English Language Component 2

Reading Paper
 What does the reading section on English
Language Component 2 paper look like?

• You will be given two non-fiction articles.

• One will be a modern article and the other will be
an article from the 19th century.
• Both articles will be on the same or a similar subject.

There are always 6 questions.

Questions 1 and 2 will be on one article.

• Q1 -‘locate and retrieve’ question – 3 marks.
• Q2- ‘how’ question -10 marks.

Questions 3 and 4 will be on the other article.

• Q3 ‘locate and retrieve’ question – 3 marks.
• Q4 ‘evaluate’ question – 10 marks.

Questions 5 and 6 will be on both articles.

• Q5 – synthesise question – 4 marks.
• Q6 – comparison question – 10 marks.
 Question 1 – locate and retrieve
Tip – this should be 3 easy marks but it’s easy to make silly mistakes and
lose marks .
Make sure you read the correct article.

Read the question CAREFULLY.

Underline what it is they’re asking you to look for in the article. The answers will be from any part of the article.
Question 1 answers
Question 2 – How question
Underline key words in the question.

You need at least 7 different points from across the article.

Point, short embedded quote, explain how it might persuade.
 Persuasive techniques
• Putting forward an argument - this is about considering tactics used by
writers to put across an argument. Match the tactic to the example.
Tactic Example
Scare tactics suggesting it will get ‘innocent whales’ ‘distressed animals’ ‘bloodiest
worse bout’ ‘endangered fin whales’ ‘gruesome
Expert or eyewitness evidence spectacle’
Norway plans to ‘increase its whale hunting’
Emotive words
‘more than 2000 animals are likely to be directly
hunted’. ‘biggest whale slaughter for a generation’.
Statistics and facts designed to shock Captain of a Sea Shepherd boat: ‘it was perfectly
clear….slaughter proceeded…with full consent of
the Danish Navy.’
Use of tone – sarcastic/angry
‘in defiance of world opinion’ ‘so called ‘scientific’
whaling’ ‘How much longer can the government of
Denmark continue it arrogant support?..’
Call to action
‘Save the Whale’ ‘All decent people should see’
 Question 2 – How question
How would I start?
The writer uses a variety of methods to persuade the reader. Firstly, the call to action at the
beginning of the article stating we need to “dust down the slogan Save the Whale”to help whales
“again” is aimed at making readers feel they need to do something to help. The writer then
states that “over 2000 whales” have been killed “this year” which is aimed at shocking us into
action as this is a huge number and it’s happening right now so we can stop it if we try. The
writer calls this “the biggest whale slaughter for a generation” which suggests that this is the
worst its been for many years and the word “slaughter” suggests the whales’ deaths have been
very brutal and cruel which is aimed at making readers feel sorry for the whales.

Carry on…...

Don’t waste time waffling. State a point, short embedded quote, say how it’s persuasive – move on!
Mark scheme
Other areas you could have considered:
• it's unacceptable because it breaks international
agreement/law;
• he tells us the specific countries that are still killing
whales – along with some statistics;
• he refutes Japan’s claim that whaling is for 'scientific
research';
• he tells us Japan is increasing the number of whales
it kills ('double the number it killed last year';
• he tells us the killing of whales is going on 'right
now';
• he tells us Norway is whaling 'openly' by not
adopting the 1986 international agreement;
• he says Norway is planning to kill more whales than
before;
• he says Iceland has recommenced whaling recently
and gives details of the large numbers killed;
• he uses the Greenpeace spokesman to illustrate the
increasing concerns about whaling;
• he gives a report of the recent whale killing in the
Faroe Islands to show what is happening now;
• the writer uses quotes from one of the Sea Shepherd captains
to show the killing of whales in the Faroes implicates Denmark
and goes against international law;
• his language is condemnatory – 'This label is a fiction which
fools no one';
• he uses language and imagery to emphasise the brutality of
whale hunting – 'by far the bloodiest bout of whale slaughter...';
• he calls the killings in the Faroes 'massacre'; 'the gruesome
spectacle';
• the opening sentence reads like a rallying cry, telling readers
they need to 'Save the Whale';
• he begins the article by reminding readers of the international
agreement to stop whaling;
• he then gives examples of the countries ignoring the
international agreement;
• he gives an example of a specific whale hunt in the Faroes to
show hunting is still happening;
• he includes the view of the Sea Shepherd captain to emphasise
how Denmark is ignoring international law and action should be
taken
• the final paragraph questions Denmark’s commitment to
international law;
• the article ends by emphasising that “all decent people” should
see that the hunting of whales is “cruel and unacceptable”;
• impact of photos
 Question 3 – locate and retrieve
Tip – this should be 3 easy marks but it’s easy to make silly mistakes and
lose marks .
Make sure you read the correct article.
Questions 3 and 4 are always on the
second article.

