Sigh, if I can remember correctly for me I interpreted Text 3 .. well. let me explain, text 1 and 2 were both about perspectives of a journey, and how you needed to be "empathetic" towards something or someone in order to understand or put yourself in their shoes and thus carry on with your own personal journey (of writing). And I got the idea that they wanted US to put OURSELVES in these writer's shoes in order to understand their journey and how they see the world.
So I gathered text 3 was also about that, seeing as question f) was about comparing hence SIMILARITIES (winkwink) or differences. And in the beginning of text 3, the writer talks about how when he was young, or what not, he used to see the 'horizon - persuasive home' or some crap like that.
But then throughout the thing he talks about how he finds difficulty in capturing the entireity of the outback because it's so vast, and yet he finds little things about it that are so detailed (is the way I took it)
so in terms of being empathetic... and he is unable to capture each specific part of the outback, that's why he needs to write like he is 'flying low and overhead' so he sees everything, and isn't blinded by his personal view.
He also realises he can't capture every little thing, and will always find it difficult to capture just one aspect.
I could have done this completely wrong so yeah. I don't know, I was able to back it up with textual analysis so I hope the markers show me some love eh.
. I guess I didn't find it so hard because I found section 1 in my trial really hard, and this didn't seem so bad in comparison.
