Q) Read again the first part of the source, from lines 1 to 4.
List four things about the hotel from this part of the source.

1. The clerk was smiling
2. The bedroom felt like their own
3. Laura's things were arranged neatly on the dressing table
4. The hotel had an atmosphere of excitement

Q)Look in detail at this extract, from lines 1 to 10 of the source.

How does the writer use language here to describe the scene?
You could include the writer’s choice of:

- words and phrases
- language features and techniques
- sentence forms.

The writer describes the scene as fun and happy in the quote, "They went out laughing". The verb, "laughing" is often associated with happiness and feeling content, laughing is also very contagious, as proved by the use of the collective pronoun, "they". Therefore, the reader may share the laughter expressed in the extract, and get lost in the scene, feeling the happiness that this extract possesses, acting as a form of pleasurable escapism for a reader.

The writer also portrays the peaceful, harmonious atmosphere of the scene in the quote, "Lights everywhere, blending with the darkness". The juxtaposition of light blending with darkness presents the idea of two vast opposites harmonising together, evoking a feeling of peace for a reader.

Q)You now need to think about the whole of the source.



How has the writer structured the text to interest you as a reader? You could write about:

• what the writer focuses your attention on at the beginning of the source
• how and why the writer changes this focus as the source develops
• any other structural features that interest you.

The extract begins with acalm description of teh setting, "welcoming, comfortable air" - the characters, John and Laura, are feeling relaxed at this point in the extract. The writer has positioned the reader to feel hopeful for the couple, especially after the recent tragic events with the loss of their daughter.

Later, the tension heightens when John forgets how to get home. The writer uses a rhetorical question, "Which one was it they had walked down before?" to make the reader feel the same hesitation that John feels at this point in the extract. The tension of uncertaincy increases when John and Laura begin to disagree with each other over which way to go. the heated debate only creates more uncertaincy as both characters believe that they are correct.

The tension intensifies when the night time settles in and the city begins to die down, with a feeling of solitary abandonment for the characters John and Laura, "The scene appreared different, neglected poor, ... looking like coffins". The changes of scenery and mood create a mysterious atmosphere.

Q) Focus this part of your answer on the second part of the source, from line 20 to the end.

A student said, ‘In this part of the text, the writer creates a sense of danger to instill fear in a reader’

To what extent do you agree? In your response, you could:

• consider the plot of the story
• evaluate how the writer presents danger in the extract
• support your response with references to the text.

I agree with the statement. To begin with, the writer creates a sense of danger through the description of the canal - it is "narrow", there are also, "long and narrow boats". The repeated idea of narowness triggers the horror of claustrophobia. This is echoes when the writer describes the cellar entrances as "looking like coffins". Coffins create a fear of claustrophobia as they are small enclosed boxes, only big enough to stuff a body in, no room to move around. The use of this claustrophobic feeling relates to how Laura feels closed in. The use of claustrophobia also evokes a sense of horror in a reader, as most humans have a serious fear of tight spaces.

The writer then creates a sense of danger when Laura exclaims, "I swear I don't remeber this bridge" showing that she is lost. The idea of neig completely lost, at night, in a foreign place is a nightmarish scenario, one that would terrify any reader.

There is an aditional sense of danger when they here a scream. For a place that had been described as neglected and dead to suddenly be disrupted by a loud scream would be heard as a great shock. The total unexpectedness of hearing a scream woud be very firghtening for the characters, and make a reader feel scared for them.

Nevertheless, the fear is dismissed and danger overted when it is revealed that the screamer is jsut a little girl. A little girls is the perfect character to break the tension because childhood and femininity are associated with innocence and are generally seen as non-threatening. This allows a release of tension for the reader, because the threat of danger has been eliminated.

Q) Write a story about a street at night time

The pit-pat of the hellfire rain colliding against the impermeable pavement overwhelmed my eardrums as I stepped off the bus, calling back, "Thank you!" to the driver, but receiving no reply. The moment my feet hit the ground, the bus shot off down the barren high street and disappeared down a bare side street, as if the driver couldn't leave the scene fast enough. Now soaked to the core, I wondered at this ghost town. The warm orange glow of the streetlamps shone against the run-down storefronts, highlighting their eerie spookiness. Staring up, a blanket of darkness covered the sky above me, concealing distant secrets.

The time: 11:57 pm. Three minutes to go.

I placed down and ripped open my waterlogged rucksack, pulling out and putting on my plate carrier, followed by my black ski mask adorned with a skull and crossbones.

11:58 pm. Two minutes to go.

Out I pulled the final piece of my plan, its long blade shimmering under the streetlight - a symbol of light in a street so dark. The razor edge sliced through the raindrops as they fell.

11:59 pm. One minute to go.

