Hi,
Your language analysis here is absolutely spot on. The only thing which is slightly confusing is the structure. At the bottom of this I will show you how I personally would structure the same response you did. It's undoubtedly a level 4 response. The comparison in the first paragraph was much stronger than in the second due to the fact that you "in contrast to this." Of course, a comparison can include a similarity or a difference. In your second point, you portray source A and B quite negatively but then claim that they're different. This could be a lack of understanding of the extract on my behalf as I haven't read it, however going forward it is an important thing to consider.
However, overall this is a great response. You tick every box on the level 4 mark scheme. I would like to see another paragraph if you have time in the exam, however, as this is a 16 mark question.
For this question: 13/16
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint. This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two. In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work. Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets. On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents. This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.