Section B consists of two parts, both of which are extended writing pieces and are worth ten marks each. One of these is based off one of the Anthology pieces which can be found back at the table of contents, and the other will share a somewhat similar theme (such as the theme of whaling taken from the narwhals piece).
Question 1: Analyse, analyse, analyse!
The golden rule of this section: make sure you hammer every single detail of the anthology pieces into your head! You are only advised twenty minutes per question; you honestly won’t have time to read and analyse the extract all over again. This is somewhat like the final question from Section A, but many find this to be harder, as it does not tell you where to look; the only lead you have on answering the question is the command term (the word that tells you what to do), such as “how” or “why”. For example…
In the 2011 paper, the narwhal passage was used; the question was:
- “How does the writer make her feelings about the hunting of the narwhal clear to the reader?”
Here, obviously, you would need to pay close attention to anywhere the writer expresses her feelings. Highlight quotations so you don’t get lost, or simply make note of every single feeling that the writer experiences (preferably in under five minutes); remember, for this part of Section B, quotations are like your slaves. Use them as much as you can! (Apologies for the poor analogy.)
Question 2: Similar, but… not so similar?
This part of Section B can only be related to the previous part in the slightest way. Taking again the example from the 2011 paper, the question was:
- “Hunting and killing whales of any description is no longer necessary and should be banned under international law.” Explain your own views on this statement.
Seems abstract, doesn’t it? Sure, it takes the same theme as whales, but there’s really no predicting this part. However, in many papers in the past, this part focuses upon assessing how the candidate puts forth and expresses reasoned arguments (i.e. style of writing!), so aside from thinking up well-reasoned arguments to support your point of view (in this case, whether or not whaling should be stopped), pay once again lots of attention to structure and try to use a wide range of vocabulary. Also, for this particular case, you can even use the need for whaling of the Inughuit people to support your argument!