English Language Component 2 Reading Paper What does

English Language Component 2 Reading Paper

What does the reading section on English Language Component 2 paper look like? • You will be given two non-fiction articles. • One will be a modern article and the other will be an article from the 19 th century. • Both articles will be on the same or a similar subject. There always 6 questions. Questions 1 and 2 will be on one article. • Q 1 -‘locate and retrieve’ question – 3 marks. • Q 2 - ‘how’ question -10 marks. Questions 3 and 4 will be on the other article. • Q 3 ‘locate and retrieve’ question – 3 marks. • Q 4 ‘evaluate’ question – 10 marks. Questions 5 and 6 will be on both articles. • Q 5 – synthesise question – 4 marks. • Q 6 – comparison question – 10 marks.

Question 1 – locate and retrieve Tip – this should be 3 easy marks but it’s easy to make silly mistakes and lose marks . Make sure you read the correct article. Read the question CAREFULLY. Underline what it is they’re asking you to look for in the article. The answers will be from any part of the article.

Question 1 answers

Question 2 – How question Underline key words in the question. You need at least 7 different points from across the article. Point, short embedded quote, explain how it might persuade.

Persuasive techniques • Putting forward an argument - this is about considering tactics used by writers to put across an argument. Match the tactic to the example. Tactic Scare tactics suggesting it will get worse Expert or eyewitness evidence Emotive words Statistics and facts designed to shock Example ‘innocent whales’ ‘distressed animals’ ‘bloodiest bout’ ‘endangered fin whales’ ‘gruesome spectacle’ Norway plans to ‘increase its whale hunting’ ‘more than 2000 animals are likely to be directly hunted’. ‘biggest whale slaughter for a generation’. Use of tone – sarcastic/angry Captain of a Sea Shepherd boat: ‘it was perfectly clear…. slaughter proceeded…with full consent of the Danish Navy. ’ Call to action ‘in defiance of world opinion’ ‘so called ‘scientific’ whaling’ ‘How much longer can the government of Denmark continue it arrogant support? . . ’ ‘Save the Whale’ ‘All decent people should see’

Question 2 – How question How would I start? The writer uses a variety of methods to persuade the reader. Firstly, the call to action at the beginning of the article stating we need to “dust down the slogan Save the Whale”to help whales “again” is aimed at making readers feel they need to do something to help. The writer then states that “over 2000 whales” have been killed “this year” which is aimed at shocking us into action as this is a huge number and it’s happening right now so we can stop it if we try. The writer calls this “the biggest whale slaughter for a generation” which suggests that this is the worst its been for many years and the word “slaughter” suggests the whales’ deaths have been very brutal and cruel which is aimed at making readers feel sorry for the whales. Carry on…. . . Don’t waste time waffling. State a point, short embedded quote, say how it’s persuasive – move on!

Mark scheme Other areas you could have considered: • it's unacceptable because it breaks international agreement/law; • he tells us the specific countries that are still killing whales – along with some statistics; • he refutes Japan’s claim that whaling is for 'scientific research'; • he tells us Japan is increasing the number of whales it kills ('double the number it killed last year'; • he tells us the killing of whales is going on 'right now'; • he tells us Norway is whaling 'openly' by not adopting the 1986 international agreement; • he says Norway is planning to kill more whales than before; • he says Iceland has recommenced whaling recently and gives details of the large numbers killed; • he uses the Greenpeace spokesman to illustrate the increasing concerns about whaling; • he gives a report of the recent whale killing in the Faroe Islands to show what is happening now; • the writer uses quotes from one of the Sea Shepherd captains to show the killing of whales in the Faroes implicates Denmark and goes against international law; • his language is condemnatory – 'This label is a fiction which fools no one'; • he uses language and imagery to emphasise the brutality of whale hunting – 'by far the bloodiest bout of whale slaughter. . . '; • he calls the killings in the Faroes 'massacre'; 'the gruesome spectacle'; • the opening sentence reads like a rallying cry, telling readers they need to 'Save the Whale'; • he begins the article by reminding readers of the international agreement to stop whaling; • he then gives examples of the countries ignoring the international agreement; • he gives an example of a specific whale hunt in the Faroes to show hunting is still happening; • he includes the view of the Sea Shepherd captain to emphasise how Denmark is ignoring international law and action should be taken • the final paragraph questions Denmark’s commitment to international law; • the article ends by emphasising that “all decent people” should see that the hunting of whales is “cruel and unacceptable”; • impact of photos

