Mark Scheme

Section A – Modern Texts (34 marks)

Questions 01–04

All Section A questions are marked using the same assessment objectives and level descriptors.

Assessment Objectives: • AO1 (12 marks): Read, understand and respond to texts. Students should be able to maintain a critical style and develop an informed personal response, using textual references, including quotations, to support and illustrate interpretations. • AO2 (12 marks): Analyse the language, form and structure used by a writer to create meanings and effects, using relevant subject terminology where appropriate. • AO3 (6 marks): Show understanding of the relationships between texts and the contexts in which they were written. • AO4 (4 marks): Use a range of vocabulary and sentence structures for clarity, purpose and effect, with accurate spelling and punctuation.

Total: 34 marks (30 marks for content and AOs 1-3, plus 4 marks for AO4)

Level Descriptors for Questions 01–04 (30 marks for AOs 1-3)

Level 6 (26–30 marks) – Convincing, critical analysis and exploration • Shows perceptive and convincing understanding of writer's methods • Uses judicious textual references and apt quotations • Explores the effects of the writer's methods on the reader • Explores convincing understanding of context • Response is assured and shows originality of thought

Level 5 (21–25 marks) – Thoughtful, developed consideration • Shows thoughtful, developed understanding of writer's methods • Uses appropriate textual references and quotations • Examines the effects of the writer's methods on the reader • Shows thoughtful consideration of context • Response is coherent and developed

Level 4 (16–20 marks) – Clear explanation • Shows clear understanding of writer's methods • Uses relevant textual references and quotations • Explains clearly the effects of the writer's methods on the reader • Shows clear understanding of context • Response is explained clearly

Level 3 (11–15 marks) – Supported, relevant comments • Shows some understanding of writer's methods • Uses some relevant textual references and/or quotations • Identifies some effects of the writer's methods on the reader • Shows some relevant understanding of context • Makes relevant comments

Level 2 (6–10 marks) – Simple, limited comments • Shows simple awareness of writer's methods • Makes simple references/quotations • Identifies simple effects of the writer's methods on the reader • Shows limited awareness of context • Makes simple, limited comments

Level 1 (1–5 marks) – Simple awareness • Shows very limited awareness of writer's methods • Makes very limited references or quotations • Very limited awareness of effects • Very limited awareness of context • Very limited comments

Level 0 (0 marks) – Nothing worthy of credit

AO4 Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar (4 marks)

Level 4 (4 marks) • Sentence demarcation is consistently secure and consistently accurate • Wide range of punctuation is used with a high level of accuracy • Uses a full range of appropriate sentence forms for effect • Uses Standard English consistently and appropriately with secure control of complex grammatical structures • High level of accuracy in spelling, including ambitious vocabulary • Extensive and ambitious use of vocabulary

Level 3 (3 marks) • Sentence demarcation is mostly secure and mostly accurate • Range of punctuation is used, mostly with success • Uses a variety of sentence forms for effect • Mostly uses Standard English appropriately with mostly controlled grammatical structures • Generally accurate spelling, including complex and irregular words • Increasingly sophisticated use of vocabulary

Level 2 (2 marks) • Sentence demarcation is mostly secure and sometimes accurate • Some control of a range of punctuation • Attempts a variety of sentence forms • Some use of Standard English with some control of agreement • Some accurate spelling of more complex words • Varied use of vocabulary

Level 1 (1 mark) • Occasional use of sentence demarcation • Some evidence of conscious punctuation • Simple range of sentence forms • Occasional use of Standard English with limited control of agreement • Accurate basic spelling • Simple use of vocabulary

Level 0 (0 marks) – Nothing worthy of credit

Indicative Content – Question 01 (An Inspector Calls)

This content is not prescriptive. Reward all valid points.