Read the question CAREFULLY.

Underline what it is they’re asking you to look for in the article. The answers will be from any part of the article.
Question 3 answers
Question 4 – Evaluate
question

EVALUATE means to weigh up. These questions are asking your opinion. On this paper they
might be worded in different ways:
• What do you think and feel about the writer’s views?
• The writer makes this sound dramatic and exciting. How far to do you agree?
• How successful do you think the writer was in getting their view across?
Question 4 – Evaluate question
Underline key words in the question.

You need at least 7 different points from across the article.

I think/ I feel/ I believe/ this makes me feel it is dramatic because../ I think this is clear because….
 • Read the article.
• Is the description clear?
Is the whale hunt
presented as dramatic?
• How?
• What does the writer
tell us happens?
• What words does he
use?

How do I tackle this

question?
 Question 4 – EVALUATE question
How would I start?
I agree to a large extent that the writer provides a clear and dramatic description. Firstly, I think
he gives a clear description of what happens when a whale is spotted and orders are given to
‘stand by and lower boats’. Also, when the whale was spotted, the shout went out which is
described as a ‘thrilling’ noise which in my view suggests it is exciting and dramatic. I believe the
writer increases the drama when he tells us that one whale was ‘little more than half a mile
away’ which means finally the hunt is about to begin. He uses words such as ‘chase’ which
suggest speed and I feel this is dramatic as the action will now accelerate as for the ‘first time in
ten weeks’ a whale is in sight.
Carry on…...

Don’t waste time waffling. State a point, use a quote, say why it’s clear and/or dramatic.
Say I think/I feel for each point.
Mark scheme
Other areas you could have considered:
 Question 5 – Synthesise question
• Questions 5 and 6 ask you to use both articles to write your answers.
• Question 5 is worth 4 marks and should be quite straightforward. The key is to make sure you look in
both texts for the SPECIFIC thing they ask you to look for.

YOU NEED TWO POINTS FROM EACH ARTICLE.

 Question 5 – Synthesise question
• What do we know about how whales were hunted in 1850 and now in the Faroe Islands?

1850
• When whales were sighted,
small boats were lowered into
water and chased after them.
• A harpoon attached to a tow line
was plunged into the whale.
• The whale would then pull the
whalers’ boat injured until it
died.
• Dead whale would be towed
back to large ship.
• The boat would chase after one
whale.
Example response
Faroe Islands In Cheever’s text the hunters leave
• Small boats drive whales towards a large ship and get into small
the beach. boats to hunt one whale but in the
• There are many whales. Faroe Islands the hunters are just
• Local people drag the whales onto in small boats and hunting many
the beach.
• The whales are killed on the beach whales. In Cheever’s text, the
by the locals. hunters kill the whale by plunging
a harpoon into it which is attached
to their boat. This wounds the
whale so it will die from the injury.
However in the Faroe Islands the
whales are forced to shore by
hunters and then dragged onto the
beach by locals who kill them.
 Question 6 – Comparison question
Which comparative connectives do you know?

• When there are similarities: • When there are differences:

similarly however
also unlike
likewise conversely
this is similar to in contrast
this is different to
 Question 6 – Comparison question

Underline key words in the question.

Read question carefully.
Which part of the modern
text should you be referring
to in this question?

This is very important. If you don’t do this – you will get 0 marks.

You need at least 4 different comparison points from each article.

