gp 2009 examiner's report

RESTRICTED

Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Higher 1

8806 General Paper November 2009

Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

GENERAL PAPER

Paper 8806/01

Essay

General Comments

It is always pleasing to see candidates attempting a wide range of questions as this enables students to

display greater individuality in their responses. Moreover, differentiation can be a difficult process when a

large number of candidates choose a very narrow band of topics, usually with a high degree of similar

arguments and examples. Some questions (3, 6, 7) were less frequently answered, whilst others (1, 5, 8)

were very popular, especially in certain Centres.

Examiners have commented on the awareness of structure that characterises most scripts. There is an

introduction (although this can be verbose and unfocused at times); an awareness of the key issues, with an

attempt at balance; a conclusion (although this, too, sometimes amounts to no more than a regurgitation of

points in the body of the essay, rather than providing a succinct and incisive overview or perspective). The

need for a balanced response is evident, although candidates make this transition in a very awkward way at

times, seemingly contradicting themselves as a result. (Simple words and phrases, such as ‘Whilst …’ or

‘Despite these claims/criticisms …’ could be useful in avoiding this awkwardness.) There is still the rather

odd use of the somewhat archaic word ‘naysayers’ to express an opposite stance. Occasionally, candidates

seem to imagine they are taking part in a debate and refer to ‘the motion’.

As noted in the past, the introduction provides a vital first impression of the likely quality of the script. Whilst

it is important to define key words and terms, there is less evidence this year, it would seem, of over-pedantic

definitions. Nevertheless, they are still present at times and serve to confuse, rather than clarify, key terms.

One candidate, for example, defined ‘culture’ as being ‘the practice of a vast agreement of a certain opinion

and the moral values of society which is being passed down by the forefathers’. This contains a number of

factors which combine to frustrate clear meaning: abstract nouns; unnecessary and imprecise phrases;

grammatical uncertainties.

A number of Examiners commented on the use of ‘florid language’ which seemed designed to impress the

Examiner, but often confused the issue and tended to become convoluted, e.g. ‘The process of edification in

societies involves the understanding of vast amounts of knowledge and facts from an exponentially

expanding ocean of information’. Rather, we would emphasise the need for concise, focused and accurate

introductions. Practice in this skill would be time well spent.

Again this year, an anticipated key theme seems to have been ‘globalisation’. In many cases, the essay

began with the phrase, ‘In our globalised world …’. Many candidates also referred to the ancient idea that

‘the world is flat’, clearly drawing on a popular text / concept which had been discussed in class. There is

always the danger, of course, that some candidates will try to find the most suitable question to adapt to

ready-made ideas and arguments. It is vital to ensure that the actual question is addressed, not one which

the candidate wants to modify. Inevitably, Centres will attempt to predict likely topics, but good candidates

will, as one Examiner commented, ‘tailor the material in an original and compelling way, deploying relevant

examples and engaging comment in order to answer the question set’.

There continues to be a recognition that the topics under discussion require a degree of evaluation, as

shown by the phrases such as ‘To what extent …?’, ‘How far …?’ and even the simple request to ‘Discuss’.

As noted above, this can be handled rather awkwardly at times in the transition from one side of the

argument to the other, but it is increasingly rare to find a completely one-sided approach. One Examiner

new to the Paper noted, ‘The essay structure could sometimes appear rather formulaic. Some candidates

often used the same points, argued from the opposite point of view, making the answers somewhat

theoretical, more “identikit” than showing personal engagement.’ There is no doubt that the finest answers

always convey a sense of personal involvement on the part of the candidate.

1

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

The same Examiner reinforces this point, observing that ‘the best answers were those which managed to

interweave their arguments with examples and offered a personal perspective. There were plenty of these’.

Nevertheless, as noted in the past two years, ‘Candidates vary in the quality of their examples and

illustration, the more mundane scripts still relying on the standard references to the ubiquitous (an “in word”

this year) Maslow and his hierarchy of needs; Thomas Edison (whatever the context); Einstein and, more

recently, Bill Gates.’ Fortunately, these seem to be less evident now. The very good candidates, of course,

use the Paper as a vehicle to display their wide and often impressive knowledge to justify their arguments.

