Structuring a Response to an Unseen Passage
A student faces an unseen prose passage of about 350 words and must write a critical response in 40 minutes. The passage is third person, past tense, with one long sentence of 60 words followed by several of four or five words. The student's instinct is to write paragraph by paragraph through the passage, commenting on each in turn. Her practice essays have been marked down for 'description rather than analysis' and for 'feature-spotting without purpose'. She has written an opening sentence: 'The passage uses long and short sentences to create tension.'
1. Diagnose why chronological commentary and the opening sentence both fail the analysis criterion.
Read the worked answer
Chronological commentary follows the passage's order rather than an argument's order, so the response reports what happens next instead of establishing a claim and testing it. The marker sees coverage without a thesis, which reads as description. Feature-spotting compounds this: naming 'long and short sentences' identifies a technique but not its function, so the observation could be pasted onto any passage.
The opening sentence fails for the same reason. 'Creates tension' is a default effect claimed rather than demonstrated, and it does not say whose tension, what kind, or how the alternation produces it. It also commits the student to a single effect before she has examined the 60-word sentence, which may be doing something more specific - accumulating qualifications, delaying a verb, or burying an agent. A thesis should be a claim about the passage's work that the evidence can complicate.
2. Propose a structure and a replacement opening that would satisfy the analysis criterion, explaining each choice.
Read the worked answer
Replacement opening: 'The passage's swollen 60-word sentence delays its verb until the actor is almost lost, and the clipped sentences that follow read as the narrator's attempt to recover control; the prose thus dramatises a mind managing a situation it has already failed to master.'
Structure: (1) thesis as above; (2) analyse the long sentence - syntax, delayed verb, accumulation, what is withheld; (3) analyse two short sentences as a contrast that modifies the thesis, not a separate point; (4) one paragraph on a non-syntactic feature (lexical register, focalisation) that complicates or extends the claim; (5) a short conclusion stating what the passage achieves that a paraphrase would miss.
Justification: every paragraph advances one argument, so nothing is mere description. The contrast paragraph prevents feature-spotting by making each technique answer the thesis. The complication paragraph shows the student can be surprised by evidence, which markers reward over a thesis restated three times. The conclusion returns to effect, but now earned.