Start with your judgement by clearly stating to what extent you agree with the statement. This sets the direction of the argument and ensures focus.
Select precise evidence that directly supports your viewpoint. Effective evaluation avoids broad references and instead chooses key phrases that reflect the writer’s technique.
Analyse methods thoughtfully by explaining how language, structure, and perspective shape meaning. This moves beyond identification to interpretation and effect.
Explain why the method matters, making your reasoning explicit. Demonstrating why a technique is effective shows a deeper understanding of writer intention.
Consider alternative readings when relevant. Acknowledging multiple interpretations can strengthen your argument by showing nuanced thinking.
Analysis vs Evaluation: Analysis explores how methods work, whereas evaluation judges how effectively they work. Evaluation adds a layer of opinion supported by reasoning.
Description vs Interpretation: Describing the text recounts what happens, but evaluation focuses on meaning and impact, explaining why writer choices are significant.
Agreement vs Extent of Agreement: Evaluation questions rarely expect total agreement. Deciding the degree of agreement demonstrates critical judgement.
| Feature | Analysis | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Explain how a method works | Judge how well a method works |
| Focus | Technique and effect | Technique, effect, and success |
| Tone | Objective | Persuasive and reasoned |
| Evidence Use | Supports explanation | Supports opinion-driven argument |
Address the statement immediately, making your judgement clear in the opening sentence. Examiners reward responses that directly engage with the task.
Stay closely focused on the writer’s effectiveness in relation to the exact effect named in the question. Avoid drifting into narrative summary.
Use method‑and‑effect chains, linking a technique to its impact and then back to your judgement. This structure ensures clarity and cohesion.
Choose evidence strategically, selecting the strongest possible example rather than many weak or unrelated ones.
Use evaluative vocabulary such as “effective”, “convincing”, “subtle”, or “powerful” to signal your critical stance clearly.
Demonstrate insight by discussing why the writer might have chosen a specific technique given the context, tone, or purpose.
Merely repeating the statement without offering original judgement weakens evaluation. You must develop your own stance and justify it thoroughly.
Listing techniques without explaining their impact leads to superficial answers. Evaluation requires analysis of effect, not identification.
Using evidence without explanation makes the argument incomplete. Every quotation must be followed by analysis and a link back to your judgement.
Summarising the story instead of evaluating methods wastes time and does not meet assessment objectives.
Failing to answer “to what extent” can reduce marks. A nuanced evaluation shows degrees of agreement rather than a simple yes or no.
Evaluation links closely to analysis, building upon method explanations to form a judgement about writer effectiveness.
Links to inference skills because evaluating often requires identifying subtle implications and interpreting nuanced effects.
Connects to comparison in advanced study, where students evaluate not only individual texts but also how successfully two texts present viewpoints.
Develops critical reading skills used in higher‑level study, journalism, literary criticism, and media analysis, encouraging readers to question how and why texts influence audiences.
