大象传媒

Analysing non-fiction - Sample answer 鈥 version one

The sample answer in this section is an example of an extended response to the longer type of questions in your exams.

You will also answer short response questions that might ask you to select and list key points from a text - or and information from two texts.

Question

Refer to both Text 1 and Text 2.

Compare how the writers of Text 1 and Text 2 present their ideas and perspectives on food.

Support your answer with detailed references to the texts.

Both texts present ideas about school dinners.

Orwell鈥檚 description of school dinners make them sound awful, there is not enough food to eat, jam is scraped 鈥榮o thinly鈥. He says that they are 鈥榰nderfed鈥. The boys are so hungry that they have to steal food. They only get things like 鈥榖read and cheese鈥 and 鈥榳ater to drink鈥. On the other hand, Jamie Oliver鈥檚 article makes school dinners sound great. The students are 鈥榚xcited鈥 and do lots of different things on the Food Revolution Day. The staff are 鈥榚nthusiastic鈥 about the school dinners project too.

Feedback 鈥 basic

This answer:

  • Does use key words from the question. This shows that their answer will focus on it.
  • Does use the writers鈥 surnames 鈥 you should always use their surname not their first name.
  • Attempts to link the texts. This is shown by the 鈥渙n the other hand鈥.
  • Does quote from the texts, eg 鈥渟o thinly鈥 and 鈥渆xcited鈥.
  • Attempts , eg 鈥渕akes school dinners sound great鈥.

However, it would have been better if:

  • They had selected words to quote that have to explore eg, 鈥渟tale鈥 suggests that the bread is dry, hard and unpleasant to eat.
  • They had identified methods such as eg, 鈥減aralysed with about equal fear鈥 implies that the boys are so terrified that they freeze on the spot, they cannot move. The question asks you to 鈥渃ompare the methods used鈥 鈥 this answer does not do that.
  • They had used a quotation, eg to support their inference that 鈥渟chool dinners sound great鈥, eg 鈥済ood, fresh, real food鈥. As it is the analysis lacks evidence and is quite vague.