"Marking what you have rather than what you don't have"

I do CCEA History and English Lit and I've always been told that they only mark positively instead of negatively. It's not necessarily better, it's just different. If you don't have enough relevant content you still won't get a good mark. Although my english teacher marked essays by automatically starting them off with full marks, then deducting marks for problems with SPG, fluency, etc. I don't think that is how examiners mark it. They always try and credit you for what you have put down, at least in essay subjects.

Do you think it could promote better marks though? And do youngster an idea if the grade boundaries for CCEA English lit are usually low or high?

It might do, because the examiners always try and give you credit for what is there and they can't really focus on what isn't.

The lit grade boundaries are quite average, 80% for an A. The AS exam is worth 120 marks, so you have to get 96. That's not really drastically high or low I guess?