This was particularly the case this year when a considerable number of candidates referred to events and

developments that were recent or particularly pertinent. (‘Dolly the sheep’ seems to have acquired

immortality, however, whenever cloning is mentioned.) Nevertheless, one senses a truly lively, informed and

interested mind at the back of the best responses.

More Examiners this year commented on the failure in less successful scripts to provide specific examples,

relying on broad, general assertions instead. Africa is constantly used to provide a contrast with developed

countries. Still, far too often, it is referred to as a ‘country’ and sweeping generalisations are made regarding

its poor agricultural land, widespread poverty and inherent corruption. Zimbabwe was the standard example

for any discussion of these features in impoverished African states.

Fewer Examiners this year felt that excessive length was the problem which it has been in the past,

especially when the control of English is weak. Some candidates continue to penalise themselves by

excessive length and poor command of English, but the message of succinctness and accuracy seems to

have been noted by candidates and Centres. Nevertheless, there is still the problem of presentation.

Handwriting is a significant issue in many cases. Moreover, the tendency to cross out and then insert new

text above the original has been mentioned on several occasions in the past. As emphasised previously,

‘Not only does this practice obfuscate the clarity, but almost invariably the “corrected” version adds to the

tortuous nature of the expression or is, in itself, grammatically inaccurate. The need to plan at the sentence

level, as well as the essay and paragraph level must be stressed.’ Examiners really do work very hard to

follow such scripts, but the sense of the overall flow of the discussion is inevitably diluted, or even lost on

occasions, in the simple task of attempting to decipher the handwriting.

Reference has been made in the past to a ‘linguistic plateau’ which seems to be the level above which less

confident writers cannot climb. With such a large candidature from such disparate backgrounds it is not easy

to make completely sound general statements about quality. Significantly, however, there was a feeling

among a number of Examiners this year that the linguistic quality of scripts at the lower end of the cohort

showed a decline. (In fact, several Examiners felt that they had seen fewer scripts of the very high quality to

which they were accustomed.) Spelling and punctuation are generally sound, but many scripts displayed

varying degrees of grammatical and linguistic uncertainty: tense and subject/verb agreements still cause the

greatest problem in less successful scripts. Some recurrent spelling errors involve the following words:

myriad, surveillance, opportunities, millennium, modern, portray, occurred, curiosity, privilege, furthermore,

receive, businesses, available, convenient/ce and pre-marital sex (often written as pre-martial!).

It is not uncommon to see pronouns / possessive adjectives change during one sentence. This is possibly

most common when ‘One’ is used, as in: ‘One will inevitably lose his sense of identity if he migrates to

another country.’ This is just a slip and can easily be rectified by careful checking.

The use of the definite and indefinite article remains a problem for some, often being omitted in, for example,

‘The UN / The USA / The UK / The World Bank / The IMF / The majority / In the light of … / On the one hand

…’. Unnecessary plurals still appear: aid(s), offspring(s), machineries/machines, researches/research.

Confusion between ‘economic’ and ‘economical’ remains a standard error.

Another faulty construction that has been raised in the past is the tendency to use a subject word followed by

an unnecessary pronoun, as in the following: ‘For example, China it has a fast growing economy’.

Unnecessary prepositions can also undermine a simple basic sentence as in, ‘For many people, they choose

to migrate’. The two may even be combined as in, ‘With migration it is good for the receiving country’s

economy’. Prepositions need to be watched in the following phrases: ‘pose a threat to’, ‘fall prey to’ and ‘in

need of’. Such common and constant errors should be pointed out to candidates on a regular basis.

