Paper 1 Question 1

 (A): 4/20/2022

Dear Mr. President, 

I have recently become aware of an issue that affects the entire world in the case of the fire in Notre Dame. I am in the uttermost shock and I am very concerned about that but my focus today is more focused on the event in the Amazon Rainforest. 

After the first 3 minutes of the first flame of the Notre Dame fire, the world was already informed about the event of the fire. People all over the world including billionaires, citizens, and the average person have donated over a billion dollars in order to support the cause of what has happened. 

The Amazon Rainforest, supplying twenty percent of the oxygen in the world is in danger, and I believe that donating would be the best thing that you could do in order to help benefit the fire and attempt to slow down the flames. Donating would not only help the trees, but it would also ensure that the species and nature in the rainforest would continue to live. This decision would not only look good on your end, but it would get other countries and leaders more involved in this big issue. 

Sincerely, Shamus Coyle

(B):

The text that we read is both extracts from the forest fire incidents that took place in Notre Dame and in the Amazon Rainforest. My piece of writing, however, was a letter to the President in charge of France and I was attempting to explain the issue taking place and why I thought that the President of France should donate to the cause. 

The text in the extract would be classified as an informal piece of writing because of the fact that it proposed the incident to the targeted audience in a sort of a casual manner rather than in a formal manner. In my case, however, it would be classified as a formal piece of writing and that is due to the fact that I am writing to the President of France and you can see that in the way I start and end my letter. Something else differing the two was the fact that the extracts were in the third person while mine was in the first person allowing the reader to know all of my internal thoughts from my point of view. 

In my piece of writing, I was attempting to get the President to do something that I wanted him to do, however in the first article, they were rather trying to get some information across to the targeted audience. I was attempting to get the president to feel emotion when I said, “Donating would not only help the trees, but it would also ensure that the species and nature in the rainforest would continue to live.” I did this to say that donating money would keep nature alive and to kind of point out that we only have one Earth and we need to preserve it not only for us but for the future generations as well. 

Looking at the news report, the author started out by describing the past in which the fires took place, yet continued to switch back to the present in order to talk about the Amazon Rainforest. They do this in order to inform the reader about both the situations happening in the past and the present and I feel that it helped me in order to do the same thing in my writing talking about the past in Notre Dame in that situation, and then continue to talk about the situation in the Rainforest. Overall, I feel as if both of our methods were effective and that they were beneficial to the targeted audiences.