AQA Paper 2 Question by Question

Both are original passages written for this page, in the pattern Paper 2 uses: one 19th-century, one modern, on the same subject. Neither is an AQA source.

Source A (19th century, original RCF passage): from a letter on the walking of long distances, 1871

I am told by my nephew that the young men of this age no longer walk, and that where a journey of eight or ten miles is proposed they will contrive by some ingenuity to be carried. I do not doubt him. I observe it myself upon the roads.

It is said in their defence that time is short and business presses. I have heard this argument for forty years and I have never yet met the man whom it made happier. A journey on foot is not lost time. It is the only portion of the day in which a man is obliged to think consecutively, having nothing else whatever to do, and I hold that the quality of a man's thinking may be measured tolerably well by the number of miles he has walked alone.

There is besides the matter of the country itself. He who is carried through a district has seen it; he who has walked it knows it. He knows which of its hills is steeper than it looks, where the wind comes from, and which of its villages is glad to see a stranger. This is not knowledge of an ornamental kind. It is the only sort worth the name, being got by the body as well as the mind.

Source B (21st century, original RCF passage): from a magazine column on walking to work

For eleven weeks last year I walked to work. Fifty minutes each way, in weather that was frankly not always on my side, and I would like to report that it changed me. It did not change me. I am the same person, only with better calves and a slightly resentful relationship with rain.

What it did do was give me back a stretch of the day that nobody could book a meeting in. That turns out to be the whole of the benefit, and it is a considerable one. I did not have profound thoughts. Mostly I thought about lunch. But I thought about lunch at my own speed, which after four years of being interrupted every eleven minutes felt close to a holiday.

I am aware that this makes a poor advertisement. The people who write about walking tend to come back transfigured, striding down from some hill with their priorities rearranged. I came back with a damp coat. All I can honestly claim is that the fifty minutes were mine, and that when I stopped walking I noticed their absence more than I had noticed their presence.

What it is for and what it is worth

AO1. Eight statements are given about a numbered section of Source A, and you shade the boxes of the four that are true. 4 marks. RCF recommendation: about 5 minutes.

The method

1. Read only the lines the question names.
2. Test each statement against the text, not against what sounds reasonable.
3. Reject any statement that is nearly right - a single changed word makes it false.
4. Shade exactly four. Shading five can cost you a mark you had already earned.

Common mistakes

• Choosing a statement that is true of the world but not stated in those lines.
• Choosing one that appears later in the source, outside the named lines.
• Marking more than four boxes.
• Spending ten minutes on four marks.

What it is for

AO1: select and synthesise evidence from different texts. You are asked for a summary of the differences or similarities between two things across both sources. It is a reading question, not a language question - do not analyse method here.

Marks and time

8 marks. RCF recommendation: about 8 minutes. The specimen mark scheme's top band for this question is 7-8 marks and rewards perceptive synthesis and interpretation of both texts.

The method: state, evidence, infer, link

1. State the difference in your own words.
2. Give a short quotation from Source A.
3. Give a short quotation from Source B.
4. Infer - say what each quotation suggests. This is where the higher marks are.
5. Repeat for a second and third difference.

Worked example

Write a summary of the differences between what the two writers gain from walking.

The first writer believes walking improves the quality of a person's thinking, while the modern writer claims almost the opposite. The 1871 writer holds that "the quality of a man's thinking may be measured tolerably well by the number of miles he has walked alone", which suggests he sees walking as a discipline that produces better thought. The columnist reports that she "did not have profound thoughts" and "mostly thought about lunch", which suggests she found no such improvement and is unwilling to pretend she did.

They also differ in what they think walking teaches. The older writer values the knowledge of a place got "by the body as well as the mind", implying that walking gives a kind of understanding that being carried cannot. The columnist says nothing about knowing her route at all; what she gained was "a stretch of the day that nobody could book a meeting in", which suggests she values walking for the time it protects rather than for anything it reveals.

Finally, they differ in confidence. The first writer states his views as settled truths - "I hold that", "It is the only sort worth the name". The columnist undercuts hers - "this makes a poor advertisement", "All I can honestly claim" - which suggests a writer more interested in being accurate than persuasive.

Practice (original RCF task)

Write a summary of the differences between the two writers' attitudes to other people's opinions of walking. Use both sources. About 8 minutes.