Extract analysis may include:

• Generational conflict shown through disagreement between Sheila and Mr Birling over the Inspector's authenticity • Mr Birling's immediate relief at discovering the Inspector was a fake: "Makes all the difference, doesn't it?" – shows older generation's concern with social reputation rather than moral responsibility • Sheila's response "No, it doesn't" – demonstrates younger generation has learned a moral lesson regardless of the Inspector's identity • Repetition and emphasis in Sheila's language: "I mean that it doesn't matter to me" – she is articulate and assured in her moral position • Mr Birling's dismissive language towards his daughter: "Don't talk nonsense" – attempts to re-establish patriarchal authority • Sheila's fear: "It frightens me the way you talk" – recognises her parents' moral blindness • Mr Birling's selective memory: claims he "recognised him at once" and "knew he was a fake" – Priestley uses dramatic irony as audience knows this is untrue • Sheila's final statement: "He was our police inspector" – profound understanding that moral judgement exists regardless of official authority • Stage directions: Mr Birling speaks "triumphantly" – indicates he believes he has won, exposing his misunderstanding of the situation

Whole text analysis may include:

• Act One: younger generation (Sheila and Eric) initially appear superficial but are capable of change; older generation (Mr and Mrs Birling) are set in their capitalist, individualist views • Political context: Priestley was a socialist writing in 1945 (though play set in 1912) – uses generational divide to argue for post-war social change • Eva Smith/Daisy Renton: younger characters show empathy and guilt; older characters focus on protecting their reputation • Sheila's engagement ring: symbolically removes it, rejecting the values of her parents' generation • Eric's drinking and moral crisis: represents the damaged younger generation who will inherit a flawed system • Mrs Birling: her refusal to accept responsibility even for turning away a pregnant Eva Smith shows the older generation's entrenched cruelty • The Inspector's final speech: "We are members of one body" – socialist message directed at younger generation who are listening • The telephone call at the end: younger generation remain changed regardless; older generation attempt to return to previous complacency • Dramatic structure: cyclical structure suggests change is possible but not inevitable; younger generation are key to breaking the cycle • Historical context: 1912 setting (pre-WWI) allows Priestley to show audience the arrogance of the older generation who cannot imagine the coming wars and social upheaval • Eric's confrontation with his mother: "You killed her" – most direct generational conflict, younger generation holding older accountable

Accept any other valid interpretations supported by the text.

Section B – Part 1: Poetry (30 marks)

Questions 05–06

Assessment Objectives: • AO1 (12 marks): Respond to texts critically and imaginatively; select and evaluate textual detail to illustrate and support interpretations • AO2 (18 marks): Explain how language, structure and form contribute to writers' presentation of ideas, themes and settings

Total: 30 marks

Level Descriptors for Questions 05–06

Level 6 (26–30 marks) – Perceptive, assured understanding • Presents a perceptive comparative analysis • Shows perceptive understanding of methods • Uses judicious textual references • Develops a convincing personal response • Uses perceptive understanding of writer's methods and effects

Level 5 (21–25 marks) – Thoughtful, developed understanding • Presents a thoughtful comparison • Shows thoughtful understanding of methods • Uses appropriate textual references • Develops a thoughtful personal response • Shows thoughtful understanding of writer's methods and effects

Level 4 (16–20 marks) – Clear, explained understanding • Presents a clear comparison • Shows clear understanding of methods • Uses relevant textual references • Makes a clear personal response • Explains clearly the effects of writer's methods

Level 3 (11–15 marks) – Supported, relevant understanding • Makes a relevant comparison • Shows some understanding of methods • Uses some relevant textual references • Makes a relevant response • Identifies some effects of writer's methods

Level 2 (6–10 marks) – Simple, limited understanding • Makes simple comparisons • Shows simple awareness of methods • Makes simple references • Makes simple response • Identifies simple effects

Level 1 (1–5 marks) – Very limited understanding • Makes very limited comparisons • Shows very limited awareness • Very limited references • Very limited response • Very limited awareness of effects

Level 0 (0 marks) – Nothing worthy of credit

Indicative Content – Question 05 ('Remains' comparison)

Candidates must compare 'Remains' with one other poem from the Power and Conflict cluster.

