Internet off again....and on again....now I have a lovely new computer, so hopefully will work for more than 8 hours this time.
The board tend not to put up paper 1 because they are often things which are copyright-heavy, so they can have them for the exam, but can't put them up on the web. That's why it's good to think of your own possible paper 1 pieces.
There will certainly be standard questions; always one to test your understandiong (like a precis), asking you to briefly out line the argument; always one to compare texts--perhaps layout or language or often both--always something that is testing how you respond to and if you can distinguish between fact and opinion.
The exam board have given really precise guidelines here:
GCSE English (Specification A): Paper 1 Section A
The following AOs will be assessed in all questions in Section A rather than in specific
questions:
• read, with insight and engagement, making appropriate references to texts (AO2 (i));
• select material appropriate to their purpose (AO2 (iv))
HIGHER TIER
• Question 01 tests the ability to follow an argument (AO2 (iii))
• Question 02 tests the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion (AO2 (ii))
• Question 03 and 04 will test the ability to understand and evaluate how writers use
linguistic, structural and presentational devices to achieve their effects (AO2 (v))
• Either Question 03 or 04 will test the ability to make cross references (AO2 (iv))
Hope this helps!
So are cross references just talking about the two articles together, and comparing them? Also, is the effect of mixing facts and opinions basically that it makes us believe the opinions,as we assume they can be backed up, as they're next to facts?
ReplyDeleteI realise I got it wrong in my last post, as it's writing to persuade, argue or advise, but I'm still confused! To 'argue' do you just do one side of the argument extremely forcefully, and how do you write to advise? Is it easier to always do the writing to persuade question?
Sorry for so many questions!
I'd advise (ho ho ) just doing persuade, as it's easy to fit in all the persuasive rhetorical strategies, unless the task for one of the others is exceptionally beguiling.
ReplyDeleteArguing is more like arguing a case in law--being the judge as 'twere--you show the different possibilities before you decide on one. Persuade is like arguing with teeth--being priosecution or defence--that is, you imagine what the person you are trying to persuade believes, what will move them, and pitch your argument accordingly. It's much more forceful and no holds barred in terms of emotive language for instance.
Cross references are comparisons with examples
Facts and opinions--well often ads and articles try to persuade us (see the link?) by telling us that something is a fact when it's really an opinion (eg 'Dr McCarthy is the best teacher there is'--fact or opinion?)
Hi Dr. McCarthy you seem to have said "Persuade is...much more forceful and no holds barred in terms of emotive language"
ReplyDeleteBut I always thought that writing to argue should be more forceful and passionate (without being aggressive) than writing to persuade - aren't you trying to convince the audience that your view is right, while undermining the opposing argument?
This website seems to say this as well:
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/mainguides/persuade.htm
I'm not sure that you're reading that website quite accurately, Boyuan--it says 'when you write to persuade, you can afford to be:
ReplyDeletemore one-sided and personal
more passionate and emotional.
more reliant on rhetorical language and devices. '
Both kinds of writing can have passionate feeling behind them, but arguing is generally more controlled, becasue of the context. With argument you are considering the other side's opinion because you are likely to be facing an informed audience.
The website you directed me to actually says:
When you set out to persuade someone, you want them to accept your opinion on an issue: you want to change that person's mind to your way of thinking. To do this, you will - just as with 'writing to argue' - be presenting a form of written argument; but when you are trying to persuade, your argument is expected to be more passionate, even more one-sided than the far more balanced presentation of views typical of "Writing to Argue". This is because persuasion is based on a personal conviction that your way of thinking is the right way.
...When writing to argue, you're expected to take account of opposing views and find ways to counter and overcome these, mostly through the use of well-reasoned points. This is because when you are asked to argue, you need to show you have recognises that other equally valid views exist on the subject.
This difference means that when you write to persuade, you can afford to be:
more one-sided and personal
more passionate and emotional.
more reliant on rhetorical language and devices.