Leaving my rucksack behind, I made for the supermarket, running across the road quickly yet carefully, avoiding any puddles as I went. Without stopping, I barged straight through the supermarket doors. The echo of glass shards smashing was dwarfed by the piercing scream of the alarm. It was perfect. A distraction. My heart now beating out of my chest and breath racing, I left the shop just as quickly as I had entered, turning down a tight alleyway as I went. Hiding there, I tried to remain as calm as I could.

12:00 am. It was time.

Off in the distance, I heard it. The roar of a mighty engine, more powerful than the loudest thunder. Then I saw the street light up, undoubtedly from its headlights, so powerful they could drown out the sun. Louder and brighter, it became as it hastily crept closer until all was silent. The silence, so eerie, left a terribly ironic ringing in my head, poisoning my ability to think. The silence was broken at last as a deep voice gave commands. "Check that building," he ordered in his villainous Russian accent. Then followed a series of footsteps, chanting in rhythm along with the rattle of armor, clanking up and down from the force of their motion.

As the footsteps grew louder, I pressed myself against the cold, damp wall of the alleyway, every muscle tense, my heart pounding in my ears. The rain continued its relentless assault, masking my breathless gasps. Peeking around the corner, I saw the men emerge from the shadows, their armored figures moving with military precision.

Their leader, a hulking figure with a scar running down his face, barked orders in rapid Russian. The men fanned out, their flashlights slicing through the darkness. I had to move quickly; my window of opportunity was closing.

Clutching the knife tightly, I edged back out toward the shop, my mind racing. Just as I was about to break from my hiding spot, a flashlight beam swept across the alleyway, catching the edge of my coat. I froze, hoping the shadows would conceal me. The beam lingered for a moment, then moved on. I exhaled slowly, inching forward until I was at the very edge of the alley.

A sudden noise, the shattering of a bottle, echoed from the far end of the street. The men turned their attention toward the sound, moving in its direction. Seizing the distraction, I leapt out of my hiding spot and headed straight for their tank. Only two men remained guarding the beast. Two men, that's all. I can take two men. I kept telling myself in an attempt of reassurance. Catching them off-guard, I slashed at one man's back with my knife. He screamed out in pain, his eyes flickering, his body twitching. It was a clean cut, gone right threw him. The other guard, having heard my violent rampage ensue, came at me. Groaning a bear-like battlecry like a petrifying maniac. His eyes were wild, his face contorted in fury. He swung his rifle at me, aiming to crush my skull. I ducked, the rifle narrowly missing my head, and lunged forward, driving my blade into his thigh. Blood sprayed out, warm and thick, staining the pavement. He roared in agony, but the pain only seemed to fuel his rage. With an almight gasp, he yanked the knife out of his flesh and threw it aside. Blood gushed from the wound, but he didn't seem to care. He lunged at me again, this time wrapping his massive hands around my throat. His grip tightened, crushing my windpipe. I gasped for air, my vision blurring. Desperate, using all of my might, I gently slid my knife into his side. His grip loosened, and I drove the blade in deeper, twisting it. The sound of tearing flesh and cracking ribs filled the air. Blood poured from the wound, soaking my hands. He staggered back, his eyes wide with shock and pain.But he wasn't done yet. With a final, desperate effort, he swung at me again. I dodged, slashing at his arm. The blade sliced through muscle and tendon, nearly severing his limb. He screamed, a high-pitched, animalistic sound, and fell to his knees. I stood over him, panting, blood dripping from my knife. The man looked up at me, his face pale, his eyes filled with fear and hatred. How could a man so terrifying seem so soft? I did what I had to do, with a swift, brutal motion, I drove the knife into his throat. Blood erupted from the wound, spraying across my face. He gurgled, choking on his own blood, and collapsed onto the pavement. stood there for a moment, chest heaving, covered in blood. The rain washed over me, the water running red. The tank loomed ahead, its monsterous silohuette dominating the street. I couldn't stop now. I ran straight for it, clambered in, and drove off down the street. Another mission complete. Just another threat eliminated. That's just what I do in the SAS.

Q) Read again the first part of Source A from lines 1 to 4.
Choose four statements below which are true.

Q)You need to refer to Source A and Source B for this question.

Both writers talk about the use of makeup.
Use details from both sources to write a summary of what you understand about the differences of the use of makeup between the two sources.

In source A, the name for makeup products to made up to conceal the unappealing chemicals that makeup is made up of in order to attract buyers and users. For example, a "calming face mist". However, in source B, the chemical, "arsenic" is mentioned, along with a mention that it is commonly used as poison. This is much less concealing of the potentially dangerous chemicals, perhaps because people in 1899 had much lower health standards than people at present.

In source A, the article is attempting to attract men to use makeup, whereas, in source B, the aricle is attempting to attract more women to use makeup.