'Remains' – key points

• PTSD and guilt: "His bloody life in my bloody hands" – plosive alliteration and pun on "bloody" conveys trauma and guilt • Colloquial language: "one of my mates" – authentic soldier's voice, conversational tone contrasts with horror of content • Repetition: "possibly armed, possibly not" – uncertainty haunts the speaker, ambiguity of conflict • Present tense shift: "dug in behind enemy lines" – military metaphor for psychological haunting, trauma is ongoing • Loss of agency: "Sleep, and he's probably armed, possibly not" – the dead man returns in dreams, speaker has lost control • Enjambment: reflects the relentless, unstoppable nature of traumatic memories • Caesura: "Then I'm home on leave. But I blink" – pause before trauma resurfaces

Possible comparison poems and points:

'Exposure' (Owen): • Both present psychological effects of conflict on soldiers • Both use repetition to convey trauma: "But nothing happens" / "possibly armed, possibly not" • Both use present tense to make trauma immediate and ongoing • Owen focuses on environmental suffering; Armitage focuses on moral guilt • Both present soldiers as victims of forces beyond their control • Owen uses pathetic fallacy; Armitage uses colloquial language

'War Photographer' (Duffy): • Both deal with traumatic memories that cannot be escaped • Both use vivid imagery of suffering: "running children in a nightmare heat" / "blood-stained into foreign dust" • War photographer is observer; soldier in 'Remains' is participant – different relationship to trauma • Both suggest inability of those at home to understand • Both use structured form to contain chaotic content • Duffy criticises media and public; Armitage focuses on individual soldier's guilt

'Bayonet Charge' (Hughes): • Both present the individual soldier's experience of conflict • 'Bayonet Charge' shows moment of action; 'Remains' shows aftermath • Both present loss of idealism about conflict • Hughes uses natural imagery; Armitage uses urban/modern setting • Both use enjambment to convey chaotic experience • Hughes shows physical terror; Armitage shows psychological damage

Accept any valid comparison with appropriate textual support.

Indicative Content – Question 06 ('Storm on the Island' comparison)

Candidates must compare 'Storm on the Island' with one other poem from the Power and Conflict cluster.

'Storm on the Island' – key points

• Collective voice: "We are prepared" – community facing nature together • False confidence: "We are bombarded" – military metaphor suggests humans are under attack from nature • Irony: "We are prepared" contrasted with the devastating power described • Paradox: "Strange, it is a huge nothing that we fear" – nature's power is invisible (wind) yet destructive • Blank verse: reflects the relentless assault of the storm • Plosive consonants: "exploding comfortably" – oxymoron captures both security and violence • Enjambment: mimics the continuous nature of the storm • Military language throughout: "bombarded", "salvo" – humans at war with nature

Possible comparison poems and points:

'Ozymandias' (Shelley): • Both present nature as more powerful than human constructs • Heaney focuses on immediate experience; Shelley uses historical distance • "Nothing beside remains" / "huge nothing that we fear" – both use absence/nothing to convey power • Storm destroys in present; desert has destroyed over time • Both suggest human vulnerability despite attempts at control/preparation • Shelley uses sonnet form; Heaney uses blank verse

'The Prelude: Stealing the Boat' (Wordsworth): • Both present nature as awesome and frightening • Both use first-person perspective to make experience immediate • Wordsworth presents psychological impact of nature; Heaney presents physical threat • Both use personification: "huge peak" / "huge nothing" • Wordsworth's encounter transforms him; Heaney's community endures repeatedly • Both present initial confidence undermined by nature's power

'Exposure' (Owen): • Both present humans threatened by natural forces • Both use military language: "ranks", "attacks" / "bombarded", "salvo" • Owen's soldiers are victims of war and weather; Heaney's islanders are civilians • Both use repetition to convey relentless assault • Owen critiques war; Heaney presents inevitable natural force • Both use collective voice ("we")

Accept any valid comparison with appropriate textual support.

Section B – Part 2: Unseen Poetry (32 marks)

Question 07 (24 marks)

Assessment Objectives: • AO1 (12 marks): Read, understand and respond to texts. Students should be able to maintain a critical style and develop an informed personal response, use textual references, including quotations, to support and illustrate interpretations. • AO2 (12 marks): Analyse the language, form and structure used by a writer to create meanings and effects, using relevant subject terminology where appropriate.

