Understanding Question 4 of Paper 2

Quick reference overview

What Question 4 looks like

This question tests your ability to compare how two writers convey their different perspectives, attitudes, or feelings about a specific topic. You will refer to the whole of both Source A and Source B, which are non-fiction texts from different time periods or contexts. The question will specify the focus of comparison, such as attitudes towards a particular issue or event. Below is an example of the question format on the exam paper.

For this question, you need to refer to the whole of Source A, together with the whole of Source B.

Compare how the writers convey their different perspectives on the impact of technology.

In your answer, you should:

• compare their different perspectives
• comment on the methods the writers use to convey their perspectives
• support your response with references to both texts.

[16 marks]

What is being assessed

Assessment Objective 3 (AO3) tests your ability to:

• Compare writers' ideas and perspectives across two texts
• Analyse how these perspectives are conveyed through language, structure, and other methods
• Support your ideas with relevant references from both texts

The key focus is on comparing the writers' viewpoints and the techniques they use to express them, rather than directly comparing the methods side by side.

Worked example 1

Below is a practice question with extracts from two sources, followed by sample Level 2 and Level 4 responses. Use these to understand the expectations at each level.

Question and extracts

For this question, you need to refer to the whole of Source A, together with the whole of Source B.

Compare how the writers convey their different attitudes towards city life.

In your answer, you should:

• compare their different attitudes
• comment on the methods the writers use to convey their attitudes
• support your response with references to both texts.

[16 marks]

Source A (19th-century article)

The city is a marvel of human achievement, a testament to progress and possibility. London's streets buzz with energy; carriages rattle past, vendors cry their wares, and every corner pulses with life. Factories tower proudly, their chimneys sending plumes of smoke into the sky as symbols of industry. Yes, there are challenges – the air can be thick with soot, and the noise is ceaseless – but these are small prices to pay for the opportunities found here. In the city, a man can rise from nothing to something, if only he works hard. I see hope in every brick and cobblestone, a promise of a brighter future for all who dare to seize it.

Source B (21st-century blog post)

Cities are suffocating traps, and I can't understand why anyone would choose to live in one. Take London today – it's a maze of concrete and glass, where people rush past each other without a glance. The air tastes of exhaust fumes, and the constant blare of horns and sirens grates on the nerves. Skyscrapers loom overhead, blocking out the sky, making you feel like a speck in an uncaring machine. I long for open fields and quiet, for a place where I can breathe without choking on pollution. City life isn't living; it's surviving, and I want no part of it.

Level 2 response (5–8 marks)

The writer of Source A has a positive attitude towards city life, while the writer of Source B has a negative attitude. In Source A, the writer describes London's streets as buzzing "with energy" and says that "every corner pulses with life". This shows they think the city is exciting and full of activity. They also mention the "factories tower proudly" which suggests they admire the industry of the city.

On the other hand, in Source B, the writer thinks cities are horrible places to live. They describe London as a "maze of concrete and glass" which makes it sound confusing and unnatural. They also say the air "tastes of exhaust fumes" which shows how polluted they think it is. They don't like the noise either, mentioning the "constant blare of horns and sirens".

Both writers talk about the atmosphere of the city but in different ways. Source A uses positive words like "marvel" and "hope" to show their admiration, while Source B uses negative words like "suffocating" and "uncaring" to show how much they dislike it.

Why this is Level 2

• Shows some understanding of the different attitudes towards city life
• Identifies relevant textual details from both sources ("buzzing with energy", "maze of concrete and glass")
• Attempts to compare perspectives, though the comparison is basic and lacks depth
• Comments on methods are surface-level ("positive words", "negative words") without detailed analysis of effects
• Limited exploration of how methods convey the writers' attitudes
• Fits within the Level 2 mark range due to some relevant explanation but lack of developed analysis

Level 4 response (13–16 marks)

The writer of Source A conveys an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards city life, viewing it as a hub of progress and opportunity, whereas the writer of Source B presents a deeply negative perspective, portraying cities as oppressive and dehumanising. This stark contrast in viewpoints reflects not only personal attitudes but also the historical contexts shaping their experiences of urban environments.

