Both English language papers set by the AQA examination board have had the same format for a number of years and we have no reason to believe that they'll be changing it any time soon. The first four questions are based on a passage of text (a piece of fiction in the first paper, a fact-based passage in the second), and question 5 is creative writing based on either a picture or some written prompt.

The first four questions always follow the same format.

Question 1 always asks you to produce four facts from the passage, and is worth 4 marks (one per fact). This question is phrased one of two ways:

• "Write down four facts from the passage that demonstrate XXX."
• "Which four of the following statements are true?"

There's not much that we can say about this question, other than it's worth noting the strategy in the second of these two options if you want to change your mind. You will (I assume) be sitting a paper-based exam and you select the four true statements by colouring in ovals using a pencil. The paper gives a standard set of instructions if you want to change an answer that you have coloured in, and I suggest that you become familiar with this list before sitting the exam so you don't have to waste time reading them when the clock is ticking.

Choose four statements below which are true. Shade the circles in the boxes of the ones that you think are true. Choose a maximum of four statements. If you make an error cross out the whole box. If you change your mind and require a statement that has been crossed out then draw a circle around the box.

Question 2 always takes the following format, and is always worth 8 marks:

"How does the writer use language to describe XXX?"

Here are things that you can consider when answering this question:

• Similes and metaphors. These are very powerful in getting across an impression and you should search the passage for these. In fact, when you read the passage through for the first time (before question 1), make a mental note of any similes ("like" or "as ... as" or similar) or metaphors that you come across.
  
  
• Does the author use adjectives and adverbs well? For instance, there is a difference between talking about "a battle" and talking about "a blood-soaked battle". The author should use at least three or four powerful adjectives or adverbs. If a particular thing is given more than about three adjectives ("a blood-soaked, fierce, long, dreary and irksome battle") then that is going a bit too far, although some of those adjectives themselves might be powerful individually.
  
  
• What about sentence structure? This can be used to convey mood. For instance, when the passage describes an urgent or panicky situation, sentences could be short and punchy. When the author is trying to describe a horrific situation (such as a public hanging), then the sentences tend to be longer and involve intricate clauses (trying to wring as much disgust from the words as possible). A series of questions, one after another, might indicate confusion.
  
  
• One thing you might be able to mention (if it's appropriate) is the author's choice of what to describe and what not to. If there are two people talked about in the passage and person A is described in much more detail than person B, then the chances are that the author wants to draw our attention much more to A than to B. What the author chooses not to describe in detail might be important, as it shows which way the author wants to direct our attention.
  
  
• You can also comment on whether any language choice that the author makes actually work. Are the similes/metaphors appropriate or just clumsy? Do the adjectives give the impression that the author intended or could they be interpreted differently?

I have heard from an authoratitive source that the best answers to this question should contain somewhere between 100 and 120 words, although, of course, the quality of what you write is more important than the quantity of words.

A Visit from a Neighbour

It was Mrs Parsons, the wife of a neighbour on the same floor. ('Mrs' was a word somewhat discountenanced by the Party — you were supposed to call everyone 'comrade' — but with some women one used it instinctively.) She was a woman of about thirty, but looking much older. One had the impression that there was dust in the creases of her face. Winston followed her down the passage. These amateur repair jobs were an almost daily irritation. Victory Mansions were old flats, built in 1930 or thereabouts, and were falling to pieces. The plaster flaked constantly from ceilings and walls, the pipes burst in every hard frost, the roof leaked whenever there was snow, the heating system was usually running at half steam when it was not closed down altogether from motives of economy. Repairs, except what you could do for yourself, had to be sanctioned by remote committees which were liable to hold up even the mending of a window-pane for two years.

'Of course it's only because Tom isn't home,' said Mrs Parsons vaguely.

The Parsons' flat was bigger than Winston's, and dingy in a different way. Everything had a battered, trampled-on look, as though the place had just been visited by some large violent animal. Games impedimenta — hockey-sticks, boxing-gloves. a burst football, a pair of sweaty shorts turned inside out — lay all over the floor, and on the table there was a litter of dirty dishes and dog-eared exercise-books. On the walls were scarlet banners of the Youth League and the Spies, and a full-sized poster of Big Brother. There was the usual boiled-cabbage smell, common to the whole building, but it was shot through by a sharper reek of sweat, which-one knew this at the first sniff, though it was hard to say how was the sweat of some person not present at the moment. In another room someone with a comb and a piece of toilet paper was trying to keep tune with the military music which was still issuing from the telescreen.

'It's the children,' said Mrs Parsons, casting a half-apprehensive glance at the door. 'They haven't been out today. And of course-'

She had a habit of breaking off her sentences in the middle. The kitchen sink was full nearly to the brim with filthy greenish water which smelt worse than ever of cabbage. Winston knelt down and examined the angle-joint of the pipe. He hated using his hands, and he hated bending down, which was always liable to start him coughing. Mrs Parsons looked on helplessly.

'Of course if Tom was home he'd put it right in a moment,' she said. 'He loves anything like that. He's ever so good with his hands, Tom is.'

Parsons was Winston's fellow-employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralysing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms — one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended. At thirty-five he had just been unwillingly evicted from the Youth League, and before graduating into the Youth League he had managed to stay on in the Spies for a year beyond the statutory age. At the Ministry he was employed in some subordinate post for which intelligence was not required, but on the other hand he was a leading figure on the Sports Committee and all the other committees engaged in organizing community hikes, spontaneous demonstrations, savings campaigns, and voluntary activities generally. He would inform you with quiet pride, between whiffs of his pipe, that he had put in an appearance at the Community Centre every evening for the past four years. An overpowering smell of sweat, a sort of unconscious testimony to the strenuousness of his life, followed him about wherever he went, and even remained behind him after he had gone.

Q1

Which four of the following statements are true? (4 marks):