Coursework: Choosing Evidence Under a Word Limit
For Unit 4 coursework, students write an analytical response in Chinese of about 250-300 characters on a topic drawn from their study of a Chinese-language film. Hana has three strong scenes she wants to analyse, plus background on the director, plus a comparison with another film. Her draft is 520 characters. Her teacher says the analysis is 'descriptive rather than analytical' and that she has tried to do too much. Hana worries that cutting material will make her response look thin and reduce her range of vocabulary.
1. Explain the difference between descriptive and analytical writing in this context, using Hana's draft.
Read the worked answer
Description reports what happens; analysis explains how and why it matters to the film's meaning. Hana's draft likely retells scenes and lists background, which shows familiarity but not interpretation. Analytical writing would take one or two scenes and argue what they reveal, for example how a recurring image or a shift in camera perspective shapes the audience's sympathy for a character. The word limit is not the cause of the problem; over-inclusion is a symptom of not having decided what the response is arguing. Choosing a thesis first would let her cut background that does not serve it.
2. Recommend what Hana should cut and keep, and justify the choice.
Read the worked answer
She should cut the director background unless a specific biographical detail is needed to support an interpretive claim, and drop the comparison with the second film unless it is doing analytical work; a token comparison adds length without depth. She should keep two scenes that can be contrasted, and build the response around what the contrast reveals. The third scene can be sacrificed or mentioned in a clause. This concentrates analysis and makes room for interpretive language, which is where vocabulary range is actually demonstrated. Range shown in service of an argument scores better than range spread across disconnected description.
3. Address Hana's concern that cutting will make the response look thin.
Read the worked answer
Thinness is a function of insufficient analysis, not insufficient content. A 280-character response that makes a clear claim, supports it with closely read detail, and acknowledges a complication will read as fuller than a 520-character survey. Hana can protect against thinness by going deeper on her two scenes: quoting or describing specific moments, explaining their effect, and linking them to her overall claim. She should also use precise analytical vocabulary rather than more vocabulary. The judgement is that concision disciplined by argument signals control, while length without focus signals uncertainty about what matters.