Mark Scheme

Section A — Structured Questions

Question 1

(a) [1 mark] • Over a century / more than 100 years / 100+ years

Accept: "a century" / "100 years" Reject: vague references to "a long time"

(b) [2 marks] Award 1 mark for each correctly identified task (maximum 2): • Trimmed wicks • Polished lenses • Kept the light burning

Accept: reasonable paraphrases such as "maintained the wicks" / "cleaned the lenses" / "ensured the light stayed on" Reject: general answers like "looked after the lighthouse" without specific detail

Question 2

(a) [2 marks] Award 1 mark for each reason given (maximum 2): • The flat is near shops • The flat is near the doctor's surgery / medical facilities • It is sensible for a man of his age • David has a weak heart / health problems

Accept: "convenient location" if linked to shops or doctor Reject: "his daughter found it" (this is not a reason for moving)

(b) [2 marks] Award marks as follows: • 1 mark for identifying discomfort/reluctance with the move • 1 mark for appropriate supporting quotation

Acceptable points showing discomfort: • The description of his belongings being "squeezed" into boxes suggests compression/reduction of his life • His life is described as "accumulated" over fifty years, suggesting value • The flat is described as "sensible" which suggests practicality rather than desire • Use of passive voice "his daughter had found him a flat" suggests lack of agency

Acceptable quotations: • "Fifty years of accumulated life...squeezed into six cardboard boxes" • "A sensible place" (with comment on lack of enthusiasm) • "his daughter had found him a flat" (with comment on passive construction)

Marking principle: Award full marks for any reasonable interpretation supported by apt quotation. Do not award marks for quotation alone without explanation of discomfort.

Question 3 [5 marks]

Award marks using a levels-of-response approach:

Level 3 (5 marks): Thoughtful, detailed exploration of language use with well-selected examples. Shows clear understanding of how specific language choices convey David's connection. Analysis is sustained and precise.

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Clear understanding of how language conveys connection, with relevant examples. Some detailed analysis of language, though may not be sustained throughout. 3 marks for thinner coverage; 4 marks for more thorough treatment.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic awareness of language use. Examples may be listed with simple comment. Limited analysis. 1 mark for very brief/partial response; 2 marks for more developed basic answer.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Content guidance — creditable points include:

Sensory detail showing intimate knowledge: • "salt smell of the ocean" — appeals to sense of smell, shows familiarity • "distant cry of gulls" — auditory imagery of familiar sounds • Combination of senses suggests deep, multi-layered experience

Range and variety of experiences listed: • List structure ("sunrises...winter gales...summer calms") shows accumulated memories • Specific, varied weather conditions demonstrate long observation • Use of "every kind of weather" emphasizes comprehensiveness

Descriptive/figurative language showing emotional connection: • "molten gold" — precious, beautiful metaphor for sunrise • "hammered pewter" — crafted, valuable simile for calm sea • These elevated comparisons show David values/treasures what he sees • "forty feet up the tower's base" — precise detail shows careful observation

Active role and purpose: • "Three lives saved because he had been here, watching, ready" — emphasizes his purpose and value • "watching, ready" — shows vigilance and dedication • The counting of "three lives" shows he remembers and values each one

Contrast with automation: • "Now the watching would be done by satellites and computers" — separates human observation from mechanical • Suggests that David's watching was different/better than machine monitoring

Top-band answers: Will select multiple examples and analyze specific word choices and their effects in detail, showing clear link between language and David's connection.

Mid-band answers: Will identify some language features with examples and basic explanation of effect.

Low-band answers: Will pick out words/phrases with little or no explanation of effect.

