Please mark my English Lang paper 2 question 4 and provide feedback if you can :)

Watch
nousername01
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#1
English is my worst/weakest subject and my teachers aren't really helping or supporting me so if someone could read this and mark this it could help a lot

The question was 'compare how each source portrays the issue of children working'

In source A, the whole of the article is obviously against child labour and is a fully factual account of the things that McDonalds did wrong with the hope of spreading factual knowledge about the situation. The source goes to say how the council hand found more than 50 ‘breaches of the law’. Children today are protected by multiple regulations, for example there are a limited number hours they can work on the weekends and weekdays. Employers are monitored by a ‘child employment officer’ and if they don’t comply to these rules they are prosecuted; MacDonald’s were fined ‘more than £1200 for employing children ‘illegally’, they risk lawsuits and backslash from the public. Mentioning how McDonald broke the ‘law’ clearly shows how now, we are clearly against child labour. The readers would be appalled by the treatment of these children so the writer attempts to inform the readers of the situation in a place where they wouldn’t expect it to happen. The writer uses emotive language like ‘guilty’ to exemplify to the audience, their opinion on child labour and how they think it is wrong. They also use emotive language saying that they need to ‘protect’ the children. From a parent’s point of view this makes them feel that they need to do something about it, like it is their responsibility, their ‘duty’ to solve the problem. The use of the word ‘protect’ along with ‘children’ further reflects how child labour is not accepted as it portrays them as vulnerable. It causes readers who don’t already know about the dangers of it to sympathies with the children and realise the wrong doings of the company. This also urges them to feel like they are a part if it, so they need to do something to help. It could possibly force partners to imagine their own children in the role. In the subline it was that ‘even’ children in the UK are being exploited which reflects how uncommon it is in the UK and how the reader would be shocked at what is about to happen. But it suggests that it is normalised in other countries, and that people don’t really care about it in the other countries but only care now because it involves the UK.

Whereas although in Source B, there is a fairly negative perspective on child labour, it is clear that it was accepted in the 19th centaury and was almost normalised. The source begins talking about how there was an ‘excellent…dinner’ but not long before the ‘chimney caught fire’. This use of contrast not only shows the reader how normalized something has disastrous as a chimney catching fire and putting a child in danger was but also how little care there was for children as a young child was sent up to ‘put it out’ just so they could have an ‘excellent’ dinner. It portrays how no one really cared about the lives and health of children and deemed them insignificant in comparison to having a good meal. A dinner is a common ‘occurrence’ so the fact that they care more about something that happens every day rather than someone as vulnerable as a child. This could suggest how the exploitation of children was common which again shows how there wasn’t really a concern about it, and it was considered okay to just send a child up a chimney in order to have a nice dinner.

However, in source B there is a hint at the writer having some sympathy towards, the child calling them a ‘wretch’, signifying how she actually sympathises with the children and believes that there should actually be a change in the social norms. This is further show by the repetition of the word ‘civilised’ which could be showing how the writer is question how humane the ‘masters’ are and is actually calling them to question it themselves. The word civilised is first used when relating to the ‘dinner’ which could perhaps show how Smith wants the reader to realise how normalised it is and how they want the reader to change this. She wants them to realise that the children are living these trimitic expensive why they are just eating ‘dinner’ like nothing is wrong. It is alter used to say ‘civilised country’ which suggest that’s that writer recognises that the change needs to be a while country thing, and she wants the readers to come together collectively to make a change. It also plays with the idea of vulnerability, calling the reader to imagine the ‘slender frame of that human body’ and how it has to ‘force itself’ through the chimney. The contrast of being vulnerable and forced, invokes a feeling of worry from the reader and cause them to feel like they need to do something to protect the children themselves. Referring to them as ‘human beings’ brings them to the same level as the adults showing how they need to be treated with the same respect and it moves the distance from them and the reader, which could possibly make change more.

In source A, however this is more factual account rather than expressing sympathy and emotion for the children. But it does move from the factual account to passing blame rather than a feeling approach. The writer says that McDonalds had a ‘special responsibly’ which is a shift in perceptive from stating the facts to actually blaming McDonald’s for what happened. This suggests anger in the writer’s tone rather than sadness for the children like in source A. Most of the source is focused on the law so they could be at the fact that they broke the law instead of the children being overworked without ‘permits. It also could be due to children being ‘distracted from schoolwork’. This all suggest to the reader that the author is angry at McDonalds itself for what they did and for not having an efficient ‘system’ rather than the actual poor treatment of the students and the fact that they are being exploited. There is also a lot of distance placed between the reader and the children, referring to them as ‘schoolchildren’ which adult often look down upon and immature. This could make change less as adults often see students as below them which could make them not want to make a change.