Level Descriptors for Question 07

Level 6 (21–24 marks) – Perceptive, assured understanding • Presents a perceptive, assured response • Shows perceptive understanding of methods and effects • Uses judicious textual references • Analysis is convincing and explores effects

Level 5 (17–20 marks) – Thoughtful, developed understanding • Presents a thoughtful, developed response • Shows thoughtful understanding of methods and effects • Uses appropriate textual references • Analysis is developed and examines effects

Level 4 (13–16 marks) – Clear, explained understanding • Presents a clear response • Shows clear understanding of methods and effects • Uses relevant textual references • Analysis is clear and explains effects

Level 3 (9–12 marks) – Supported, relevant understanding • Presents a relevant response • Shows some understanding of methods and effects • Uses some relevant textual references • Makes relevant comments

Level 2 (5–8 marks) – Simple, limited understanding • Presents a simple response • Shows simple awareness of methods • Uses simple references • Makes simple comments

Level 1 (1–4 marks) – Very limited understanding • Very limited response • Very limited awareness • Very limited references • Very limited comments

Level 0 (0 marks) – Nothing worthy of credit

Indicative Content – Question 07 ('The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife')

Reward all valid points about how the poet presents the speaker's feelings.

Language analysis may include:

• Extended metaphor of danger: "I walk the plank" – speaker sees relationship as precarious, life-threatening • Depth of loneliness: "over a drop so deep / I can't see the bottom" – suggests speaker's isolation is profound and frightening • Personification of lighthouse: "your steady yellow eye" – the lighthouse becomes a rival, husband gives attention to it rather than wife • Semantic field of coldness: "coldness spreading / like a circular blade" – suggests emotional distance is sharp and painful • Contrast: "strangers" vs. implied wife – husband attends to unknown people rather than his wife • Dreams reveal resentment: "each careful gesture a betrayal" – even innocent actions feel like infidelity to speaker • Pretence: "I pretend to be sleeping" – communication has broken down, relationship is characterized by performance not honesty • Sensory details: "smelling of salt and paraffin" – husband is marked by his work, not by home/intimacy • Natural imagery of pain: "gulls' thin cries / that pierce my chest like hooks" – speaker's emotional pain is physical • Sound effects: "constant shush and suck" – sibilance mimics the repetitive, inescapable nature of her situation • Personification of sea: "pale lover / who requires such vigilance" – sea is presented as the husband's true partner in an affair • Final three abstract nouns: "vigilance", "watching", "devotion" – qualities wife wishes husband would show her, but he shows to the sea/lighthouse instead

Structure and form analysis may include:

• Six stanzas, mostly quatrains: regular form reflects the monotonous routine of waiting • Enjambment throughout: reflects the continuous, flowing nature of her thoughts and the sea • Progression through time: from "each night" to "dawn" to lying awake – shows the cycle of loneliness • Shift in focus: begins with speaker's actions, ends with the sea – shows how the rival dominates her thoughts • First person throughout: intimate, confessional tone invites reader to empathise • Present tense: suggests this is ongoing suffering, not a single incident • Building resentment: early stanzas relatively calm; final stanzas more bitter with "pale lover" metaphor

Feelings that may be identified:

• Loneliness and isolation • Resentment and bitterness • Jealousy (of the lighthouse/sea) • Fear and insecurity ("I walk the plank") • Hurt and betrayal • Exhaustion and resignation • Emotional pain

Accept any other valid interpretations supported by textual references.

Question 08 (8 marks)

Assessment Objective: • AO2 (8 marks): Analyse the language, form and structure used by writers to create meanings and effects, using relevant subject terminology where appropriate.

This question assesses comparison of methods between the unseen poem and a named poem from the Power and Conflict anthology.

Level Descriptors for Question 08

Level 4 (7–8 marks) – Perceptive comparison • Makes perceptive comparisons of methods • Uses judicious textual references from both poems • Analysis is convincing

Level 3 (5–6 marks) – Clear comparison • Makes clear comparisons of methods • Uses relevant textual references from both poems • Analysis is clear

Level 2 (3–4 marks) – Supported comparison • Makes some comparisons of methods • Uses some references from both poems • Makes relevant comments

Level 1 (1–2 marks) – Simple comparison • Makes simple comparisons • Simple references • Simple comments

Level 0 (0 marks) – Nothing worthy of credit

Indicative Content – Question 08 (Comparison with 'Remains')

Note: The question explicitly asks candidates to compare with 'Remains', not to choose their own poem.

