Directed Writing

What Section A asks

Forty marks, compulsory, based on one or two texts of 550–650 words. The task now has two parts, and only one of them existed before 2027.

Note where the weight sits

Twenty-five of forty marks are writing marks — and unlike Paper 1 Question 4, W5 is assessed here. Spelling, punctuation and grammar earn marks of their own on this paper. This changes how you should spend the last three minutes: on Paper 1, re-reading for accuracy is prudent; here it is paid.

The new 1(a)

Five marks, two objectives, and no legacy equivalent whatsoever. This is the most exploitable question on either paper.

What R3 and R4 want here

The question is structured — it will tell you what to look at. But the two objectives behind it never change: R3 asks is the argument any good? Where is it strong? Where does it overreach, or assume what it should prove, or ignore an obvious objection? R4 asks how is the writer working on me? Which word choices, which selections, which rhetorical moves are designed to bring you round? Both require you to stand outside the text rather than inside it — the opposite posture from Paper 1 Question 4.

Worked example — 1(a), five marks

Using Text B, The Case for the Slow Street: analyse how the writer attempts to persuade the reader, and evaluate how convincing you find the argument. [5]

R4 — a rhetorical move: the writer opens by making the status quo strange — children "driven four hundred metres to school" — so the reader is disturbed by something previously invisible, before any argument is offered. R4 — a loaded word: the evidence is "wearily consistent"; wearily pre-frames disagreement as tiresome and settled. R3 — a genuine strength: the argument concedes against itself, admitting that objectors "are frequently correct", which costs the writer nothing and buys enormous trust. R3 — the weakness: the central claim is asserted, not evidenced — "the slow street will win eventually, because the alternative is a place nobody wants to live" is a prediction dressed as a reason.

Using and evaluating

Three verbs govern 1(b): use, develop, evaluate. None of them is "summarise", and the ten reading marks are awarded on exactly that distinction.

The three moves that earn the reading marks

01 Use — take a specific idea from the text and deploy it in your own argument, in your own words, for your own purpose. 02 Develop — push it further than the text did: a consequence it did not mention, a case it did not consider, a group it forgot. 03 Evaluate — say what is wrong with it, or what it assumed, or where it was strongest, then use that judgement to strengthen your own case.

Where to look for the crack in any argument

Any one of these, turned into a paragraph, is worth more than three paragraphs of agreement. And note: you do not have to disagree with the text. Evaluating an argument you support — finding its weakest link and repairing it — is often the most sophisticated response available.

The four forms

Four forms, not six. The journal and the interview do not appear on this paper — and the report, which does, is new.

The report, in detail — because it is new

A report is not a persuasive essay with headings bolted on. Its conventions carry meaning, and examiners will read them as evidence of W4: findings precede recommendations — a recommendation that does not follow from a stated finding is opinion, and looks like it; the writer is largely absent — "it was found that…" rather than "I strongly believe…", though emotion may be reported ("residents expressed anger") without being performed; and it exists to be acted upon — if your report ends in a sentiment, it has failed. Counter-intuitively, this restraint is powerful. A calm report saying that a policy is unworkable is far more damaging than a furious letter saying the same.