Can you mark this question out of 16 marks from GCSE English Language paper 2?

4) 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 similar perspectives on cycling in the city.
THIS IS THE MOST CHALLENGING QUESTION IN PAPER 1 AS IT ASKS YOU TO DO MANY THINGS AND IS WORTH MANY MARKS - TRY TO GIVE IT AT LEAST 25 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME AND ALWAYS WRITE A FEW PARAGRAPHS..

In your answer, you could:

Compare their similar perspectives on cycling in the city
Compare the methods the writers use to convey their perspectives
Support your response with references to both texts.
[16 marks]

Although both sources resolve around the pessimistic and alarming attitude of the drivers, both are excessively similar in terms of the experience they face with a kindred perspective of overall view of the driver itself and the experience they face of cycling in the city. Peter Walker the columnist in source A uses humour to express his unrelaxed and inferior attitude towards the chauffeur: “I get the sense that all these forms of transport are populated by roughly a similar proportion of idiots” emphasises his exasperation within the motorists mind and displays his arrogance as to not treating this person with the generosity he deserves - perhaps he feels despondent by the fact that this type of person is ‘careless’ and is ‘irresponsible’ for the death of people’s lives- he may witness that being around him may make him feel ‘uncomfortable’ or in an ‘unsafe position’ cycling as there may be an increased risk of an accident or laceration. The use of colloquial language of “idiots” may imply that he is ‘out of control’ or representing him to be part of the ‘group of idiots’ who seamlessly care about the nature of life and the direct consequences it causes; it seems as if he is a ‘part of society’ in which people remorselessly commit crimes without knowing anything about it - it seems like a normal part of life for the driver.

Juxtaposition has been used to symbolize a rather emotional response towards the reader as “remember that these are human beings” which contrasts clearly towards “unprotected flesh and bone seeking to get to work” - this comparison towards comparing that “these are human beings” and “seeing unprotected flesh and bones” could demonstrate that humans are ‘fragile objects’ and that ‘being careless’ and ‘imprudent’ could lead to immense damage and destruction and highlights that even the slightest and impeccable touches can offer them severe torture - the cyclist ‘warns him carefully’ suggesting that ‘your a human being too’ and that ‘being selfish’ can lead to yourself being killed or perhaps injured causing pain and uncomfort for the reader - even though he has been given the warning he ignores it disgracefully making him feel distraught.

Additionally the adverb “roughly” could highlight a sense of engagement within the reader's mind as to if giving an approximate estimation of how many cyclists agonize themselves by imperling their own life into insecurity. On the other hand the cyclist in source B contradicts that cycling in a city filled with men would be ‘enjoyable’ and raise gratification through the use of formal language to create an authoritarian tone. The ‘Countess of Malmesbury’ doubts that cycling in a city will cause much ‘anguish’ or ‘distress’ by conveying “I cannot help that cycling in the streets would be nicer” which could perhaps demonstrate that she in unsure of whether she should cycle or not depending on the amount of traffic or congestion available making her feel ‘intolerable’ and ‘agonising’ of taking that risk. However, she takes that threat already knowing that she is ‘cramped’ as to thinking it may be ok to at least not face any obstruction leading her astray causing a devastating problem of her ‘indigent’ experience of cycling.

Furthermore, this heavily impacts her as the ‘hansom cabs’ have ‘various ways of inflicting torture on a fellow-creature’ maybe severly striking her “enjoyable” encounter of cruising in the city - considering the fact that these drivers lure “harmful insults at her without knowing it can cause severe damage” has created an uncomfortable atmosphere around her; maybe like a shield surrounding her not letting her go making her doubt her decision of riding in the first place. The way the drivers express their attitude by exclaiming, “Hi!” in an excessively ill-mannered tone makes her feel ‘disappointed’ and rather ‘insulted’ by the fact that these drivers are not knowing what they are saying - she is like a “main target” for the drivers to conquer and take hold of similar to the position the cyclist in source A is witnessing and experiencing. By using the abstract noun, “serious grief” she is maybe suggesting that she is ‘annoyed’ and ‘disheartened’ as the slightest of actions can get her agitated and irritated.

(edited 3 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username1799249

Paragraphs tick.
Big words tick.
References to the text tick.
About the right length tick.
Connectives tick.

I’d give you between 13 and 16.

Reply 2

Dinda Academy

Original post by ByEeek

Paragraphs tick.
Big words tick.
References to the text tick.
About the right length tick.
Connectives tick.

I’d give you between 13 and 16.

Thanks ByEeek :smile:

. But what mark would it be between 13 and 16 as there are 4 possibilities :smile:

Reply 3

Dinda Academy

Original post by ByEeek

Paragraphs tick.
Big words tick.
References to the text tick.
About the right length tick.
Connectives tick.

I’d give you between 13 and 16.

I'm pretty sure you forgot to mention that I did refer to both sources A and B towards the end linking back clearly to the question suggesting to why the cyclists viewpoints are similar to cycling in the city.

Reply 4

Yryge

Grade 9 response
14 marks
You need to refer to the connotations and perhaps more inferences from these connotations! This will give more depth of understanding to the examiner!
Also to secure top marks we must use language like “perhaps” and “might infer.” This lets the examiner know it is a possibility and it tells the examiner you are explaining and evaluating!

Reply 5

username5322502

Additionally the adverb “roughly” could highlight a sense of engagement within the reader's mind as to if giving an approximate estimation of how many cyclists agonize themselves by imperling their own life into insecurity.
what are you saying here :confused:

Reply 6

Dinda Academy

Original post by Yryge

That's what I did throughout using perhaps multiple times :smile:

but I might just need to put in "Might infer" like you said to gain an extra mark or too :smile:

Reply 7

Dinda Academy

Original post by astayuno

If you don't understand I'm saying that the adverb "roughly" could suggest that the writer is giving an estimate to how many cyclists agonize or put themselves at risk in danger

Reply 8

username5322502

Original post by Dinda Academy

If you don't understand I'm saying that the adverb "roughly" could suggest that the writer is giving an estimate to how many cyclists agonize or put themselves at risk in danger

Putting themselves in danger is much better than the cyclists agonising themselves...Additionally the adverb “roughly" highlights how many cyclists would put put themselves in danger creating a semantic field of terror on the road etc ..

Reply 9

Dinda Academy

Original post by astayuno

Thanks astayuno :smile:

. I forgot to mention a 'semantic field' because I was too caught up on explaining how to cyclists are at risk.

np ^^

Original post by astayuno

np ^^

Thanks for the help :smile:

. Also would you give me 14 marks for adding that or would you give me higher like 15 or 16 considering that I managed to add a semantic field which demonstrates that the cyclists have to face many problems all at the same time as long as the driver is risking their life :wink:

Reply 12

Dinda Academy

Original post by astayuno

np ^^

Also can you mark my letter I completed as well out of 40 marks. Its on English Language Paper 2 Question 5.

5) ‘Cars are noisy, dirty, smelly and downright dangerous. They should be banned from all town and city centres, allowing people to walk and cycle in peace.’

Write a letter to the Minister for Transport arguing your point of view on this statement.
(24 marks for content and organisation)
(16 marks for technical accuracy)
[40 marks]
Dear Minister for Transport

I urgently need your support and trust to assist in making this country exceptional again. You (the minister) are the only person in this whole country who is responsible enough to take an immense step forward and raise the country's expectations one by one. We all know who you are and you're a secretary of state who has the will and competence to make a change and save lives. Banning this type of vehicle will bring out a huge benefit for the entire country itself making people’s lives much trouble-free and unchallenging. I rightly advise you to ban this public transport on roads and cities to make an enormous contribution and change to the environment. Here are my reasons why.

I understand that prohibiting this type of transport may be intense and excessively difficult to cooperate with as they are the main transportation for our daily lives but it is the only option we have got if we are to sustain this worldly chaos of endless pollution and dust. Cars are boisterous and are a disturbing mode of transport as they emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and heat up the earth; this type of gas which they emit is hazardous and perilous for people as it can cause lung cancer and perhaps cause a rise in sea levels. We are a long way away until electric cars such as Porcha for example come onto the streets. Until then, we must take notice that banning this mode of transport would be so beneficial and environmentally friendly as there will be less befouling and create an energy efficient city. Do you want people to suffer from anxiety and distress? Do you want to hinder the potential of hundreds of peoples lives? Do you want people to suffer health problems? 95% of us are against this statement - 95%! Only you can answer this question and make an innovation.

Beyond the noise and dust, the amount of contamination produced by these rough vehicles causes excessive amounts of stress and less space for people to walk around or cycle, harming the environment and economy. For instance a recent research showed from the Institute of scientific research that we emit 70% of our tainting from cars not including buses or other vehicles since 1996, according to the city of New York Trump recently just released a report on the air quality and states he is in absolute disarray suggesting that the air quality is beyond parlous levels within the capital (Washington DC) and the region itself. In that exact same period, the amount of cars has doubled rapidly not leaving a single mode of other transportation on the roads. As they suggest - you do the maths and figure out the air quality for the upcoming months. The disallowance has an induced base.

Whilst some drivers are careless and kill with their cars by accident, terrorists assassinate their cars on purpose as they are arrogant and dismissive about the sake of people's lives. On at least four occasions we have witnessed that in the last three to four years or so, London’s streets have seen a life-threatening surge in the use of weaponized cars and especially these ones. Indeed one of the major attacks happened at your work when a girl was wiped out completely by the car itself when the driver just ploughed into her without noticing anything or without feeling any guilt and remorse; blood discharged from all her body parts creating a pool of never-ending red solution! Indeed this is a daunting call out for you and outlawing this murderous vehicle can prevent any major attacks especially this blood-curdling incident occurring at your workplace and around the country itself.