Similarities that may be identified:

• Both use first person: creates intimate, confessional tone in both; reader has direct access to speaker's troubled emotions • Both present inescapable difficult emotions: "dug in behind enemy lines" / "I walk the plank" – speakers are trapped by their emotions • Both use present tense: makes the emotional suffering ongoing and immediate • Both use repetition: "possibly armed, possibly not" / "such vigilance, such faithful watching, such devotion" – emphasizes obsessive nature of their emotions • Both use concrete imagery for psychological states: "blood...on my hands" / "coldness spreading like a circular blade" – abstract emotions made physical • Both use enjambment: reflects continuous, flowing nature of traumatic/obsessive thoughts • Both use sensory details: "tosses his guts back into his body" / "smelling of salt and paraffin" – makes experience visceral and real

Differences that may be identified:

• 'Remains' uses colloquial language ("one of my mates", "And the drink and the drugs won't flush him out"); 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' uses more literary language ("I walk the plank", "pale lover") – different registers • 'Remains' builds to psychological breakdown; 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' maintains bitter resignation throughout – different emotional trajectories • 'Remains' uses military metaphors ("dug in behind enemy lines"); 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' uses maritime/danger metaphors ("walk the plank", "drop so deep") – different semantic fields • 'Remains' presents guilt and trauma from action; 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' presents resentment from neglect – different sources of difficult emotions • 'Remains' has irregular stanzas (including dramatic single line); 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' has regular quatrains – different formal approaches • 'Remains' uses caesura for dramatic pauses ("Then I'm home on leave. But I blink"); 'The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife' uses fluid enjambment throughout – different rhythmic effects • Male vs. female speakers – potentially different perspectives on vulnerability and emotional expression

Accept any other valid comparisons supported by textual references from both poems.

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 01 (An Inspector Calls) — Sample Answers

Grade 9 answer

Priestley presents conflicts between generations as fundamental to his socialist message, using the Birling family to dramatize the ideological battle between those who cling to the capitalist, individualist past and those who might build a more collectively responsible future. This extract crystallizes this conflict in the immediate aftermath of the Inspector's departure, when the older generation's relief at discovering the Inspector was a "fake" exposes their moral bankruptcy, while Sheila's insistence that "it doesn't matter to me whether this man was a police inspector or not" demonstrates the younger generation's capacity for genuine transformation.

In this extract, Priestley uses dramatic irony to devastating effect against Mr Birling. His "triumphant" claim that "I recognised him at once. I knew he was a fake" directly contradicts the audience's memory of Act One, when Birling was as "taken in" by the Inspector as everyone else, as Sheila accurately reminds him. The stage direction "triumphantly" reveals Birling's belief that he has reasserted his authority and escaped consequences, but Priestley ensures the audience recognizes this as self-delusion. This selective memory is characteristic of the older generation's approach to uncomfortable truths throughout the play – they reshape reality to fit their worldview rather than allowing their worldview to be challenged by reality. Gerald's revelation about the Inspector's identity serves as a test of whether the characters have internalized the Inspector's moral lesson or merely responded to his official authority, and the generational divide in response could not be clearer.

The language Priestley gives each generation is crucial to establishing their conflict. Mr Birling's dismissive imperative "Don't talk nonsense" attempts to re-establish patriarchal authority through linguistic dominance, reducing his daughter's moral reasoning to "nonsense" – the language of adult to child. However, Priestley has already shown Sheila to be articulate and assured in her convictions. Her response "I'm not" is economically powerful, refusing to be silenced, while her statement "It frightens me the way you talk" shifts the accusation of foolishness back onto her father. The modal verb "frightens" is significant – this is not mere disagreement but fear of what her father's moral blindness represents. She has recognized something genuinely dangerous in the older generation's capacity for selective forgetting and social conscience that switches on and off depending on whether they face official consequences.

