IB Docs (2) Team
Paper 1: Sample Response 3 (George Monbiot, Embarrassment of Riches)
This is the second Paper 1 response we have published written about one of George Monbiot’s polemical essays, often published in The Guardian, and available on Monbiot’s excellent website. In this essay, ‘Embarrassment of Riches’, Monbiot argues that the consumption of the world’s wealthy is having a devastating impact on our planet’s environment, contributing disproportionately to climate change and resource depletion. Monbiot’s response to this threat, as he sees it, is to suggest a limit on the money and wealth any individual may possess. It’s an idea that is well worth spending a few minutes of class time discussing!
Unlike the previous student’s response, well written, detailed, and full of rich insight, this analysis is much less good. Nevertheless, it is not without quality. The student communicates with adequate clarity and makes some intelligent, analytical observations. In every criteria, however, the response has limitations. Teachers may like to ask their students what the writer of this response could do to improve the quality of their work. In addition, teachers may like to ask their own students to assess the guiding question established by the student, who asks How does the writer make a powerful argument?
Sample Guided Textual Analysis
Guided Textual Analysis: Student's Response (George Monbiot, 'Embarrassment of Riches')
Paper 1: Embarrassment of Riches, by George Monbiot
George Monbiot is making a very powerful case in his article about money and the environment. His essay is called ‘Embarrassment of Riches’ and he is arguing that some peoples have to much money and that this is causing devastating effect on the planets environment. I’m not sure really that I agree with George but still he makes a strong case that he backs up with research. Basically George says that if you have a lot of money you will spend it. Spending money on expensive things burns lots of fossil fuel making global warming worse.
He starts his story with a very direct claim when he writes that “for the sake of the Earth, we should set an upper limit on the money any person can amass”. When he says this he uses the word “we” and this is suggesting that every person has a role in controlling the money peoples earn. So for George the responsibility is everyones although people will disagree and say that it isn’t fair or realistic and that people can have as much money as they want.
In his first big paragraph George has a quotation (although I don’t know who said it) that “it is not quite true that behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” He turns this around to say that it is true that in front of every great fortune lies a great crime.” George is saying that if you have much money you commit “ecocide” and this is just inevitable even if you don’t mean it.
In the next big paragraph there is an anecdote from a guy at an airport talking about all the planes and some very big ones that fly to America and Russia and such with very few peoples in them. George says that some of these planes such as 737s burn a lot of fuel. He makes some comparison by saying that “that’s as much fossil energy as a small African town might use in a year.” When George says this he is being vague because actually you don’t know how big the town is. Also Africa is a big place so where does he mean?!
George doesn’t seem to like wealthy peoples or anyway can be very dismissive making fun at them. He uses words like “supehomes”, “supeyacht”, and “supercars” quite ironically. Next he talks about Google people who go to a meeting in “114 private jets and a fleet of megayachts” to solve climate problems. George is being ironic again since obviously you can’t stop global warming if you burn lots of fossils fuels. Basically according to George “the ultrarich cannot help trashing the world.” The word “trashing” is colloquial word to mean making a mess or turning to garbage.
George as I said in my beginning is using research to make his case stronger. George is using expressions like “a series of research papers” and “plenty of studies” to make it seem that that his argument is really strong. But as I said before George is being vague by not telling you who said or wrote these things which is quite crafty. George says that rich people make good diet choices eating less meat and stuff. But in all the other ways the rich consume more and are not even empathetic people. George makes the point which is probably true point that the rich peoples often escape the worse things with climate changes.
George goes on writing about the people such as Bill Gates who think climate problems will be solved by doing stuff such as making technological innovations. George doesn’t think this is bad but he says that Bill Gates “has missed the crucial point: in seeking to prevent climate breakdown, what counts is not what you do but what you stop doing.” In using the word “crucial” George means that this is very important. George also says that “money is not a magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away.” This is a metaphor that George uses to make a claim that money does not have magic. You can’t believe in money any more than you should believe in magic.
George makes a solution to the problem by agreeing with a philosopher woman called Ingrid Robeyens who invented a word called “limitarianism” which means that there must be an upper limit on the money a person can have (although George doesn’t say how much that should be). George says that “this call for leveling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse.” George mean that the idea is controversial on biblical scale. But if we don’t make these changes and keep spending money on stuff this will be “a formula for mass destitution.” This is reminding the reader of the magic wand metaphor meaning that spending on stuff will make us all poor eventually.
Georges main point is made at the end when we says that “life on earth depends on moderation.” George is probably right. But at the same time he is placing limits on peoples freedom which is controversial. Making his ideas happen would be very hard to do and George doesn’t tell you how much money people can have. It seems not likely that rich people who are also powerful people would agree to have all their money taken of them. Climate change is really scary but you can’t ask all the rich people to give their money away. They won’t do it.
Guiding Question (established by the student): How does the writer make a powerful argument?
Teacher's Comments
Criterion A: Understanding and interpretation (5 marks)
- To what extent does the student show an understanding of the text? What inferences can the student reasonably make?
- To what extent does the student support their claims with references to the text?
3 0ut of 5: The idea in the marking criteria that a text may have a ‘literal meaning’ is an interesting and, one may say, controversial assertion. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a sense in which the student has understood Monbiot’s main claims and is able to adequately paraphrase these. The response goes beyond simple rephrasing and summarising to consider the implications of Monbiot’s argument. One real quality of this response is the student’s ability to integrate quotations. Although the student’s writing lacks refinement, she is able to select and embed supporting quotations very effectively – a skill that very many students struggle with.
Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)
- How well does the student does the student evaluate the ways in which language and style establish meaning and effect?
3 out of 5: This is better than description. Some of the student’s evaluative observations are rather misplaced; they offer a perspective, but not one that derives directly from reading Monbiot’s text. The amount of language analysis is rather limited, but the student is nevertheless able to offer critical insight. Some of her observations on language and effect, although a little impeded by unpolished language, are reasonably astute.
Criterion C: Focus and organisation (5 marks)
- How effectively does the student structure and present their ideas?
- How balanced and focused is the response?
3 out of 5: This is an adequately organised response. There are some introductory remarks and a final paragraph that goes some way to synthesising the student’s main points. The student’s strategy in building her response is, it seems, to parallel the linear development of Monbiot’s essay. This is not the only approach to organisation, but since the marking criteria do not prescribe or prefer any one strategy, it can be assumed that the presentation of ideas is satisfactory. There is some focus in the essay, although the student would do better by returning to central, controlling ideas.
Criterion D: Language (5 marks)
- How clear, varied, and accurate is the student’s language?
- To what extent is the student’s choice of register, style, and terminology appropriate?
3 out of 5: This criterion is a little challenging to assess. Errors and inconsistencies are apparent (leading, potentially, to a 2 in the criterion). Nevertheless, the language is, in the main, quite clear. In a few places, the idiom and register are inappropriate. However, for the most part, the writing is stylistically appropriate. It seems, on balance, that the student achieves a 3 here.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn