Judging a Character's Mixed Motive in a Prescribed Prose Episode
An HSC candidate is answering a six-mark prescribed-prose question: «این ماجرا چه چیزی دربارهٔ شخصیت تاجر نشان می‌دهد؟ دو دلیل از متن بیاورید.» The episode reads: «تاجر گفت: این سه سکه را به همسایه بدهید، ولی به او نگویید که از من است. سپس در را بست و به مهمانانش گفت که چیزی برای دادن ندارد.» The mark scheme awards two marks for evidence of generosity, two for concern with reputation or public face, and two for linking both to the theme of mixed motive. The candidate writes only: «تاجر بخشنده است، چون سه سکه به همسایه داد» and scores 3/6. A second candidate writes only: «تاجر مغرور است، چون کمک خود را پنهان کرد» and scores 4/6. The teacher returns both scripts without comments and asks the class to act as examiners. The candidate has 12 minutes to revise the answer and must use exactly two textual details.
1. Why does each one-label answer lose marks, even though each cites a real detail?
Read the worked answer
Because the episode presents two actions that pull in different directions. The first answer cites the three coins, which is real evidence of generosity, but it ignores the command «نگویید» and the public statement «چیزی برای دادن ندارد». The second answer cites the concealment, which is real evidence of concern for face, but it ignores that the merchant actually transfers three coins to the neighbor. The mark scheme rewards both sides, not one. A one-label answer is underdetermined by the evidence: it selects one detail and suppresses the other.
2. Write the full six-mark answer in about 50 words, using two details.
Read the worked answer
«تاجر هم بخشنده است و هم به آبروی خود اهمیت می‌دهد. سه سکه را به همسایه می‌دهد، اما می‌خواهد نامش فاش نشود؛ سپس به مهمانان می‌گوید چیزی ندارد. بخشش واقعی است، ولی با پنهان‌کاری و حفظ وجهه همراه شده است.» This uses the coins and the public denial, and it links them to mixed motive rather than choosing one label.
3. What theme does the episode support, and why is «ریاکاری» too strong a label?
Read the worked answer
The theme is generosity entangled with reputation: the merchant gives, but he manages how others see him. «ریاکاری» is too strong because hypocrisy would require no real help, or a false claim of virtue. Here the help is real, even if it is hidden. The precise claim is «بخشنده اما محتاط دربارهٔ آبرو», not «متقلب». A good answer names both the act and the motive, and it avoids replacing textual judgement with a moral insult.