The format of this question is always the same. You're always going to have to look at all of source A and all of source B. You're always going to be comparing those two texts. And what you're going to be comparing them on is always going to be a key object that the uh texts focus on. So, if both texts are about surfing, it's the surfboards. If both texts are about surviving out at sea, it's going to ask you to compare the boats. If both texts are about music festivals, they're going to ask you to compare the festivals. Whatever the kind of key object is of that text, that is what you're going to be talking about. It's important to note here that you're not looking at the writer's view of that
object because that is question number four. We're just looking at the object itself. Is it big? Is it small? Is it old? Is it technologically advanced? Is it simple? Is it important? Is it worthless? whatever it is that we learn about it. This question is worth eight marks, which means you should spend 10 minutes writing your answer. And you would have also spent a little bit of time planning and thinking about this question when you were doing your 15 minutes reading of the two texts. Now, in my view, it is the timing that makes this question so incredibly hard. If we think about paper one, question two, you also had eight marks and you also had 10 minutes, but you only had to look at one text and you only had to look at a small
chunk of that text. This time you're looking at two. One of them is from the 19th century and you got to look at the whole thing. So the amount that your mind has to process before you can start writing is much much higher. With that in mind, there's also not a lot of core knowledge that you need to revise for this question. For example, with paper one question two, you want to make sure you have a knowledge of all the different kinds of techniques, language techniques that a writer can use. That doesn't apply here because we're not looking to analyze. So, the strategy that you can do, the best revision strategy you can do for this question is quite simply practicing in timed conditions because it's those timed
conditions that is the hardest thing about it. According to the mark scheme, this question is testing the exact same skill as question number one. It is testing your ability to identify and interpret explicit and implicit information and ideas and select and synthesize evidence from different texts. That is true as well. You are having to infer um from explicit information, explicit and implicit information in the text. However, I would argue that for this question, you need to be talking exclusively about implicit information, and I'll explain why in more detail a bit later, but really, it's much more focused on the implicit part than the explicit part. It is also true that you have to select
evidence from both texts. But what it doesn't mention in that bullet point, and is also arguably the most important up there with those two bullet points that you're being tested on, is the act of comparison. the act of being able to look at something here and something here and see how they're similar and see how they're different. So, there's actually three skills you're being tested on here. Yes, your ability to infer. Yes, your ability to provide quotations, but also your ability to compare. I've already mentioned, comparing the two texts is arguably one of the key skills that you're being tested on. And more than that, I would actually say it's one of the key ways that an examiner will decide whether to
place you into the level two of attempting, the level three of being clear, or the level four of being perceptive. And that is for several reasons. First of all, the degree to which your comparisons are based on implicit versus explicit information. Now, as I've already said, I would recommend you have them based in implicit information only. If the text explicitly says that one boat is old and explicitly says one boat is new in the different texts, that will stand out to you as like ah score a nice easy comparison. But in the eyes of AQA, you're not having to work hard enough there. So you're only going to get somewhere in like the three out of eight for that level of idea because it's so based on explicit information.
