Question 1
A student's IO conclusion states: 'Extract 1 was about a soldier following orders, and Extract 2 was about a mother hiding her son.' Which weakness does this best illustrate?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify what the conclusion does
The sentence simply restates what happens in each extract's plot, not what the extracts mean together.
Step 2: Apply the synthesis standard
The content states a strong conclusion synthesises insight ('language as a tool of control'), not events ('a dictator', 'a general').
Step 3: Interpret the given example
Naming who each extract is 'about' is content restatement, exactly the mistake flagged as failing to earn Criterion C credit.
Step 4: Compare to other possible issues
There is no new device introduced, no timing violation given, and the global issue is at least implied by context, so those aren't the core flaw.
Step 5: Select the answer
The core weakness is restating plot instead of synthesising meaning, matching option A.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate the new-device claim
No new technique or device is introduced in this sentence; it only recounts what happened to each character.
Step 2: Eliminate the timing claim
No time or length is given in the scenario, so a claim about exceeding two minutes cannot be verified.
Step 3: Eliminate the global issue absence claim
The scenario doesn't confirm whether a global issue is mentioned elsewhere in the conclusion, so this is not the demonstrated flaw.
Step 4: Confirm the remaining option
Option A directly matches the taught distinction between plot summary and insight synthesis, so it is correct.
Question 2
During a peer review session, a student's partner says a transition between two analysis points 'felt abrupt.' According to the distinction between mirror practice and peer review, what is the most useful next step?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify the diagnosis type
An abrupt transition is a structural/verbal issue, which is exactly what peer review is designed to catch.
Step 2: Apply the exam tip
The content advises asking the peer why a section felt off, since the fix differs depending on the cause (too much information versus dense language).
Step 3: Interpret the options
Only option A follows this advice by investigating the cause before acting.
Step 4: Compare with mirror practice
Mirror practice targets non-verbal delivery like posture and eye contact, not transition wording, so it wouldn't diagnose this problem.
Step 5: Select the answer
Asking why the transition felt abrupt is the correct diagnostic step, matching option A.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate the mirror option
Mirror practice diagnoses body language and eye contact, not verbal transitions, so it's the wrong tool here.
Step 2: Eliminate the reversed-role claim
Peer review diagnoses verbal and structural delivery, not only non-verbal delivery, so this option misstates the distinction.
Step 3: Eliminate the deletion option
Removing the transition entirely would worsen organisation rather than fix the underlying cause of the abruptness.
Step 4: Confirm the remaining option
Asking the peer why it felt abrupt correctly follows the taught diagnostic approach before making a targeted fix.