Q)You now need to refer only to Source A from lines 16 to 23.



How does the writer use language to describe the makeup process?

The writer uses the hyperbole, "my bathroom cabinet is full of this nonsense", this suggests that the writer has no interest or appreciation for makeup, making it relatable for most men, who will probably have no interest or knowledge of makeup.

The writer uses the simile, "I feel like a child who has just discovered how a magician does his tricks" to share his feelings of excitement and prior ignorance for discovering his love for makeup. A magician uses illusions to conceal secrets, similar to how makeup conceals secrets.

Q) For this question, you need to refer to the whole of Source A, together with the whole of Source B.

Compare how the writers convey their different attitudes towards using cosmetics and other products.

In your answer, you could:

• compare their different feelings and perspectives on their adventures
• compare the methods the writers use to convey their feelings and perspectives
• support your response with references to both texts.

In source A, the writer directs his attitudes of makeup toward men. Throughout the source, he is attempting to convince men of the benefits of makeup. He opens with the short sentence, "I'm looking at the man in the mirror" to instantly make clear that he is a man. I think that this opener is an attempt to allow other men to relate, making them think of when they look at themselves in the mirror, allowing the reader to question wether they are satisfied with their own appearance. In this sentence, the writer does not make clear whether he likes what he sees of himslef in the mirror, leading the reader a desire to find out what he really thinks. He then goes on to say, "And he looks great, to be honest." instantly letting the reader know that he is for some reason satisfied, even thrilled with how he looks. The word, "honest" builds a trust as to believe that what he is saying is true. However, the reader is now left with a different question, why does this man look so good? This question is answered later in the source when he reveals that the reason that he looks so good is due to his new use of makeup. All of the above creates a positive, praising attitude towards makeup.

In comparison, in source B, the writer directs his attitudes of makeup toward women. Unlike the wirter of source A, he has no personal experience in the use of makeup, making his opinions less credible. He is very forceful in his opinions when he says, "So ought women to make up? Certainly they ought." This makes his beliefs very clear that women should use makeup. Unlike source A, a reader may not relate to the feelings of the writer as he is a man attempting to convince all women that they should use makeup becuase he has no experience of being a woman or experience of using makeup himself. The writer of source A uses makeup to satisfy his own views of himself, whereas the writer of source B uses makeup to satisfy his view of others when he says, "for the sake of having objects around that are pleasing to see".

Q) ‘Scientists say that teenagers are not like adults; they learn and socialise differently and need sleep at different times. Education needs a radical re-think to meet the needs of students.’

Write a letter to the Minister for Education explaining your point of view on this statement.

Dear Minister for Education,

Albert Eistein said, "Everyone's a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.". I believe this wise statement from one of the greatest minds of all time perfectly applies to our school system. When it comes to education, there is no one size fits all solution - everyone learns differently, everyone thinks differently, everyone has different passions, and yet, when it comes to school, we're all taught the same way, taught the same content, tested by the same exams.

And what are exams even for? To compare students to one another? Well isn't that just absolutely bloody perfect? No. When students compare themselves to others, most of the time, it leads them to think that they are stupid, destoying their self esteem. It's no wonder that now more than ever, we are seeing the most extreme levels of anxiety and depression amongst students. Exams encrouage competition through separation, but the only way to truly succeed is through collaberation. That's one of the major flaws of GCSEs is that they do not encourage collaberation. Collaberation is key in all aspects of success, wether it's a football team, a team of docters, a team of scientists, good only prevails when we work together. But it's not just the purpose of exams that is so stupid, the exam itself is too crude to be used. But don't just take my word for it, take Fredrick J Kelly, the inventor of standarised testing who said, "These tests are too crude to be used, and should be abandoned". The GCSEs that we are forced to take do not measure intelligence, intelligence is the ability to think freely, to be creative, to be innovative, to be emotional, to be open-minded, to be critical, to be logical, intelligence can't be measured. So what are these exams testing? Nothing. Academia? No. It is entirely unmotivating to know that after several years of intense learning, all it comes down to is seven questions. Just seven questions. And for all that content! So what's the point? I spent weeks of my own time, out of school studying my ass off for my first GCSE: Biology. I learnt the ins and outs, I felt passionate about what I was learning, I was ready for this exam. And then it hit me, the most dis-heartening, unmotivating, unproductive, uninteresting, uninspiring exam, 7 questions. That was it. 7 questions when I had spent so much time and effort, takng time out of my artistic, performative, creative hobbies and passions to study everything to the highest degree possible, just for 99% of it to be disregarded. I came out of that exam dissapointed. Every other student saying things like, "I'm glad I didn't waste time revising everything". And so here I am, questioning, "What's the fucking point?". Ever since then, I haven't bothered revising for my exams, that moment was so unmotivating for me that I just gave up. What's the point in memorising 15 poems just to be asked about one? What's the point in learning 20 geographical landforms just to be asked about one? What's the point in learning everything, just to not be tested on it? I have better things to be doing with my time than revise for exams. Call me stupid, but that's just ironic. Because the real stupid people, are the ones who believe in these exams. In November of this year, I took my English Language GCSE mock, I got a grade 3. Three months later, I took another English Language GCSE mock, I got a grade 8. I hadn't revised harder, or done much differently. All I did was get lucky. These tests are entirey subjective. Different people will find different exams much easier than others, proving that these exams can't measure intelligence, to a significant degree, they are purely based on luck. I refer back to Albert Eistein, undoubtedly one of the most intelligent men in the entirety of human history, but he had a flaw - he couldn't pass exams. He failed his university mathematics entrance exam. But that doesn't mean that he was bad at maths, I dare anyone who believes this to take a look go and take a look at general relativity, the maths involved there is extremely complex.

