The article, being on such a vastly encompassing topic, chose to, from the get-go, focus on four major

themes to limit the vastness of the topic into an easily digestible format. Needing to break the article in
four themes, the writer chose to employ subtitles with definite articles, bolded and separated from the
content of the theme itself, hence greatly signifying the subtitle. Moreover, adding onto the easy
digestible format of the article, the writer also chose to employ short, concise, and restricted
paragraphs, only delivering the necessary information that could be helpful to the reader, such as the
ages, names, prodigious fields, a few personal insights, and some notes from a professional and the
parents. Keeping the reader in mind, the writer also chose to employ a fixed format for every theme,
noticeably; a subtitle, followed by name and other basic information, struggles faced, a general opinion
from the professional and some statements from the parents and/or the children themselves, creating a
meta-theme within the sub-topics themselves. Lastly, the writer chose not to give a conclusive ending,
or even an exclusive introduction for that matter, to the whole article, instead, as his theme shows,
focused primarily on necessary information, ending the article abruptly after said information had been
delivered. On the other hand, my letter, though relatively short in word count, chose to take a more
personalized, detailed, and semi-formal take. Starting off with three major paragraphs, an introduction
followed by two opinionated paragraphs regarding the issues raised in the article, and, finally, a short
conclusion to how I felt, personally, about the article, followed by formalities of regards, of course.

Moving on the form of both writings, starting with the question statement itself, the article features a
rhetoric question, raising an important and serious question, hence employing interrogatives with
formal vocabulary and an inquisitively concerned tone register. The article, as previously mentioned,
has the purpose to present necessary information regarding an important topic relating to child
prodigies and their struggles, with the audience of potential kids and other parents in mind, chose to
only focus on the facts in a way that could be understood and comprehended by a general audience
easily, hence the writer employed straight-forward and concise vocabulary, using a perfect balance of
formal, as it WAS a serious issue, and informal, as the audience could potentially be children, tone
registers to deliver the information as clearly and as comprehensively as possible in a way that could be
understood by all, adding quick quotes, short overviews and concise personalized introductions.
Moreover, though never admittedly stated by the writer themself anywhere, as no direct opinion of the
writer themself can be found, the writing does hint what the writer truly felt about child prodigies and
their problems. To start, the employed vocabulary, such as “prodigies”, “gifted”, “sacrificed”, “devotes”,
“nurtures”, “performance”, “competition and many more, shows that the writer truly respects not only
the child prodigies, but also the parents involved in their upbringing, and, through the vocabulary used
to address issues, such as “when is enough, enough?”, an important interrogative that was used twice,
shows that the writer is quite serious and un-frivolous about the struggles a child prodigy has to go in
their day-to-day life and, through their writing, clearly show that they seek to aid them and combat their
problems. Comparatively, my writing was focused more on criticism rather than discussion, as was the
purpose for the article. My purpose was to deliver to an audience of a potential editorial team regarding
an article one of their writers produced. My writing chose to approach the article from a not-so-formal,
however, serious method, in the sense of being supportive to the writer and their serious take on the
topic, shown using informal vocabulary such as “a monster of a task to tackle”, my writing takes a
nonchalant but friendly stance. The vocabulary employed underlines my appreciation for child prodigies
and their work, and my writing even dedicates a paragraph to appreciate the parents involved, a great
contrast with writer of the article who chose to be subtle about such matters.

Finally, regarding language, there is great content to be covered in both writings. Firstly, the title itself
incorporates great of language, incorporating an interrogative rhetoric with use of quantifiable
vocabulary for time, raising an important topic for discussion all the while providing great context in a
very concise sentence. Moreover, the writer employs a variety of personalized linguistic vocabulary,
using jargons for education, sports, singing, business, musicians, pianists and, even, medical jargon for
the professional being quoted. Furthermore, by providing quotes and takes from not only the child
prodigies themselves but also the parents and the professional, the writer really helped broaden the
perspective for the narrative, providing great insight from different views to aid a reader to form a
proper conclusion after reading the article. On top of that, through the factual, straight-forward
information provided, the writer exclusively made sure that age was an important fact being presented
so that the reader truly understands what the world ‘child’ represents in the topic of child prodigies and
really helps create an environment to appreciate the efforts of such young individuals being able to
accomplish such achievements, highlighted by the vocabulary, as mentioned, that really idolizes the
children that are going through so much. Adding the importance the language used in this article
attributes to the child prodigies, the determiners and definite articles implemented in each sub-heading
really defines the importance entailed with each child prodigy and their fields. When it comes to
language, I believe both writings were similar, in the sense that both implemented positive vocabulary
for child prodigies and their achievements but negative or serious vocabulary for the issues that they
had to face. One differentiation would be that my writing also incorporates positive vocabulary for the
writer of the article themself, appreciating the effort and the issues that they tackled. However, the
language used in my writing was not as vast as the language used in the article, with no factors such as
quantifiable time vocabularic terms, quotes, factual information and other implementations by the
article writer, with the reasoning that my writing took the letter as more of an opinionated and
personalized extension to the article itself.