Plot Summary Versus Character Evidence in a Four-Mark Prose Answer
In the prescribed prose section of a KSEAB SSLC Persian mock paper, a four-mark question asks: ‘What does the merchant’s decision to give the old man his own coat reveal about the merchant? Support your answer with two details from the lesson.’ The candidate has memorised a 90-word plot summary. Under exam pressure he reproduces it: the merchant’s journey, the cold night, the old man shivering, the merchant’s coat, and the ending. The summary mentions the coat once and uses the word ‘kind’ twice, but never links the coat to a trait. He has nine minutes and eight ruled lines. The marking scheme awards four marks as follows: two for a valid character trait, one for each of two supporting details. The question also says ‘do not quote more than six words at a time.’ The candidate worries that without the full story the examiner will not understand his point.
1. Why would the summary earn at most two of four marks? Rewrite the answer in four or five sentences within the line limit.
Read the worked answer
The summary probably earns the trait mark, because ‘kind’ is a valid trait, but it does not earn both detail marks. The coat is mentioned only once, and the answer never explains how giving the coat demonstrates the trait. Chronology is not evidence: the journey, the cold night and the ending are background, not two selected supports. A fuller answer must name a trait, then attach two details to it. Model: «تاجر مهربان و بخشنده است. او در شب سرد پالتوی خود را به پیرمرد لرزان داد. او این کار را بدون اینکه چیزی بخواهد انجام داد. این رفتار نشان میدهد که آسایش دیگری را بر آسایش خود ترجیح میدهد.» This stays within four sentences and eight lines. It gives the trait, the action, and a short link. The candidate should not retell the journey unless a detail is needed to explain why the coat mattered.
2. The candidate wants to add a third detail and a personal opinion to be safe. Should he? Explain with reference to the eight-line limit and the mark scheme.
Read the worked answer
He should not add both. The mark scheme caps the detail marks at two, so a third detail earns nothing extra and uses lines that are better spent making the link explicit. A personal opinion is also outside the question, which asks what the decision reveals and which details support that reading. In eight lines, a trait sentence, two details and one explanatory sentence already fill the space comfortably. Adding a third plot event risks turning the answer back into a summary, and adding an opinion risks sounding like a value judgement rather than textual analysis. If he has spare space, he should strengthen the explanation of the second detail - for example, by showing that the cold night made the gift costly to the merchant - rather than introduce new material. Exam safety comes from matching the mark scheme, not from adding volume.
3. If he cannot recall the exact words of the lesson, how should he paraphrase without losing marks?
Read the worked answer
He should preserve the factual relationship rather than the wording: who did what, to whom, and under what condition. The examiner is looking for a trait and two details, not a quotation. Simple Persian is safer than a half-remembered literary phrase. For example, instead of trying to reproduce a long sentence, he can write «پالتوی خود را به پیرمرد داد» and «شب سرد بود و پیرمرد میلرزید». These paraphrases keep the action and the circumstance, which are the two supports. He must avoid inventing motives that the lesson does not state, such as saying the merchant expected a reward. He should also keep any short quotation under six words, as the question instructs. A paraphrase that keeps the action clear and the link to the trait explicit will score better than a memorised summary that drifts away from the question.