English Language O Level Paper 1 Topical

Article No.
451
1123
Paper-1
(Topical Past Papers with Examiner Reports)
(2004-2019)
Features:
 All Variants
 Questions order new to old
 Example candidate response
 Examiner reports included
Editorial Board:
o Yousaf Kamal o Syed Farhan Mehdi
GreenHall, Ex-Aitchison College, GreenHall, SICAS
LGS, Roots o Bilal Ahmed
o Tariq Niazi GreenHall, Aitchison Lahore
GreenHall, Garrison Academy o Unsa Hayat
o Hamayoun A. Karim GreenHall, KIMS
GreenHall, KIMS, Garrison o Zulfiqar Haider
o Zahra Saleha GreenHall, PAK-Turk
GreenHall, BSS, LGS
o Rizwan Jamil
GreenHall, LGS, SICAS, The City
School, LACAS
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publisher.
Title English O-Level Paper-1 Topical (Article# 451)
Published by Read & Write Publications

Printed by Read & Write Publications
Composing Department Sharjeel Khan, Salman Buksh, Hayat, Shahab, Waqas, M. Awais,
Usama Farooq, Awais Ahmad
Graphics Department Rashid Mehmood, Khalid Khurshid
Legal Advisor Mian Tariq Ahmad (Advocate Supreme Court)
Room No. 10, 11, 12 Al-Majeed Centre
1-Mozang Road, Lahore.
Tel: 042-37236145, Fax: 042-37241367
Edition:
For Books Order Call Or SMS: 0336-5314141
DISTRIBUTORS
LAHORE KARACHI
 READ & WRITE SALE POINT  READ & WRITE SALE POINT
Shop No. 25-28 Lower Ground Floor, Shop No. 110-1st Floor, The Book Mall, Near
Haadia Haleema Centre, Ghazni Street, Women’s College, Urdu Bazar, Karachi.
Urdu Bazar, Lahore. Ph: 042-35714038 Cell: +92-321-1100575
 MARYAM ACADEMY
Tayyab Ali Building, Urdu Bazar,
Karachi. Tel: 021-32214243 , 021-32634243
 BURHANI BOOK CENTRE
Shop # 6 Hashmi Trust Building Rotson Road
New Urdu Bazar Karachi. Tel: 021-32212640
RAWALPINDI / ISLAMABAD
 ABDUL RAHMAN BOOKS
Abdul Rahman Plaza, College Road,
Rawalpindi.
Tel: 051-5551226, +92-315-5618976
Contents
EXAMPLE CANDIDATE RESPONSE .................................................................................. 4
SECTION-I: DIRECTED WRITING ..................................................................................... 48
UNIT 1: LETTER W RITING ................................................................................................... 48

EXAMINER REPORTS ......................................................................................................... 54
UNIT 2: REPORT W RITING .................................................................................................. 96
EXAMINER REPORTS ......................................................................................................... 99
UNIT 3: SPEECH W RITING ................................................................................................ 118
EXAMINER REPORTS ....................................................................................................... 120
UNIT 4: MAGAZINE ARTICLE W RITING ............................................................................... 138
UNIT 5: ACCOUNT W RITING.............................................................................................. 152
SECTION-II: COMPOSITION ........................................................................................... 160
UNIT 6: DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 160

UNIT 7: ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 188
UNIT 8: NARRATIVE ......................................................................................................... 218
English Language O-Level P-1 Topical 4 Example candidate response
Read & Write Publications
Example Candidate Response

Introduction
The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Cambridge O Level
English Language (1123), and to show how different levels of candidates’ performance relate
to the subject’s curriculum and assessment objectives.
In this booklet a range of candidate responses has been chosen to exemplify grades A, C and
E. Each response is accompanied by a brief commentary explaining the strengths and
weaknesses of the answers.
In this booklet a grade is given to each question but in the examination each question paper
(whole candidate script) is graded on the overall mark awarded, not on each question or part
question. It is therefore possible that, on some individual questions, lower grade candidate
scripts are awarded the same, similar or sometimes higher marks than higher grade candidate
scripts.
For ease of reference the following format for each paper has been adopted:
Each question is followed by an extract of the mark scheme used by examiners. This, in turn,
is followed by examples of marked candidate responses, each with an examiner comment on
performance. Comments are given to indicate where and why marks were awarded, and how
additional marks could have been obtained. In this way it is possible to understand what
candidates have done to gain their marks and what they still have to do to improve their
grades.
Assessment at a glance
All candidates take two papers.
Paper 1: Writing 1 hour 30 minutes Paper 2: Reading 1 hour 45 minutes
Marks 60 weighted to 50 50
Weighting 50% 50%
Candidate On the question paper On the question paper

response
Focus Task Language Task Language
Section title Directed Writing Creative Writing Reading for Ideas Reading for
Meaning
Mark allocation 30 marks 30 marks 25 marks 25 marks

(15 marks for (combined (15 marks for (content only)
task fulfilment language and content points
and 15 marks content) of notes, 5
for language) marks for
language of
summary; 5
marks for main
ideas questions)
Weighting for 20% 25% 5% -
writing skills:
50%
Weighting for 5% - 20% 25%

reading skills:
50%
Assessment W1, W2, W3, W4 W1, W2, W3, W4 R3, R4 R1, R2

objectives
Paper 1 – Writing
Mark scheme
Example candidate response – grade A

Task Fulfilment mark = 15 out of 15

Language mark = 14 out of 15
Total mark awarded = 29 out of 30
Examiner comment – grade A
This is a very good response because it is admirably business-like in its approach and does
not make the mistake of lapsing into narrative.
The task fulfilment is very strong. There is a clear sense of the purpose, audience and
situation given in the address and the opening paragraph. The purpose is re-emphasised in
the opening of the final paragraph which brings a sense of unity to the text. The format is good,
without being perfect – “Cordially” is just formal enough to confirm the seriousness of the letter,
whereas ‘Yours faithfully’ would have been better. There is an effort made to provide an
opinion with justification in the penultimate paragraph. The tone and register are excellent as
the letter is crisp, matter-of-fact and polite; it has a number of appropriate phrases such as
“On the day in question”. Most importantly, the detail in response to the bullet points in the
question, especially in the second paragraph, is convincing and helpful to the police. There is
a real attempt to suggest how the police might catch the thieves, something that many
candidates left out or simply allowed to be a hope. There is also a sensible use of elaboration
in providing a contact number.
The language of the letter is very good indeed because it is not over elaborate; a letter like
this needs to be direct. The accuracy is excellent and the sentence structure is complex in
places, without being fussy. The verb forms and tenses are absolutely secure while the
vocabulary is mature (“perpetrators”; “inventory”) and the spelling is accurate. Paragraphing
and punctuation (even a semi-colon) are also of a high standard, although some lapses with
commas and the repetition of “I” as a paragraph opening prevent this from being full marks.
Example candidate response – grade C

