Mock Exam Post-Mortem: Question 4 Model Answer

Hi,

Forget that mock exam burger. This is a burger:

Here's the mark scheme for your mock:


Sorry - I forgot to copy my answer to the language comparison question for you. Here it is:

English Language - June 2013:

Question 4 (Language Comparison) – Model Answer

Source 1 and Source 3 have very different audiences and purposes. Source 1 is an opinion piece from the Guardian’s Life and Style section which is written to both inform and persuade. Source 3 is a piece of travel writing, and like most literary non-fiction, its dual purpose is to inform and entertain.

Despite these differences, there is a clear connection between the language of these two texts – they are both written, at least in part, in the first person, and as a result, they both convey their information with opinions and personal touches. For instance, Source 1 uses language to make the writer’s view clear very early on. He claims that changing people’s diets will ‘quite easily’ deal with the demands of the projected population of ‘9.2 billion’ in 40 years’ time. The juxtaposition of this dismissive and simple phrase with this huge number seems bizarre, but the bold and confident tone of the writer helps to set out his persuasive message. Later, he says he will be ‘dropping’ meat once a week. This informal use of language again makes his sacrifice seem simple in order to persuade others; dropping requires no effort.

In Source 3, the writer’s unique perspective is offered through some vivid descriptive phrases. Initially, there is a sense of the writer’s wonder at the peace and beauty of the scene, as the stars are described as ‘crystal stars glimmering’. The image of the ‘flat black sky’ as a ‘tarpaulin’ could be seen as comforting and safe, or alternatively, it could give an early indication of the sense of claustrophobia she hints at later due to the intransigence of Muhammed. Within the same paragraph, the use of the words ‘squalid’, ‘belched’ and ‘blackened’ suggest a sense of disgust when moving from the silence of the desert to the pollution of the towns. The description of the air as ‘brittle’ as she grinds it between her teeth makes it sound as if the atmosphere is breaking up and contaminating everything.

Source 1 also contains a number of interesting descriptive phrases, often informal and subjective. Eating meat is described humorously as ‘animal munching’, making our eating habits sound ridiculous and over the top. More hyperbole soon arrives with the phrase ‘Brazilian rainforest-fed burgers’ which serves to crudely put together two key issues in the piece: meat-consumption and deforestation. Further examples of informal language in the piece are ‘guzzlers’, which highlights our insatiable appetite for meat, and the description of meat as ‘red stuff’. This phrase reinforces the casual attitude of ‘quite easily’ from earlier in the piece. The writer is trying to persuade the reader by insisting that his sacrifice is no big deal.

The writer of Source 3 uses plenty of simple sentences for effect. The first sentence (‘The density of night’) suggests a sense of awe in front of a sublime scene which requires no further words to express. Similarly, short sentences are used elsewhere to create a sense of the author’s wonder at a different way of life – often in the form of questions like ‘or were they immune to it?’ These short questions allow us to experience the writer’s thoughts as they pop into her head. In source 1, the writer also uses short sentences to emphasise simple truths that he wants to stand out. In the final paragraph, a pair of short sentences are used to empower the reader to change their ways: ‘One day off the red stuff? Not so great a hardship, really.’

Near the end of Source 3, the writer uses a long complex sentence (including four semi-colons) to create a sense of monotony and repetition before the writer expresses further frustrations about being trapped in the car. However, a pair of short sentences bring us towards a tense ending of the passage, with the writer emphasising her frustrations through a near-rhyming pair of verbs (‘inched’, ‘itching’) to show the awkward contrast between what is happening and the what the writer wants to happen.