Question 4

(a) [1 mark] • 65 metres (deep)

Accept: "65m" Reject: "152 metres" (this is the number of piles) / "18 months" (this is the preparation time)

(b) [2 marks] Award 1 mark for each function (maximum 2): • Provides aesthetic interest / makes it look attractive • Provides wind resistance / helps the building resist wind / structural support

Accept: "makes it look good" / "visual appeal" for first point; "stability" / "strength against wind" for second point Reject: "holds up the building" alone (too vague — must specify wind resistance)

Question 5

(a) [2 marks] Award marks for clear explanation: • 2 marks for full explanation of opposing motion • 1 mark for partial understanding

Full explanation must include: • As wind pushes the building one way/direction... • ...the damper/pendulum swings the opposite way/direction • This counteracts/opposes/reduces the movement/sway

Accept: different wording expressing same concept of opposing force 1 mark only: for stating it is a pendulum that swings, without explaining the opposing motion Reject: simply copying "reduces sway by up to 40%" without explaining mechanism

(b) [1 mark] • It would be uncomfortable for visitors • Visitors would experience discomfort • People inside would feel the movement

Accept: any answer conveying discomfort/unpleasant experience for people Reject: safety concerns (text explicitly states 1.8m was within safe parameters)

Question 6 [8 marks]

Award marks using a levels-of-response approach:

Level 4 (7–8 marks): Perceptive, detailed comparison showing sophisticated understanding of both texts. Explores attitudes to progress and how language conveys these perspectives. Integrated comparison with well-selected supporting references. Sustained analysis throughout. 7 marks for secure Level 4; 8 marks for particularly insightful response.

Level 3 (5–6 marks): Clear comparison with sound understanding of both texts. Identifies different attitudes and makes relevant connections. Uses appropriate supporting detail. Some analysis of language, though may not be fully sustained. 5 marks for thinner coverage or less development; 6 marks for more thorough treatment.

Level 2 (3–4 marks): Valid response showing understanding of both texts. Makes some comparison of attitudes, though may be more listing of differences than integrated comparison. References to texts may be more general. Basic awareness of language. 3 marks for limited development; 4 marks for clearer, more developed response.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Simple response with basic awareness of content. May focus heavily on one text or make very simple comparison. Little development or textual support. 1 mark for very limited response; 2 marks for slightly more substance.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Content guidance — creditable points include:

Progress/change in Text A: • Lighthouse automation replacing human keeper • Described as "more reliable" and "cost-effective" • Called "progress" but with ambivalence • David "understood the economics, even accepted them" • Technology seen as inevitable but something is lost • "something irreplaceable was being extinguished" • Human presence and watching being replaced by "satellites and computers"

Progress/change in Text B: • New tower representing cutting-edge engineering achievement • Technology enabling what was previously "seemingly impossible" • Overcoming natural obstacles through engineering solutions • Progress presented positively as "triumph" and "testament to human ingenuity" • Forward-looking: focused on completion and future success

Contrasting perspectives: • Text A: nostalgic, elegiac, focusing on loss and the past (three generations) • Text B: optimistic, forward-looking, celebrating achievement and future • Text A: personal, emotional, intimate (David's feelings) • Text B: impersonal, technical, objective (engineering perspective) • Text A questions whether progress is entirely positive ("Perhaps it was") • Text B presents progress as unambiguously positive achievement

Language use in Text A: • Emotive vocabulary: "irreplaceable," "extinguished," "weight in his chest" • Imagery emphasizing continuity: "three generations," "worn stone wall" • Personification of technology as cold/distant: "controlled remotely from an office two hundred miles away" • Contrasts human warmth with mechanical coldness • Metaphor of light being "extinguished" suggests something dying

Language use in Text B: • Technical, precise vocabulary: "substrate," "tuned mass damper," "millimetre precision" • Superlatives celebrating achievement: "tallest," "extraordinary challenges," "triumph" • Statistics and numbers conveying scale and impressiveness • Active verbs showing human mastery: "overcome," "installed," "engineered" • Metaphor of "testament" gives quasi-religious significance to achievement

Top-band answers: Will make sophisticated connections between the texts, analyzing how language choices reflect and convey different attitudes to technological progress. Will show detailed engagement with both texts and integrate comparison naturally.

Mid-band answers: Will identify different attitudes and give some supporting evidence, with some comment on language. May be more sequential (Text A, then Text B) than fully integrated.

Low-band answers: Will show basic understanding that attitudes differ, with limited textual support and little analysis of language.

