Question 1 paper 1
Question 1 paper 1
(a)
‘Usain Bolt makes a comeback in the Olympic 100 meter race’
Usain Bolt, the worldwide champion and famous sprinter, for making one of the best comebacks ever in this year's Olympics 100 meter dash. A 100 meter dash happens within seconds, in a blink of an eye. Even though Usain Bolt started in second place and encountered a stumble, he still won. Making his upturn incredible.
The Olympic champion had an inadequate start. During the moment from which he had sprung off of the blocks, Usain Bolt was in second place. Additionally, at 20 meters Mr. Bolt stumbled. Usain had made a wrong step, hurting his right side. After recovering from his topple, he pushed throughout the rest of the race.
Then comes the comeback of a lifetime. Usain Bolt's strides became longer and stronger, taking him past Richard Thompson. Usain Bolt is now in the lead. It was then clear to Usain and the audience that he was the winner of this year's 100 meter Olympic dash.
While Thompson had one of the best 100 meter dash starts in Olympic history. Which caused him to be in the lead of the race, right from the start. Usain caught up and passed him. Making him the winner.
(b)
The autobiography goes back and recreates Usain Bolt's thought process of him winning the 100 meter dash during the Olympics. While the voice is Usain Bolt's consciousness, the tone is inspirational. We gather this from how Mr. Bolt describes his reaction to his enormous win, “threw my hands up”, it is inspirational in the aspect of him starting in second place and stumbling into him being the winner of the race. While he explains his thoughts and experience of the race, the sports newspaper tone and voice was entirely different. The voice is a journalist who first handedly watched and experienced the race from the crowd. With an intense tone, we gather this from the calling of his upturn a ‘comeback of a lifetime.” This is intense because not only is a comeback of a race an amazing and great thing but adding the word ‘lifetime’ makes it that much more important.
Moving forward, both pieces of writing had the same audience. They were both written to those who are fans of Usain Bolt, as they both describe the successful and winning sprint he had encountered in the Olympics. While the way they address their audience is different. Usain Bolt is talking to a friendly audience, he addresses them like he is speaking to a friend. Using phrases such as; ‘oh man’, ‘stupid’, and ‘crazy.’ Usain forms a relationship with his audience by speaking to them like he would a friend. Meanwhile, the newspaper entry is a formal piece of writing that is informing the same type of audience about the race. Instead of speaking to them as if in a conversation, the writer keeps the readers interested with the exciting informative details of the race. One of the paragraphs started with a description of Usain Bolt's start being ‘inadequate.’ This keeps the readers interested being that the headline initiates him being the winner of the race.
Continuing, the overall presentation of the newspaper entry compared to the autobiographical is completely different. While we are presented with the undergoing mind of Usain Bolt during a race, it is not completely about him. The autobiography continuously talks about the location of ‘Asafa.’ Which is irrelevant due to the fact that Usain only wonders about where he is but we are left with the win Usain. While the newspaper entry is straight to the point and is focused on the comeback of the 100 meter dash won by Usain Bolt in the Olympics.
Additionally, the writing format is different. The autobiography is in chronological order, from which Usain Bolter states have occurred. The reason for writing this way is because of the point of view and voice of the text. If it is strictly what Usain has thought about while he was sprinting his race, it then has to be in chronological order. It is the only logical thing to do. You have to write in the order from which things occur. Meanwhile, the newspaper entry is not in order from which things happen but is based on entertainment. While there are timestamps within the writing, the structure is based on interesting features to keep the readers interested.
In the autobiography, the writer uses language like onomatopoeia. Usain uses “bang!” and “pow” which is a type of language and is not distributed in a formal form. The autobiography was written informally, Usain even used the word ‘stupid’ in his writing. Additionally, the autobiography had hypothetical questions like ‘what are you doing’ which were his thoughts about his teammate. While the newspaper entry was more so an overall report on the performance of Usain Bolt. It distributed imagery. The writer drew a picture in the audience's mind of Usain Bolt's strides while sprinting, saying that they are ‘long’ and ‘strong.’ The autobiography was informal, which is gathered from the language used. While the newspaper entry was formal.
