Question 1
An advertisement places its product in the only spot of full colour on an otherwise black-and-white page, with the product occupying a small area at the bottom right corner. A student answering a 4-mark paragraph question focuses only on naming this as 'colour contrast' without further comment. What is the most likely limitation of this response under IB marking criteria?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Locate the task demand
A 4-mark paragraph question requires more than identification; it requires an explained effect on meaning, character, or theme, as established for visual technique responses.
Step 2: Compare to the response given
The described response only names 'colour contrast' and stops, matching the pattern flagged as a common mistake in visual technique exam guidance.
Step 3: Determine what is missing
Without stating what the colour placement makes the viewer notice or why that matters to the ad's purpose, the causal 'so what' link is absent.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
The limitation is the missing effect explanation, making option A correct.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Rule out B
Colour is explicitly listed as a visual technique, not a figurative device, so this claim is factually wrong.
Step 2: Rule out C
Panel transitions apply to sequential art like comics, not necessarily to a single-image advertisement, so this substitution is irrelevant.
Step 3: Rule out D
Visual technique vocabulary is explicitly described as applicable across non-literary text types including advertisements.
Step 4: Confirm A
Only option A identifies the genuine gap: naming without explaining effect, which caps marks at the paragraph tier.
Question 2
A student writes about a poem: "The metaphor 'a shard of glass' shows the author uses figurative language." Which specific weakness does this response demonstrate, according to exam guidance on figurative language?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Read the flagged mistake
Exam guidance on figurative language explicitly warns against writing that a device 'shows the author uses figurative language' as circular and unhelpful.
Step 2: Match to the sentence given
The student's sentence does exactly this: it names the device but adds nothing about what the comparison actually suggests.
Step 3: Identify the core problem
The response confuses naming with analysing; it never explains the effect of comparing laughter to glass.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
This matches option A's description of restating definition instead of analysing effect.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Rule out B
The student does quote the phrase directly ('a shard of glass'), so this is not the issue.
Step 2: Rule out C
A shard of glass is a direct equation using 'was', correctly identified as a metaphor, not personification.
Step 3: Rule out D
The sentence does not discuss connotation at all, so it cannot be criticised for over-relying on it instead of comparison.
Step 4: Confirm A
The genuine flaw is circularity — restating the definition rather than analysing effect, matching option A.