Student’s Name:_____________________________________________________________
Circle your teacher’s name: Mrs
Attard Mr Munro Mrs
Xevgenis
WERRIBEE SECONDARY COLLEGE
SEMESTER 1, 2016
YEAR 9 EXAMINATION
SELP ENGLISH
Wednesday 8th of June, 2016
1.15
pm – 3.00pm
Reading Time: 10 minutes
Writing Time: 85 minutes
Total Marks: 40
marks
This Exam consists of 3 pages
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:
l Complete
Section 1 and section 2
l Plan your work carefully. Edit your work
and use all the time available.
l Use
a blue or a black pen, not a lead pencil.
l Write
on one side of the lined paper provided. Place these into the exam paper for
collection.
l You
may use a dictionary, but not a thesaurus. You may not share your
dictionary. No notes or text books are allowed.
SECTION ONE – TEXT RESPONSE 50%
of grade
Write an analytical essay of no less than 600 words in response to one
of the questions.
SECTION TWO – LANGUAGE ANALYSIS 50% of grade
Write a language analysis essay (which includes an introduction and two body
paragraphs and a conclusion) in response to the source provided.
SECTION
ONE – TEXT RESPONSE (20
MARKS)
Choose one of the topics below.
Write a carefully
constructed essay of no less than 600
words in response to the chosen topic.
Remember to include specific examples from the film
and quotations to support your ideas.
TOPICS
'Well I'm not going to stand around and let them do what they want, I say we fight'
What is the importance of conflict within Stuart Beattie's Tomorrow
When the War Began?
OR
Growth and development are central to Stuart Beattie's Tomorrow When the War Began. Do you agree?
or
SECTION TWO – LANGUAGE ANALYSIS (20
marks)
Write a language analysis essay (which includes an
introduction, two body paragraphs and a conclusion) in response to the
following source.
Background Information
Following the hunting of a famous lion ‘Cecil’ by an American dentist the issue of whether or not the hunting of animals should be allowed has been discussed. Those who promote the practice of hunting suggest that the practice is tied to tradition and honour, and provides a source of income to many in impoverished nations. Those against the hunting suggest that it is a barbaric practice that threatens our existence as a society and prevents sustainable sources of income from being maintained.
Following the hunting of a famous lion ‘Cecil’ by an American dentist the issue of whether or not the hunting of animals should be allowed has been discussed. Those who promote the practice of hunting suggest that the practice is tied to tradition and honour, and provides a source of income to many in impoverished nations. Those against the hunting suggest that it is a barbaric practice that threatens our existence as a society and prevents sustainable sources of income from being maintained.
The hunter who killed Cecil the lion doesn’t
deserve our empathy
Trophy hunters like Walter J Palmer
shouldn’t receive death threats – but there is no excuse for their argument
that hunting serves conservation
We love a good fight, don’t we? Enter Walter J
Palmer, a tanned dentist from Minnesota, with a bow and arrow. Along
comes Cecil the lion, the
alpha male of his pride, minding his own business being the best-known and most
beloved lion in Zimbabwe if not in Africa, as well as the subject of an Oxford University study. Then Cecil is shot with a bow and arrow, taking
40 hours to die, all because Palmer thought killing a magnificent animal was
sporty.
I read the story of Cecil’s killing
and my education and intellect deserted me for a minute. I felt only disgust
and rage, somewhat inarticulately. I feel no calmness about big-game hunters. I
am not persuaded by their justifications, which can be easily punctured with
buckshot. Trophy hunting contributes to conservation, they say: when the Dallas
Safari Club auctioned the right to kill an endangered Namibian
black rhino, it said the $350,000 winning bounty
– they called it a “bid” – went towards conservation efforts in Namibia. There
are only 5,000 black rhinos left.
The population of African lions has
been reduced by 50% in
the last three decades, says the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and there
are now only 32,000. Elephants, leopards, polar bears and giraffes are all
hunted for “sport” too. Shooting an endangered species and calling it
sustainable is like waving a fan and thinking you’re helping to stop global
warming.
In April, after Ricky Gervais tweeted a picture of the blonde, pretty Rebecca Francis lying
next to a dead giraffe she had just shot, the internet went ape. Arguably, it
went more ape than it would have if she hadn’t been female, and you can find
plenty of earnest essays about how women have the right to be big-game hunters
without getting an online hounding. I don’t care what gender she was. I care
that afterwards, she declared that she had done a good thing. The giraffe was
elderly, she wrote,
and was going to die soon. By shooting him, she had honoured his life by making
his body useful to locals: his tail could make jewellery and his bones could
make “other things”. “I’m no game biologist,” she wrote, but “there is no
question that hunters contribute the most to the welfare of wildlife.”
Follow this argument further and you
reach the reasoning that poaching and trafficking do more harm than big-game
hunting. True. Wildlife trafficking is worth $7-10bn, and is the
fifth most profitable illegal market worldwide. Yet in many countries where
poaching is rampant, policing is patchy and punishment often nothing more than
a fine. Yes, poaching is more damaging than trophy hunting. Murder is worse
than grievous bodily harm, technically, but I’m comfortable strongly objecting
to both.
But violently objecting to hunters
can be almost as bad as hunting. Most public displays of big-game hunting
attract fury and sometimes death threats, as Palmer has been subjected to since
his identity was revealed. The fact that African countries such as Namibia and Zimbabwe sell licences to shoot their own big game
gets less attention.
Palmer is said to be “quite upset,”
but only because he got the wrong lion. He blamed his guides for this, rather
than his own bizarre and repellent desire to augment his own self-worth
(somewhat damaged, now, by a campaign to shut down his dental practice) by
killing another creature. Francis was compelled to release a statement saying
that she “couldn’t understand how people who claim to be so loving and caring
for animals can turn around and threaten to murder and rape my children.”
Let’s not turn Palmer and Francis
into trophies too, repugnant though their actions are. I don’t want to
understand them or empathise. I’d rather not attempt to comprehend the
inexplicable act that is the murder of animals for fun. But trophy hunting is
about something bigger than that: an assumption that all animals are at our
service, and ignoring the fact that we are just clever animals too.
Here is a product
of my superior animal brain: a plan. If you’re going to pay $50,000 towards
conservation efforts by shooting a lion, then give the money and don’t shoot.
Preserving life, by killing fewer animals – now that would be worth a trophy.