Section B — Extended Response

Question 7 [16 marks]

Award marks using a levels-of-response approach:

Level 5 (14–16 marks): Convincing, sophisticated evaluation showing perceptive understanding of how the writer achieves effects. Detailed analysis of language and structural choices. Thoughtfully addresses "to what extent" with judicious evaluation. Textual references are well-selected and integrated. Sustained critical response throughout. 14 marks for secure Level 5; 15–16 marks for particularly sophisticated, original or insightful response.

Level 4 (11–13 marks): Thorough, detailed evaluation showing secure understanding. Clear analysis of language and structure with appropriate textual support. Addresses evaluation task with some thoroughness. Ideas are developed and explained. 11 marks for threshold Level 4; 12–13 marks for more assured, detailed response.

Level 3 (8–10 marks): Clear, explained response showing understanding of effects. Some analysis of language and/or structure, though may not be sustained throughout. Addresses evaluation though may be more uneven or partial. Relevant textual references. 8 marks for threshold Level 3; 9–10 marks for more developed, thorough response.

Level 2 (5–7 marks): Valid response with straightforward understanding. Comments on language/structure may be more general or descriptive. Some engagement with evaluation task. Textual references may be more general or sparse. 5 marks for limited development; 6–7 marks for clearer, more substantial response.

Level 1 (1–4 marks): Simple, basic response. Limited engagement with how writer achieves effects. May retell content or make unsupported assertions. Minimal textual reference. 1–2 marks for very limited response; 3–4 marks for slightly more developed but still basic answer.

0 marks: No creditable response.

Content guidance — creditable points include:

What is being lost — thematic content: • David's identity and purpose (been keeper for 32 years, his life's work) • Family heritage and continuity (three generations of Morrisons) • Human skill and knowledge (trimming wicks, reading weather, watching for ships) • Connection with nature and the sea (intimate knowledge of weather patterns) • Lives saved (three rescues mentioned — human intervention) • A way of life/"fifty years of accumulated life" • Physical home and belonging to place • Sense of being needed/useful ("watching, ready")

Language techniques to convey loss: • Final sentences/actions: "for the last time" creates finality • Sensory memories catalogued: "salt smell," "cry of gulls" — what he'll miss • List of weather experiences: "sunrises...winter gales...summer calms" — accumulated memories • Figurative language showing beauty: "molten gold," "hammered pewter" — precious things • Personification/metaphor: "something irreplaceable was being extinguished" — parallels the light and David's purpose both ending • Physical detail of worn stone showing passage of time: "worn stone wall where generations of keepers had steadied themselves" • Contrast between human ("watching, ready") and mechanical ("satellites and computers") • Ambivalent language: "Perhaps it was" shows uncertainty about whether this is really progress

Structural techniques: • Opening with the light beam establishes central symbol • Movement from height (lighthouse) to ground level (descent) mirrors his life transition • Flashback to family history provides depth to loss (three generations) • Cataloguing of experiences (different weathers, different times of day) accumulates sense of richness • Contrast structured throughout: old system vs. new, human vs. automated, understanding vs. feeling • Final descent down staircase provides symbolic closure • Present moment framed by past (family history) and future (automation) emphasizes transition • Paragraph about belongings in boxes physically shows reduction of life

Emotional impact techniques: • Internal perspective: access to David's thoughts and feelings creates empathy • Specific, concrete details make loss tangible: "one hundred and seventeen steps," "six cardboard boxes" • Understatement: "understanding didn't ease the weight in his chest" — restrained emotion more powerful • Sentence structure: "Progress, they called it. Perhaps it was." — short sentences show doubt • Juxtaposition of David's weak heart with his role saving lives creates poignancy • Ending on the metaphor of extinguishing leaves reader with sense of loss

Evaluation — potential positions:

Strongly agree: • Writer successfully makes abstract loss concrete through specific detail • Creates emotional connection through David's perspective • Language choices evoke beauty of what's being lost • Structure reinforces theme of ending • Reader understands both practical and emotional dimensions of loss

Partially agree: • Successfully conveys David's personal loss • However, some might argue the description could be more emotionally intense • The writer maintains restraint — could be seen as effectively understated OR as lacking full emotional power • We understand what David is losing but perhaps not fully how devastating it is

Disagree (rare but possible): • Some readers might find the emotion too subtle • Could argue more dramatic language would be more "moving" • Might feel the ending is too ambiguous about whether this truly is a loss

Note: Top-band candidates will likely argue for agreement or partial agreement with sophisticated evaluation of how effects are created. However, any position supported with detailed analysis should be credited.