‘Personal voice’ is not an easy skill to teach as it relies on the individual being exposed to as wide a variety

of linguistic styles as possible through personal reading and language use. Therefore, with such a wide

range of candidates the range of vocabulary and idiom will vary a great deal. Examiners are asked to note

‘felicitous expression’, and this is often one indicator of a higher level script for English. Once again, there is

2

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

a tendency for less assured candidates to rely on standard words / phrases or jargon, especially where

economic topics are concerned: ‘plethora’, ‘myriad’, ‘exacerbate’, ‘myopic’, ‘pragmatic society’, ‘double-

edged sword’, ‘globalised world’, ‘paradigm shift’ and ‘comparative advantage’ being some of the most

common. One also wonders what our world is if it is not a ‘realistic one’, as it is so often described. There is

nothing intrinsically wrong with being ‘linguistically armed’ for an examination. However, as stressed before,

the top-class candidate displays an individual ‘voice’, the result of a genuine interest in the use of English

and its potential to create accurate meaning and subtlety of argument.

A somewhat surprising colloquialism this year was the frequent reference to ‘the common Joe’. In order to

build on the successes of the past, and to ensure future progress, candidates are encouraged to aspire to be

more than ‘common Joes’ (or ‘Josephines’). For the demands of this examination, the best responses are

the product of an ongoing attention to language in all its variety and subtlety, so as to achieve that personal

voice characteristic of scripts which achieve far more than the average.

Comments on Specific Questions

1 Is the elimination of global poverty a realistic aim?

This was probably the most popular question. There were plenty of statistics on offer or references to

various ‘reports’ and ‘surveys’. However, there was a tendency to over-indulge in economic jargon and

acronyms. Most candidates seemed at ease with the question, and introduced a similar range of points –

‘corrupted governance’, geographical constraints, diseases, lack of education, infrastructure, and natural

disasters as indicators of the barriers to eradication of global poverty; and referenced international

organisations, microfinance schemes and charitable projects as promising signs of improvement. The most

common argument stated that global poverty could not be eliminated, but could be alleviated. Many here

cited Africa as a ‘country’ and confused aid/Aids.

Whilst the question referred to ‘global poverty’, some candidates expanded the discussion into the issue of

relative poverty. This was not necessarily irrelevant, but caused some candidates to focus on countries like

Singapore and the USA, thus limiting the breadth of reference to relatively affluent countries in global terms.

2 ‘Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections.’ What is your view?

This was a relatively popular question in some Centres with candidates invariably arguing for the rights of the

less educated to have the vote on the grounds that they have a stake in the way that a country is governed.

Most addressed the supposed qualities which should make educated people good voters: judgment, insight

and broader awareness. However, they also recognised that human traits can play a part in elections: self-

interest, greed and their own limited awareness of the needs of less fortunate groups. Examples of specific

countries were relatively scarce, however. Thus, it tended to become a ‘Singapore-based’ response. 3 Are certain types of writing superior to others?

As with many arts-based questions, this was not particularly popular and tended to be either very well

answered or rather tangled in abstract argument with little specific reference beyond ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Lord

of the Rings’. Some discussion was based on the relative merit of various literary genres, and some

examined fiction and non-fiction, including modern phenomena, such as blogs. Some Examiners felt that the

concept of ‘superiority’ was not really grasped.

4 Should a love of one’s country still be encouraged? Many defined the idea of ‘love for one’s country’ in very narrow, often economic, terms, for example,

Singaporeans should be encouraged to love their State to lessen the ‘brain drain’ and to boost productivity.

Defence was also mentioned. Many also saw such a view as vital for a personal sense of identity and a

considerable number recognised the implication that people now travel a great deal and perceive themselves

as ‘citizens of the world’ rather than members of one country, which may result in a degree of nationalist

myopia.

3

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

Many also recognised the distinction between patriotism and nationalism which has resulted in conflict in the

past and can do so today. The word ‘still’ was, therefore, a key element of high-class scripts which were

able to draw on changing attitudes to patriotic, or jingoistic, feeling – or fervour.

