Question 1
A student writes a Paper 2 body paragraph that fully analyses Text A's use of symbolism across four sentences, then fully analyses Text B's use of symbolism across four more sentences, ending with 'Both texts use symbolism effectively.' Which structural weakness does this paragraph demonstrate?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Locate the pattern
The paragraph analyses Text A fully, then Text B fully, with only a thin final sentence linking them.
Step 2: Match to terminology
This sequential shape, with comparison bolted on at the end, is exactly what is termed a 'back-to-back' or 'block' structure.
Step 3: Consider the consequence
This caps Criterion B because comparison is not sustained through the paragraph but appears only as an afterthought.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
The correct description of the flaw is that comparison is treated as an afterthought rather than the paragraph's organising principle.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Dual-device issue
The paragraph only discusses one device (symbolism) per text, so dual-device interaction is not the issue at all.
Step 2: Thesis restatement issue
Thesis restatement belongs to the conclusion, not body paragraphs, so this is irrelevant here.
Step 3: New evidence in conclusion
This concerns the essay's overall conclusion, not a single body paragraph's internal structure.
Step 4: Compare remaining option
Only the block-structure description accurately names the sequential-analysis problem shown.
Step 5: Confirm
The back-to-back structure explanation is correct.
Question 2
In a Paper 2 essay comparing two texts on the theme of memory, a student's thesis reads: 'Both Work A and Work B are about characters who remember painful events from childhood.' Why would this thesis likely score poorly under Criterion B (Analysis and evaluation)?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Examine the thesis
The sentence states what both texts are 'about' — a shared plot element (remembering painful childhood events).
Step 2: Apply the thesis standard
A strong thesis must be arguable, making a claim about how or why an effect is created, not simply what happens.
Step 3: Judge the effect
Because this thesis only restates content, there is nothing analytical for the essay to prove or develop.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
The weakness is that it is descriptive plot summary rather than an arguable claim about function or effect.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Titles and dates
Context details belong in the context sentence, not the thesis sentence, so this is not the actual flaw here.
Step 2: Roadmap absence
A missing roadmap is a structural gap in the introduction overall, but the question is specifically about the thesis's content.
Step 3: Contrastive frame
Using a contrastive frame is actually recommended practice, not a weakness, so this option misrepresents the guidance.
Step 4: Compare remaining option
Only the plot-summary explanation accounts for why this specific sentence lacks an arguable claim.
Step 5: Confirm
The thesis fails because it summarises shared content instead of arguing a point.