Top-band answers: Will evaluate judgement with sophistication, analyzing multiple specific language and structural choices and their effects. Will explore shades of meaning and show original thinking.

Mid-band answers: Will explain some ways the writer creates sense of loss, with relevant examples and some analysis. Evaluation may be present but less developed.

Low-band answers: Will show basic understanding that loss is conveyed, with limited analysis of how this is achieved.

Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary

Question 6 — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

Both texts deal with change driven by progress and technology, but present strikingly different perspectives. Text A adopts an ambivalent, elegiac tone toward automation replacing David Morrison's role as lighthouse keeper, questioning whether efficiency gains justify the loss of human presence and purpose. Text B, by contrast, celebrates the Meridian Tower construction with unambiguous enthusiasm, presenting technological advancement as a "triumph" and "testament to human ingenuity."

The difference in perspective is evident in how each text presents human interaction with technology. In Text A, technology is portrayed as distant and impersonal—the automated system will be "controlled remotely from an office two hundred miles away." The physical distance mirrors emotional distance; the phrase emphasizes disconnection between the technology and the place it serves. David represents human skills developed over "three generations," but these count for nothing against "economics." Although David "understood the economics, even accepted them," the writer uses the metaphor that "something irreplaceable was being extinguished" to suggest that what is being lost transcends economic calculation. The parallel between the lighthouse beam going out and David's purpose ending implies that human meaning cannot simply be replaced by efficiency.

Text B, conversely, presents humans as masters of technology rather than replaced by it. The engineers "overcome formidable obstacles" through ingenuity, and the tower will "stand as testament to human ingenuity: our capacity to envision the seemingly impossible and then engineer it into reality." Here, technology extends human capability rather than making humans obsolete. The technical vocabulary—"tuned mass damper," "reinforced concrete cylinder," "millimetre precision"—conveys expertise and control. Where Text A's David feels "weight in his chest" about change, Text B's engineers confidently solve problems: wind loading, unstable foundations, extreme heights. The text presents human skill as enhanced by technology, not diminished.

The language choices reinforce these contrasting attitudes. Text A uses emotive, personal language focusing on loss: David's "fifty years of accumulated life" reduced to "six cardboard boxes." The metaphor of "squeezing" suggests compression and diminishment. David's memories of weather—"sunrises that turned the water to molten gold," sea "smooth as hammered pewter"—use precious metals to suggest the value of what he's losing. By contrast, Text B's language is technical, impersonal, and celebratory. Superlatives abound: "tallest," "extraordinary challenges," "unparalleled views." Numbers convey impressive scale: "152 concrete piles," "680-tonne steel pendulum," "2,500 visitors daily." This factual, quantitative approach presents progress as measurably positive.

Ultimately, Text A questions whether progress always represents true advancement—"Progress, they called it. Perhaps it was"—while Text B never doubts that technological achievement is inherently valuable. Text A mourns what automation costs; Text B celebrates what engineering makes possible.

[8/8 marks]

Examiner commentary: This is an exemplary response showing sophisticated comparative analysis. The candidate integrates comparison naturally throughout rather than treating texts separately. Specific linguistic analysis is detailed and precise—note the examination of metaphor, diction choices, and how technical versus emotive language reflects attitudes. The response addresses all bullet points in the question with sustained, perceptive reference to both texts. Quotations are well-selected and embedded smoothly. The evaluation of different perspectives is nuanced and thoughtful.

Grade C (pass) answer

Text A and Text B both deal with progress but have different views about it. Text A is about David Morrison, the last lighthouse keeper, and shows that progress isn't always good. Text B is about building a tall tower and shows that progress and technology are impressive achievements.

In Text A, David is being replaced by an automated system. He has been the lighthouse keeper for 32 years and his father was before him, so it's a family tradition. The new system is "more reliable" and "cost-effective" but David feels sad about it. The writer says "something irreplaceable was being extinguished" which means that important things are being lost. David saved three lives because he was watching, but now computers and satellites will do the watching instead. This shows that human skills are being lost. The writer makes us feel that even though the automation makes sense economically, something valuable is disappearing.