Priestley's most memorable line in this extract is Sheila's "He was our police inspector" – a line that encapsulates the entire thematic purpose of the generational conflict. The possessive determiner "our" suggests private, personal conscience rather than external authority, while "police inspector" is retained to indicate moral law rather than merely social law. This is a profound philosophical statement from a young woman whom her parents have consistently underestimated, and it directly challenges her father's question "Makes all the difference, doesn't it?" Priestley structures this moment to give Sheila the last word and the moral victory, even though her father continues to bluster. The short, declarative sentence has the ring of truth and finality.

Throughout the play as a whole, Priestley constructs the generational conflict as the engine of social change. In Act One, Sheila begins as seemingly superficial – concerned with her engagement ring and the evening's social success – but she demonstrates capacity for empathy and self-examination that her parents entirely lack. When Sheila learns of her role in Eva Smith's dismissal from Milwards, she is "rather distressed" and insists that "I'll never, never do it again to anybody." The repetition of "never" and the universalizing "anybody" show she has learned a principle, not merely regretted a specific action. In contrast, Mrs Birling refuses to accept any responsibility even for the brutal act of turning away a pregnant woman using her own name: "I've done nothing wrong," she insists with breathtaking coldness in Act Two. Her modal certainty that she "was perfectly justified" shows an utterly closed mind.

The political context is essential to understanding Priestley's purpose in constructing this generational conflict. Writing in 1945, immediately after World War II and in the year of Labour's landslide victory, Priestley was contributing to a national debate about what kind of society to build from the ruins. The older generation in the play, with their Edwardian confidence and capitalist individualism, represent the discredited ideas that led to two world wars, economic depression, and mass poverty. Mr Birling's complacent certainty in Act One that war is impossible and the Titanic "unsinkable" are Priestley's way of demonstrating to a 1945 audience the bankruptcy of the older generation's worldview – they were catastrophically wrong about everything. The younger generation, therefore, represent hope. If Sheila and Eric learn from the Inspector's message about collective responsibility – "We are members of one body" – they might build the fairer, more socialist society that Priestley and many of his 1945 audience hoped for.

However, Priestley's ending is ambiguous and cautionary. The final telephone call – "A girl has died" – returns the situation to its beginning, suggesting a cyclical structure. While the younger generation have been genuinely changed and will face this new investigation with consciences awakened, the older generation's relief has been cut short but their fundamental characters remain unaltered. Eric's bitter accusation to his mother "You killed her" shows the most violent generational conflict, a son holding his mother morally accountable in language that permits no evasion. This breakdown in family unity is, for Priestley, necessary and even positive – the old structures must be challenged if change is to occur. The younger generation's painful disillusionment with their parents is the price of moral awakening.

Priestley's construction of generational conflict is not subtle, but it is dramatically powerful and thematically essential. The didactic nature of the play requires clear contrasts, and the fault line between generations provides this. Sheila and Eric's capacity to feel guilt, to change, and to recognize moral authority regardless of its official status marks them as the future, while their parents' desperate desire to return to how things were marks them as the past. For a 1945 audience being asked to choose between returning to pre-war capitalism or building a new welfare state, the message was clear.

Mark: 30/30 (AO1: 12/12, AO2: 12/12, AO3: 6/6) + AO4: 4/4 = 34/34

Examiner commentary: This is a perceptive and assured response that demonstrates all the characteristics of Level 6 performance. The candidate explores Priestley's methods convincingly, moving seamlessly between detailed analysis of language (dismissive imperatives, modal verbs, repetition, declarative sentences) and dramatic techniques (stage directions, dramatic irony, structural positioning). The response shows sophisticated understanding of context, particularly the 1945 political moment and how Priestley uses 1912 setting to critique pre-war attitudes. Personal engagement is evident throughout, with original formulations like "social conscience that switches on and off" and "possessive determiner...suggests private, personal conscience." The essay has a clear argument that is sustained and developed, and quotations are judicious and integrated. The candidate also shows understanding of alternative interpretations ("ambiguous and cautionary" ending) while maintaining a coherent overall argument. Technical accuracy in AO4 is excellent, with sophisticated vocabulary and consistently accurate complex sentence structures.