Task Fulfilment mark = 12 out of 15

Language mark = 11 out of 15
Examiner comment – grade C

This is a very satisfactory response (just above middle of the range) because it is mostly
accurate but it is a ‘safe’ response; it relies on basic correctness rather than any great
sophistication and this is often the hallmark of a high Band 3 script or low Band 2 script.
The task fulfilment is perfectly adequate and lifts the overall achievement. A sense of the
purpose, audience and situation emerges, although the expression “express my situation” is
a little vague. The purpose is re-emphasised in the opening of the final paragraph, although
again it could be more forceful. The format is good; it is a formal letter with the correct
valediction. There is a hint that the format is of a report (the sub-heading and the paragraph
headings) but this is acceptable in this case. Unfortunately, it lapses into narrative on
occasions as in the detail about rushing into the house to make an inventory and this detracts
from the crispness of the letter. There is an effort made to provide an opinion with justification
in the penultimate paragraph in the detail about the “digital prints”. The tone and register are
very good as the letter is polite, especially with the thanks at the end, and it has one or two
appropriate phrases such as “some blood residue”. The detail in response to the bullet points
in the question is convincing but needs to be more helpful to the police. For example, “last
night” is too vague when it would have been easy enough to suggest a time, although this is
put right a few lines later. The greatest weakness is in the lack of helpful detail about the stolen
items; it is merely a list and “a hefty value” is particularly vague. The final bullet point is
addressed well.
The language of the letter is ‘clean’ but straightforward. It has good accuracy and clarity in
explaining the situation and there are some good phrases such as “To my dismay” but there
are few vocabulary ticks for real merit. The sentence structure has some complexity. The verb
forms and tenses are secure although there is a lapse with “I will” in the fi nal paragraph.
Spelling is mainly correct but more difficult vocabulary (“professional” and “occurred”) proves
to be a problem. Paragraphing is good and, crucially in this band, punctuation is sensible, with
secure sentence endings. The script is an example of an upper Band 3 (bordering on a grade
B) rather than lower Band 3.
Example candidate response – grade E

Task Fulfilment mark = 7 out of 15 Language

mark = 6 out of 15
Examiner comment – grade E

This is a weak response because the content is vague and undeveloped and, although the
overall meaning is never in doubt, it has frequent and serious errors which hamper precision.
The task fulfilment is adequate in some respects and poor in others. There is an obvious
understanding of the purpose, audience and situation given in the opening line and at the end
of the letter. However, the format is confused. The letter starts with the given opening “Dear
sirs,” but it lacks the capital ‘S’ to suggest formality. Furthermore, there is no valediction, even
though the text ends with the word “letter”. Even more of a problem is the way the letter
becomes largely a narrative – “I felt so panic…cried loudly…call my parents…”. This is made
worse by the inclusion of direct speech which is inappropriate in such a letter. There is, though,
an effort made to provide an opinion with justification in the detail of the clothes. Also, the tone
and register improve with the courteous ending. However, the detail in response to the bullet
points in the question is weak as there is no detail about the stolen items and in fact the
candidate relies on repeating the words of the question (“make my letter informative and
helpful for the police”). Also, the suggestion as to how to catch the thieves (based merely on
the fact that it could be a boy and a girl) is unhelpful.
The language of the letter is fl awed. The accuracy is only occasional; there are no ‘patches’
of clear writing. The sentence structure is mainly simple and yet suffers sometimes from a lack
of sentence endings. The verb forms and tenses are particularly confused while the vocabulary
is simple and yet still subject to error, especially in the use of prepositions. The spelling is
actually good at this level. Paragraphing, however, is non-existent and punctuation is weak
with the use of a lower case “I”.
Section 2: Creative Writing

In this section there are five topics to choose from, each of which comes under one of three
essay types: narrative (3 and 5), discursive (2) and descriptive (1) 4 can be interpreted in any
way candidates choose. Example candidate responses at grades A, C and E have been
included for each of these essay types.
English Language O-Level P-1 Topical 47 U-1: Letter Writing
Section-I Topic (2019-20)

Directed Writing
UNIT 1 Letter Writing
Examiner Reports
Letter Writing
O–Level
English Language
Paper 1
(Extension)
Sale Point: Shop # 25-28 Lower Ground Floor,

Haadia Haleema Centre, Ghazni Street,
Urdu Bazar, Lahore.
Tel: +92 42-35714038
Cell: +92 336-5314141
Web: www.readnwrite.org
E-mail: readandwriteoffice@gmail.com
Section-I: Directed Writing
Unit 1: Letter Writing