But exams aren't the only thing wrong with school. School doesn't inspire us to change the world, to start our own business ventures, to follow our dreams, our passions. School destroys creativity, it favours homework over hobbies, academics over arts, detentions over reform, uniform over mental health. School is a prison, but not just any old prison, the worst, most evil prison of all. What do we actually go to school for? To learn, right? But do we actually learn anything of importance or relevance in school? We're taught maths and metaphors and meanders and multicellular structures, things we'll forget shortly after our departure, but we're not taught how to pay taxes, how to find a job, how to do insurance, how to bank. All these real world relevancies dropped and ignored in favour of cramming us with uninspiring knowledge. In fact, school was formed as a mere breading machine to produce good workers. What makes a good worker? Someone who never challeges anyone, someone who doesn't think freely or critically. A good worker is a robot who does exactly what they are instructed to do, no matter what. Even now this is true. School only wants to make us good workers. Hence why they dress us in uniform, controll our break times, block us from using the toilets, force us to adhere to the most obscene rules and to never challenge a member of staff.

Note, I call them "Members of staff" as opposed to teachers. Becuase the definition of teaher, is someone who teaches something. I find that most members of staff havn't taught me anything. And to be honest, its probably not their fault. You see, when students are forced to take subjects they don't enjoy, they simply switch off, lose focus and don't pay attention. How can you learn if you are not paying attention. And it's not the fault of the student or the teacher, but the fault of the system. That being said, alot of members of staff are utterly useless. The truth is, anyone good at chemistry is going to be a chemist, not a chemistry teacher; anyone good with computers, is going to be a computer engineer, not a computing teacher; anyone good with drama, is going to be an actor, not a drama teacher, the list goes on. So why is this? One simple answer: money. Maybe if our government paid teachers a fair salary as they deserve, then the top quality people from each area would be inclined to become teachers because what's the point of a chemistry expert becoming a teacher, earning less money than humanely acceptable, living on the brink of poverty, when they could become a chemist, earning hundreds of thousands of pounds and able to live a financially stable, even lavish lifestyle? But even existing teachers could do better. Of course, while there are exceptions, I find alot of my teachers to be quite frankly, useless. I often find that they don't know what they are doing, are just lazy, unpassionate, uninspiring, unenergetic and boring. Now that may seem rude, or arrogant for me to say, but the truth hurts.

School, as well as destroying creativity, destroys intelligence. School damages our brains - not just mentally, but physically. How is this possible? Well, school starts way too early. This is something that adults will struggle to understand, but the science proves my point. Throughout the teenage years, the brain develops extensively. Most brain development occurs during sleep. Teenagers need alot more sleep than adults. Science proves that naturally, the internal clock of the human body only allows most teenagers to actually sleep only after 10pm. So when members of staff say, "The reason that you're so tired is because you're not sleeping enough" they are wrong, further proving my above point that members of staff are dumb. The early start of school requires, on average, students to wake up at 7am. Science has actually proven that asking a teenager to wakeup at 7am is effectively the equivalent of asking an adult to wake up at 4am. By forcing teenagers to wake up this early, the development of their brains is greatly halted. This damage cannot be reversed. Infact, trials show that schools that switch to a later start time perform significantly better than when they used to start earlier.

And why is technology so frowned upon in schools? The internet is the greatest educational tool in existance, yet government what to ban it in schools? You can't deny the presence of the internet, so why not just embrace it?

So, now that I've layed out the problem, what are the solutions?
- Ensure that schools start at 9:30 at the earliest, to accommodate for students' sleep schedules and the development of their brains.
- Pay teachers more
- Make GCSEs optional
- Scrap the EBACC
- Ban homework
- Introduce lifeskills into the curriculum
- Encourage use of internet technologies into learning

I hope you take these points into consideration.

Coldest regards,

Sam