LA response (2017 English exam)

[lst1103]

Hi! Could someone please correct my response to section C from the 2017 English exam and provide some constructive criticism? I've only gotten halfway through the third paragraph as yet and haven't started my conclusion yet. Thank you so much! Also, I'm not sure why some of it's crossed out!

Whilst pre-packaged foods are commended by some for their convenience, others are critical of their detrimental effects on the environment. In Spire Primary School’s weekly newsletter, published on July 8th 2017, principal Denise Walker expresses her concern regarding the alarming increase in “superfluous packaging” within the schoolyard. Fervently addressing the Spire Primary community, Walker encourages students, parents and teachers alike to take precaution to preserve the environment – starting with cutting back on plastic. In response to this article, frustrated parent Louise challenges Walker’s proposal, claiming that such a change would pose an inconvenience to “work[ing]… parents” whom already practise sustainable living.

Walker opens the newsletter by highlighting Spire Primary School’s commitment to sustainable conduct. The principal’s proclamation of “oh no!... she has got another idea!” emphasises her dedication to the conservation of the environment, portraying her as innovative and forward-thinking. Such words strive to elicit support from the school community – namely, parents. Following this brief introduction, she recites a number of successful schemes implemented to foster a culture of  environmental awareness, such as Spire’s “walk/pedal to school day”, use of “four bins…not just three” and the “vegetable garden” with “[free-roaming] chickens”. This positions parents to view the principal as a figure whom not only expresses a certain ardency towards the preservation of the environment, but as a reputable community member whose intent is to ensure a bright future for the primary school and “future generations” to come. Further, Walker’s enthusiasm, exemplified by her frequent inclusion of exclamation points, aims to evoke a sense of pride amongst readers of the newsletter regarding Spire’s diligence and subsequent enthusiasm towards the “preservation of our planet”. Opening in such a manner as to remind parents of Spire’s conscientious attitude towards sustainability may lead to parents and staff alike being more receptive to Walker’s latter proposal of a waste-free school.

Following this pride-infused declaration of Spire’s dedication to the environment, Walker’s tone shifts to convey her utter dismay at the ubiquity of “plastic pack[aging]” within the schoolyard. Employing the verb “clogging”, the principal postulates that “hamburgers in boxes” and “little plastic [soy sauce] fish” are inundating the school’s waste disposal system, and directly contributing to the “irreversible” damage of the environment. This instils in parents a sense of  fear as to the future of their “country”, and imposes a collective responsibility to cut back on plastic packaging and instead opt to use “washable plastic bottle” and “re-usable containers”. Complementing Walker’s newsletter article is an image of a seemingly post-apocalyptic wasteland, with mountainous trash bags protruding from the ground as far as the eye can see. Set against an ominous background of hazy, dark smog, the inclusion of the image acts as a precursor to our “eventual” dystopian world – one rife with pollution and “waste material” – should the community not do away with “plastic” and “unnecessary packaging”. Accompanied by the exclamation – “more rubbish!” – Walker communicates the dire effects of excessive packaging on “our planet”. As such, readers are compelled to adopt environmentally-friendly approaches to packed lunches for their children to preserve the earth’s current state and prevent further degradation.

Contrarily, Louise dismisses Walker’s idealistic desires, asserting that such changes would be to the detriment of convenience and would simply complicate the lives of “[busy] parents”. Adopting an embittered tone, Louise’s use of vivid imagery arouses thoughts of “chao[tic]” mornings consumed by “filling [water bottles]” and “spreading [cheese]”. Reminded of such stress, parents of Spire Primary School are positioned to oppose Walker’s recommendations, which call for the replacement of disposable packaging with a more sustainable option.

[vceme]

Hi! Could someone please correct my response to section C from the 2017 English exam and provide some constructive criticism? I've only gotten halfway through the third paragraph as yet and haven't started my conclusion yet. Thank you so much! Also, I'm not sure why some of it's crossed out!

Whilst pre-packaged foods are commended by some for their convenience, others are critical of their detrimental effects on the environment. good! In Spire Primary School’s weekly newsletter, published on July 8th 2017, principal Denise Walker expresses her concern regarding the alarming increase in “superfluous packaging” within the schoolyard. Fervently addressing the Spire Primary community, Walker encourages students, parents and teachers alike to take precaution to preserve the environment – starting with cutting back on plastic. In response to this article, frustrated parent Louise challenges Walker’s proposal, claiming that such a change would pose an inconvenience to “work[ing]… parents” whom already practise sustainable living.