In Source A, a 19th-century perspective, the writer employs vibrant, dynamic imagery to celebrate the city as a symbol of human achievement. Describing London's streets as buzzing "with energy" and noting how "every corner pulses with life", the writer creates a vivid sense of vitality that mirrors their admiration for urban progress. The personification in "pulses" suggests the city is a living, breathing entity, full of potential, which aligns with the era's optimism about industrial growth. Furthermore, the factories that "tower proudly" are imbued with a sense of dignity through the adverb "proudly", reflecting the writer's belief in industry as a noble force. This romanticised view is reinforced by their assertion of "hope in every brick and cobblestone", a metaphor suggesting that even the city's physical structure embodies aspiration and promise for social mobility. The reader is thus positioned to share in this hopeful vision of urban life as a place of transformation.

In stark contrast, the writer of Source B, writing in the 21st century, constructs a bleak and hostile depiction of city life through language that evokes confinement and sensory discomfort. The metaphor of London as a "maze of concrete and glass" immediately conveys a sense of disorientation and artificiality, implying that the city traps its inhabitants in an unnatural, labyrinthine existence. This negative perspective is intensified by sensory imagery, such as the air that "tastes of exhaust fumes", a visceral description that suggests physical revulsion and underscores the theme of pollution. The auditory irritation of the "constant blare of horns and sirens" further builds a picture of relentless chaos, grating on both the writer's and the reader's nerves. Most strikingly, the personification of skyscrapers that "loom overhead" carries a menacing tone, suggesting an oppressive dominance that diminishes individuals to mere "specks" in an "uncaring machine". This mechanised imagery strips the city of humanity, positioning it as a dehumanising force and evoking a longing for escape to "open fields and quiet". The reader is made to feel the weight of this oppression, aligning with the writer's rejection of urban life.

While both writers engage with the sensory experience of the city to convey their attitudes, their methods and tones create opposing effects. Source A's use of dynamic verbs and positive personification reflects an era of industrial pride, crafting an uplifting narrative of possibility that invites admiration. Conversely, Source B's reliance on metaphors of entrapment and sensory disgust captures a modern disillusionment with urban sprawl, compelling the reader to empathise with a desire for freedom from such environments. These differences highlight how historical context shapes personal perspectives on city life, with Source A embracing the city as a frontier of progress and Source B lamenting it as a source of alienation.

Why this is Level 4

• Demonstrates a perceptive and detailed understanding of the writers' contrasting attitudes
• Provides a sustained comparison of perspectives, linking them to historical context
• Analyses the effects of specific methods in depth ("personification in 'pulses' suggests", "metaphor of a 'maze' conveys disorientation")
• Uses precise, short quotations to support points ("with energy", "tastes of exhaust fumes")
• Explores layers of meaning and connotations ("imbued with a sense of dignity", "strips the city of humanity")
• Shows sophisticated use of subject terminology (dynamic imagery, sensory discomfort, mechanised imagery)
• Considers the impact on the reader, aligning with the writers' intentions
• Fits within the Level 4 mark range for its insightful and well-developed comparison

Comparison: What separates the levels

Worked example 2

Below is a second practice question with extracts from two sources, followed by sample Level 2 and Level 4 responses. Use this to further explore how the same principles apply across different contexts.

Question and extracts

For this question, you need to refer to the whole of Source A, together with the whole of Source B.

Compare how the writers convey their different feelings about travel.

In your answer, you should:

• compare their different feelings
• comment on the methods the writers use to convey their feelings
• support your response with references to both texts.

[16 marks]

Source A (18th-century travel journal)

To travel is to embrace the very essence of life itself. Setting sail across the vast ocean, I felt my spirit soar with every wave that crashed against the ship. The unknown horizon beckoned to me, promising discovery and wonder at every turn. The creak of the deck beneath my feet and the salty tang of the sea air were invigorating reminders of my freedom. I care not for the dangers others speak of; to me, each storm is but a test of courage, each foreign shore a chance to learn. There is no greater joy than to wander where few have trod before.