Text B is more positive about progress. It describes how engineers are building the Meridian Tower which will be 487 metres tall. The text uses words like "triumph" and "testament to human ingenuity" to show that this is a great achievement. The engineers had to solve many problems like the unstable ground and the wind at high heights. They used technology like the tuned mass damper to solve these problems. The text gives lots of technical details and numbers which makes it sound impressive and factual.

The language is different in both texts. Text A uses emotional language like "weight in his chest" to show David's feelings. It also uses beautiful descriptions of the sea like "molten gold" and "hammered pewter" to show what David will miss. Text B uses technical language like "substrate" and "exoskeleton" and gives lots of measurements. This makes it sound more scientific and less personal.

Overall, Text A is nostalgic about the past and worried about losing human connection, while Text B looks forward to the future and celebrates what technology can achieve.

[6/8 marks]

Examiner commentary: This response shows clear understanding of both texts and makes valid comparisons. The candidate identifies key differences in perspective and supports points with relevant textual references. However, the comparison is somewhat sequential rather than fully integrated, and the analysis of language, while present, lacks the precision and development of top-band work. The candidate successfully addresses the bullet points but could explore the implications of language choices more deeply. Nevertheless, this is a sound, competent response showing secure understanding.

Grade E (near miss) answer

Text A is about a lighthouse keeper called David who is losing his job because of automation. Text B is about building a tower. They are both about progress but Text A is sad and Text B is happy.

David has worked at the lighthouse for a long time and now he has to leave. He feels sad about this because it was his job and his father's job too. The text says he saved three lives which shows he was good at his job. The new system will be automatic which means no one needs to be there. This is progress because it's more reliable but David doesn't like it.

Text B talks about building a very tall tower that is 487 metres high. It describes all the problems they had to solve like the wind and the foundations. They used technology to fix these problems. The tower will be finished in 2026 and lots of visitors will go there.

Text A uses descriptive language to describe the sea and the lighthouse. David remembers "sunrises" and "winter gales" which shows he has lots of memories there. Text B uses facts and figures like "152 concrete piles" to describe the tower.

In conclusion, Text A is negative about progress because David is losing his job, while Text B is positive because the tower is a great achievement. They have different attitudes to technology.

[3/8 marks]

Examiner commentary: This response shows basic understanding of the content of both texts but provides limited comparison and minimal analysis of language or perspective. The answer tends to retell or paraphrase content rather than analyzing how attitudes are conveyed. While the candidate correctly identifies that attitudes differ, there is insufficient development or supporting detail. The comment on language is superficial—noting that descriptive language or facts are used without explaining what effect this creates or how it conveys perspective. To improve, the candidate needs to select specific quotations, explain what they reveal about attitudes, and make more explicit connections between the texts. More detailed analysis of how language choices reflect and convey perspectives is required for higher marks.

Question 7 — Sample Answers

Grade A (high distinction) answer*

I strongly agree that the writer successfully makes us "understand exactly what is being lost" through sophisticated use of both language and structure that creates powerful emotional impact while avoiding sentimentality.

The writer conveys loss most effectively through accumulated specificity. Rather than stating David is sad, the text builds a concrete picture of what his life has been: "one hundred and seventeen steps" creates precision, making the lighthouse tangible and real; "three generations of Morrisons" establishes continuity being broken; "thirty-two years" and his father's "forty" quantify the depth of family investment. These specific details make the loss measurable and therefore more devastating. The description of "fifty years of accumulated life" being "squeezed into six cardboard boxes" is particularly powerful—the verb "squeezed" suggests compression and forced reduction, physically enacting the diminishment of a rich life into something small and portable. The fact that this is quantified (six boxes, fifty years) makes the disproportion painfully clear: half a century compressed into half a dozen containers.

