Individual Perspectives: A strong answer must clearly identify each writer's unique viewpoint, attitude, or feeling on the given subject. This involves understanding their stance and the nuances of their argument.
Exploration of Differences: Beyond merely stating perspectives, candidates must explore how these perspectives differ, highlighting specific points of divergence. This demonstrates a comparative understanding rather than just separate analyses.
Supporting Evidence: All claims about perspectives and differences must be substantiated with relevant textual evidence from both sources. Quotes should be integrated effectively and analyzed for their contribution to the writer's viewpoint.
Clear and Relevant Comparison (Level 3): This involves presenting a concise and accurate overview of the shared characteristics and distinctions between the texts. It focuses on explicit similarities and differences that are readily apparent.
Perceptive and Detailed Comparison (Level 4): To achieve this, candidates must delve deeper, uncovering connections and implications that are not immediately obvious. This requires analyzing the subtle nuances of language and methods to reveal hidden layers of meaning and the writers' underlying attitudes or intentions.
Key Question for Perceptive Analysis: "What is the writer's choice of language suggesting, or implying, about their attitudes or point of view?" This prompts a focus on implicit meanings and the subtle effects of stylistic choices.
Methods as Conveyors: The mark scheme emphasizes commenting on the 'methods' writers use, which encompasses style, word choice, language techniques, form, structure, and purpose. These methods are not to be analyzed in isolation but as tools that convey the writer's perspective.
Seamless Integration: For top marks, the analysis of methods should be seamlessly integrated with the discussion of perspectives. This means avoiding separate paragraphs for 'what' the writer says and 'how' they say it; instead, the two should be interwoven.
Avoiding 'Bolting-On': A common pitfall is to simply identify a language technique (e.g., 'the writer uses a metaphor') without explaining how that specific metaphor contributes to the writer's particular feeling or perspective. The link between method and meaning is crucial.
Pre-Analysis Planning: Before writing, identify each writer's individual perspective, any overarching similarities, and then the specific differences. This structured approach helps maintain focus and depth.
Comprehensive Coverage: Ensure the analysis covers the whole of both sources, commenting on any shifts or developments in viewpoint or perspective across the texts. This demonstrates a thorough understanding of the entire argument.
Avoid Repetition and Irrelevance: Do not repeat points from other questions (e.g., Question 2) as the focus for Question 4 is distinct. Also, avoid analyzing language features for their own sake; every analytical point must connect back to the comparison of perspectives.