1. M/J 19/P12/Q1
There have been many problems with the public transport in your area. These problems have
made travelling difficult. You decide to write a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper to
explain how unhappy you are with the present situation.
Write your letter. You must include the following:
 details of the problems with the public transport in your area
 an example of when and how you were affected
 what you think should be done to improve the situation.
Cover all three points above in detail. You should make your letter polite and informative.
Start your letter ‘Dear Editor’, and remember to supply a suitable ending.
Covert all three points above in detail
2. M/J 19/P11/Q1
You are walking along a busy road and you see a car drive very close to someone on a bicycle.
The car almost knocks the cyclist off the bicycle. You are very concerned about the way that
car drivers behave towards cyclists. You decide to write a letter to the Editor of the local
newspaper to complain about the problem.
 when and where the incident took place
 what exactly happened, including how the car driver was to blame
 what you think should happen to improve the situation for cyclists on the roads.
Start your letter ‘Dear Editor’, and remember to supply an appropriate ending.
3. O/N 17/P12/Q1
Every year the older students in your school invite adults to come and talk about why they are
successful in their careers. You decide to write a letter to a well-known personality (for
example, from television or business) to persuade him or her to come and speak to the
students. Write your letter. You must include the following:
 an invitation to speak to the students and the date and venue for the meeting
 what you admire about the personality and his or her work
 how the students benefit from these visits.
Cover all three points above in detail. You should make your letter polite and persuasive.
Start your letter ‘Dear …… ,’ and remember to provide a suitable ending.
4. O/N 17/P11/Q1
Your Principal wants to form a School Council (a group of teachers and students) to discuss
ways of improving school life for everyone. You would like to apply to be one of the students
on this School Council. You decide to write a letter to the Principal to say why you should be
chosen.
 why you agree that a School Council is important
 a brief summary of your personal qualities and achievements and why they make you
suitable for the position
 the improvements to school life you would like to suggest first and why.
Start your letter ‘Dear Principal’ and remember to provide a suitable ending.
5. O/N 16/P12/Q1
Recently you became aware of a person in your area who quietly does a lot to help members
of the community who have problems. However, very few people know about this. You decide
to write a letter to your local newspaper to make readers aware of the good work.
 details about the person and where this good work is done
 a description of the good work and how it benefits the community
 suggestions for how the newspaper readers could become involved.
Start your letter ‘Dear Editor,’ and remember to add an appropriate ending.
6. O/N 16/P11/Q1
Recently a plan was announced about the building of a new road which will pass through part
of your area. Most residents support the plan but others are against it. You are in favour of the
plan but understand both points of view. You decide to write a letter to your local newspaper
to make clear your own ideas.
 why most people like the plan for the new road
 why other people object to it
 what changes to the plan could be made to satisfy those who do not like it.
Start your letter ‘Dear Editor,’ and remember to add an appropriate ending.
7. M/J 15/P12/Q1
Recently, an elderly relative of yours fell awkwardly when she was shopping and suffered
minor injuries. A young person helped her and then left the scene immediately afterwards.
Your relative is very grateful to the young person, and asks you to write a letter to the local
newspaper to thank and praise the young person.
 the date and details of how the accident happened
 what injuries she suffered and what the young person did to help
 why it is important to let people know about this incident.
Cover all three points above in detail. You should make sure your letter is polite and
informative. Start your letter ‘Dear Editor,’ and remember to add an appropriate ending.
8. M/J 15/P11/Q1
Your class has decided to celebrate the end of the school year by visiting a place of interest.
You are the class prefect. Your teacher has asked you to write a letter to the parents of your
classmates to explain your plans.
 when and where you are going and details of your travel arrangements
 why your class has chosen this place and what you will do there
 how the students in your class will benefit from the trip.
Cover all three points above in detail. You should make sure your letter is polite and
informative. Start your letter ‘Dear Parents,’ and remember to add an appropriate ending.
Examiner Reports
1. M/J 19/P12/Q1
In Section 1, candidates were asked to imagine that there were problems with the public
transport in their area. They had to write a letter to the Editor of their local newspaper to explain
how unhappy they were with the situation. The majority of candidates responded very well to
the purpose and situation as they were able to use details from their locality. In Section 1
candidates this year had to be aware that in order to satisfy the requirements of the bullet
points a perfect answer required:
details of the problems with public transport in their area an example of when and how they
were affected what they thought should be done to improve the situation.
As last year, for bullet point 1, a few very weak responses relied almost entirely on lifting (or
giving a close paraphrase of) the opening two sentences from the question. They said only
that there were difficulties but did not say what they were. More successful responses were
able to specify public transport such as buses, trains, taxis and rickshaws and to explain that
there were many problems to do with the organisation and running of these. Such problems
included poor schedules and the services being late or early. The vehicles were often old and
unreliable and so broke down; one candidate spoke of An ancient 50-year old bus, never
serviced, moving at a snail’s pace.. Buses were considered unhygienic and poorly maintained,
usually with broken seats and inadequate air-conditioning. Candidates felt that drivers often
crammed passengers into these overloaded vehicles and made the situation dangerous.
Finally, there were many mentions of harassment and theft on public transport. Some
candidates mentioned only one problem, even though the word problems was in the plural.
Some did not specify problems to do with public transport and spoke more about traffic
conditions and driving (private transport) or they spoke about problems with the transport
infrastructure (roads etc.). While these ideas gained some credit, they did not quite carry the
weight of specific difficulties in public transport; at best, they were useful only in supporting
more specific comments about public transport.
When addressing bullet point 2, stronger candidates realised that the bullet point required an
example and that a letter to a newspaper would benefit from something specific Therefore,
they gave a precise date or an occasion which clearly stood out as significant (when I was
doing my O level English Paper). Candidates who relied on more general terms, such as
Once/some time ago/previously, lost the urgency that such a letter demanded. The great
majority of responses gave details showing how the incident affected them with, for example,
the dire consequences of being late for an examination or to work. Sometimes the outcome
was much more alarming and one candidate witnessed a fist fight when the passengers were
‘paralysed with anxiety ’. As with bullet point 1, incidents about private transport and
infrastructure (usually pot holes in the roads) were less relevant than incidents directly relating
to buses, taxis and rickshaws.
Some responses merged bullet point 1 and 2 but these risked only implying how they
personally were affected by the problems they described.
In bullet point 3, the solutions to the problems followed naturally from bullet point 1. Training
drivers to do their duty fairly and expertly, running accurate schedules, upgrading the vehicles
(especially with effective air conditioning) and introducing harsher penalties for wrongdoers
were all seen as necessary to improve the conditions of public transport. Some responses
outlined some or all of these and introduced infrastructure improvements such as new roads
and bridges as a back-up, whereas those responses which referred only to such infrastructure
improvements (re-routing the traffic) added very little to the discussion about public transport.
Occasionally, only one solution or improvement was given (e.g. new buses), even though
there were many problems, and it was difficult to see how the one solution could address all
that was wrong. A few responses were not planned adequately, with too much time spent on
addressing bullet points 1 and 2 and not enough on bullet point 3. The weakest responses
gave no suggestions for improvement but said only that the government should do something.
A slight weakness across bullet points 1 and 3 was the tendency to list large numbers of
problems and improvements at the expense of some elaboration on points. For example,
some responses gave as many as six problems but gave them as bare problems (e.g. Drivers
are not good at their job) whereas the more convincing responses gave fewer problems but
were able to elaborate so as to make the problems very real and more convincing in this type
of letter (e.g. Drivers are not good enough because of their poor driving and their lack of
consideration towards elderly passengers).
Generally, there was a very good awareness of purpose and situation and candidates were
admirably clear about what they were doing in this text. The proper audience for this task was
the newspaper Editor but also the readers of the newspaper. Virtually everyone was aware of
this, although many candidates expected the Editor to solve the problems rather than just raise
awareness and provide publicity in an article. The register was very well maintained this year
and kept properly formal and polite by most. Several examples of appropriate technical
language (catalytic converters in particular) were useful in rooting the report in the correct
context. Most responses provided an appropriate format for a formal letter. Most responses
correctly ended the letter with Yours faithfully or sincerely: relatively few signed off with
inappropriate, informal valedictions such as Regards.
Candidates generally followed the structure provided by the bullet points for their organisation,
together with a very short opening and closing paragraph. There was some over-use of
narrative in the response to bullet point 2 when a concise and clear account was required.
Overall, the vast majority wrote a suitable amount for Section 1 and captured the polite, formal
tone and approach very well. Opinion and justification arose naturally when the
improvements were suggested in bullet 3. There were very few short scripts indeed in Section
1 and even fewer examples of no response.
Linguistically, most candidates produced a convincing piece of work. Spelling (schedule,