What makes this "deeply moving" is the contrast between the richness of what David is losing and the functional adequacy of what he's gaining. The catalogue of weather he has witnessed—"sunrises that turned the water to molten gold, winter gales that sent waves crashing forty feet up the tower's base, summer calms when the sea lay smooth as hammered pewter"—uses precious metal imagery ("molten gold," "hammered pewter") to suggest these experiences are valuable, crafted, treasured. The list structure itself, moving through seasons and extremes, accumulates weight, showing the variety and depth of his experience. By contrast, the flat in town is merely "sensible"—a word that suggests practical necessity rather than desire or beauty. It's near "the shops and the doctor's surgery," locations defined by function and declining health, not wonder or purpose.

The emotional impact is heightened by the writer's structural choice to give us David's internal perspective. We experience the passage through his consciousness: "David had witnessed every kind of weather from this vantage point" allows us to share his accumulated memories. The writer avoids obvious emotional manipulation—David doesn't weep or rage. Instead, the emotion is conveyed through physical sensation: "the weight in his chest" and through restrained doubt: "Progress, they called it. Perhaps it was." These short sentences after longer descriptive ones create a rhythmic pause that emphasizes his uncertainty. The use of "they" distances David from those who advocate for change, while "perhaps" introduces philosophical doubt. This restraint makes the emotion more credible and thus more affecting.

Most significantly, the writer uses the symbolic structure of descent to mirror David's transition. The text begins with him at the "top of the tower" literally and metaphorically at the height of his purpose, with a panoramic view. The final sentence has him descending "for the last time," with "last time" emphasizing finality. The physical movement downward enacts the loss of status, purpose, and elevation. The detail of him "running his hand along the worn stone wall where generations of keepers had steadied themselves" is particularly evocative—"worn" suggests the physical evidence of all those who came before, while "steadied" implies both literal and metaphorical support. His final gesture of touching this surface connects him physically to his ancestors and the building's history, making the severance more profound.

The writer also succeeds through the contrast between human and mechanical watching. David has been "watching, ready"—two participles that suggest active vigilance and preparedness. He remembers "three lives saved because he had been here"—the passive construction emphasizes his necessary presence, while the specific number shows each life mattered individually. Now "the watching would be done by satellites and computers"—the passive voice and collective nouns make the replacement impersonal. Technology cannot replicate David's readiness or his counting of individual lives. The metaphor that concludes the passage—"something irreplaceable was being extinguished along with the old light"—perfectly parallels David's purpose with the lighthouse's function. Both are lights; both are being put out. The word "irreplaceable" directly answers the economic argument about cost-effectiveness: some things cannot be replaced regardless of efficiency.

If there is any limitation, it might be that the writer's sympathy is so entirely with David that we don't fully appreciate what is gained—the text mentions reliability and cost-effectiveness but doesn't develop these points. However, this one-sided perspective arguably strengthens rather than weakens the emotional impact, as we are fully immersed in the experience of loss.

Overall, the writer masterfully combines specific, concrete detail with figurative language, structural symbolism, and restrained emotion to create a passage that makes David's loss both intellectually comprehensible and emotionally resonant. We understand the practical facts of what is ending, but more importantly, we feel the human cost.

[16/16 marks]

Examiner commentary: This is an exemplary response demonstrating sophisticated evaluation and sustained critical analysis. The candidate makes a clear evaluative judgement and supports it with detailed, perceptive analysis of both language and structure. Note the precise examination of specific word choices ("squeezed," "worn," "steadied") and their effects. The response explores multiple techniques—imagery, sentence structure, symbolism, perspective—and explains how each contributes to emotional impact. Quotations are well-selected and fully analyzed. The candidate addresses all three bullet points thoroughly and maintains focus on the evaluative task throughout. The acknowledgment of a potential limitation shows sophisticated, balanced evaluation. This is top-band work showing originality and insight.

Grade C (pass) answer

I agree that the writer's description is moving because it shows clearly what David is losing and makes us feel sympathetic towards him.

The writer conveys what David is losing through detailed descriptions. David has been the lighthouse keeper for thirty-two years and his father was the keeper before him for forty years, so this has been his whole life and his family's tradition. Now he has to leave because an automated system is taking over. The writer describes all his belongings being "squeezed into six cardboard boxes" which shows that his whole life is being reduced to just a few boxes. This makes the reader feel sad for him because fifty years of life shouldn't fit into such a small space.

