Can I get feedback on this piece I wrote. For Context the piece analysed was from the 2017 English Exam.
The issue of package waste has sparked a debate from the principal of Spire Primary School Denise Walker towards the stakeholders of aforementioned school. Walker addressed her concern on the school’s newsletter, regarding the use of non-reusable containers, parents have elected to allow children to use. She contends that parents should use renewable packaging in order to avoid the school to be polluted by rubbish. This elicited a response in the comments from a concerned parent named Louise. She is attempting to shed insight towards Walker, as Louise believes that some parents do not have the time to implement bio friendly ideas due to having busy lives.
Firstly, Walker opens her concern about the “superfluous” amount of packaging used during recess and lunch, she bolsters her argument further by stating the types of packaging used in a disgusted and appalled tone, “Plastic”, “Packages’ “Packets”. She attempts to use sequential listing to create an effect within the readers. The repeating of such words conveys to the reader that non-renewable packaging is an environmentally damaging, in order to create an effect within the reader resulting in the rejection of environmentally damaging packaging. This is further illustrated by Walker stating the environmental damage will be “irreversible” accompanied with the image of garbage tower. Walker attempts to express that, if renewable packaging is not use, the country will be “clogged” with trash. The use of the image, Walker utilizes attempts to shock, and convey towards the audience of the disastrous cataclysm of the external environment if parents do not action is not taken. The effect on the reader would be the realisation that renewable packaging is the methods to avoid a disastrous future.
Secondly, Walker further expresses to parents, to avoid the “little plastic fish” to apply soy sauce and use a “common flask” and “reusable bottle”. She aims to convey these pragmatic solutions in an assertive tone, to position parents to adopt these ideas in their daily lives. The effect Walker is intending, is to convince the reader that if these ideas are implemented, a step is taken to avoid the environmental chaos that will transpire. In contrast, Louise argues in an annoyed and frustrated tone, that some parents are unable to perform these tasks due to morning being “chaotic”. Louise conveys this by stating children will make a “mess” pumping soy sauce or “lose” the reusable bottle. Louise attempts to dispel Walkers solutions and twist them as a hassle parents have to deal with. The effect on the reader Louise aims for, is outrage and dis-contempt towards Walkers idea, due to the messages she conveyed disrupting their lives.
Thirdly, Walker contends that parents should change their lifestyle by forgoing takeaway food. She aims to convince parents in an emphatic tone that “mounds” of waste these “paper bags” will affect the environment. Walker aims to position the reader to understand the ecological destruction created by takeaway containers, this in turn affects the reader to understand that a change in living can benefit the land. In contrast, Louise asserts in a irritated and fuming tone that Walker should not “begrudge” parents as she believes every deserves the “easy night off”. Louise aims to position the reader to dispel Walker’s attack on lifestyle. This in turn may effect’s the parents view towards Walker, how they do not have to be shamed for “enjoying” living.
Ultimately, the discussion will further continue as Walkers ideas as still up for debate among the stake holders of Spire Primary School. However the arguments raised by Denise and Louise will further enhance any future debate if it were to occur.
Home
Help
Search
Login