punctual) and punctuation were generally satisfactory but public transports was common.
Linking words like moreover, furthermore were often used a little randomly. Paragraphing
continues to improve in the Section 1 task. In this text, there was some weakness in the use
of tenses when weaker responses switched from the present state of public transport to a
specific example in the past. There was a confusion between complain and complaint.
2. M/J 19/P11/Q1
In Section 1 candidates were asked to write a letter to the Editor of a local newspaper about
an incident where a motorist almost knocks a cyclist off a bicycle and to suggest improvements
to reduce the chances of further incidents.
Bullet point 1: ‘when and where the incident took place’
Most responses addressed both aspects of this bullet point, with varying degrees of success.
Almost all stated when the incident took place with many referencing an exact date/time. The
location of the incident was sometimes missed with a surprisingly large minority quoting
directly from the question (‘walking along a busy road’) rather than stating an exact location.
Stronger responses set the scene by describing the general context in which the incident
occurred, e.g. during rush hour, at a notorious junction.
Bullet point 2: ‘what exactly happened, including how the car driver was to blame’
Most responses included a description of the incident as well as how the driver was to blame.
Descriptions ranged from a simple lift from the question (‘almost knocked the cyclist off the
bicycle’) to convoluted narratives and back story about the cyclist and/or driver. The driver was
often to blame due to inappropriate mobile phone use or alcohol/drug abuse. A sizeable
minority included extraneous detail about the car.
Bullet point 3: ‘what you think should happen to improve the situation’
This point was generally answered well with almost all candidates offering at least one simple
suggestion, often based around cycle lanes or surveillance cameras. In responses that
referenced alcohol/drug abuse or mobile phone use, suggestions to improve the situation often
focused on solving these wider issues, with varying degrees of success. Many responses
offered several sensible solutions such as creating greater separation between motorists and
cyclists, more traffic police and educational campaigns to raise awareness. A number of
candidates mentioned the environmental benefits of encouraging cycling, effectively weaving
global climate concerns into their response. A very few slightly misunderstood the task and
asked the Editor to improve the situation rather than offering their own suggestions.
Most responses were organised into paragraphs, included an appropriate opening and a short
overview of the content of the letter; conveying a clear sense of purpose and format. Most
also ended with an appropriate salutation and a concluding sentence (‘I hope you take my
ideas into consideration’, ‘Looking forward to your response’). The majority of responses were
also written in a suitable register. A small minority of responses, in which register and format
conventions were not adhered to, included irrelevant dialogue/details which in turn, affected
the overall tone. Stronger responses maintained control of tone and purpose throughout.
A very small minority of responses lost focus on the task and strayed into a narrative of an
accident. These included lengthy dialogue and rather gory details.
On occasion, meaning was impeded where candidates used unusual vocabulary incorrectly.
Equally, the use of clichéd idioms and memorised sections was rarely successful as it tended
to interrupt the flow of candidates’ writing.
3. O/N 17/P12/Q1
In Section 1, candidates were asked to imagine that their school was hosting an event where
adults who were successful in their careers would come to the school and discuss their
success. Candidates, as senior students in the school, had to write a letter to an adult of their
choice, inviting that person to come and give a talk. In general, the letters were enjoyable to
read, appropriately constructed, and developed coherently as candidates responded
extremely well to this purpose and situation. In Section 1 candidates must accept the need
to follow instructions and this year had to be aware that in order to satisfy the requirements of
the bullet points a perfect answer had to have:
an invitation to speak to students and the date and venue for the meeting what was admired
about the personality and his or her work how the students would benefit from these visits.
This year, for bullet point 1, a simple addressing of the point gave an invitation, the date of
the meeting and the name of a location, usually a school, where the meeting was to be held.
Such thin details were enough to identify the meeting but candidates should always be
prepared to elaborate within the 200–300 word limit.
More successful responses were able to frame the invitation within an explanation of this being
an annual event (weaker responses relied almost entirely on lifting the general, opening
sentence from the question as their invitation and this lacked the personal touch).
Furthermore, for convincing detail, the venue included a particular part of the school such as
a hall or auditorium, as well as directions to the venue, and the date was often linked to a
relevant day in the school programme, such as Prize Giving or Music Day. Some responses
gave our school for the venue and this was inadequate as the reader would not know where
to go. Others did the same when suggesting the venue but backed it up by supplying an
address to the letter which mentioned the school name. There were also a small number of
instances where the adult was a former pupil and so in mentioning the venue it became less
vital to mention a specific address. Overall, what was important was that the adult should know
definitely where and when they were to attend because a good invitation would leave the
recipient in no doubt – if candidates were not obliged to supply the school address at the head
of the letter, they had to find a way, as above, to make the details clear. Weaker responses
left out either the date or the venue (or sometimes both) because they became too caught up
in the invitation.
Bullet point 2 asked for details of the candidate’s admiration for both the personality and the
successful work undertaken by that person. The adults invited were many and various. Many
candidates took their lead from the question paper and chose a business person or someone
working in television, often a local presenter or international film star. There were sports
people, politicians and even a body builder and Miss Mauritius. These made it relatively easy
to admire the work done by these people because they were high profile and their jobs
understood by most candidates. Many candidates went beyond these fields and invited adults
from the worlds of education, writing and campaigning, amongst others. The virtues of hard
work, persistence, clever dealing and good acting were all admired. As far as personality was
concerned, candidates admired the honesty, fairness, good appearance and sense of humour
displayed by the successful adults. It was also obvious that a sense of charity towards those
less fortunate and an admiration for women’s rights were very prominent. Such adults were
routinely referred to as role models for the students and most candidates wanted to follow in
the footsteps of such people. The most successful responses in this bullet were those which
said something specific about personality as well as work, or at least imply it very strongly.
Less successful responses wrote a good deal about success at work but were sometimes not
specific about the nature of the work or did not tie in any personal qualities to suggest this was
a fully admired person they were inviting. The weakest responses were those which repeated
nonspecific phrases such as I admire you a lot and I like the way you run your business or
who referred only to success in school careers rather than work. There were also candidates
who made the mistake of writing too much narrative into their response to bullet 2, especially
in an attempt to illustrate how the person had moved from rags to riches. Overall, this bullet
proved to be the greatest discriminator for Task Fulfilment this year.
Bullet point 3 proved to be very straightforward for most. Whether they were talking about
the specific visit from the one adult or the visits in general, all mentioned that a good talk would
raise the level of ambition, motivate the students and lead to better exam success, although
many candidates could have gone further and been more specific as to how this motivation
would be seen. Some made the point that the visit was raising the profile of the school,
especially when the visit was from the Minister of Education.
admirably clear about what they were doing in this text. The purpose was to invite an adult in
a polite, informative and persuasive way. A very small number of candidates misread the
scenario and reported to staff or students about a visit which had already taken place. Again,
a small number wrote a general letter, usually within the school, advertising the fact that a
meeting was going to take place. Such misreading’s were few and most candidates scored
strongly in this area. The proper audience for this task was the adult concerned and virtually
everyone said this, although a very small number thought they were addressing the letter to a
Principal or to the students. Quite a large number of candidates started their letter well,
addressed to the correct individual, but then in bullet 2 started talking about the person in the
third person as if writing a report. The register was very well maintained and kept properly
formal and polite by most. The vocabulary of the person’s work terminology was a helpful
addition when well used.
The correct format for a formal letter is clearly something that the candidates know and this
was done well by the vast majority. A few candidates were too informal in their salutation and
some made the mistake of providing an inappropriate valediction (From; Regards) and there
were quite a number who did not provide the valediction and signature.
It is quite normal now to see candidates follow the structure provided by the bullet points for
their organisation and the addition of a very short opening and closing paragraph is useful.
There was some merging of material between bullets 1 and 2 and this was understandable.
Overall, the vast majority wrote a
suitable amount for Section 1 and captured the polite, formal tone and approach very well,
although there were some examples of phrases which were inappropriate for the context, such
as you must come; you will come; you will speak and you are lucky to be chosen. Opinion
and justification arose naturally when the admiration was made clear in bullet 2.
There were very few short scripts in Section 1 and even fewer examples of no response to
the task.
Linguistically, most candidates produced a convincing piece of work. Spelling was generally
satisfactory. Paragraphing was also done very well. The use of capitals is becoming
increasingly problematic. In this text, there was some weakness in the use of tenses when
weaker responses referred to the work being done in the past whereas it was still ongoing and
there was some confusion over the use of will/would in Bullet 3,d especially when talking
about the benefits in the future. There was also a fairly widespread confusion of the singular
and plural work and works and many cases where the word works was used instead of actions
or deeds or job. Also, there was confusion between old/ older and former when referring to
ex-pupils of the school and many candidates had difficulty with singular and plural in
work/works and student/students – often this was a case of copying from the question paper
as in the example of career/careers where candidates mentioned your careers when praising
the adult because the word careers was plural in the question.
4. O/N 17/P11/Q1
In Section 1, candidates were asked to imagine that their Principal wanted to form a School
Council (a group of teachers and candidates) to discuss ways of improving school life for
everyone. The candidate were asked to apply to be one of the candidates on this School
Council. Candidates needed to write a letter to the Principal to say why they should be chosen,
including the following bullet points:
● why they agree that a School Council is important

