Question 1
A student writing Paper 2 spends the first three paragraphs discussing everything about Text A, then two paragraphs discussing everything about Text B, adding one linking sentence at the very end. What is the main consequence of this structural choice?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify the structural pattern
The student writes sequential summary: all of Text A, then all of Text B, with only a token link at the end.
Step 2: Apply what examiners reward
Comparative insight requires sentences that link the two texts within paragraphs, not just across the whole essay.
Step 3: Interpret the effect
Because comparison is absent at the paragraph level, the essay reads as two mini-essays rather than one comparative argument.
Step 4: Select the consequence
This structural failure specifically damages organisation, since the ideas are not developed comparatively as required.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate automatic failure
No single structural flaw causes automatic failure; marks are awarded on a scale across criteria, not pass/fail.
Step 2: Eliminate improved knowledge claim
Undivided attention to one text at a time does not itself improve accuracy or specificity of textual knowledge.
Step 3: Eliminate the no-effect option
Equal depth on both texts does not compensate for the missing comparative dimension the task demands.
Step 4: Confirm the remaining option
The correct answer names the real cost: organisation and comparative insight suffer when linking only happens across the essay.
Question 2
In a Paper 2 essay comparing two texts on the theme of power, a student writes: 'Text A explores power through its ruler character. Text B also explores power, through its protagonist.' What is the clearest weakness of this sentence as comparative writing?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify what the sentence does
The sentence names a shared topic (power) and a device in each text but never states how they are similar or different.
Step 2: Apply the comparative insight standard
Genuine comparison requires sentences that explicitly state similarity and/or difference between the two texts.
Step 3: Interpret the gap
Without that explicit link, the sentence is descriptive, listing two facts side by side rather than comparing them.
Step 4: Select the weakness
The clearest flaw is the missing statement of how the two treatments of power relate to each other.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate terminology complaint
The sentence actually lacks terminology; it does not overuse it, so this option misreads the example.
Step 2: Eliminate the title requirement
There is no such rule requiring titles in every sentence, so this is an invented constraint.
Step 3: Eliminate the plot summary claim
The problem is not too much comparison and too little summary; the sentence has neither real summary nor real comparison of substance.
Step 4: Confirm the remaining option
The only option that accurately diagnoses the sentence is the lack of an explicit stated similarity or difference.