Letter to French President
(A) 4/20/2022
Dear Mr. President,
I have recently come across an issue that is of the utmost importance to your nation. I’m sure that you are aware of the fire that scorched a large amount of the Notre-Dame cathedral, and I’m also sure that you know about the huge amount of money that was donated from all across the world to the rebuilding efforts of the cathedral. All of the money donated far surpassed the required amount to finish the refurbishments.
I think that as a country who was recently helped with a harsh situation that you return the favor and help aid the amazon rainforest, I’ve recently read an article published by an Australian news website that goes into detail about the flames that are currently ripping apart the lush rainforest. This is an issue that has gone unnoticed by many countries for over three weeks. The rainforest needs to be helped and I think that it would be very wise to help donate some money to the cause which would not only show how grateful you are for the help you received but also would inspire other countries to donate.
Sincerely Gavin Lang
(B) Between my letter written to the President of France and the online news article posted on an Australian website there are some similarities and differences to be noted when reviewing the two pieces of text. There are notable differences to be seen in the form of both texts which changes how the article and how my letter was written. The structure of the articles can be compared and is somewhat similar. The language used between the two texts are easily compared and share some similarities.
Form is a very important piece to take into account when comparing the texts. I noticed that the form of the piece of writing that I was reading was an online article. This means that it wasn't extremely formal as many regular people would be reading the article but still contained some level of professionalism so that the article would be respected and taken seriously. I was tasked to write a letter to the President of France that would require me to use very formal writing as I was writing to a very formal person which is what I did. Both my letter and the article have very different forms which is why the writing is not very similar.
The way that the Australian article structured their writing is not very similar to my own writing style and this is due to the fact that the Australian article used very short concise sentences and paragraphs, whereas my letter used longer sentences and two medium sized paragraphs. I think that the reason that the online article was written this way was to maximize viewer attention and by keeping sentences short and full of information and having very short one to two sentence paragraphs keeps the reader engaged and interested in the article. When creating the structure of my letter I attempted a more ordinary form of letter structure which included two formal paragraphs in which I had wrote fairly short sentences to form my two paragraphs I kept my two main points separate which is why I wrote the two paragraphs so that the reader would be able to recognize two coherent ideas in my paragraphs.
The language used in my text is widely different from the text used in the news article. I believe that the news article chose to use common casual language with bits of information thrown through the article. This language must have been chosen so that the article would be better fit for the target audience of casual readers who wouldn’t struggle to understand any of the words written in the article. I chose to use a far more formal style of language in which I chose more sophisticated words. I chose to use this type of language because I was aware of who I was writing to and I knew that the French President would be able to understand more formal language and writing as he is most likely an intelligent person who would appreciate a well written letter.
Hey Gavin,
ReplyDeleteI like how you started off with the date as that is important, "4/20/22" in the form of a letter.
AO1:
For AO1 I’m going to give you a total of 3 marks. The reason why is because even though you had a clear understanding of the text and a clear reference to characteristic features I just feel like it could’ve been better. First off when you said “Dear Mr. President,” I feel like you could’ve added “Dear Mr. French President” to make it more specific to whom you’re talking about. I also feel like you could’ve also added a little more ‘call to action’ and made it more emotional to keep the French President more persuasive to what you feel. Maybe saying things such as ‘This is our home, our only home’, makes it even more important to why he should listen.
AO2:
For AO2 I’m to give you a total of 3 marks as well. You had a clear expression and it did flow neatly and the content is also relevant to the audience. You did have some grammatical errors that I could find such as saying “..the Amazon rainforest, I’ve” here I felt like you could’ve instead put a comma, you could’ve put a period.
AO1:
For AO1 I’m going to give you a total of 3 marks. You knew what you were talking about and gave reasons why you were talking about it. I also liked how you said how each text was different by saying ‘..can be compared and is somewhat similar’ and ‘two texts are easily compared and share some similarities.’
AO2:
For AO2 this dropped your grade dramatically and hurt it as well. You did have an analysis and did describe each subject for form, structure, and language, but you never gave evidence or any quotations to back up your reasonings or ‘explanatory comments’. For this section, I’m giving you a total of 1 point.
Total: 10/25
Hey Gavin,
ReplyDeleteOverall your blog was good. Your part A was very good and it was written with a good tone, and good details. Your part B was good and included good comparisons, however you did not quote anything from the texts.
Part A
AO1: For this section I would give you a 4 out of 5. You did very well pulling information from the news report without quoting it directly. It was clear that you understood the text well and you knew what you were talking about. You spoke in a compelling way that would make the President inclined to listen. You chose a good tone to write in that was appropriate for the situation.
AO2: For this section I would give you a 3 out of 5. Although your writing was good, I believe that some of your content was not relevant. With such a low word count allowed for this writing, I believe you spent too much time attempting to educate the President on the burning of his own Notre Dame Cathedral. Other than this, your part A was very good.
Part B
AO1: This is where you will unfortunately receive a lower score. You are supposed to have an effective reference to characteristic features of the text, however you did not use a single quote from either text. In an AICE test this will hurt you greatly. You did comment on the specific forms of each text and why they were used, however without any quotes I can only give you a 2 out of 5.
AO3: Although you did well in this category, you still did not use any quotes therefore I cannot give you higher than a 6. You explained the similarities and differences between the form, language, and structure for both texts in an effective way and it was very well done.
You’re writing was really good but next time you just need to add quotes and you will get a high score. Good job.
15/25
AO1:
ReplyDelete3/5. You show a clear understanding of the text but I feel like there is a higher level of understanding in regards to the audience that can be achieved when writing this letter. For example, 'I’m sure that you are aware of the fire that scorched a large amount of the Notre-Dame cathedral.' Because you are writing to the French president, you should assume that he knows this as a fact. Considering this, the fire at the Notre-Dame should be written a statement.
AO2:
4/5. I feel that the content is relevant to the audience and you effectively approached this assignment. By saying, 'I think that as a country who was recently helped with a harsh situation that you return the favor and help aid the amazon rainforest,' you develop a sense of obligation which is a good way to gain support for movements such as this one. You are also able to get a valuable point across with minimal error.
AO1:
2/5. You identify the audiences of both pieces briefly at the end but fail to actively engage this concept throughout your writing. The audience should be introduced at the start and used as a medium to compare the form, structure, and language, not just the language. You also talk a lot about formality, which is good but shows repetition in your writing. You also lack the overall purpose of the two pieces to explain why they were written, this could also benefit you when talking about form and structure.
AO3:
6/10. You show a clear understanding of what needs to be addressed. You express the importance of formality when addressing a president which is good in regards to the differences between the two writing pieces. But, you didn't use any quotes from either of the writing pieces (the one given and that of your own) to back up what you are saying and physically showcase what you are talking about, which is especially important when discussing language. You also showcase a clear understanding of the writer's stylistic choices, but I feel that, again, you should talk about the audience sooner in your writing in order to relate them to all aspects of your analysis.
15/25
Delete