Hey Charli,
ReplyDeleteFor part A, it was clear that you understood your audience and what the question was asking. You include a very eye-catching title that relates very well to the report. You use formal language, showing that you understood who the audience was. You state things like 'inadequate start' and 'upturn incredible'. These phrases, along with the rest of the answer show your insightful reference to characteristic features. It is also clear that you understand the basis of the autobiography while adding additional details about the other racers. For example, you state, "taking him past Richard Thompson," while explaining the entire race. I do feel as though your first and second paragraphs are a little repetitive. You state 'encountered a stumble' and 'at 20 meters Mr. Bolt stumbled' in the first and then second paragraph. I also think that you give away the entirety of the story in the first paragraph. Overall, it was very good and you answered the question very well.
AO1: 4 marks AO2: 4 marks
For your part B, I think you did a great job comparing. However, I think that there was some structure and language points that could've been added. I also think that you could've answered the question a little better. The question states to 'Compare your newspaper report with the autobiographical extract, analyzing form, structure and language.' While you did do this, I think that you should've focused a little more on the form, structure and language rather than the plot of the autobiography. In your first paragraph, you state, "thought process of him winning", and, "him starting in second place ". I think that the little details like these could've been taken out for you to be able to add more points on structure and language. You do a very good job explaining how there are different audiences by quoting '‘oh man’, ‘stupid’' from the text. You also explain very well that the newspaper is a 'formal piece of writing'. In your third paragraph, you state, "undergoing mind of Usain Bolt". I think that with this, you could've explained much more about things like there are tense shifts throughout the paper and how the structure of the text is relating to the subject of the text. When you explain that 'Usain uses “bang!” and “pow”', I think you also could've expanded on how that also relates to the structure of the text. You do a very good job explaining the difference between the two texts, but I think there could be a little more there.
AO1: 3 marks AO2: 6 marks
HI!
ReplyDelete1(a) Your news report was very entertaining to read since it made me feel like I was right there in the stands watching it. For AO1 I am going to give you a 3. You have a good understanding of the text but you are really focused on the fact that he made a comeback. It was mentioned at least four times in the short length of 150-200 words (‘best comebacks’, ‘his upturn’, ‘comeback of a lifetime’, and ‘caught up and passed him’). This idea of a comeback is not all that the autobiography is about. You also wrote that Usain Bolt was a ‘worldwide champion’ when he was coming into this race to compete but this was the first time he won gold. The importance of this autobiography excerpt was discussing his first time winning gold so mistaking this in your article shows a stunted understanding. Newspaper articles are also supposed to be very unbiased and not show any emotion. You used a lot of emotive language which is not relevant to the purpose. For example, you said ‘best comebacks’ and ’comeback of a lifetime’ which shows positive feelings toward Bolt and his achievement. This display of emotion is contrary to the purpose. Because of this AO2 is a 2.
1(b)
You had a good understanding of the different elements and stylistic choices used in both texts. For example, you brought up a great and interesting point discussing the difference in order that the information was presented in. You talked about how the autobiography was presented in chronological order while the newspaper article was written in an order that would satisfy entertainment purposes. For AO1 I would give you a 3. You do a great job on comparing the differences of the two texts but the focus of these comparisons can be a little bit more according to the prompt of language, form, and structure. You talked a lot about the content. For example, you said “the autobiography continuously talks about the location of ‘Asafa.” and that the newspaper is, “focused on the comeback of the 100 meter dash.” This is not really an analysis of the form, language, or structure. Because of this, AO3 is a 5.
Hi, for section AO1 and AO2, question 1(a) I’m giving you 4 marks. I think that your text is very clear, and has an effective reference to characteristic features. The first paragraph includes the key factual information about the event, specifying where “Olympic”, when “this year”, who “Usain Bolt” and these features are very important for an article. The sentences are well structured which have a good impact on the reader, creating a good effect.The text has a well-chosen language, very appropriate for an article, and also it is well structured in paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteYour response for question 1(b) is very clear and detailed, you had a good understanding of both texts. I think that you did a great job, having been very precise about the differences in the form of the two texts, emphasizing the different tones used, one is “inspirational” and the other one “intense”. The analysis of the structure is well done, you talked about the chronological order which is more used in the autobiographical text, because of “the point of view and voice”. Meanwhile the newspaper doesn’t follow it but it is based on “entertainment”, I think that it is a really good point. You did a great job when you talked about the language used in the autobiographical text. You wrote about the use of simple sentences, or the colloquial words like “oh man”, “stupid”, “crazy” or the rhetorical questions. You did a really great job.
AO1: 4, AO3: 8