Source B (Modern online review)

Travel is nothing but a hassle, and I dread every moment of it. My recent trip abroad was a nightmare from start to finish. Airports are chaotic prisons – endless queues, invasive security checks, and delays that test your sanity. The flight itself was unbearable, crammed into a tiny seat with no legroom, surrounded by the drone of engines and crying babies. Even reaching the destination brought no relief; unfamiliar streets and language barriers left me frustrated and lost. I'd rather stay home than endure such misery again.

Level 2 response (5–8 marks)

The writer of Source A loves travel and finds it exciting, while the writer of Source B hates it and finds it stressful. In Source A, the writer describes how their "spirit soar with every wave" which shows they feel happy and free when they travel. They also say the "unknown horizon beckoned" which makes it sound like an adventure they want to have.

In Source B, the writer has a completely different view and thinks travel is terrible. They call airports "chaotic prisons" which shows they feel trapped and annoyed by them. They also mention being "crammed into a tiny seat" on the flight, which makes it sound uncomfortable. They don't like being in unfamiliar places either, saying it left them "frustrated and lost".

Both writers use descriptions to show how they feel about travel. Source A uses positive language like "invigorating" and "wonder" to express their joy, while Source B uses negative language like "nightmare" and "misery" to show how much they dislike it.

Why this is Level 2

• Demonstrates some understanding of the contrasting feelings about travel
• Provides relevant examples from both texts ("spirit soar with every wave", "chaotic prisons")
• Attempts comparison, though it remains basic and lacks depth
• Comments on language are general ("positive language", "negative language") without exploring specific effects
• Limited analysis of how methods convey the writers' feelings
• Fits within the Level 2 mark range due to relevant points but lack of detailed development

Level 4 response (13–16 marks)

The writer of Source A conveys an exuberant passion for travel, portraying it as a liberating and transformative experience, while the writer of Source B expresses profound disdain, depicting travel as a source of stress and discomfort. This opposition in feelings reveals not only personal differences but also contrasting cultural attitudes towards exploration across time periods.

In Source A, an 18th-century travel journal, the writer employs emotive and expansive imagery to convey travel as a deeply enriching pursuit. The metaphor of their "spirit soar with every wave" encapsulates a profound sense of freedom and elation, suggesting that the physical journey mirrors an uplifted emotional state. The personification of the "unknown horizon beckoned" imbues the future with an alluring, almost sentient quality, positioning travel as an irresistible call to adventure that the writer eagerly answers. Sensory details, such as the "creak of the deck" and the "salty tang of the sea air", are described as "invigorating", a word choice that transforms potential discomfort into a revitalising force, reinforcing the writer's romanticised view of travel as a test of spirit and courage. This language invites the reader to share in the thrill of exploration, aligning with an era that celebrated discovery.

Conversely, in Source B, a modern online review, the writer constructs a relentlessly negative portrayal of travel through language that evokes frustration and entrapment. The metaphor of airports as "chaotic prisons" immediately establishes a sense of confinement and disorder, suggesting that the very start of a journey is punitive rather than promising. The physical discomfort of travel is vividly captured in the description of being "crammed into a tiny seat", a phrase that conveys both spatial restriction and personal indignity, while the auditory irritation of the "drone of engines and crying babies" builds a sensory assault that grates on the nerves. Most tellingly, the emotional toll of travel is highlighted in the admission of feeling "frustrated and lost" in unfamiliar places, a candid revelation that underscores the writer's alienation and vulnerability. This cumulative negativity positions travel as an ordeal to be endured, not enjoyed, and compels the reader to empathise with a longing for the familiarity of home.

The methods used by both writers, while rooted in sensory and emotional description, achieve markedly different effects due to their tonal choices and contextual influences. Source A's use of metaphors of elevation and sensory invigoration reflects a historical enthusiasm for exploration as a noble pursuit, inspiring awe and aspiration in the reader. In sharp contrast, Source B's metaphors of imprisonment and relentless focus on physical and emotional discomfort capture a contemporary cynicism towards travel, burdened by modern inconveniences, prompting the reader to question its supposed value. These divergent approaches highlight how personal feelings about travel are shaped by both individual temperament and the evolving nature of the travel experience itself across centuries.