The language the writer uses creates emotional impact. There are descriptions of the beautiful things David has seen from the lighthouse like "sunrises that turned the water to molten gold" and the sea like "hammered pewter." These descriptions use metaphors and similes to show how beautiful the views were. By describing these beautiful things in detail, the writer makes us understand why David will miss the lighthouse so much. The comparison to gold and pewter makes the views sound precious and valuable.

The writer also mentions that David saved three lives because he was watching from the lighthouse. This shows that his job was important and useful, not just a tradition. When the text says "three lives saved because he had been here, watching, ready" it emphasizes that David's presence made a real difference. Now computers and satellites will do the watching instead, but it won't be the same because computers can't care about people the way David did.

The structure of the passage helps create emotion too. The writer starts with David at the top of the lighthouse looking out, and ends with him descending the staircase "for the last time." This shows that everything is ending. The phrase "for the last time" makes it clear that this is final and he won't be coming back. The image of him touching "the worn stone wall where generations of keepers had steadied themselves" is moving because it connects him to all the past keepers including his father.

The ending is particularly effective when the writer says "something irreplaceable was being extinguished along with the old light." This metaphor compares David's purpose to the lighthouse light, both being put out. The word "irreplaceable" is important because it means that even though the automated system might work well, it can't replace what David provided.

One weakness might be that the passage is quite slow and descriptive, and some readers might want more action or drama. However, I think the calm, reflective tone actually makes it more moving because it feels more real and thoughtful.

Overall, I agree that the description successfully shows what is being lost and creates emotional impact through detailed descriptions, effective language choices, and symbolic structure.

[11/16 marks]

Examiner commentary: This is a solid, competent response showing clear understanding and engagement with the text. The candidate makes an evaluative judgement and supports it with relevant examples. There is clear explanation of language and structural choices with appropriate textual support. However, the analysis lacks the precision and sophistication of top-band work—for example, noting that metaphors are used but not exploring their specific effects in depth. The point about the weakness is underdeveloped. Quotations are relevant but could be analyzed more thoroughly. Nevertheless, this demonstrates secure Level 4 work with clear focus on the question and sustained response across multiple techniques.

Grade E (near miss) answer

I agree that the writer makes David's last moments moving and we understand what he is losing.

David has worked at the lighthouse for a long time, thirty-two years, and now he has to leave because an automated system is taking over. This is sad because it's been his job for his whole life. His father also worked there which shows it's a family tradition. Now all his things are in six boxes which doesn't seem like much for so many years.

The writer describes the lighthouse and the sea to show what David will miss. He has seen "sunrises" and "winter gales" and "summer calms" which shows he has experienced lots of different weather. The descriptions are detailed which makes it more real. The writer says the water was like "molten gold" which is a simile showing it was beautiful.

David saved three lives while he was working there which proves his job was important. Now satellites and computers will do the watching instead but David was better because he was actually there. The writer says "something irreplaceable was being extinguished" which means something important is being lost. Extinguished means put out like a candle or light.

The structure is that David starts at the top of the lighthouse and then comes down the stairs at the end. This shows things are ending. He touches the wall "for the last time" which shows he won't be back. This is sad because the lighthouse has been his home.

I think the writer succeeds in making it moving because we feel sorry for David losing his job and having to leave his home. The descriptions help us imagine what it was like and why he is sad. The writer uses lots of descriptive words and explains David's feelings.

In conclusion, the writer does make us understand what is being lost through descriptions and by explaining David's situation clearly. It is moving because losing your job and home after so long would be very sad.

[6/16 marks]

Examiner commentary: This response shows basic understanding of content and makes some relevant points about language and structure. However, the analysis is underdeveloped and often paraphrases or describes rather than analyzing effects. For example, the candidate notes that descriptions are "detailed" and make it "more real" but doesn't explain how specific language choices achieve effects. The identification of simile is correct but the comment on its effect is superficial. Points about structure are present but simple. The response needs more precise analysis of how language and structure create meaning and emotion, with closer attention to specific word choices and their effects. Quotations are mentioned but not fully explored. To reach higher bands, the candidate should move beyond describing what the text does to analyzing how and why specific choices create particular effects.