| Feature | Question 2 (Summary) | Question 4 (Comparison) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Synthesize content/facts | Compare perspectives/feelings |
| Focus on Methods | Minimal (focus on 'what') | Essential (focus on 'how') |
| Scope | Specific sections of text | The whole of both texts |
| Depth | Concise summary | Detailed, perceptive analysis |
Use Comparative Connectives: Always signal your transitions. Use 'likewise' or 'equally' for similarities, and 'whereas' or 'in contrast' for differences to guide the examiner through your logic.
Chronological Range: Aim to select evidence from the beginning, middle, and end of both texts to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of how perspectives might evolve.
Avoid 'Feature Spotting': Do not simply name a technique (like 'alliteration') without explaining how it helps the writer convey their specific perspective or feeling.
Quality over Quantity: Three well-developed, integrated points of comparison are often more effective than six shallow observations.
The 'Bolt-On' Error: This occurs when a student identifies a language feature but fails to link it back to the writer's perspective, making the technical analysis feel irrelevant.
Wholesale Summary: Simply retelling what happens in both stories is a basic skill; the exam requires an analysis of the attitudes behind the events.
Ambiguity: Using vague terms like 'the writer feels strongly' is less effective than using precise vocabulary like 'the writer adopts a cynical and disillusioned tone'.