrote just does not make sense, as you stated “Both trucks have short and succinct paragraphs..” However, your comparison of both excerpts were okay, you gave some evidence, even though some of it was irrelevant. For example, when you were speaking about form you add the quotation of, “"celebrities, millionaires, and others..." and you claimed “the author is attempting to demonstrate that today's technology has had a significant influence on how we handle wildfires.” which is not totally true. Additionally this has nothing to do with form. But you did compare it to your piece and have a good comparison in that way but it was irrelevant information. I would give you 3 marks due to you using evidence and speaking about form, structure, and language.
Question (b) A03: I would have to say that your analysis on form, structure, and language is limited. As you had limited comparison. I do not think that you fully understood the meaning of form, structure and language as you stated under structure, “There are 15 quantities of lexis in one of the newspaper paragraphs.” First of all lexis are words, so just a sting that makes no sense and needs a deeper explanation, and following that, it does not fall under the structural aspect of the excerpt. With that being said, the majority of your blog consisted of mistakes like these. I feel as though you just stated things and never elaborated nor did a comparison on them. For example you said, “Phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, syntax, and context are the five major components of language.” not only does that sound like an unnecessary list but it is under the structure part of your excerpt and it was never fully explained or expanded on. I would give you 4 marks.
Good job! 10/25 marks.
Hi Payton, to start off your letter to the president was off topic. You focused on the question of “why can’t we have better technology for stopping wildfires” when the topic prompt was just simply informing the French president about the Amazon rainforest issue in the news report provided. The letter was properly formatted but lacked formal tone and didn’t sound like something that would be exactly written to the president. Due to this I would give you 1 mark on AO1. For AO2, you correctly identified in the beginning the president reading and include “you” and “we” however didn’t fit the tone of a letter be read by the president. You gave unnecessary clarification and said “Named the amazon rainforest” when the French president would already know this information since it is the largest rainforest in the world. Also, included phrases like “it’s not like you don’t have the money,” which is something you wouldn’t say in a formal letter. I would then give you 1 mark on AO2. Which makes your total for part a two points.
ReplyDeleteIn part b, the overall layout you used for example “form:” could be organized in a better and more simple way. You could start off the paragraph with “The form I used in my letter…” instead which would make everything flow better. In your beginning paragraph about form it starts off mentioning about social media use and “today’s technology” which has an influences on wildfire which is off topic and is not the main point the news report is trying to make across so therefore, irrelevant. Throughout however, you do mention information for both your letter and the news report of form, structure, and language and give decent explanations so I would then give you 3 marks on AO1. In AO3, your explanations of the form, structure, and language was good however, very limited and could’ve been more in depth. It was hard to understand some of the points you were trying to make across and in the structure one sentence you say “Phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, syntax” with no link of where these are in your texts or the importance of this in your writing. You also give unnecessary clarifications of a clause and syntax with very little information on how this is supported in your writing. I would then give you 3 marks on AO3. Your total would then be 8/25.