Why this is Level 4

• Offers a perceptive and sustained comparison of the writers' feelings about travel
• Links perspectives to historical and cultural contexts with insight
• Provides detailed analysis of methods and their effects ("metaphor of their 'spirit soar'", "sensory assault that grates")
• Selects precise quotations to support points ("invigorating", "crammed into a tiny seat")
• Explores deeper meanings and connotations ("mirrors an uplifted emotional state", "punitive rather than promising")
• Uses sophisticated subject terminology (emotive imagery, sensory assault, tonal choices)
• Considers reader impact and alignment with the writers' intentions
• Fits within the Level 4 mark range for its nuanced and well-structured comparison

Comparison: What separates the levels

What separates stronger from weaker responses

Stronger responses (Level 4) consistently demonstrate a deeper understanding of the writers' perspectives and the methods used to convey them, while weaker responses (Level 2) often remain at a surface level. Below are the key differences:

• Depth of insight - Stronger answers explore layers of meaning, such as connotations and contextual influences, while weaker answers simply state the attitudes or feelings without much development.
• Quality of comparison - Stronger responses sustain a comparative thread throughout, linking ideas and methods across both texts, whereas weaker responses often describe each text separately with limited comparison.
• Analysis of methods - Stronger answers analyse how specific language, imagery, or structural choices create effects, while weaker answers identify techniques without explaining their impact.
• Evidence selection - Stronger responses use short, precise quotations to support detailed points, whereas weaker responses may use longer or less relevant examples.
• Reader impact - Stronger answers consider how the writers' methods influence the reader's perceptions, while weaker answers often omit this or make general statements.
• Use of terminology - Stronger responses integrate accurate and sophisticated subject terminology to enhance analysis, whereas weaker responses use basic or incorrect terms.

How to apply these standards to your own work

To improve your responses and aim for higher levels, follow these strategies.

Self-assessment checklist

• Compare perspectives clearly - Have you explicitly compared the writers' attitudes or feelings throughout your answer, rather than describing each text in isolation?
• Analyse methods in depth - Have you commented on specific methods (e.g., imagery, tone, structure) and explained how they convey the writers' perspectives, rather than just identifying them?
• Use precise evidence - Are your quotations short (1–6 words) and relevant to the point you're making? Have you embedded them smoothly into your analysis?
• Consider reader impact - Have you explained how the writers' choices affect the reader's thoughts or feelings about the topic?
• Integrate terminology - Have you used accurate subject terminology (e.g., metaphor, semantic field, tone) to enhance your analysis, rather than forcing it in awkwardly?
• Link to context - Where relevant, have you considered how the writers' historical or cultural contexts might influence their perspectives?

Practical steps for improvement

Use the following strategies to develop your skills and consistently achieve higher marks.

Step 1: Practise with past papers

Use past Paper 2 questions to write responses under timed conditions (15–20 minutes). Focus on comparing perspectives and analysing methods as shown in the Level 4 responses.

Step 2: Annotate before writing

Before drafting your answer, annotate both sources for key ideas, attitudes, and methods. Highlight contrasting language or imagery that you can compare.

Step 3: Structure your response

Organise your answer with an introductory comparison, followed by paragraphs that alternate between texts or focus on thematic similarities and differences. Ensure each paragraph compares an aspect of the writers' perspectives and comments on methods.

Step 4: Review and revise

After writing, use the self-assessment checklist to identify areas for improvement. Compare your response to the Level 4 examples to see where you can add depth or refine your analysis.

Step 5: Seek feedback

Share your practice answers with a teacher or peer to get constructive feedback on how well you've met the mark scheme criteria. Focus on specific advice for moving from Level 2 to Level 3 or 4.

By consistently applying these strategies and reflecting on model answers, you can develop the skills needed to achieve higher marks in Question 4.