Grade 6 answer

In this extract, Priestley shows the conflict between the generations through the argument between Sheila and her father Mr Birling. When Gerald reveals that the Inspector wasn't really a police inspector, Mr Birling is relieved and thinks this "makes all the difference," but Sheila disagrees and says "No, it doesn't." This shows that Sheila has learned a lesson about social responsibility while her father only cares about avoiding trouble.

Priestley uses the conversation to show how differently the generations think. Mr Birling says "Don't talk nonsense" to Sheila, which is quite rude and dismissive. This shows he thinks she is being childish and he doesn't take her views seriously. He also says he "recognised him at once" and claims he knew the Inspector was a fake, but Sheila reminds him that "You didn't. You were as taken in as the rest of us." This shows that Mr Birling is rewriting history to make himself look better, which suggests the older generation can't admit when they're wrong. The stage direction says he speaks "triumphantly" which shows he thinks he's won the argument.

Sheila is different because she says "It frightens me the way you talk." This shows that she is scared of her father's attitude and thinks it's wrong. She understands that it doesn't matter whether the Inspector was real or not, because they still did wrong things to Eva Smith. Her most important line is "He was our police inspector" which means that he was like their conscience. This is quite a mature and thoughtful thing to say, and shows that the younger generation is more moral than the older generation.

In the play as a whole, Priestley shows the younger generation changing and the older generation staying the same. In Act One, Sheila seems quite shallow and is excited about her engagement ring, but when she learns about how she got Eva Smith sacked from Milwards, she feels really guilty. She says "I'll never, never do it again to anybody" which shows she has learned her lesson. The repetition of "never" emphasizes how serious she is. Eric also changes in the play and becomes critical of his parents, especially his mother. He says "You killed her" to Mrs Birling which is very harsh language and shows how angry he is.

The older generation doesn't change. Mrs Birling refuses to accept any blame and says she was "perfectly justified" even though she turned away a pregnant woman. Mr Birling is mainly worried about his reputation and hopes for a knighthood. When they discover the Inspector might have been a fake, Mr and Mrs Birling quickly return to how they were before, but Sheila and Eric don't. This shows that the younger generation has genuinely changed.

Priestley wrote the play in 1945 but set it in 1912. This is important for the generational conflict because the older generation in the play represent old-fashioned attitudes that Priestley thought should be left in the past. In 1945, after the Second World War, Britain was going to have big changes with the Labour government and the welfare state. Priestley was a socialist and wanted people to learn about social responsibility. The younger generation in the play represent the hope for the future and new, more caring attitudes.

The conflict between generations is shown through their different reactions to the Inspector's message. The older generation only responded because they thought they'd get in trouble, but the younger generation actually understood the moral message about how "we are responsible for each other." At the end of the play, when the phone rings and they hear about another girl who has died, the younger generation are still worried and feel guilty but the older generation are just confused. This suggests that real change is difficult but possible with the younger generation.

In conclusion, Priestley presents generational conflict as a conflict between old selfish attitudes and new caring attitudes. He uses the Birling family to show this conflict and suggests that the future depends on the younger generation learning the right lessons and not making the same mistakes as their parents.

Mark: 20/30 (AO1: 8/12, AO2: 8/12, AO3: 4/6) + AO4: 3/4 = 23/34

Examiner commentary: This is a clear, explained response that demonstrates Level 4 performance. The candidate shows clear understanding of the text and identifies relevant methods (stage directions, repetition, language choice). The response uses relevant quotations and makes clear points about generational conflict. However, the analysis of methods lacks the depth and sophistication of higher-level responses – for example, identifying that "Don't talk nonsense" is "rude and dismissive" without exploring the power dynamics of imperatives or parent-child discourse. Context is mentioned and is relevant, but somewhat generalised rather than precisely integrated into the argument. The response tends toward narrative ("In Act One, Sheila seems quite shallow...but when she learns...") rather than sustained analysis. Personal response is present but straightforward rather than original. AO4 is mostly secure with generally accurate spelling and punctuation, though vocabulary is less ambitious than Level 6 ("quite rude," "very harsh"). To reach higher levels, this candidate needs to develop more sustained analysis of specific methods and their effects, integrate context more precisely, and move beyond narrative summary toward critical exploration.