Use comparative connectives ALL THE TIME!
Say what the writers’ attitudes are and comment on how they use words to make their attitudes clear.
 Question 6 – Comparison question
How do I respond to this?
Firstly, what are the two writers’ attitudes to hunting whales?
1850s – Cheever’s text
Not against whale hunting
Describes the hunt from the hunters’
point of view –sees them as brave ‘no
boys’ play’
Views the whales as large monsters
compared to the small hunters ‘huge
creature’
Faroe Islands – modern text
Sees whale hunting as horrific and
illegal.
What else could we add?
Sees the hunters as cruel. The locals
‘violently dragged’ the whales who’d
been ‘forced’ to swim to the beach by
hunters.
Views the whales as victims – ‘innocent
whales’
 Question 6 – Comparison question
How do I set out my response?
You have to compare in order to get marks and therefore it is best to make a
point about one text and then a comparative point about the other text.

What’s good about this?
• Clearly states which article the
information is from.
• Uses evidence to back up points.
• Comments on how the writer gets
views across – through the words
they use.
• Uses comparative connectives.
Model example
In Cheever’s article from the 1850s, his attitude towards
the whale hunt is positive. He describes the hunt as a
battle between a ‘huge creature’ and the men on ‘small
boats’ suggesting the hunters are brave for daring to kill
the whale. In contrast, the writer of the modern article
implies the hunters are sly, as they ‘herded’ the ‘innocent
whales’ ashore where they were ‘ruthlessly slaughtered’.
‘Herded’ implies the whales are compelled to obey the
hunters on the boats whereas the whale in Cheever’s text
fights against the hunters with ‘fury’ creating the idea that
it is like a monster.
Carry on…
Some details candidates may explore or respond to:
The newspaper article
The writer’s attitude
 the writer is strongly against the whale hunt – he writes
about 'the slaughter of whales in the Faroe Islands';
 he says it’s wrong because it’s against international
law;
 he believes countries are ignoring/flouting the
international agreement to stop hunting whales;
 he says “decent people” would agree whale hunts are
cruel and unacceptable.
how the writer gets his/her attitude across to readers
 he gives a graphic description of how the whales were
killed;
 he tells us of the large numbers killed – "as many as
250 whales were reportedly massacred";
 he refers to the whales as 'innocent' and 'distressed' to
make his views clear;
 he uses powerful, emotive language, particularly
adverbs and adjectives – 'massacred', 'savagely killed',
'horrific scenes', 'distressed animals', 'ruthlessly
slaughtered'.
Cheever text
The writer’s attitude
 he is not against the whale hunt;
 he admires the hunters – and the whalers’ willingness to face
dangerous and difficult situations
 he celebrates the killing of the whale;
 he describes the whale in negative terms - 'monster';
 but shows some respect for the death of “so mighty a creature”.
how the writer gets his/her attitude across to readers
 he uses contrast to emphasise the battle between the small
boats and the 'great creature';
 he talks of the skill and bravery of the harpooners – the 'brave
captain';
 they gave “three hearty cheers” at the death of the whale;
 but says seeing the whale in its death-agony was “painful
enough”;
 he describes the difficult task of getting the dead whale back to
the ship and how it is “cheerfully endured” by the men because of
the rewards it brings.
This is not a checklist and the question must be marked in levels
of response. Look for and reward valid alternatives.
 Persuasive techniques
• Putting forward an argument - this is about considering tactics used by
writers to put across an argument. Match the tactic to the example.
Tactic Example
Scare tactics suggesting it will get ‘innocent whales’ ‘distressed animals’ ‘bloodiest
worse bout’ ‘endangered fin whales’ ‘gruesome
Expert or eyewitness evidence spectacle’
Norway plans to ‘increase its whale hunting’
Emotive words
‘more than 2000 animals are likely to be directly
hunted’. ‘biggest whale slaughter for a generation’.
Statistics and facts designed to shock Captain of a Sea Shepherd boat: ‘it was perfectly
clear….slaughter proceeded…with full consent of
the Danish Navy.’
Use of tone – sarcastic/angry
‘in defiance of world opinion’ ‘so called ‘scientific’
whaling’ ‘How much longer can the government of
Denmark continue it arrogant support?..’
Call to action
‘Save the Whale’ ‘All decent people should see’