Walker opens the newsletter by highlighting Spire Primary School’s commitment to sustainable conduct. The principal’s proclamation of “oh no!... she has got another idea!” emphasises her dedication to the conservation of the environment, portraying her as innovative and forward-thinking. Such words strive to elicit support from the school community – namely, parents. how does it elicit support from parents? Following this brief introduction, she recites a number of successful schemes implemented to foster a culture of  environmental awareness, such as Spire’s “walk/pedal to school day”, use of “four bins…not just three” and the “vegetable garden” with “[free-roaming] chickens”. This positions parents to view the principal as a figure whom not only expresses a certain ardency towards the preservation of the environment, but as a reputable community member whose intent is to ensure a bright future for the primary school and “future generations” to come. Further, Walker’s enthusiasm, exemplified by her frequent inclusion of exclamation points, aims to evoke a sense of pride good amongst readers of the newsletter regarding Spire’s diligence and subsequent enthusiasm towards the “preservation of our planet”. Opening in such a manner as tois Walker's endeavour to remind parents of Spire’s conscientious attitude towards sustainability which may lead to parents and staff alike being more receptive to Walker’s latter proposal of a waste-free school. to my interpretation, i think the primary readers here are parents rather than parents and staff. she just uses staff as ane example but im not 100% sure i did this piece a while ago

Following this pride-infused declaration of Spire’s dedication to the environment, Walker’s tone shifts be more specific, what tone? to convey her utter dismay at the ubiquity of “plastic pack[aging]” within the schoolyard. Employing the verb “clogging”, the principal postulates that “hamburgers in boxes” and “little plastic [soy sauce] fish” are inundating the school’s waste disposal system, and directly contributing to the “irreversible” damage of the environment. This instils in parents a sense of  fear as to the future of their “country”, and thus imposes a collective responsibility to cut back on plastic packaging and instead opt to use “washable plastic bottle” and “re-usable containers”. Complementing Walker’s newsletter article is an image of a seemingly post-apocalyptic wasteland, with mountainous trash bags protruding from the ground as far as the eye can see. Set against an ominous background of hazy, dark smog, the inclusion of the image acts as a precursor to our “eventual” dystopian world – one rife with pollution and “waste material” – should the community not do away with “plastic” and “unnecessary packaging”.  i'm not 100%sure about the phrasing of this sentenceAccompanied by the exclamation – “more rubbish!” – Walker communicates the dire effects of excessive packaging on “our planet”. As such, readers are compelled to adopt environmentally-friendly approaches to packed lunches for their children to preserve the earth’s current state and prevent further degradation.

Contrarily, Louise dismisses Walker’s idealistic desires, asserting that such changes would be to the detriment of convenience and would simply complicate the lives of “[busy] parents”. Adopting an embittered tone, Louise’s use of vivid imagery arouses thoughts of “chao[tic]” mornings consumed by “filling [water bottles]” and “spreading [cheese]”. Reminded of such stress, parents of Spire Primary School are positioned to oppose Walker’s recommendations, which call for the replacement of disposable packaging with a more sustainable option.

Hey!
While I'm not an expert at marking essays and still a year 12, I thought I would give you feedback:
- Your language is quite nice!
-Your description of the image was great!
-It's great that you tried to incorporate the effect on readers but also ask yourself how does the author do this and why (which i think you do sometimes)!
- You could go further with the audience- what kind of parents would be even more swayed ? perhaps parents who are concerned with the beauty of the country
- Could you maybe analyse why Walker choses the words "cute little plastic fish" and "little plastic packets"?
But overall good job!

[lst1103]

Thank you so much for the feedback! I’m only in year 11 so I have a whole year ahead of me to improve - I appreciate your advice and good luck for exams!

[vceme]

No worries! This is a good level to be at year 11! You can improve heaaaaaps in the span of a year. Make sure you consistently (but don't burnout) write essays and get them marked by your teacher or on here. and Thank you!!