Source B describes the abuse and the horrible conditions that many children suffered through a court hearing. When asked by a member of parliament if he gives them clothes the master deflects the question from himself and says how some masters treat the boys ‘pretty well’ by giving them some clothes while others ‘keep them month and months until they were washed to the skin’ This is again an attempt to get the reader to realise the wrong doings of the adults in this society as good treatment was considered being given some clothes. But when they got stuck in the chimney due to their clothes getting caught it was considered to be their own fault. The repetition of months and moths signifies how long they would go without proper treatment and the fact that this is said so causally portrays how often this would happen, it shows the true extent of their exploitation. The answers to the question throughout the entire interview were supposed to be facts but instead are emotional, which again draws a sad response from the reader and forces them to understand the conditions and want to help and make a worthy change.

In source A, the focus is on the effect that the exploitation and on the company and what they did to the children rather than the horrible conditions and the effect on the children which could possibly suggest that the child labour isn’t as much of a concern as once thought. The children the source A were being forced to ‘work overtime’ and ‘late on school nights’ It is made clear throughout the extract that this is wrong, but it focusses on how McDonalds responded to it and sort of deflects and doesn’t really address the issue throughout, there is a lot of passing them blame and very indirect, ambiguous comments. It is more of a vocal account of what happened, saying how the court as taken a ‘tough stance’ which shows how there has bene change since the past and how there is now a negative view on child labour but the lack of emotion, like in source B is unlikely to evoke any kind of sympathy or feeling towards the kids. On top of that the mention of ‘council’ and ‘TUC’ is just going to make the reader feeling like they are reading another boring article rather than becoming emotionally invested like in source B which is a much more personal account than just statements. It is because of this that source A is less likely to make or want a change in child labour, they are just stating facts of what happened. This could be because they don’t really care about what is happening and that is why the writer refers to them as ‘schoolchildren’ because they themselves what to distance himself from the kids and just sees them as beneath him and more immature. Or it could be that people think that as there are laws, they don’t need to care anymore even though there is still exploitation going on.

Thanks
0
reply
agx17
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 months ago
#2
(Original post by nousername01)
English is my worst/weakest subject and my teachers aren't really helping or supporting me so if someone could read this and mark this it could help a lot

The question was 'compare how each source portrays the issue of children working'

In source A, the whole of the article is obviously against child labour and is a fully factual account of the things that McDonalds did wrong with the hope of spreading factual knowledge about the situation. The source goes to say how the council hand found more than 50 ‘breaches of the law’. Children today are protected by multiple regulations, for example there are a limited number hours they can work on the weekends and weekdays. Employers are monitored by a ‘child employment officer’ and if they don’t comply to these rules they are prosecuted; MacDonald’s were fined ‘more than £1200 for employing children ‘illegally’, they risk lawsuits and backslash from the public. Mentioning how McDonald broke the ‘law’ clearly shows how now, we are clearly against child labour. The readers would be appalled by the treatment of these children so the writer attempts to inform the readers of the situation in a place where they wouldn’t expect it to happen. The writer uses emotive language like ‘guilty’ to exemplify to the audience, their opinion on child labour and how they think it is wrong. They also use emotive language saying that they need to ‘protect’ the children. From a parent’s point of view this makes them feel that they need to do something about it, like it is their responsibility, their ‘duty’ to solve the problem. The use of the word ‘protect’ along with ‘children’ further reflects how child labour is not accepted as it portrays them as vulnerable. It causes readers who don’t already know about the dangers of it to sympathies with the children and realise the wrong doings of the company. This also urges them to feel like they are a part if it, so they need to do something to help. It could possibly force partners to imagine their own children in the role. In the subline it was that ‘even’ children in the UK are being exploited which reflects how uncommon it is in the UK and how the reader would be shocked at what is about to happen. But it suggests that it is normalised in other countries, and that people don’t really care about it in the other countries but only care now because it involves the UK.

