The title of the article itself straight away emphasises on the fact how immature the explorers were, by calling them boys and showing how their childishness inevitably affects the reader – “taxpayer get’s rescue bill” – which straight away arouses a negative opinion towards the subject. The third paragraph uses a pattern of three to describe the forces involved: “the Royal Navy, the RAF and the British Coastguards”, implying that the rescue cost a lot of money and unnecessary trouble. In the fifth paragraph the intentions of the so-called explorers are questioned as such. And the adjective “trusty” referred to the helicopter is very ironical and is an implied discrepancy between what is said and what is meant. The journalist questions the reasons for taking a one-engine helicopter (which is obviously far from trusty) into such dangerous conditions. In the seventh paragraph we find out that in reality the ‘boys’ age was over 40 and the verb “scrambled” makes them look even more foolish and helpless. The fourteenth, fifthteenth and sixteenth paragraph made me quite unsure about how serious the journalist was about the explorer’s ‘experience’. I dare say that that could’ve been pure irony as you are very unlikely to “survive a charge by a silver back gorilla in the Congo” and then take the Robinson R44 over the seas of Antarctica. Well, unless you have a complete lack of self-preservative instinct. The eighteenth paragraph shocks the reader by saying that this wasn’t their only complete and epic failure and goes on to describe their previous mistakes which also involved serious problems and newspaper headlines. The last phrase - “they’ll probably have their bottoms kicked” completely demeans the two men and their inadequate behaviour. And the childish punishment itself again emphasises on their immaturity. Throughout the text we can see various comments from experts backing up the writer’s opinion. It is obvious that the writer’s attitude towards the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document