Two Texts, Two Hours Fifteen: Paper 1 Triage
In a Paper 1 mock, HL candidates receive two unseen texts. Text A is a 650-word opinion column arguing that city streets should be pedestrianised; it includes a bar chart showing traffic accidents before and after a pilot scheme. Text B is a 24-line poem about a father teaching a child to ride a bicycle. Candidates have 2 hours 15 minutes and are advised by the department to spend 20 minutes reading both texts, then about 55 minutes per analysis, leaving 5 minutes to proofread. One candidate spends 40 minutes on Text A's chart and writes 1,300 words on it, then has 35 minutes for Text B. The candidate's Text A answer explains the chart's data accurately but says little about the column's ironic tone. The candidate asks whether to write a short paragraph on Text B or to merge both texts into one comparative answer. Department guidance says each analysis must respond to its guiding question and that comparison is not required.
1. What should the candidate do in the remaining 35 minutes, and why?
Read the worked answer
Do not merge the texts. Paper 1 asks for two guided textual analyses, each responding to its own guiding question; a comparative answer would likely underdevelop both and misread the task. In the remaining 35 minutes, the candidate should spend about 30 minutes writing a tight Text B analysis and 5 minutes checking. Text B should get a clear thesis about how the poem uses a small domestic scene to shape the child's or father's perspective; then three or four claims about line breaks, diction, and turn. The candidate should not try to compensate for Text A by writing a rushed comparison. If there is time, add one short paragraph to Text A on the column's ironic tone, because that is the largest gap, but prioritize a complete Text B response. A complete but concise analysis usually scores better than an unfinished or merged one. The candidate should also note that the chart explanation, however accurate, is not analysis unless it is tied to the column's argument and tone.
2. How should the candidate have handled the bar chart without letting it dominate Text A?
Read the worked answer
Treat the bar chart as one semiotic resource among several, not as the text's main content. The candidate should ask: what does the chart select, what does it omit, and how is it framed by the headline and caption? A useful paragraph might note that the chart's before-and-after design supports the column's pro-pedestrianisation argument, but the column's ironic tone may undercut or qualify that support. The candidate should analyze scale, labels, and placement only as they produce meaning. For example, a dramatic fall in accidents may be used as logos, while an ironic aside may create ethos or distance. The chart should occupy roughly one body paragraph, not 40 minutes. The candidate's error was proportional: explaining data is not the same as analyzing rhetoric. The fix is to make a claim about how verbal and visual elements cooperate or tension, then use one or two details from the chart as evidence.
3. Why is merging both texts into one comparative answer a poor choice for Paper 1?
Read the worked answer
Merging is a poor choice because Paper 1's two texts have separate guiding questions and separate mark schemes; comparison is not required. A merged answer tends to produce broad thematic links ('both texts show change') at the expense of close analysis of each text's form. It also wastes time: the candidate would have to invent a comparative frame rather than answer each prompt. Paper 2 is the comparative essay; Paper 1 is guided textual analysis. The candidate should keep the analyses separate even if both texts happen to share a theme. If the candidate wants to show awareness of contrast, a brief transition within one analysis is enough, not a unified essay. The safer judgment is to secure two complete analyses with distinct theses.