Whereas although in Source B, there is a fairly negative perspective on child labour, it is clear that it was accepted in the 19th centaury and was almost normalised. The source begins talking about how there was an ‘excellent…dinner’ but not long before the ‘chimney caught fire’. This use of contrast not only shows the reader how normalized something has disastrous as a chimney catching fire and putting a child in danger was but also how little care there was for children as a young child was sent up to ‘put it out’ just so they could have an ‘excellent’ dinner. It portrays how no one really cared about the lives and health of children and deemed them insignificant in comparison to having a good meal. A dinner is a common ‘occurrence’ so the fact that they care more about something that happens every day rather than someone as vulnerable as a child. This could suggest how the exploitation of children was common which again shows how there wasn’t really a concern about it, and it was considered okay to just send a child up a chimney in order to have a nice dinner.

However, in source B there is a hint at the writer having some sympathy towards, the child calling them a ‘wretch’, signifying how she actually sympathises with the children and believes that there should actually be a change in the social norms. This is further show by the repetition of the word ‘civilised’ which could be showing how the writer is question how humane the ‘masters’ are and is actually calling them to question it themselves. The word civilised is first used when relating to the ‘dinner’ which could perhaps show how Smith wants the reader to realise how normalised it is and how they want the reader to change this. She wants them to realise that the children are living these trimitic expensive why they are just eating ‘dinner’ like nothing is wrong. It is alter used to say ‘civilised country’ which suggest that’s that writer recognises that the change needs to be a while country thing, and she wants the readers to come together collectively to make a change. It also plays with the idea of vulnerability, calling the reader to imagine the ‘slender frame of that human body’ and how it has to ‘force itself’ through the chimney. The contrast of being vulnerable and forced, invokes a feeling of worry from the reader and cause them to feel like they need to do something to protect the children themselves. Referring to them as ‘human beings’ brings them to the same level as the adults showing how they need to be treated with the same respect and it moves the distance from them and the reader, which could possibly make change more.

In source A, however this is more factual account rather than expressing sympathy and emotion for the children. But it does move from the factual account to passing blame rather than a feeling approach. The writer says that McDonalds had a ‘special responsibly’ which is a shift in perceptive from stating the facts to actually blaming McDonald’s for what happened. This suggests anger in the writer’s tone rather than sadness for the children like in source A. Most of the source is focused on the law so they could be at the fact that they broke the law instead of the children being overworked without ‘permits. It also could be due to children being ‘distracted from schoolwork’. This all suggest to the reader that the author is angry at McDonalds itself for what they did and for not having an efficient ‘system’ rather than the actual poor treatment of the students and the fact that they are being exploited. There is also a lot of distance placed between the reader and the children, referring to them as ‘schoolchildren’ which adult often look down upon and immature. This could make change less as adults often see students as below them which could make them not want to make a change.

Source B describes the abuse and the horrible conditions that many children suffered through a court hearing. When asked by a member of parliament if he gives them clothes the master deflects the question from himself and says how some masters treat the boys ‘pretty well’ by giving them some clothes while others ‘keep them month and months until they were washed to the skin’ This is again an attempt to get the reader to realise the wrong doings of the adults in this society as good treatment was considered being given some clothes. But when they got stuck in the chimney due to their clothes getting caught it was considered to be their own fault. The repetition of months and moths signifies how long they would go without proper treatment and the fact that this is said so causally portrays how often this would happen, it shows the true extent of their exploitation. The answers to the question throughout the entire interview were supposed to be facts but instead are emotional, which again draws a sad response from the reader and forces them to understand the conditions and want to help and make a worthy change.

In source A, the focus is on the effect that the exploitation and on the company and what they did to the children rather than the horrible conditions and the effect on the children which could possibly suggest that the child labour isn’t as much of a concern as once thought. The children the source A were being forced to ‘work overtime’ and ‘late on school nights’ It is made clear throughout the extract that this is wrong, but it focusses on how McDonalds responded to it and sort of deflects and doesn’t really address the issue throughout, there is a lot of passing them blame and very indirect, ambiguous comments. It is more of a vocal account of what happened, saying how the court as taken a ‘tough stance’ which shows how there has bene change since the past and how there is now a negative view on child labour but the lack of emotion, like in source B is unlikely to evoke any kind of sympathy or feeling towards the kids. On top of that the mention of ‘council’ and ‘TUC’ is just going to make the reader feeling like they are reading another boring article rather than becoming emotionally invested like in source B which is a much more personal account than just statements. It is because of this that source A is less likely to make or want a change in child labour, they are just stating facts of what happened. This could be because they don’t really care about what is happening and that is why the writer refers to them as ‘schoolchildren’ because they themselves what to distance himself from the kids and just sees them as beneath him and more immature. Or it could be that people think that as there are laws, they don’t need to care anymore even though there is still exploitation going on.