● a brief summary of their personal qualities and achievements and why they make them
suitable for the position
● the improvements to school life they would like to suggest first and why.
This year, for bullet point 1, the vast majority of candidates were able to outline the benefits,
often focusing on improved communication between candidates and staff. Some responses
strayed into listing problems already in the school but were often able to link these to solutions
which could be provided by the School Council. A minority of responses assumed that the
School Council was already in existence and a very small minority confused
council/counselling, leading to slight misunderstandings. Most candidates were able to give
two or three reasons for its importance and thus were able to develop bullet point 1 sufficiently.
Most candidates were able to open their letters with appropriate politeness, often
congratulating the Principal on their perspicacity and wisdom. Most were able to link their
praise of the idea with the reasons for applying.
Bullet point 2 asked candidates to provide a brief summary of their personal qualities and
achievements, and why they were suitable for the position. The first element of this bullet often
led to long lists of sometimes unfeasible achievements, such as being national champions for
many disparate activities. Stronger responses described achievements which would directly
benefit the School Council, such as experience in a previous school, or membership of Debate
Clubs. As with the personal qualities, responses often slipped into hyperbole which was
inappropriate for the formal register of the letter. Stronger responses tempered their self-praise
with self-deprecating humility, or offered to provide testimonials from others to support their
case. The second part of this bullet was frequently given less attention, with some responses
only implying their suitability via their descriptions of personal qualities. Stronger responses
were careful to link the qualities overtly with the student’s suitability. Some responses only
gave achievements or personal qualities which limited their development of the bullet point.
Bullet point 3 asked candidates to offer some improvements to school life they would like to
see first and why. A minority of responses offered only one improvement but this did not
necessarily limit their response if it was fully described and reasons were given for it. Many
weaker responses offered a long list of sometimes unfeasible improvements and then omitted
to offer reasons for them. Most candidates were able to organise bullet point 3 using the format
of ‘suggestion plus reason’, listing two or three improvements. Common suggestions were
improvements to facilities, improved food, increased extra-curricular activities and upgrades
to technology. Many candidates suggested more personal items such as addressing problems
with bullying and work load. A small minority of candidates reprised bullet point 1 by suggesting
a School Council as an improvement which could be made. Some responses seemed to
assume that the School Council was already in existence and that the student had already
been granted a place.
Generally, there was a very good awareness of purpose and candidates were clear about
informing and persuading the Principal. Similarly, the situation was very well understood by
the majority but some did not realise that the School Council had not yet been established.
Almost all responses addressed the correct audience for this task, although some referred to
the Principal in the third person. The register was very well maintained and kept properly
formal and respectful by most, as was the tone, although one or two were a little too boastful
of their achievements to be entirely formal in tone. Similarly, criticisms of the school were
sometimes very strident which was not appropriate in a letter of application.
The vast majority of candidates used the correct format. Almost all used the correct opening,
although a few substituted the name of their Principal. Date and address were often included
and most finished with an appropriate valediction. There was a great variety of these and most
were accepted as appropriate (e.g. Yours Respectfully, Your candidate).
A small minority chose to include aspects of a report and a very few started writing a letter but
slowly changed into report format. Organisation hardly varied, with candidates adopting the
logical approach of following the bullet points in the order given. As a result, there was a
convincing move from the opening suggestion to the final conclusion. Overall, the vast majority
wrote a suitable amount for Section 1. There were very few short scripts in Section 1 and
virtually no examples of no response to the task.
Linguistically, most candidates found it quite straightforward to produce a convincing piece of