If however your comparison requires implicit understanding from source A and source B, you're much more onto a winner there because AQA will see that you have actually had to infer and think deeply and interpret in order to reach your conclusion. So the more implicit the better. The second thing is that you want to make sure well you don't have to do this. This is more of like a high level skill of trying to go for the four marks, but ideally you would have a linked similarity in difference. What I mean by that is you explore one area and within that one area how the object in the two texts is similar and how it's different. The reason that this can help is because you're exploring nuance. You're not just saying, "Yep, they're
similar. They're both old." you're instead exploring the nuance of yes, they're both old, but here that old age gives it a lot of sentimental value and worth. Whereas here, that old age makes it insignificant and worthless. So, you're being much more nuanced in your explanation, exploration of that similarity by also picking apart the differences. Now, I say this as knowing that it is much easier to say than it is to do. But that is again why practice, practice, practice is everything because you'll get in the habit of practicing doing that with your answer. The other thing you want to practice is linked to making it uh your idea based on implicit information. You also want to make it as abstract as possible. Now, let me
explain what I mean by that. In the English language, we have two types of noun. concrete noun and abstract noun. Concrete noun is our names for objects we can tangibly touch and hold on to, tree, hair, portrait, etc. Abstract nouns are our names for ideas and feelings and concepts like happiness, freedom, love, things we can't hold on to and physically touch, but are there and we are aware of them and and we feel them. as far as possible, you want your comparison to be focused on an abstract concept rather than a concrete one. So instead of telling me, as I said before, like both boats are old. That's something very concrete. You can just like see old age, you can touch the old age of the boat, you can see it falling
apart apart. You want to focus on something much more abstract like I did in the example before the sentimental value versus being worthless and insignificant. That's a much more abstract concept. So when you're looking at your text, you'll often instantly find the concrete ideas because they're much easier. But also ask yourself how you can deepen it with a more abstract angle. So can you look at the value of something? Can you look at the relationship between two things? You know, does one rely on another or is one learning from another or is one developing on another? Something like that. Are there any feelings tied to it? So, a sense of um a particular festival having a sad atmosphere versus a
festival having I don't know a really happy atmosphere or something like that. Look at the more abstract ideas that are linked and tied in with that concrete object that you're having to talk about. Again, I say this knowing it's much harder to do than I'm just kind of stating here, but I am also telling you that that is the trick, a key trick to getting that eight out of eight. I've really tried to hold back here from uh letting my hatred of this question shine through. And I'm going to keep doing that here when I give my final tip of not analyzing. Even though that's all your English teachers spend all their time doing for this one question, stop doing it. And the reason for that is because this question isn't testing you
on analysis. As you know from my earlier earlier part of the video, this question is testing you on your ability just to infer. If you feel like you need some help with understanding the distinction there, make sure you have a look at my video on what is inference and also my video on what is analysis and that'll help you see the distinction. There are a few ways that we can help to make sure we are demonstrating the correct skill and just inferring and not analyzing. The first is to make sure that you don't mention the writer's craft. Don't mention any techniques being used by the writer. Don't tell me about repetition or metaphor or simile because that is starting to turn into analysis, not just
looking at what the actual words mean. The second thing is to essentially spend your time explaining connotations without using the word connotation. For example, the quote chicken suggests that the boy is really afraid and also that this other boy is mocking him for being afraid. What I just did there is essentially look at the connotations behind the word chicken. But I didn't use the word conotes. Instead, I just said this is what the word chicken is suggesting. And in that way, I was able to implicitly infer again without mentioning what is craft. The reason I say don't mention connotation to be honest is because of human bias. There are some examiners out there that when they read the word connotation or canote
in your answer will think you're analyzing. There are others who will be like nah that's not analysis that's still just inference and frankly it's just not worth the risk. If you just cannote without using the word cannote and instead say suggests and implies, you're essentially gaming a system and helping you to show the examiner what they need to be shown more clearly because frankly nobody has a bloody clue what this question is really about. And finally, and I will be honest, I couldn't help myself in how I phrased this point. It is dripping with my fury about this question because you're not analyzing. You're not having to validate your interpretation. Instead, you're just inferring, which
means you just get to give your interpretation. You just get to say that means that and that means that. And because that means that and that means that, here's how they're similar or different. That of course doesn't mean that you can make stuff up. It still has to be valid. It still has to be true, but you haven't had to prove that it's true because you don't have to analyze. What that means then is there's essentially three sections to your answer. Number one, your comparative topic sentence in which you outline how the texts are similar or how they're different on the question topic. Second of all, you provide quotes, a quote from each text. You then use those texts as your sole defense for being like this
quote tells me this. This quote tells me this. Therefore, my comparative topic sentence is correct. So, it's not enough to just provide quotes and then move on. You do have to explain. But what you have to explain is just what the quote means. What is the implicit meaning in inside of it? You just have to infer. You don't don't then have to prove that your inference is correct via analysis or or prove how the writer created that inference. You just have to say this is what it means. Again, if you feel like you need more help in this area, make sure you have a look at my videos, what is inference, because there I give a lot more guidance on that. And also by all means have a look at the what is
analysis if you feel like you want to make sure you understand the true distinction between the