Question 3 – locate and retrieve Tip – this should be 3 easy marks but it’s easy to make silly mistakes and lose marks . Make sure you read the correct article. Questions 3 and 4 are always on the second article. Read the question CAREFULLY. Underline what it is they’re asking you to look for in the article. The answers will be from any part of the article.

Question 3 answers

Question 4 – Evaluate question EVALUATE means to weigh up. These questions are asking your opinion. On this paper they might be worded in different ways: • What do you think and feel about the writer’s views? • The writer makes this sound dramatic and exciting. How far to do you agree? • How successful do you think the writer was in getting their view across?

Question 4 – Evaluate question Underline key words in the question. You need at least 7 different points from across the article. I think/ I feel/ I believe/ this makes me feel it is dramatic because. . / I think this is clear because….

• Read the article. • Is the description clear? Is the whale hunt presented as dramatic? • How? • What does the writer tell us happens? • What words does he use? How do I tackle this question?

Question 4 – EVALUATE question How would I start? I agree to a large extent that the writer provides a clear and dramatic description. Firstly, I think he gives a clear description of what happens when a whale is spotted and orders are given to ‘stand by and lower boats’. Also, when the whale was spotted, the shout went out which is described as a ‘thrilling’ noise which in my view suggests it is exciting and dramatic. I believe the writer increases the drama when he tells us that one whale was ‘little more than half a mile away’ which means finally the hunt is about to begin. He uses words such as ‘chase’ which suggest speed and I feel this is dramatic as the action will now accelerate as for the ‘first time in ten weeks’ a whale is in sight. Carry on…. . . Don’t waste time waffling. State a point, use a quote, say why it’s clear and/or dramatic. Say I think/I feel for each point.

Mark scheme Other areas you could have considered:

Question 5 – Synthesise question • Questions 5 and 6 ask you to use both articles to write your answers. • Question 5 is worth 4 marks and should be quite straightforward. The key is to make sure you look in both texts for the SPECIFIC thing they ask you to look for. YOU NEED TWO POINTS FROM EACH ARTICLE.

Question 5 – Synthesise question • What do we know about how whales were hunted in 1850 and now in the Faroe Islands? 1850 • When whales were sighted, small boats were lowered into water and chased after them. • A harpoon attached to a tow line was plunged into the whale. • The whale would then pull the whalers’ boat injured until it died. • Dead whale would be towed back to large ship. • The boat would chase after one whale. Faroe Islands • Small boats drive whales towards the beach. • There are many whales. • Local people drag the whales onto the beach. • The whales are killed on the beach by the locals. Example response In Cheever’s text the hunters leave a large ship and get into small boats to hunt one whale but in the Faroe Islands the hunters are just in small boats and hunting many whales. In Cheever’s text, the hunters kill the whale by plunging a harpoon into it which is attached to their boat. This wounds the whale so it will die from the injury. However in the Faroe Islands the whales are forced to shore by hunters and then dragged onto the beach by locals who kill them.

Question 6 – Comparison question Which comparative connectives do you know? • When there are similarities: similarly also likewise this is similar to • When there are differences: however unlike conversely in contrast this is different to

Question 6 – Comparison question Underline key words in the question. Read question carefully. Which part of the modern text should you be referring to in this question? This is very important. If you don’t do this – you will get 0 marks. You need at least 4 different comparison points from each article. Use comparative connectives ALL THE TIME! Say what the writers’ attitudes are and comment on how they use words to make their attitudes clear.