work. Spelling was generally satisfactory. Paragraphing was also done well this year although
there were some shorter pieces of text which were not paragraphed correctly. Candidates are
advised to work on the correct use of capital letters (e.g. ‘the principal’ ‘school council’) and
on use of tenses. In this task, as the student was making suggestions, the use of ‘could be
beneficial’ rather than ‘can be beneficial’ was appropriate. The word ‘Principal’ was sometimes
written as ‘Principle’, which was unexpected as the word was in the question.
5. O/N 16/P12/Q1
In Section 1, candidates were asked to imagine that they had become aware of a person in
their area who gave help to members of the community who needed it. Few people knew
about this good work and so the candidates were asked to write a letter to the local newspaper
highlighting the good work that was being done. Candidates had a wide choice of good work
to choose from and the overwhelming majority of them responded extremely well to this
purpose and situation. Section 1 is directed writing and so has more of a reading element
than Section 2. Candidates are advised to pay close attention to the instructions and to ensure
that their responses follow them. This year candidates had to be aware that in order to satisfy
the requirements of the bullet points a perfect answer had to have:
details about the person and where the good work was done a description of the good work
and how it benefitted the community suggestions about how the newspaper readers could
become involved in the good work.
In Task Fulfilment it is the development of the ideas, or responses to the bullet points, that
will gain most marks. There is a big difference between mentioning the bullet point and
elaborating on it. This year, for bullet point 1, a simple addressing of the point gave the name
of the person doing the good work and the name of a location, usually a town or building,
where the work was carried out. Such details were enough to identify the person but
candidates should always be prepared to elaborate within the 200–300 word limit. More
successful responses were prepared to name the person and add some relevant detail such
as his or her profession, the job that the person held, some idea about how wealthy he or she
was and/or details about the person’s family. For the location, most candidates mentioned a
town or city as their area; more detailed responses went on to describe the village hall or
community centre, local streets or similar venue. Some candidates referred to my area but
supported it by supplying an address to the letter which mentioned the area. Weaker
responses were reluctant to name the person involved (possibly responding a little too strongly
to the element of secrecy in the scenario) but this was a pity as the name of the person would
be essential in highlighting the good work and might well be needed to make sense of bullet
3. Some candidates also relied on locations such as in his house or next door to me or in my
area which remained too vague if an address was not included in the letter. A small number
mistakenly wrote about themselves as the provider of the good work; this contradicted the
wording of the scenario.
Bullet point 2 asked for a description of the good work and the benefits it brought to the
community. The responses were extremely varied and ranged from donating money to giving
shelter to homeless people. Some more extravagant gestures of help involved building
dwellings, rebuilding broken bridges, laying on a water supply and taking on the government
over the issue of faulty roads and transport systems. Some people were truly superheroes in
that they did several of these, at the same time as running a successful business and coping
with their own family. Most candidates went on to detail the benefits to the community, such
as greater co-operation, improved financial and living conditions and upgraded infrastructure
in the area. Most of these benefits were self-evident and many candidates did not labour the
point but left the benefits as implied; in such an obvious situation, this was perfectly
acceptable. Some candidates talked about the person working with a group of others which
rather contradicted the idea of the work being largely unknown. Work was sometimes
misinterpreted as a job.
Bullet point 3 proved to be the most challenging for candidates and thus was a discriminator.
The bullet was aimed at newspaper readers and those candidates who interpreted it well
encouraged the readers to donate money to the person, give their time to help the person or
perhaps contribute some building materials and clothes, depending on the circumstances of
those being helped. Some candidates suggested that readers could visit the person and
express their gratitude that such work was being done. Some responses suggested that
readers could set up similar charitable ventures at other locations and so emulate the person
and thus lead to the improvement of society. Others encouraged readers to follow the example
and thereby become more charitable in a general way. The weakest acceptable response
here was merely that readers should read the newspaper article and become aware, without
any suggestion of a more practical outcome. Some candidates confused the newspaper editor
with the newspaper readers as the target for this bullet point and expected the former to be
able to bring about unrealistic changes in the community; also, the editor was often expected
to hold a party to celebrate the person’s achievements. A significant number went further and
expected the editor to alter or improve difficult social situations.
clear about what they were doing in their responses. The purpose was to inform both the
editor and the newspaper readers in a polite way and make them aware of a situation. A very
small number of candidates misread the scenario and set the events in the future rather than
reporting on what had happened already so that it was as if the good work was being planned
and the readers were being urged to join in with the effort. This made it extremely difficult to
answer bullet 2 because they could only guess at what the benefits might be. A small, number
of candidates missed the point that the person’s work was largely unknown before this letter
to the newspaper and said that the person was loved by everyone for the work and one
response referred to a website advertising what they did. The correct audience for this task
was the editor and virtually everyone said this, although a very small number thought they
were addressing the letter directly to the newspaper readers, rather than just mentioning them
in bullet 3. In line with speaking to an adult on a serious matter, the register was very well
maintained and kept properly formal by most. The vocabulary of charity work terminology was
a helpful addition when used appropriately.
It is important to stress at this point that, although a number of weaknesses have been
identified so far in purpose, situation, tone/register, these were relatively few in number and
the task as a whole was well done by most candidates. The correct format for a formal letter
provided very many candidates with an excellent opportunity to display their understanding of
such a text. Few candidates made the mistake of providing an inappropriate valediction (From;
Regards) but a significant number forgot to provide the valediction and signature altogether.
There were relatively few examples of candidates writing reports or a newspaper article.
There was little variation in organisation, with candidates logically and sensibly following the
bullet points in the order given. There was some merging of material between bullets 1 and
2 and this was understandable. Overall, the vast majority wrote a suitable amount for Section
1 and captured the polite, formal tone and approach very well. Opinion and justification
arose naturally when bullet 3 was answered fully. There were very few short scripts in Section
1 and even fewer instances where there was no attempt at the task.
Linguistically, most candidates found it quite straightforward to produce a convincing piece of

work. Spelling was generally satisfactory. Paragraphing was also done very well indeed this
year. On the other hand, candidates seem now to struggle to see capital letters as important.
Candidates are advised to consider how this affects the proper format or style of a text. In this
text, there was some weakness in the use of tenses when some responses referred to the
work being done in the past whereas it was still ongoing. There was also a fairly widespread
confusion of the singular and plural work and works and many cases where the word works
was used instead of actions or deeds. Awared, alot instead of a lot and a good work were also
rather awkward phrases which, with a little more checking, could have been corrected. Finally,
there was too much straight lifting of the wording of the question when forming the introductory
paragraph.
7. M/J 15/P12/Q1
The Directed Writing task is assessed with equal marks given to Task Fulfilment and Language
criteria. This year, candidates had to imagine they were writing a letter to a newspaper editor,
praising a young person who had helped an elderly person who had fallen while shopping.
This topic was an extremely successful one in that there were very few major
misinterpretations of the overall situation and there were virtually no examples of candidates
not attempting the question. Candidates clearly had first-hand experience of, or had
witnessed, such an incident. To demonstrate the necessary reading skills required in the
Section 1 task, candidates had to be aware that an elderly relative of theirs was in a shopping
environment and had suffered a minor mishap. This resulted in their falling, and requiring
assistance from a young person who left the scene soon afterwards. In order to satisfy the
requirements of the bullet points this year a perfect answer had to have:
● the date of the incident and exactly how it happened

