Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RWR 3
-2-
Comments
Introduction
Statement of Issue- with two sides Definition of key terms Scope/Outline with clear points (A, B, C, D)
Conclusion
Appropriate Staging Device SUMMARY- order as per outline Judgement- stating clearly the result of discussion
Expression
Appropriateness- no confusion of meanings Academic Language not Colloquial st nd No 1 & 2 person pronouns (I, we, you, me, us, your) Word Meanings Accurate Spelling accurate Noun Groups/Nominalisation
Grammar
Sentence Structures ( sub-vrb-obj) Verb-Subject agreement Use of articles appropriate (a, the) Use of singular/plural appropriate Tense usage
Document Presentation
A4 paper, Stapled on top, left-hand corner Name, class & teacher on top right hand corner Margins left and right for teacher notes Double spaced for corrections Loose sheets- not in plastic folder or book Clear writing or choice of font
Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-3-
-4-
In conclusion, this essay has clearly demonstrated that while dogs do carry disease, the risk is rural, minimal and highly dependent on owner behaviour, and therefore, not the threat it is often imagined to be. This essay has also shown that the behaviour of dog-owners can be readily modified such that dogs will pose little or no health risk. It is not dogs who pose a risk to footpath cleanliness but rather their owners who fail to be responsible for their behaviour.
Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-5-
Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-6-
ANALYSIS OF TEXT
Definition
Footpath cleanliness can be defined as both the emotional and physical health conditions of thoroughfares used by pedestrians. OR For the purpose of this essay, footpath cleanliness will refer to both the emotional and physical health conditions of thoroughfares used by pedestrians.
Scope
This essay will investigate* three key areas in the footpath cleanliness debate; (A) how dogs carry disease and so pose a cleanliness risk, (B) how non-dog owners often over-react to imagined health threats and finally, (C) how dog owners are the real culprits in canine messiness. *(explore/discuss/present/consider)
Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-7-
Second Paragraph
(B) However, there is often an over-reaction to imagined
dangers where none exist. The incidence of intestinal worms is not high and if dog-owners are properly educated, they will de-worm their dogs and thus diminish the risk considerably. Even without this education, only eight children die of hydatid worms in Australia each year and each of these has been in a rural environment, suggesting that urban dogs pose little or no threat.
Third Paragraph
In each of the above areas, dog owners are the real culprits; they are the ones who should be responsible for the dogs health and
Copyright Reno Dal V#4 2004 (2002) Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-8-
who should control their dogs behaviour. If any threat exists, it remains as a result of human failing rather than the fault of the dogs themselves. A combination of education and legal penalties has had a major role in changing dog-owner behaviour around the world, and in turn, how the dogs themselves behave. Thus it could be claimed that dogs are not a negative influence in themselves but that they only express the nature of their owners. In fact, the title of this text might more properly be characterised as Dog owners are a negative influence on footpath cleanliness.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this essay has clearly demonstrated that (A) while dogs do carry disease, the risk is rural, minimal and highly dependent on human behaviour, and therefore, (B) not the threat it is often imagined to be. This essay has also shown that (C) the behaviour of dog-owners can be readily modified such that dogs will pose little or no health risk.
Judgement
It is not dogs who pose a risk to footpath cleanliness but rather the dog owners who fail to be responsible for their behaviour.
Issued: 16 Jan. 04
-9-
Issued: 16 Jan. 04