Congested walkways are also a monumental concern. Cars such as Nissan, Audi and Peugeot cause cosmic havoc and take up the space people get to walk which is a tremendous discussion for the government to take care of. Removing such types of vehicles and especially these ones will create an enormous impact on the amount of outdoor life people deserve. We have to think about the safety and the care of our people and see what difficulties they are going through by the use of these abominable cars. Even you may have wondered what on earth is going on by the use of this destructive vehicle?.

I highly recommend you to resolve this issue immediately for our nation and we believe that once this chaos is over we can get back to keeping the outdoor environment safe and make our country awe-inspiring again. This is your only opportunity! Make it count.

Yours Sincerely

Virat Kohli

Reply 13

username5322502

Original post by Dinda Academy

Thanks for the help :smile:

a small conclusion would definitely bring it up to 14 :h:

Reply 14

Muttley79

Original post by Dinda Academy

Thanks for the help :smile:

Why don't you e-mail this to your teacher? Posters on here aren't qualified to mark this ... unless they are teachers.

Reply 15

Dinda Academy

Original post by Muttley79

Why don't you e-mail this to your teacher? Posters on here aren't qualified to mark this ... unless they are teachers.

I would but it's better if I accept the mark and try to get a higher mark next time. As they all say improving without asking for marks is a big step in succeeding as you get better and gain more confidence :smile:

.

Can you also mark this letter I completed out of 40 marks. Its on English Language question 2 paper 5.

5) ‘Cars are noisy, dirty, smelly and downright dangerous. They should be banned from all town and city centres, allowing people to walk and cycle in peace.’

Write a letter to the Minister for Transport arguing your point of view on this statement.
(24 marks for content and organisation)
(16 marks for technical accuracy)

[40 marks]
Dear Minister for Transport

I urgently need your support and trust to assist in making this country exceptional again. You (the minister) are the only person in this whole country who is responsible enough to take an immense step forward and raise the country's expectations one by one. We all know who you are and you're a secretary of state who has the will and competence to make a change and save lives. Banning this type of vehicle will bring out a huge benefit for the entire country itself making people’s lives much trouble-free and unchallenging. I rightly advise you to ban this public transport on roads and cities to make an enormous contribution and change to the environment. Here are my reasons why.

I understand that prohibiting this type of transport may be intense and excessively difficult to cooperate with as they are the main transportation for our daily lives but it is the only option we have got if we are to sustain this worldly chaos of endless pollution and dust. Cars are boisterous and are a disturbing mode of transport as they emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and heat up the earth; this type of gas which they emit is hazardous and perilous for people as it can cause lung cancer and perhaps cause a rise in sea levels. We are a long way away until electric cars such as Porcha for example come onto the streets. Until then, we must take notice that banning this mode of transport would be so beneficial and environmentally friendly as there will be less befouling and create an energy efficient city. Do you want people to suffer from anxiety and distress? Do you want to hinder the potential of hundreds of peoples lives? Do you want people to suffer health problems? 95% of us are against this statement - 95%! Only you can answer this question and make an innovation.

Beyond the noise and dust, the amount of contamination produced by these rough vehicles causes excessive amounts of stress and less space for people to walk around or cycle, harming the environment and economy. For instance a recent research showed from the Institute of scientific research that we emit 70% of our tainting from cars not including buses or other vehicles since 1996, according to the city of New York Trump recently just released a report on the air quality and states he is in absolute disarray suggesting that the air quality is beyond parlous levels within the capital (Washington DC) and the region itself. In that exact same period, the amount of cars has doubled rapidly not leaving a single mode of other transportation on the roads. As they suggest - you do the maths and figure out the air quality for the upcoming months. The disallowance has an induced base.

Whilst some drivers are careless and kill with their cars by accident, terrorists assassinate their cars on purpose as they are arrogant and dismissive about the sake of people's lives. On at least four occasions we have witnessed that in the last three to four years or so, London’s streets have seen a life-threatening surge in the use of weaponized cars and especially these ones. Indeed one of the major attacks happened at your work when a girl was wiped out completely by the car itself when the driver just ploughed into her without noticing anything or without feeling any guilt and remorse; blood discharged from all her body parts creating a pool of never-ending red solution! Indeed this is a daunting call out for you and outlawing this murderous vehicle can prevent any major attacks especially this blood-curdling incident occurring at your workplace and around the country itself.

Congested walkways are also a monumental concern. Cars such as Nissan, Audi and Peugeot cause cosmic havoc and take up the space people get to walk which is a tremendous discussion for the government to take care of. Removing such types of vehicles and especially these ones will create an enormous impact on the amount of outdoor life people deserve. We have to think about the safety and the care of our people and see what difficulties they are going through by the use of these abominable cars. Even you may have wondered what on earth is going on by the use of this destructive vehicle?.

I highly recommend you to resolve this issue immediately for our nation and we believe that once this chaos is over we can get back to keeping the outdoor environment safe and make our country awe-inspiring again. This is your only opportunity! Make it count.

Yours Sincerely

Virat Kohli

Reply 16

username5322502