● details of what injuries were suffered and how the young person helped
● why this event was important to the wider public.
The descriptors for Task Fulfilment for Section 1 in the syllabus make clear that candidates
will be judged under headings of clear understanding of purpose, situation and audience; a
correct format for the piece of writing; appropriate tone and register; the use of information to
justify personal opinion and the sensible development and organisation of the bullet points. In
Task Fulfilment it is the development of the ideas, often the distilling of clear points, which will
gain most marks. Furthermore, it is vital to remember that candidates are not supposed to be
writing a narrative essay although there will be a need for some explanation. Therefore, the
most successful candidates clearly stated the date of the event and how the accident
happened. Usually the latter was because of slipping on some stairs or on a wet floor.
Sometimes it was the result of a faulty escalator catching some clothing, or carrying too many
bags. Quite often, the relative had not eaten and therefore fainted or what they wanted was
on a very high shelf. A large number of candidates chose to exaggerate the circumstances of
the fall, so that they wrote about robbers trying to steal from the relative or sometimes it was
the result of a speeding car or other traffic accident. While not exactly ‘wrong’, it suggests a
misreading of the task which put all the emphasis on merely falling awkwardly. A more
significant misreading was when a few candidates made the relative young, sometimes very
young, as with one example of ‘my younger cousin’ which then called into question whether
help would have been given so enthusiastically by another young person. Quite a large
number of candidates had difficulty providing the date properly and it is necessary here to
repeat the advice given in the same circumstances last year. In general, when asked for the
date (as opposed to just ‘When’), it is not enough to copy from the scenario and say ‘recently’.
Nor is it enough to say ‘last Friday’ when candidates are not asked to supply a date above
‘Dear Sir’. Obviously, if they do supply a date above ‘Dear Sir,’ then an expression like ‘last
Friday’ becomes an adequate one. Otherwise, if a date is asked for, then candidates should
give an actual date or refer to a festival or occasion which has a universal, fixed date. There
was often some good elaboration when candidates said the relative had been buying for a
particular occasion, such as a forthcoming wedding or birthday and all this helped produce a
solid paragraph. However, this elaboration only worked well when kept brief and relevant.
Weaker candidates sometimes lost focus by providing over lengthy introductions and details
of the shopping trip before the main incident.
The details given for bullet 2 regarding the injuries and the help from the young person were
extremely wide ranging. Some candidates gave inadequate answers by repeating the
expression ‘minor injuries’ but there were also very realistic details of injuries which suggested
the candidates had thought about the nature of the accident and its consequences. Such
injuries included cuts and bruises as well as sprained ankles, all of which had the ring of truth
about them. As with bullet 1 though, some candidates misread the requirement for ‘minor
injuries’ and exaggerated unnecessarily as if writing a narrative. So there were broken limbs
(often several at a time), paralysis and even a number who were close to death. This may
have appeared more exciting but candidates needed to remember that they were supposed
to be responding to a given scenario and not making one up. The help given by the young
person was mainly in line with the injuries received and so the victim was lifted to a nearby
bench, and water and medication were purchased from a nearby shop. Very often, the young
person took the victim to hospital and even paid for all the treatment received before vanishing.
Stronger responses amplified the first and second bullet points with what appeared to be
personal experience of local establishments which added tremendously to the apparent
authenticity of the responses this year. The better responses chose fewer injuries, and focused
on realistic help, whereas weaker responses merely listed as many injuries as possible.
Bullet point 3, about the importance of the episode, proved to be well done by many candidates
and often became the discriminator. Candidates correctly felt the need to thank the young
person for the help given (as suggested in the task) but then went on to show how this
example of good behaviour was a lesson to the general public in how such kindness could
benefit society as a whole. This was perfectly captured by one candidate who wrote, ‘I would
like readers to know that small acts of kindness can mean the world to someone else and that
everyone should perform their duties as a good citizen with alertness and vigilance’. Much
was made of the fact that one generation had helped another when very often the younger
generation had been thought to lack such altruism. Less successful responses did not respond
fully to the idea and simply thanked the younger person or offered a meal as a means of
thanks.
Generally, there was a very good awareness of audience and situation throughout the task.
Successful answers showed a clear awareness of the Editor as the audience; it is worth
remembering that phrases like ‘..you, as the Editor…’ help to reinforce this awareness. A few
candidates were less than clear about the audience and, having addressed the Editor for the
first two bullet points, suddenly started addressing the helpful young person for the third bullet
point. A handful of candidates, despite the instruction to start ‘To the Editor’, addressed the
whole letter to the young rescuer and so found themselves telling the young person about
events they already knew about. Although some responses were too passionate or
conversational for such a letter, the tone/register was kept formal by most, which was as
expected, and virtually everyone remained ‘polite and informative’ as instructed. Most
candidates employed a satisfactory format, mainly by ensuring that their letter was a formal
one and providing a suitably formal ending with signature. A small number of responses were
too informal (using ‘From’ in place of a suitable valediction) and some were far too friendly
(‘Regards’), given the formal nature of the writing. Some candidates relied simply on a first
name rather than a full name as a signature which was too informal and such small points took
the gloss off an otherwise worthy effort. There were also some examples of the valediction
and signature being left out altogether, and one or two examples of candidates writing about
this incident as a report. Opinion and justification were easy to cover in responding properly
to bullet point 3. Organisation varied only occasionally with virtually everyone following the
logical and chronological structure of the bullet points.
Overall, the vast majority had no difficulty in writing full answers for Section 1 and they
captured the sense of gratitude very well. Linguistically, candidates were at ease in talking
about a relative and there were enough references to medical matters to enhance the register.
Spelling was generally good. Most candidates also found little trouble in maintaining the proper
tense sequence. Paragraphing was much improved this year but there is room for further
improvement. Candidates are advised to remember that paragraphing is as essential here as
in Section 2. The advice remains, as last year, that a useful rule for this section is one
paragraph for each bullet point plus a brief introduction and conclusion. It is also worth
repeating that it is better to avoid copying sentences from the scenario. As far as vocabulary
was concerned this year, there were many candidates who relied too heavily on the wording
of the task scenario to form (with minor changes) their own first paragraphs to explain why
they were writing. Such candidates are advised to start afresh, using their own words. From
the introduction onwards, for most, the vocabulary relied less on the original and was more
authentic as a result. However, many candidates overused the verb ‘rushed’ to suggest the
seriousness of the situation so that the rescuer variously ‘rushed’ to the victim, the nearest
pharmacy, and the hospital. Also, there was, this year, a noticeable increase in the confusion
between ‘as’ and ‘when’ to denote the urgency, for example ‘As the young man arrived on the
spot, he bandaged my aunt’s arm and gave her water’ as if all these actions were taking place
at once. Finally, there was a significant increase throughout Sections 1 and 2 in the use of the
word ‘got’. This sometimes took the form of a rather inelegant main verb as in ‘she got bruises’.
Also, the word was increasingly seen as an auxiliary verb to suit all situations, as in ‘my mother
got admitted to the hospital’ so that, all in all, the word ‘got’ seemed to crop up everywhere,
including in situations where it was very awkward indeed (‘this event got a setback for the
family’).
8. M/J 15/P11/Q1
The Directed Writing task is assessed with equal marks given to Task Fulfilment and Language
criteria. Candidates had to write a letter to the parents of their classmates to outline plans for
a visit to celebrate the end of the school year. The candidates were asked to write the letter
as the class prefect. In particular, the candidates had to offer details of when and where the
class would be going, including the travel arrangements, why the class had chosen the
destination and what they would do while there, and how the class would benefit from the trip.
This was a scenario that was within the experience of the candidates, the majority of whom
responded well to the task. The scenario allowed use of a range of real and imaginary
information and this contributed greatly to the success and interest of the responses.
Section 1 is Directed Writing and so involves more reading than Section 2. In this task
candidates had to be aware that they were focusing on writing a formal and informative letter
for the specified audience, the parents of their classmates, in addition to the content of the
letter. Candidates were also instructed that they were explaining the plans for the trip. In order
to satisfy the requirements of the bullet points this year, responses needed to include:
● when and where the class would be going and details of the travel arrangements
● why the class had chosen the destination and what they would do there
● how the students would benefit from the trip.
In the first bullet point it was essential to offer a clear date and specific destination as well as
a method of transportation, whereas the second and third bullet points offered more scope to
develop ideas and explanations. Candidates were expected to offer a clear rationale behind
the choice of destination, a full itinerary of activities and clearly explain what benefits the trip
would offer the students.
The descriptors for Task Fulfilment in the syllabus make it clear that candidates will be judged
on:
● clear understanding of purpose, situation and audience