Question 6 – Comparison question How do I respond to this? Firstly, what are the two writers’ attitudes to hunting whales? 1850 s – Cheever’s text Not against whale hunting Faroe Islands – modern text Sees whale hunting as horrific and illegal. Describes the hunt from the hunters’ point of view –sees them as brave ‘no boys’ play’ Sees the hunters as cruel. The locals ‘violently dragged’ the whales who’d been ‘forced’ to swim to the beach by hunters. Views the whales as large monsters compared to the small hunters ‘huge creature’ Views the whales as victims – ‘innocent whales’ What else could we add?

Question 6 – Comparison question How do I set out my response? You have to compare in order to get marks and therefore it is best to make a point about one text and then a comparative point about the other text. What’s good about this? • Clearly states which article the information is from. • Uses evidence to back up points. • Comments on how the writer gets views across – through the words they use. • Uses comparative connectives. Model example In Cheever’s article from the 1850 s, his attitude towards the whale hunt is positive. He describes the hunt as a battle between a ‘huge creature’ and the men on ‘small boats’ suggesting the hunters are brave for daring to kill the whale. In contrast, the writer of the modern article implies the hunters are sly, as they ‘herded’ the ‘innocent whales’ ashore where they were ‘ruthlessly slaughtered’. ‘Herded’ implies the whales are compelled to obey the hunters on the boats whereas the whale in Cheever’s text fights against the hunters with ‘fury’ creating the idea that it is like a monster. Carry on…

Some details candidates may explore or respond to: The newspaper article The writer’s attitude the writer is strongly against the whale hunt – he writes about 'the slaughter of whales in the Faroe Islands'; he says it’s wrong because it’s against international law; he believes countries are ignoring/flouting the international agreement to stop hunting whales; he says “decent people” would agree whale hunts are cruel and unacceptable. how the writer gets his/her attitude across to readers he gives a graphic description of how the whales were killed; he tells us of the large numbers killed – "as many as 250 whales were reportedly massacred"; he refers to the whales as 'innocent' and 'distressed' to make his views clear; he uses powerful, emotive language, particularly adverbs and adjectives – 'massacred', 'savagely killed', 'horrific scenes', 'distressed animals', 'ruthlessly slaughtered'. Cheever text The writer’s attitude he is not against the whale hunt; he admires the hunters – and the whalers’ willingness to face dangerous and difficult situations he celebrates the killing of the whale; he describes the whale in negative terms - 'monster'; but shows some respect for the death of “so mighty a creature”. how the writer gets his/her attitude across to readers he uses contrast to emphasise the battle between the small boats and the 'great creature'; he talks of the skill and bravery of the harpooners – the 'brave captain'; they gave “three hearty cheers” at the death of the whale; but says seeing the whale in its death-agony was “painful enough”; he describes the difficult task of getting the dead whale back to the ship and how it is “cheerfully endured” by the men because of the rewards it brings. This is not a checklist and the question must be marked in levels of response. Look for and reward valid alternatives.

Persuasive techniques • Putting forward an argument - this is about considering tactics used by writers to put across an argument. Match the tactic to the example. Tactic Scare tactics suggesting it will get worse Expert or eyewitness evidence Emotive words Statistics and facts designed to shock Example ‘innocent whales’ ‘distressed animals’ ‘bloodiest bout’ ‘endangered fin whales’ ‘gruesome spectacle’ Norway plans to ‘increase its whale hunting’ ‘more than 2000 animals are likely to be directly hunted’. ‘biggest whale slaughter for a generation’. Use of tone – sarcastic/angry Captain of a Sea Shepherd boat: ‘it was perfectly clear…. slaughter proceeded…with full consent of the Danish Navy. ’ Call to action ‘in defiance of world opinion’ ‘so called ‘scientific’ whaling’ ‘How much longer can the government of Denmark continue it arrogant support? . . ’ ‘Save the Whale’ ‘All decent people should see’