Today, we will be: Returning your Paper 1 mock exam Discussing how we might have achieved higher marks in each question

Question 1 Things to bear in mind: There is no need for inference in this question – just facts The question asks for things about Alfred, so to keep yourself on track, you could start each answer with: ‘Alfred…’ Responses must be drawn from lines 1 – 6 of the text, as specified

Question 2 There’s no point spotting techniques if you aren’t going to explain the impact they’re having in that text. a. Don’t say “It paints a picture in the reader’s head” if you aren’t going to explain what that picture is, and how that language paints that picture. Example: ‘The use of adjectives in ‘wet greasy fur’ tells us the creature is oily and slippery, not just literally but also metaphorically, implying that it is sly and cunning.

Question 3 You are required to examine what happens where, and why – i.e. what impact does it make that the author has arranged things in this way? Less successful answers tended to focus on re-telling what happened; giving the order of things, but not analysing why this particular order was important, for example. Some examples of structure in this particular text:

Start focuses on Alfred’s discomfort and revulsion  moves to wider perspective of conditions in the trenches (linked by his pursuit of the rat, which has been eating the dead soldiers). Some discourse markers relating to time: ‘a 6am push,’ ‘Before it was light’… signal a flashback to the action that had taken place earlier in the day, and vivid description of the carnage. A series of one-sentence paragraphs, starting ‘Alfred had grown almost used to such sights,’ and then each line starting with ‘Amost used to…’ – suggesting that each of these things happened frequently, but not frequently enough for Alfred to have become blasé about them . . .

4. Those one-sentence paragraphs immediately followed by a paragraph containing four sentences all beginning ‘Used to…’ and explaining how Alfred was ‘used to’ seeing a range of horrific images. The way in which these sentences follow on from one another, helter-skelter, echoes the way in which these events must have accumulated, one after the other, resulting in Alfred becoming accustomed to the horrors, after all. 5. In the last paragraph, the focus returns to the rat, but instead of describing it as a malevolent creature, it is now described as pitiful, and Alfred’s brutal treatment of it indicates just how damaged he has become. Consider the contrast between the description of it at the beginning and now; also, consider the parallels between the rat and the dead soldiers.

Recycling is ok in question 4! The key word is evaluation, discussing what and how. You must include how – the writer’s methods. You must also say to what extent you agree/disagree with the statement. Lots here to say about the writer’s use of language. e.g. butcher’s shop simile  dehumanising  extended: ‘discarded offal’  human life thrown away You could also mention structural features e.g. the way Alfred’s flashback allows the reader to see the horror e.g. the use of structure to show how Alfred has become immune Recycling is ok in question 4!

An important thing about Question 4 is not to forget that it may ask you to consider more than one thing. Here, you are asked to think about: the horror of war the dreadful effect it has on Alfred So you can spend half of your answer on each part. Take ten minutes now to note down under two headings a few things about each of those things…

The horror of war The dreadful effect it has on Alfred