level 2 exemplars and comments paper 1 sample 1: section a ... · extended essay: infatuation and...

Level 2 exemplars and comments

Paper 1

Sample 1:

Section A, Question 1

1

Sample 1:


2

Sample 1:


3

Sample 1:


4

Sample 1:


5

Sample 1:


6

Sample 1:


Comments

(i) This answer does explain every thought that Ralph has, but this is undertaken in unnecessary

detail and lengthy quotes. It reads more as paraphrasing rather than analysis. More to its

detriment is the fact that it is obviously unbalanced as the discussion of Iago barely starts.

The overall quality of this response is also frequently hampered by poor expression – for

example, it is very unclear as to what is intended by “thinking other’s persona”.

(ii) This answer is quite problematic. Credit is given to the mention of a suggestive “hierarchy”

but the assertion that the tree represents “a broken valve” is very confusing.

(iii) The response here notes a clear contrast.

7

Sample 2:

Section B, Question 4

8

Sample 2:


9

Sample 2:


Comments

(i) Limited analytical skill is shown in this response in describing language as “descriptive” and

“bland”. The candidate does note the use of short lines in Poem B but the explanation given in

support of this structural device is very basic. Overall, this answer to a technical question is

far too superficial.

(ii) The answer notes the underlying sense of pride in Poem A but offers a flawed justification of

the “Atlas” simile. Taking significantly from any quality in this response is the heavy

repetition of quotes without showing any understanding of their meaning.

(iii) There is poor understanding of the “Loaf” metaphor in stating that the speaker perceives the

foetus as “a prized possession”.

(iv) This is a very jumbled answer. The candidate does identify an assertive tone but also

remarks frequently on arrogance (?).

10

Paper 2

Sample 1:

Part II, Question 11

11

Sample 1:


12

Sample 1:


13

Sample 1:


14

Sample 1:


15

Sample 1:


16

Sample 1:


Comments

This answer shows some knowledge of the set texts, but fails to adequately address the question.

There is no attempt to define key terms such as “foreshadowing” and “echoing”, and this impacts

negatively on the argument in terms of content and clarity. Some of the candidate’s examples may

be better described as straightforward symbolism (the breaking of the conch signifying the

breakdown of rule and order in Lord of the Flies) or connotation (the dark lighting at the theatre

suggesting Kitty and Charlie’s adulterous relationship in The Painted Veil). The candidate also

seems to have no idea of what “echoing” means and how it works, as the technique is referred to in

the answer only once and in an irrelevant way, i.e. Walter’s “infection of cholera echoes the true

love of Kitty”.

17

Sample 2:


18

Sample 2:


19

Sample 2:


20

Sample 2:


21

Sample 2:


22

Sample 2:


23

Sample 2:


Comments

The candidate demonstrates understanding of the question and attempts a comparison of how death

contributes to the effect and relates to the themes of various set texts. However, despite some valid

observations, the response lacks depth. Supporting evidence or detail is often found wanting. The

discussion on “Paul’s Case” is particularly unsatisfactory. It is too brief and fails to throw light on

the part death plays in the story.

24

Paper 3

Sample 1:

Analytical Review: The Notebook

25

Sample 1:


26

Sample 1:


27

Sample 1:


Comments

This review of The Notebook fails as it does not offer any analytical nor critical comments on the

film other than some bland and empty phrases like ‘it’s an outstanding film; the script was

unbelievably extraordinary; the characters have remarkable acting skills’, etc. There is no evidence

of any textual references or details to elaborate on or support the claims made. Comments or

elaboration on the use of cinematic techniques are also lacking. The term ‘pathetic fallacy’ is

mentioned, but again there is no explanation, nor is elaboration given to show how it is used in the

review.

28

Sample 2:

Extended Essay: Infatuation and Immorality – Taking the great out of Great Gatsby

29

Sample 2:


30

Sample 2:


31

Sample 2:


32

Sample 2:


33

Sample 2:


34

Sample 2:


35

Sample 2:


Comments

This essay lacks a general thesis and focus and only gives a jumbled mix of facts about Jay Gatsby

rather than developing any argument on the reasons leading to his downfall, or critiquing American

society as presented in the novel. There are plenty of factual, narrative accounts of parts of the plot

in the essay, with some phrases plagiarised from different sources. This piece of work therefore

fulfils the requirements of the task only to a very limited extent.

36

Sample 3:

Extended Essay: Unreliable Narration in American Psycho

37

Sample 3:


38

Sample 3:


39

Sample 3:


40

Sample 3:


41

Sample 3:


42

Sample 3:


Comments

The essay is clearly the product of a curious mind which has analysed this novel and understood its

meaning and significance to the culture of the period. There is an element of self-conscious

wordiness and pretension in the writing, however, which makes it very difficult to understand what

the candidate is trying to get at in many places. The thesis is not very clear, perhaps because the

candidate has confused two concepts: the unreliable narrator whose narration is limited simply by

the fact that they are not present at the events of the novel, so their interpretation of events and other

characters is partial and limited, vs. the fact that Bateman is a psychopath, so is ‘unreliable’ in the

psycho-social sense. The candidate admits as much on p.4 when she quotes Zerweck, but the reader

wishes she had noted this at the beginning and more clearly addressed the issue.

There are unwarranted conclusions based on insufficient textual evidence, characterised by phrases

such as “This suggests…”, “This would also insinuate [sic]…” and “This may indicate that…”.

The comments on the detached tone are good, and the attention to detail admirable.

The use of secondary sources is quite good, but there is no sustained use of critical or psychological

concepts which could have tied this together. The reader also wonders how much the candidate got

(and benefitted) from reading Zerweck: the quotation (p. 2) is nonsensical in the context – what

‘historical attitudes’ are being referred to?

The reference to particular scenes is sometimes illustrative but can also be confusing because there

is little contextualisation (e.g. p. 1 par. 2). The “four different types of unreliable narration” are not

explained.

The writing is muddled at times, with logical connectives not really doing their job e.g. p. 3 –

“Likewise” used to introduce a different point. The candidate is regularly tripped up by her own

wordiness e.g. “The speculation of Bateman being an unreliable narrator stems from discrepancies is

his description of chronological events as well as the obvious illogical [sic – should be ‘logical’]

contradictions including the basic factual details as well as his own judgement.” (p.2) I think this is

intended to mean something like: ‘I think Bateman is unreliable because he tells the same story in

different ways. There are differences of fact and in the order in which events are presented.’

The use of presuppositional adverbs (“even”, “actually”) adds to the confusion because the reader is

not given the necessary background to understand why they are necessary.

Cognitive dissonance is an interesting idea, as is that of a “detective framework” (p. 5), but these are

just tossed in without being explained or exemplified.

On the whole, this essay promises a lot but does not deliver, and so fulfills the task requirements

only to a limited extent.

43

level 2 exemplars and comments paper 1 sample 1: section a ... · extended essay: infatuation and...

Documents