What it is for

AO2, on one named source only. The question states the purpose the language serves - to influence, to persuade, to convey feeling - and asks how the writer's language does it. Answering on the wrong source scores nothing, so check which one is named.

Marks and time

12 marks - half as much again as Paper 1 Question 2. RCF recommendation: about 12 minutes. The specimen mark scheme's top band is 10-12 marks and rewards detailed and perceptive understanding of language.

The method: the same as Paper 1 Q2, but four points and deeper

The extra four marks are not bought with extra quotations. They are bought by taking each quotation further - a second reading of a word, an observation about how one choice works against another, a comment on the cumulative effect across the extract.

1. Four short quotations rather than three.
2. For each: what the writer is doing, and the effect on the reader.
3. For at least two: a second layer - why that word rather than a near-synonym.
4. One closing sentence on the overall effect of the language across the whole extract.

Worked example (first two paragraphs)

How does the writer of Source B use language to convey her attitude to walking?

The writer's most consistent tool is deflation. She sets up an expectation and then punctures it: "I would like to report that it changed me. It did not change me." The second sentence is a flat repetition of the first with the verb reversed, and the plainness is the point - a writer wanting to convince us would have found a more graceful way to say it. The refusal of grace signals that she is more interested in being truthful than in being inspiring.

Her humour works the same way. She reports gaining "better calves and a slightly resentful relationship with rain", pairing a physical benefit with an emotional one that is deliberately trivial. "Resentful" is doing more than it appears to: it gives the rain a personality and gives her a grudge, which makes the whole eleven weeks sound like an argument she was having with the weather rather than a spiritual exercise. The effect is to keep the reader on her side while she declines to make the usual claims.

Practice (original RCF task)

How does the writer of Source A use language to try to persuade the reader that walking is valuable? Four developed paragraphs. About 12 minutes.

Indicative content for the practice task

• "contrive by some ingenuity to be carried" - the elaborate phrasing mocks the effort young men put into avoiding effort.
• "I have heard this argument for forty years and I have never yet met the man whom it made happier" - the long clause and the personal testimony present opinion as accumulated evidence.
• "He who is carried through a district has seen it; he who has walked it knows it" - the balanced pair of clauses makes the distinction sound self-evident rather than argued.
• "not knowledge of an ornamental kind" - dismissing the alternative as decorative implies his own view is practical, which is harder to disagree with.
• Overall: the writer's certainty is created by structure - balanced sentences, flat assertions, no qualification anywhere.

What it is for

AO3: compare writers' ideas and perspectives, and how these are conveyed, across two texts. Both halves are marked. An answer that compares only the attitudes, or only the methods, has answered half the question.

Marks and time

16 marks. RCF recommendation: about 20 minutes - the largest share of the section. The specimen mark scheme's top band is 13-16 marks and rewards perceptive, detailed comparison of ideas and perspectives.

The method: one paragraph, both writers

The single most useful rule for this question: never write a paragraph about only one source. Each paragraph names a point of difference and handles both writers inside it.

1. Name the difference in attitude in your first sentence.
2. Writer A's attitude, with a short quotation, and the method that conveys it.
3. Writer B's attitude, with a short quotation, and the method that conveys it.
4. A sentence weighing them - who is more forceful, more honest, more likely to convince, and why.
5. Three paragraphs of this shape is a full answer.

Worked example (one full paragraph)

Compare how the two writers convey their different attitudes to walking.

The two writers differ most in how certain they allow themselves to sound. The 1871 writer conveys his attitude through unqualified assertion: "It is the only sort worth the name", he says of knowledge got on foot, and the absolute "only" leaves the reader no room to hold a different view politely. His balanced sentence structures - "he who is carried ... he who has walked" - present a personal preference in the shape of a proverb, which makes disagreement feel like disagreeing with common sense. The modern writer conveys her attitude by removing certainty wherever it appears. "All I can honestly claim" concedes the smallness of her case before the reader can object to it, and the admission that her account "makes a poor advertisement" turns a weakness into evidence of honesty. The older writer therefore persuades by sounding authoritative and the modern writer by sounding trustworthy - and because she has already agreed her claim is modest, she is the harder of the two to argue with.

Practice (original RCF task)

Compare how the two writers convey their different attitudes to what walking is good for. Three paragraphs, both writers in each. About 20 minutes.