● a correct format for the piece of writing
● appropriate tone and register
● the use of information to justify opinion
● the sensible development and organisation of the bullet points.
As far as Task Fulfilment was concerned this year, the highest marks were awarded to
responses which kept their focus on the context and purpose of the letter and shaped their
writing according to the descriptors. There were few candidates this session who
misunderstood the situation, although a few suggested a trip that sounded like a community
project rather than a celebration of the end of the school year. This led to some irrelevant
considerations at times.
In Task Fulfilment it is the development of the ideas that will gain most marks. The first bullet
point was relatively clear and did not pose problems for the majority of candidates who offered
a clear date, destination and mode of transport. There were a number of candidates who were
vague about the date, offering ‘next Saturday’ or ‘at the beginning of the school holiday’ as
alternatives, but clearly this would not provide very helpful information for parents. Usually the
destination was clear, although occasionally a candidate would make a rather wide
suggestion, for example, the USA or France, without offering a more specific destination in the
country. There were also a number of candidates who did not specify a mode of transport,
simply requesting that the students meet at school to be taken to the destination. It is crucial
that candidates read the bullet points very carefully to ensure that all the required information
is offered. The second bullet point was usually explained fully; many candidates demonstrated
excellent knowledge about their choice of destination, offering details of cultural opportunities
and excursions that the students would enjoy. The best responses offered a full itinerary for
the trip with full justification of their decision to visit the place of interest. The third bullet point
was often less developed than the first two, with many candidates omitting to offer thoughtful
benefits for the students. Many responses just referred to having a good time with their
classmates, or having a rest at the end of the examination period. The more successful ones
usually alluded to the cultural benefits of the trip, or the learning opportunities that the students
would be offered, fully developing the ideas. Weaker responses often repeated the reasons
for choosing the destination in response to the third bullet point.
Therefore, the stronger candidates usually were able to amplify all three bullet points, using
relevant and imaginative ideas to develop the response. Other responses needed to
incorporate more detail in the second and third bullet points. The bullet points do not always
have to get equal treatment but it is also true that the answer should not be too unbalanced
because otherwise a bullet point might not be adequately developed.
Generally, there was a good awareness of audience and most candidates were comfortable
with the concept of writing a letter to parents. However, some candidates missed the finer
detail in the task, therefore not addressing the situation and purpose fully, resulting in a letter
which the parents would have found unhelpful. The register was kept suitably formal in most
responses. Others occasionally were too informal, referring to the students as ’kids’, or
adopted a rather pleading tone, begging the parents to allow their child to attend the trip.
However, the vast majority of candidates employed an appropriate format following the
guidance given in the rubric by adopting a polite and informative tone. The best responses
were able to balance the need to inform the parents about arrangements and details, while
also fully justifying the trip as one which would benefit their offspring. Less successful answers
were a little confusing as important details had been missed out, or occasionally there was too
much emphasis on just having fun, which did not offer scope for outlining convincing benefits
and would be unlikely to attract parental support. The majority of responses adopted an
appropriate format for a letter, opening with the salutation specified in the task and an
appropriate valediction with a signature at the end. Organisation varied, with some candidates
following the bullet points chronologically and others grouping their ideas as effectively in
another order. Candidates are advised that they need to organise their writing in appropriate
paragraphs in order to improve performance.
Overall, the vast majority wrote a suitable amount for Section 1 and captured the polite but
informative tone very well. Other responses were rather short, only just reaching the lower
word limit. Candidates need to ensure that they address the word length requirements in their
responses. Linguistically, candidates were generally at ease with vocabulary associated with
school and student excursions, although there was some confusion with the use of the future
tense when discussing a proposal for future implementation. Most candidates found little
difficulty in addressing the task to produce a convincing piece of work.
Your feedback is important to us
please give your reviews about this book by filling this form and sending us by whatsapp
Book in which this card was found Article No.
Note: Please mark with aor X

Are you satisfied by Paper, Printing & Binding quality of this book.
Are you satisfied by contents of this book.
Will you recommend this book to others.
Have you found any Mistakes in this book (if any).
Page Nos / Questions Nos where you found Mistakes
Remarks:
Note: Please give your details if you want to be added in our Loyalty discount schemes
Name Facebook Id:
Address
City Country
E-mail: Whatsapp Phone No:
Please send your feedback at +92-321-1100570, E-mail:readandwriteoffice@gmail.com
PLEASE FILL AND SEND WHATSAPP PHOTO OF THIS CARD TO RECEIVE

OUR LATEST CATALOG AND PROMOTIONAL ITEMS FREE OF CHARGE
Book in which this card was found Article No.
Check here to receive our catalog. To Send you wholesale information

Name Shop/School Name:
Address
Facebook Id: City Country
E-mail: Whatsapp Phone No:
Please check area(s) of interest to receive related announcements:

O-Level Checkpoint Primary Topical Past Papers Revision Notes Series
IGCSE Checkpoint Secondary Topical Workbooks Sciences Subjects
A-Level Kangaroo Contest Text book Series Business Subjects
Subjects: Article Nos: , , ,

Please send a catalog to my friend:
Name Company
Address Phone/Whatsapp
City Country
You can place your Order at +92-321-1100570, Website: www.readnwrite.org
E-mail:readandwriteoffice@gmail.com
E-commerce: www.Yayvo.com/read & write publications

English Language O Level Paper 1 Topical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English Language O Level Paper 1 Topical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

English Language O Level Paper 1 Topical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article No.

Title English O-Level Paper-1 Topical (Article# 451)

Published by Read & Write Publications

SECTION-I: DIRECTED WRITING ..................................................................................... 48

UNIT 1: LETTER W RITING ................................................................................................... 48

SECTION-II: COMPOSITION ........................................................................................... 160

UNIT 6: DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 160

Example Candidate Response

All candidates take two papers.

Paper 1: Writing 1 hour 30 minutes Paper 2: Reading 1 hour 45 minutes

Weighting 50% 50%

Candidate On the question paper On the question paper

Focus Task Language Task Language

Mark allocation 30 marks 30 marks 25 marks 25 marks

Weighting for 5% - 20% 25%

Assessment W1, W2, W3, W4 W1, W2, W3, W4 R3, R4 R1, R2

Example candidate response – grade A

Task Fulfilment mark = 15 out of 15

Example candidate response – grade C

Task Fulfilment mark = 12 out of 15

Examiner comment – grade C

Example candidate response – grade E

Task Fulfilment mark = 7 out of 15 Language

Examiner comment – grade E

Section 2: Creative Writing

Section-I Topic (2019-20)

Sale Point: Shop # 25-28 Lower Ground Floor,

Section-I: Directed Writing

Unit 1: Letter Writing

Linguistically, most candidates produced a convincing piece of work. Spelling (schedule,

Bullet point 1: ‘when and where the incident took place’

● why they agree that a School Council is important

Linguistically, most candidates found it quite straightforward to produce a convincing piece of

Linguistically, most candidates found it quite straightforward to produce a convincing piece of

● the date of the incident and exactly how it happened

● clear understanding of purpose, situation and audience

Note: Please mark with aor X

Are you satisﬁed by contents of this book.

Will you recommend this book to others.

Have you found any Mistakes in this book (if any).

Page Nos / Questions Nos where you found Mistakes

E-mail: Whatsapp Phone No:

Please send your feedback at +92-321-1100570, E-mail:readandwriteofﬁce@gmail.com

PLEASE FILL AND SEND WHATSAPP PHOTO OF THIS CARD TO RECEIVE

Check here to receive our catalog. To Send you wholesale information

Facebook Id: City Country

E-mail: Whatsapp Phone No:

Please check area(s) of interest to receive related announcements:

Subjects: Article Nos: , , ,

You might also like