5 To what extent has technology had an impact on both privacy and security in your country?

This question was attempted by quite a wide range of candidates who often wove the ideas of security and

privacy together quite successfully. There was a recognition that the two could be at odds, since heightened

security could impinge upon individual privacy. The question was specific to a particular society, but

occasionally this was forgotten as some candidates merely wrote about the impact of technology in a general

way. This was not irrelevant, but could not score marks in the higher range for Content. Similarly, there was

a tendency in some scripts merely to list aspects of technology, mention privacy or security, but not really

develop a fully coherent response, linking the two ideas. On the other hand, well-structured scripts not only

did this, but also examined the impact at both an individual and a national level.

Whilst some scripts made no mention of the Internet, it did figure largely in the majority of answers, together

with CCTV, mobile telephones and weaponry. Many candidates wrote about blogs and chat room sites,

complaining that these could then be read by anyone, even though the writers had often chosen to ‘go

public’. Examples of salacious pictures and videos were quoted as evidence of invasion of privacy, often

acting as a cautionary tale to the young to be more careful about their relations with the opposite sex.

6 ‘History records male acts, written by males, and holds little interest for females as a result.’ Is this

a fair comment?

This multi-faceted question elicited a narrow range of responses in terms of quantity and quality. Some

seemed to use it as a platform for a feminist stance and tended to forget about the historical element.

The first part tended to produce a varied range of females who have made some mark on history, such as

Boudicca, Queen Victoria, Madame Curie, Margaret Thatcher, Mother Teresa. (Princess Diana made the

occasional appearance.) However, candidates often examined the social conditions for the lack of women in

history and argued that, in the future, because of the impact of feminism, this pattern is likely to change.

Hardly any candidate addressed the point about history being written by women. Had s/he done so,

Examiners would have certainly given this the credit such a challenging element of the question deserved.

7 How far should religion influence political decisions?

This was a moderately popular question, but again Examiners commented on the variation in the quality of

responses. Islamic countries were often discussed, notably Iran and Malaysia, with varying interpretations of

Sharia law, while many candidates saw religion as a ‘moral compass’ which might influence political thought.

Inevitably, many candidates wrote about the delicate balancing act within Singapore’s multi-ethnic/religious

community and the need to ensure that harmony was maintained as a result of political decisions. Ethical

issues, such as abortion and euthanasia were often cited as areas where religion had a valid input to the

decision-making process. However, the notion of ‘political decisions’ was, at other times, somewhat vague.

8 Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research?

This was probably the second most popular question overall. There was a sense that this was the topic

which enabled candidates to ‘unload’ their prepared material in many cases. The emphasis of the question

was on the ‘rights of countries’ as much as the notion of ‘unlimited scientific research’. Not infrequently, the

former part of the question was ignored, or simply ‘tagged on’ as a token gesture to the question at the end

of paragraphs or even the essay as a whole. This could not constitute sustained relevance to the question

and could score little more than a moderate mark for Content.

A wide variety of answers appeared, many broadly agreeing that research should be ‘unlimited’ in areas

such as medicine, global conservation / the Green Revolution, and areas which contributed to human well-

being. Many candidates were concerned that developing nations should spend more on priorities such as

education and infrastructure, leaving wider research to the developed world.

Ethical issues were raised, and support was given to the application of science via GM food and alternative

energy sources. Weaker candidates were prone to be distracted by one or more of these areas, and so the

4

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

overall essay lost balance or candidates often produced a broad list of these topics without enlarging upon

each one. Nuclear technology was commonly raised and North Korea/Iran were cited as ‘rogue’ (often

‘rouge’) nations; some prepared answers crept in here. Very few offered any ideas as to how limitations

might be monitored, although some referred to a government committee operating in Singapore and its

‘biopolis’.

9 Assess the impact of foreign films or foreign TV programmes on the culture of your society.

This questions produced a series of generalised assertions about contemporary culture, both positive and

negative, without any clear relationship with specific foreign media products. Surprisingly, some scripts did

not contain a single specific reference to a film or a television programme.

Better answers did try to establish a relationship between the media and changing trends. Areas discussed

were sexual mores, with ‘Friends’, together with ‘Sex and the City’ being regularly cited. Rising divorce rates

and pre-marital sex were seen as consequences of such media titles. There was a broad claim that Western

programmes contributed to a greater openness in an otherwise conservative Asian culture. This was not so

easy to link specifically to the media. An interesting claim was that local programme makers had been

compelled to become more creative as a result of the popularity of Western offerings.

Nevertheless, Japanese and Korean films and serials were seen as having an impact, often positive, on local

culture, reinforcing traditional values. Thoughtful candidates addressed the invitation to ‘assess the impact’

of other media and attempted to balance varying influences on society of such media productions.

As one Examiner observed of this question, ‘The lesson is clear that students write well, irrespective of their

level, about what really matters to them and what impinges on their daily lives’.

10 Can the transport of food over vast distances be justified?

This was not a particularly popular topic. Equally surprising was the fact that a considerable number of

candidates showed little or no awareness of the environmental issues implicit in the question.

Essentially, arguments centred on the value of a greater range of goods, increasing global demand, and the

provision of jobs in the production, manufacturing and export industries.

The need to transport food in times of crises, or when countries were impoverished, appeared frequently.

Singapore was often quoted as an example of a country which could not survive without food imports.

Occasionally, an historical comparison was drawn between times when food would decompose, thus causing

health hazards, and the greater safety measures available today.

11 ‘Fashion is as much a good thing as a bad thing.’ To what extent do you agree?

There were some very good, well-informed and lively answers here with candidates showing a close interest

in the various aspects of fashion, and a good knowledge of ‘brands’. Many identified the problem of peer

pressure, lapses into materialism, and criticism of the fashion world’s idea of ‘body image’. Several made

interesting links to the way in which fashion highlighted cultural identity as well as personal identity, or made

proud boasts about the latest local fashion designers and their promotion of Singapore as a centre of fashion

creativity. ‘Fashion’ was seen to be good for job creation and was often widely interpreted and points were

made relating to ‘fashions’ in music, attitudes (‘Green Revolution’) and art.

There was an awareness also of the increasing trend for the fashion industry itself to try to counter its

negative image by demonstrating environmental awareness in its designs and approaches to marketing.

The required evaluation in the wording of the question was usually kept in the forefront of the responses.

12 As long as people in the public eye do their job well, does it matter what they do in private?

The popularity of this question was variable, although it was one of the less commonly answered topics

overall. Celebrities were the frequently cited examples of those ‘in the public eye’, including pop stars,

models, politicians and even teachers! The phrase, ‘in the public eye’ was not always understood, however,

and thus the intrinsic contrast between this and ‘private’ life was not really brought out.

5

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

As ever, the quality of examples decided the quality of the answer; some responses remained generalised

throughout; others identified well-known celebrities; Bill Clinton often appeared. Candidates found it easy to

write about scandals, but harder to link these points to ‘doing the job well’. They wrote about the ‘role model’

impact of celebrities while grasping they were the same as everyone in needing some privacy.

6

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

GENERAL PAPER

Paper 8806/02

Comprehension

General Comments

The author of this year’s passage, John Jameson, explored ideas about work and leisure: he saw work as

active, structured and financially beneficial, whereas he viewed play as leisurely, spontaneous and of no

obvious and quantifiable benefit. For a few, such as sportsmen and artists, he felt such neat juxtapositions

do not hold, as their play is also their work.

Jameson then charted the contribution play makes to shaping our lives, from earliest childhood through to its

later incarnation as the sport we play or watch at School or as adults. He described other ways in which we

spend our increasing leisure time, though he impishly suggested that something normally characterised as a

leisure activity – shopping – could be seen as a form of work. Less controversially, Jameson stressed the

need for a balance between work and play, but he then attacked the IT revolution for providing opportunities

for leisure which damage both individuals and society as a whole. He ended by expressing the hope that we

would spend our leisure in more productive, artistic and gentle activities.

Able candidates found much in this passage to engage with in the application question, and there were many

outstandingly literate and well-informed answers. However, some Examiners reported rather more short or

incomplete responses than in previous years. Some candidates clearly spent too much time on earlier

questions, often writing in the margins around the allotted space, and did not leave themselves enough time

to answer this ‘high tariff’ question effectively.

That said, the standard of English remained pleasingly high, with many candidates displaying assured

punctuation and mature vocabulary, though one might caution against over-use of verbs such as attest,

garner and opine, when there are simpler and clearer alternatives. George Orwell regretted ‘the elimination

of simple verbs’ in his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, which remains a very good guide to writing

clear and effective prose.

On the subject of clarity, several Examiners this year commented on how difficult it was at times to decipher

a candidate’s answer due to poor handwriting, characterised by the malformation of individual letters, overly

small writing generally or excessive crossing-out. Whilst the vast majority of scripts remain perfectly legible,

some used correction fluid (despite the instructions on the front of the paper expressly forbidding its use) and

some used pale blue ink when the instructions stipulate dark blue or black. These make reading scripts very

hard – as does tiny handwriting. Centres are urged to bring these important matters to the attention of their

candidates.

Comments on Specific Questions

Question 1

Many candidates began the paper successfully by neatly explaining Jameson’s suggestion that play brings

us less tangible benefits than monetary gain, not least of which is simple entertainment.

The question proved difficult for some candidates in two ways: some saw the instruction to explain the

phrase ‘no reward (other than itself)’ as a simple invitation to state that ‘the author is referring to play’ and left

it at that, thereby explaining nothing; others, realising that the answer required them to explain the concept

simply recast the words of the question along the lines of ‘play is itself its own reward’, for which there can be

no reward.

7

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

Question 2

The key word in the question was ‘illustrate’ and perceptive candidates had little difficulty in spotting one of

the two examples Jameson gave (following his use of a colon) to justify his use of the word ‘traditionally’.

The commonest answer by far was to pick out the reference to ‘carcass’ and that word alone – or a synonym

like caveman or hunter – was enough to secure the mark as the very reference itself evokes the historical

dimension that ‘traditionally’ implies; the less common approach was to refer to man’s position being defined

by his status or wealth (which many did), but this needed to be linked to the idea of this being the case over

a period of time to establish this as ‘traditional’ (which fewer did).

Question 3

If a candidate spotted that the question was focusing on resemblances between children and pups of hunting

animals and began by saying something like ‘In both cases …’, s/he was straightaway on the right track.

Those who listed what children did and then what the animals did ran the risk of failing to establish what the

two groups had in common: finding out about their environment; improving essential skills; forming

relationships with others; preparing for their futures.

Question 4

Many candidates correctly glossed ‘arbitrary’ in this context as meaning ‘random’ – which was enough on its

own to score the mark. A number elaborated on this and demonstrated that they had read to the end of the

paragraph by juxtaposing Jameson’s view of the unpredictability of everyday life with the orderliness of sport

(an insight which would stand them in good stead when it came to the summary later).

A surprisingly large number of candidates – who presumably had not established the context in which the

word was used – thought that ‘arbitrary’ meant monotonous or continuous.

Question 5

To answer this question successfully, candidates needed to grasp that in the paragraph in question the

author floats the possibility that the shopping we do to make ourselves look and smell nice is in fact a

necessary function of our innate compulsion to find a partner and reproduce the species. Astute candidates

saw this and scored well, though few picked up on Jameson’s use of the word ‘gratifyingly’, which indicates

the pleasure he felt in suggesting to us that shopping, far from being a frivolous indulgence, is in fact work.

Question 6

Many saw the point (and expressed it succinctly) that the key to understanding the use of this phrase is

‘may’, as Jameson only offers his previous idea as food for thought, a possibility, certainly not as a hard fact.

Some saw the phrase as being a definite statement that the author did not believe a word of what he had just

written, which is not the case.