Grade 3 answer

In this extract there is a conflict between Sheila and her dad. Mr Birling finds out the Inspector wasn't real and he is happy about this. He says "makes all the difference" which shows he doesn't care about Eva Smith anymore. But Sheila says "no it doesn't" which means she still cares. This is a conflict because they disagree.

Sheila tells her dad that he didn't really know the Inspector was fake and he is lying. Mr Birling says "don't talk nonsense" which is rude to his daughter. Sheila says she is frightened by the way he talks. At the end she says "he was our police inspector" which means even though he wasn't a real policeman he was still like a policeman to them.

In the whole play the younger characters are nicer than the older characters. Sheila and Eric feel bad about what happened to Eva Smith but their parents don't really care. Mrs Birling is very cruel to Eva Smith when she comes to ask for help. She turns her away even though she is pregnant. Eric gets really angry at his mum about this. This shows conflict between the generations.

Mr Birling is a businessman and only cares about money. He wants to be given a knighthood. In his speech at the start he talks about how the Titanic is unsinkable and there won't be a war, but the audience knows he is wrong about these things. This is dramatic irony. It shows that Mr Birling doesn't know what he's talking about. Sheila is more intelligent and moral than her father.

The Inspector teaches them about social responsibility. He says "we are responsible for each other." The younger people learn this lesson but the older people don't. This is the main conflict in the play. At the end there is a phone call about another dead girl and the younger generation are still worried but the older generation aren't.

Priestley wrote the play to teach people about socialism. He wanted the audience to be like the younger generation and care about poor people. The play is set in 1912 but was written in 1945. This is so he could show how wrong people were before the wars.

In conclusion, the extract shows conflict between young and old. Sheila has learned to be responsible but Mr Birling hasn't. Priestley uses this to show that young people are better than old people and we should listen to them.

Mark: 10/30 (AO1: 4/12, AO2: 3/12, AO3: 3/6) + AO4: 2/4 = 12/34

Examiner commentary: This response demonstrates Level 2/borderline Level 3 performance. The candidate shows simple awareness of the text and identifies that there is generational conflict, but the analysis is very limited. Quotations are used but not really explored – for example, stating that "don't talk nonsense" is "rude" without any analysis of how this language establishes power relations. There is very limited discussion of Priestley's methods; the candidate describes what happens rather than analysing how the writer creates meaning. The mention of dramatic irony shows some awareness of technique, but this is not developed. Context is mentioned but in a very generalised way ("teach people about socialism," "show how wrong people were"). The response lacks structure and development, often making simple assertions without support or explanation. AO4 shows some control, but there are issues with expression ("young people are better than old people") that oversimplify the argument. To improve, this candidate needs to: select more precise quotations and analyse them in detail, explore Priestley's methods using appropriate terminology, develop points fully rather than listing ideas, and integrate context more specifically into the analysis rather than adding it as separate sections.

Question 07 ('The Lighthouse Keeper's Wife') — Sample Answers

Grade 9 answer

Feaver presents the speaker's feelings about her relationship through an extended metaphor of danger and abandonment, exploring the psychological impact of emotional neglect with striking imagery that makes the abstract concrete. The speaker's relationship is characterized by loneliness, resentment, and a bitter jealousy directed not at another person but at the sea and lighthouse that command her husband's "devotion" – attention she desperately needs but cannot receive.

The opening image immediately establishes the precariousness of the speaker's emotional state: "I walk the plank of your absence." The metaphor of walking the plank suggests that the husband's physical and emotional absence is not merely painful but life-threatening, positioning the speaker as a pirate's victim about to be executed. The possessive "your absence" is particularly effective – absence itself becomes something the husband owns and inflicts, a presence in its own right. This paradox captures the way absence can dominate a relationship as powerfully as presence. The second line extends the metaphor: "over a drop so deep / I can't see the bottom," with the enjambment creating a visual and rhythmic sense of falling, of bottomless depth. The speaker's loneliness is not superficial or temporary; it is an a