Thanks
Hey, great job! I’m an English tutor so I have some tips I can offer you. I don’t know what exam board your on but I have some general comments that might help you.

First, instead of words such as ‘obviously’ you could use ‘evidently’, as examiners like this more and it sounds a bit more refined. Also, checking the mark scheme and knowing exactly what it wants will help you so much-if it wants analysis, try a structure like ‘the use of the statistic (quote’) in Source A portrays the issue of children working as (adjective) as...’ and then go on to explain it.
Your sentence ‘the writer uses emotive language like ‘guilty’ to exemplify to the audience their opinion on child labour and how they think it is wrong’ is a great sentence, so try to write like that! The only changes I would suggest are saying ‘such as’ rather than ‘like’ and maybe use a more powerful word than ‘wrong’.

Also, when introducing Source B, I would go with ‘In contrast, Source B...’ as it is safe and sounds good to examiners. If you wanted to go to a level worthy you could say ‘Both sources portray the issue of children working as (adjective); however...’ so in this case you are finding a similarity but then saying that it’s slightly different (eg both are against children working, but Source B presents a society where it has been normalised)
Another thing they teach you at A level is not to start a sentence with ‘this is because’ or anything like that, even if you have just said it-just repeat the thing you said in your last sentence (i know it sounds repetitive but trust me)
Biggest tip: use the words of the question!! This signals that you have answered the question, so you want to use the words ‘portray’ and ‘issue of children working’ LOADS throughout your answer
Another tip: Say ‘adjective’ or ‘noun’ instead of ‘word’ (just sounds better)
You could also add in words like ‘furthermore’, ‘moreover’, ‘additionally’ etc just to help your writing sound a bit more Englishy.

Hope that helps- if you have any more specific questions let me know and I’ll do my best to check this thread
0
reply
nousername01
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#3
(Original post by agx17)
Hey, great job! I’m an English tutor so I have some tips I can offer you. I don’t know what exam board your on but I have some general comments that might help you.

First, instead of words such as ‘obviously’ you could use ‘evidently’, as examiners like this more and it sounds a bit more refined. Also, checking the mark scheme and knowing exactly what it wants will help you so much-if it wants analysis, try a structure like ‘the use of the statistic (quote’) in Source A portrays the issue of children working as (adjective) as...’ and then go on to explain it.
Your sentence ‘the writer uses emotive language like ‘guilty’ to exemplify to the audience their opinion on child labour and how they think it is wrong’ is a great sentence, so try to write like that! The only changes I would suggest are saying ‘such as’ rather than ‘like’ and maybe use a more powerful word than ‘wrong’.

Also, when introducing Source B, I would go with ‘In contrast, Source B...’ as it is safe and sounds good to examiners. If you wanted to go to a level worthy you could say ‘Both sources portray the issue of children working as (adjective); however...’ so in this case you are finding a similarity but then saying that it’s slightly different (eg both are against children working, but Source B presents a society where it has been normalised)
Another thing they teach you at A level is not to start a sentence with ‘this is because’ or anything like that, even if you have just said it-just repeat the thing you said in your last sentence (i know it sounds repetitive but trust me)
Biggest tip: use the words of the question!! This signals that you have answered the question, so you want to use the words ‘portray’ and ‘issue of children working’ LOADS throughout your answer
Another tip: Say ‘adjective’ or ‘noun’ instead of ‘word’ (just sounds better)
You could also add in words like ‘furthermore’, ‘moreover’, ‘additionally’ etc just to help your writing sound a bit more Englishy.

Hope that helps- if you have any more specific questions let me know and I’ll do my best to check this thread
Thank you so much, that actually really helps . I wasn't sure if I should put my exam board in or not hahah but its AQA
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (5)
4.9%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (16)
15.69%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (19)
18.63%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (11)
10.78%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (33)
32.35%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (18)
17.65%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise