A Hundred-Mark Essay and a Half-Remembered Quotation
The essay is worth 100 marks and the recommended time is 50 minutes. The question reads: 'Discuss the treatment of leadership in the prescribed prose text, supporting your answer with evidence from at least two parts of the text.' Cian has prepared two speeches by opposing leaders and one scene of crowd reaction. He has memorised two Latin phrases, but in the exam he cannot recall whether one is quousque tandem or quousque tandem abutere, and he is not certain it appears in the prescribed passage at all. He also believes the question 'really wants' a comparison with a modern politician and has drafted 200 words on a recent controversy. His English is strong, but his teacher has twice warned him about retelling the story instead of analysing it, and about running out of time before the conclusion.
1. Produce a five-point plan that actually answers the question rather than narrating the text.
Read the worked answer
1. Thesis, two sentences maximum. Leadership in this text is presented as a test of whether a man's authority serves the state or himself; the writer repeatedly contrasts a leader who invokes the public interest with one who treats office as personal licence. Naming the contrast in the introduction is what converts the essay from survey to argument.
2. Paragraph on leader A (first part of the text). Open with a claim: legitimate authority is presented as inseparable from self-restraint. Then evidence: a short quoted phrase with a line reference. Then analysis of how the Latin produces the impression: a loaded noun, a concessive clause that sounds fair-minded, a tricolon that makes the case feel complete. Claim, evidence, technique, in that order.
3. Paragraph on leader B (second part). Claim: the opposing leader's authority is presented as appetite dressed as policy. Same three-step analysis, different techniques (sarcasm, rhetorical question, praeteritio). This paragraph satisfies the 'at least two parts' requirement, which should be made explicit rather than left for the examiner to infer.
4. Paragraph on the crowd. Claim: the people function as the instrument by which the text measures each leader. One short quotation of their reaction, and an argument about whether their response ratifies or undermines the speaker's portrait.
5. Conclusion that weighs rather than repeats. Which portrait is more persuasive, and by what techniques has the writer stacked the case? Return to the exact wording of the question, using the word 'leadership' so the examiner can see the question has been answered.
Diagnostic. If any paragraph could be summarised as 'and then he did X', it is narration. Each paragraph must begin with a claim about treatment.
2. What should he do about the quotation he cannot fully recall, and what is the principle behind it?
Read the worked answer
Do not invent Latin. A misquoted phrase is worse than no phrase: it tells the examiner the evidence is decorative, and it may contain an ending that reveals a misunderstanding of the case.
Three safe options.
- Quote short and certain. One or two words he can spell and parse ('numquam', 'iste', 'provincia') anchor a point if the analysis is precise. Check the ending, because the examiner reads it as evidence of understanding.
- Use an exact English paraphrase plus a line reference: 'at line 74 the speaker accuses him of ..., and the accumulation of short clauses makes the charge sound exhaustive'. A precise paraphrase can carry analysis when the Latin will not come back.
- Check provenance. If the phrase comes from a speech outside the prescribed passage, it cannot be evidence 'from the text' for this question. At best it is background; presenting it as set text is a factual error an examiner will notice.
The principle. Quotation is a witness, not an ornament. One short accurate phrase, parsed and explained, earns more than three long half-remembered ones, and a wrong attribution contaminates an otherwise strong paragraph. If the words will not come, analyse the technique visible in translation and give the line number; the marker is rewarding understanding, not memory.
3. Should the 200 words on a modern politician survive? Justify your answer with reference to mark allocation and time.
Read the worked answer
Cut it to one sentence, or cut it entirely. The question's evidence requirement is textual: 'supporting your answer with evidence from at least two parts of the text'. Modern comparison earns nothing directly unless it illuminates a point about the text, and the examiner marks against text-based criteria. Relevance to today is not a criterion in itself, however intelligent the comparison.
The opportunity cost is measurable. Two hundred words is roughly eight minutes at essay pace. Eight minutes is a full analytical paragraph, which in a 100-mark essay is a large fraction of a grade band. He is trading a mark-bearing paragraph for an unmarked aside while his teacher's warnings about running out of time before the conclusion remain unresolved.
If the comparison genuinely helps, keep it to a single closing sentence, framed as a question about the text rather than a separate discussion: 'the appeal to public safety over due procedure, which the text teaches us to admire and to distrust, is the same move ...'. Never let the modern example carry an argument that should rest on a quotation.
Time budget. Fifty minutes for 100 marks: five minutes planning, forty writing five paragraphs, five checking that each paragraph has a claim, a quotation and a comment, and that the key term 'leadership' appears in the introduction and the conclusion. Writing the conclusion first in note form prevents the commonest structural failure.