Five-Mark Prose Comprehension: Penalising an Unsupported Causal Claim
An internal pre-board paper for Class X sets a five-mark comprehension question on an unseen prose passage about a village school that closes after the teacher leaves. The instruction limits the answer to about 60 words. Student A writes 95 words: a correct central idea, a paraphrase of two supporting details, and one sentence-'the school closed because the government wanted to punish the village'-that is not supported by the passage. The mark scheme awards 3 for central idea, 1 for each of two supporting details, and deducts 1 for a factual error, but says nothing about exceeding the word limit. Six of 42 scripts contain similar unsupported inference. The head examiner must decide whether to apply the deduction, whether the length overrun should cost marks, and what written feedback will teach the skill without penalising a genuine attempt.
1. Student A's unsupported sentence: should it attract the 1-mark factual-error deduction, and what is the final score? Show how you separate central idea, supported detail, and unsupported inference.
Read the worked answer
Apply the deduction: final score 4/5. The central idea-the school declines after the teacher leaves-is present and paraphrased, so 3 marks stand. The two supporting details are traceable to the passage, so 2 marks stand. The sentence about government punishment is not an inference from the text; it invents a motive and presents it as fact. The mark scheme's phrase 'factual error' covers statements contrary to or absent from the passage when they are offered as textual fact. However, do not treat every extra sentence as an error: an inference would be acceptable if hedged ('the villagers seem abandoned') and tied to a phrase. Here the causal claim 'because the government wanted to punish' has no textual anchor. Record the reason on the script-'unsupported causal claim, not in passage'-so moderation is consistent across the six similar scripts. The deduction is for the error, not for disagreeing with the student.
2. The answer is 35 words over the 60-word guide. How should the six overlong scripts be marked, and what feedback sentence should replace a blunt 'too long'?
Read the worked answer
Treat 'about 60 words' as a guide, not a cap, because the scheme attaches marks only to content and error. Do not deduct for length unless the overrun introduces repetition, irrelevant material, or leaves a question unanswered. Here the overrun contains the error, already penalised; a second penalty would double-count. For the six scripts, check whether the extra words add unsupported claims (apply the factual-error rule), repetition (ignore), or better explanation (reward under content). Feedback should name the reader's task: 'Your central idea is clear; cut the last two sentences, which guess at motives the passage does not give, and use the space to quote the line about the teacher's transfer.' This teaches selective evidence. In the moderation note, add: 'Length is not a marking criterion; penalise only unsupported content or loss of focus.' That keeps marking defensible if a guardian asks.
3. Draft a 5-mark rubric addendum that distinguishes 'supported inference' from 'unsupported assertion' for this passage, with one example of each.
Read the worked answer
Add one row to the rubric: 'Use of evidence (within the 3 central-idea marks)'. 3 = central idea plus at least one phrase from the passage; 2 = central idea with general support but no quotation; 1 = topic named, support vague; 0 = no relevant idea. Then a separate error rule: unsupported assertion = a statement about cause, motive, or outcome that cannot be checked against the passage and is presented as fact; deduct 1 once per answer, not per sentence. Supported inference example: 'The village seems poor because the passage says the school roof was patched with tin sheets.' Unsupported assertion example: 'The government closed the school to punish the village.' The difference is the anchor phrase and the hedging verb 'seems'. Train students to write 'the passage suggests... because it says...' This rubric keeps the 5 marks content-based and makes the error rule auditable.