Question 7

Most candidates grasped Jameson’s general idea but few covered each specific element: that jobs that are

irksome (‘tasks’) but essential (‘obligatory’) are done for us by those expert in them (‘specialisation’) so that

we do not have to do them ourselves (‘relieve us’).

Question 8

This was another question worth only a single mark where reading the wider context paid dividends, as this

would show that Jameson is being ironic – sarcastic even – in calling such people ‘fortunate’ (the inverted

commas around the word indicate that he thinks they are the opposite of fortunate) when he goes on, as one

candidate put it, ‘to show they are not blessed with a good life after all but are more inclined to be embroiled

in problems’. Just so.

8

RESTRICTED



Examiner Report

© UCLES 2009

Question 9

Almost all candidates took due notice of the instruction to use their own words, and thereby scored well on

this question. A few fell into the trap of straying from the material in the passage and included references to

piracy and copyright infringement, for example, when the passage is concerned with the poor artistic quality

of what is produced rather than its legality or otherwise.

Question 10

This question was answered very successfully, despite little heed being paid to the advice last year to use

more than one word in the answer. As always, it is advisable for the candidate not to just look at the

highlighted word in isolation but to re-read the sentence in which it occurs to establish its usage in this

particular context.

‘Literally’, ‘permutations’ and ‘inflated’ gave few problems.

‘Mock’ was well understood too, though a number of candidates who meant to write ‘simulated’, which would

have been an excellent answer, misspelled the word as ‘stimulated’. Examiners ignore spelling mistakes in

this question when the misspelt word is clearly recognisable (hence, ‘simultated’ was accepted); however, if

the mistake creates a recognisable and inappropriate other word – ‘stimulated’ – the mark is denied.

A careful re-reading of the context in which ‘impels’ is used – ‘a powerful instinct which impels …’ – shows

that it is an inner motivation – an ‘instinct’, in the passage – propelling us towards something. This would

have avoided the mistake some candidates made of seeing things from the wrong perspective: to see

‘impels’ as meaning that something was drawing us from without.

Question 11

The emphasis in this year’s summary was on concision, as there were many points to make and only 120

words in which to make them. It is pleasing to report that Examiners commented on how well the summary

was handled this year, with candidates clearly well taught in selecting the relevant material, rephrasing in

their own words as necessary, and then linking the whole into a coherent and fluent piece.

There was very little ‘lifting’ from the passage, which was particularly pleasing to see, and instances of

summaries marred by excessive crossing out were rare. A few candidates, however, while still claiming to

be within the allotted word count, overstepped it by some margin – as much as 25 words in extreme cases.

Question 12

There were many responses which supported the author’s contention that play is important but pointed out

that in such economically straitened times as these – and with increasing competition from China and India –

leisure is a luxury one may have to sacrifice if one is to get on in the world. There were many references to

conflicting societal tendencies: the government was praised for its efforts to introduce the 5 Day Work Week

and its encouragement of leisure activities, but the point was often made that this ran counter to the growing

phenomenon of anxious parents increasingly filling their very young children’s lives with extra tuition and

activities seen as bestowing an advantage on their children. Using such well-chosen illustrations from their

own society in their evaluation of the author’s argument is exactly what the application question requires.

Not everything the author wrote was welcomed, however: many candidates leapt on the author’s reference to

the ‘pernicious’ results of our increasing use of IT, and mounted spirited defences of something they saw as

strengthening friendship bonds rather than weakening them. If the other 11 questions preclude intrusive

personal opinion, the application question often benefits when a candidate takes informed issue with some

aspect of the passage.

On matters of style, many candidates still use the wrong preposition with the verb to agree: it should be ‘I

agree with the author’s view that …’, and not ‘I agree to the author’s view that …’. It is also inelegant to

write that one agrees with something ‘like what the author wrote’ rather than ‘which the author wrote’.

Furthermore, the suggestion in last year’s report that candidates should avoid giving an ill-considered

conclusion in the very first sentence was ignored by many, and particularly by the candidate who began thus:

‘I agree with the author to a neutral extent’.

9

gp 2009 examiner's report

Documents