The Student Room Group

Gingerbread's AQA GCSE English Exam Guide

Scroll to see replies

Original post by futuregenius
I am really stuck on the comparison question! Any help please? :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Annotate and find around 3 things that you can compare and contrast e.g they both use a metaphor but for a different effect, or they both have a tense atmosphere but one uses onomatopoeia and one uses ellipsis.
Write a PETER paragraph one one text and then in the one for the other text, compare it to the first one throughout :smile:
Original post by futuregenius
Do you have any sample q4 answers?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I can give you a paragraph but it'll take too long for me to write out the full thing:

In source 1, Rafting on the Grand Canyon, Elisabeth Hyde uses repetition to create a foreboding sense of anticipation: "Rule Number One- stay in the boat! Rule Number Two- stay in the boat!". This creates a sense of danger if the rules are broken, and that they are essential in the rafting, although it adds a humorous touch. Because the exact same rule is repeated, it makes the reader understand how vital it is as it is more memorable. This also creates anticipation to what would happen if the rule was broken, although it makes it seem slightly lighthearted. Because it is concise and humorous, the rule seems less dire and more to give a sense of what is to come.
However, in source 3, Everest the Hard Way, Pete Boardman uses a rhetorical question to give a more serious sense of danger: "Were we in the gully? I felt panic surge inside". Boardman is questioning their situation and because of the natural danger of it, and the isolation they were in, this creates a sense of panic in the reader too. The anxiousness is clear, as they don't know what to do, or even what the danger could be. In this way, the two texts are similar, as they are both unclear about what could happen. However, because of the context, Boardman's danger is much more dire and real, whereas Hyde creates a slightly superficial fear, as they are under supervision and the humour of the repetition makes it much more lighthearted. Also, for the rhetoric question, it makes the reader feel scared on behalf of them, as they too don't know the answer, whereas in Hyde's repetition, there is less for the reader to consider, as the clear outcome would be that they would fall in, while anything could happen to Boardman.

Obviously, this was written under timed conditions and isn't perfect :h:
That in time conditions... That's amazing! Thank you :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Apologies about my slow response time tonight guys, let me know if you have any more questions and I'll try to answer them tonight or tomorrow morning :yes:
:woo: Good luck to you all in your exam tomorrow! :woo:


@SampleX @fabsafxo @JackM1999 @georgielangler @ElGenioEstúpido @futuregenius @Hot&Spicy
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by futuregenius
That in time conditions... That's amazing! Thank you :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Haha thanks, I write very quickly and tend to write less paragraphs but make them longer :yes:
Original post by Gingerbread101
3-4 would be good :yes:

It counts as structure :yes: Language would be things like metaphor, alliteration, simile, onomatopoeia etc :smile:


Thanks! You're very helpful :biggrin:
Original post by ElGenioEstúpido
Thanks! You're very helpful :biggrin:

Thank you :colondollar: I hope your exam went well! :awesome:
Original post by Gingerbread101
Thank you :colondollar: I hope your exam went well! :awesome:


Well I don't think I done too well on question three and five slightly, but the rest I feel were good, hoping for the A at least :biggrin:
Original post by ElGenioEstúpido
Well I don't think I done too well on question three and five slightly, but the rest I feel were good, hoping for the A at least :biggrin:

I'm glad to discuss it in a more civil environment- the exam discussion thread is going crazy about whether question 6 specifically said you had to argue against :redface: I'm 99% sure it wouldn't have, but some people seem to think it did
Original post by Gingerbread101
I'm glad to discuss it in a more civil environment- the exam discussion thread is going crazy about whether question 6 specifically said you had to argue against :redface: I'm 99% sure it wouldn't have, but some people seem to think it did


Yeah I saw :biggrin: It was 'Argue your response to this statement' whilst the statement was of 'children in wealthy countries have it easy, whilst poor countries don't, they should help' or some sorts. Although I think I persuaded more than argued tbh :s-smilie:
Original post by Gingerbread101
Apologies about my slow response time tonight guys, let me know if you have any more questions and I'll try to answer them tonight or tomorrow morning :yes:
:woo: Good luck to you all in your exam tomorrow! :woo:


@SampleX @fabsafxo @JackM1999 @georgielangler @ElGenioEstúpido @futuregenius @Hot&Spicy


Hi Gingerbread, thanks for everything.
My exam was really hard however, but I found the section b okay:smile:
Original post by fabsafxo
Hi Gingerbread, thanks for everything.
My exam was really hard however, but I found the section b okay:smile:

That's alright :h:
I'm glad you liked Section B, hopefully A will have gone better than you think :yep:
Original post by Gingerbread101
That's alright :h:
I'm glad you liked Section B, hopefully A will have gone better than you think :yep:


Haha, I hope so.
Because the extract given had no points and I picked a silly extract and wrote too little to even pass:frown:
Original post by fabsafxo
Haha, I hope so.
Because the extract given had no points and I picked a silly extract and wrote too little to even pass:frown:

Don't worry about it now :nah: You did your best and I'm sure you'll do well :h:
Original post by Gingerbread101
Don't worry about it now :nah: You did your best and I'm sure you'll do well :h:


:colondollar::tongue:xxxxx

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending