Marking a 4-mark Nasr comprehension answer: motive vs. character sketch
A Class XII internal test uses this short unseen prose passage in the Nasr section, worth 4 marks: «پیرمردی هر روز دو نان می‌خرید: یکی برای خود، یکی برای پرنده‌ای که بر بام همسایه آشیانه داشت. نانوا پرسید: «چرا؟» گفت: «سال‌ها پیش در این شهر غریب بودم و هیچ‌کس نانی به من نداد. پرنده هم غریب است.»» The question set is «انگیزهٔ پیرمرد از خرید نان دوم چه بود؟» The marking scheme allots 1 mark each for the central idea, textual evidence, character insight, and coherence of expression. Candidate R writes 38 words: 'The old man bought two loaves every day because he loved birds and animals. He was a generous man who spent his money on the bird. This shows his kindness to pets.' The paper is due back tomorrow and the teacher must award a mark and write feedback that changes how R reads such passages.
1. Award R a mark out of 4 and justify every mark given or withheld.
Read the worked answer
Mark: 1/4.
- Central idea - 0/1. The question asks why (انگیزه). R answers what kind of man he was (loved birds, generous). The passage supplies a causal chain: غریب بودم → هیچ‌کس نانی به من نداد → پرنده هم غریب است. R's 'love of birds' is not in that chain; it is an invention.
- Textual evidence - 0/1. No clause is cited or paraphrased closely. 'The bird' is not evidence; «پرنده هم غریب است» would be.
- Character insight - 1/1. 'Generous' and 'kind' are defensible inferences from the behaviour, so this element is genuinely earned even though the motive is wrong.
- Coherence - 0/1. Three short sentences that repeat one idea and end on 'pets', a word that imports a modern domestic framing absent from the text.
The diagnosis to write on the script: R has answered an adjacent question. Generosity is the result the reader infers; the passage's own explanation is remembered hunger and shared strangeness.
2. Rewrite R's answer so that it would earn full marks, and identify the exact clause that supplies the evidence.
Read the worked answer
Model answer (Persian): «پیرمرد خودش سال‌ها پیش در آن شهر غریب بود و هیچ‌کس به او نان نداده بود؛ پس چون پرنده را نیز غریب می‌دید، هر روز یک نان برای او می‌خرید. جملهٔ «پرنده هم غریب است» نشان می‌دهد که انگیزهٔ او همدلی با غربت است، نه تنها دوست داشتن پرنده‌ها.»
Why this scores 4/4:
- It answers the why question in the first clause (central idea).
- It quotes the closing sentence verbatim (textual evidence).
- It converts character into motive - empathy born of experience - instead of a free-floating adjective (character insight).
- It moves from cause to effect in one direction only, without padding (coherence).
The evidentiary clause: «پرنده هم غریب است.» The word هم is doing the work: it links the bird's condition to the speaker's own past. A full-mark answer must make that link explicit rather than merely assert kindness.
3. Which single word in the passage would you ask R to underline, and what does underlining it prove?
Read the worked answer
The word is «غریب», which occurs twice.
Underlining both occurrences makes the repetition visible, and repetition in a short passage is the author's signpost. First occurrence: «در این شهر غریب بودم». Second: «پرنده هم غریب است». The echo, plus the particle هم, establishes that the second bread is an act of recognition, not of pet-keeping.
The negative clause matters just as much: «هیچ‌کس نانی به من نداد». A competent reader notices that the old man is doing the precise thing that was not done for him. That contrast - nobody gave me bread / I give bread - is the passage's moral shape, and it is invisible to a reader who only extracts an adjective.
Feedback line for R: 'Underline every repeated word in a short passage; the author repeats what the question is about. Then check whether your answer uses that word or replaces it with one you brought from outside.'
4. R objects that 'generous' is not wrong, so the answer should not lose marks. How do you answer the objection?
Read the worked answer
The objection is fair as far as it goes: 'generous' is a true inference, which is why the character-insight mark was awarded. But the item is not a character item; it is a motive item, and motive and trait are different objects of knowledge.
Test it by substitution. If the question had been «پیرمرد چگونه مردی بود؟», R's answer would score well and would only need textual support added. If the question is «انگیزهٔ او چه بود؟», an answer must name a cause - memory, empathy, shared strangeness - because 'generous' describes a disposition, not a reason for an action on a particular morning.
Tell R the practical rule: read the interrogative word first (چرا / چگونه / چه / کی), and shape the first clause of the answer to that word. Persian comprehension items in the Nasr section routinely pair a 'why' question with a passage that also supports a 'what kind of person' answer; the trap is that the second answer is easier to write and feels complete.