national qualifications · 2015-04-02 · in august last year, the discovery channel released a...

Created by B. Hammond, 2014

1 | P a g e

National Qualifications

__________________________________________________

English Reading for Understanding,

Analysis and Evaluation

__________________________________________________ Date — Not applicable Duration — 1 hour 30 minutes Total marks — 30 Attempt ALL questions. Write your answers clearly in the answer booklet provided. In the answer booklet you must clearly identify the question number you are attempting. Use blue or black ink. Before leaving the examination room you must give your answer booklet to the Invigilator; if you do not, you may lose all the marks for this paper.


2 | P a g e

The following two passages discuss our attitudes towards sharks. The first passage is a response to news of a

shark cull in Western Australia. The second was written in the aftermath of a shark attack on a tourist in Egypt.

Passage 1 In the first passage, writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot argues that the films that thrill and terrify us drive our fear of sharks.

Read the passage below and attempt the questions which follow.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK CULL IS DRIVEN BY IRRATIONAL FEAR

There are, I think, two factors at work. The first is the desire to eliminate all risk

from our lives, to move through a world that is safe, predictable and tame, with "no

alarms and no surprises". The second emerges paradoxically from the consequences

of that desire. Without natural hazards, without the thrills and spills we evolved to

withstand, our lives sometimes feel exceedingly dull. We have gained much from the 5

predictability we've manufactured, and lost something too.

Both impulses, I believe, inform the Western Australian shark cull. The cull appears

to be unscientific and counterproductive, a grand act of vandalism that endangers

the top predators – already greatly depleted – which sustain the ecosystem of the

seas. 10

But it is motivated by a desire with which many people can connect: to ensure that

nothing untoward ever happens to anyone, even to those who venture into the wild

waters of the Indian Ocean, which Western Australia now hopes to remodel as a

giant hotel swimming pool. It also seems to be informed by our desire, arising I

think from the extreme domesticity of our lives, to believe that any remaining 15

hazards presented by the natural world are far more dangerous than they really

are. A huge entertainment industry – books, films, games – trades in this

manufactured fear. It sells.

In August last year, The Discovery Channel released a film, which purported to be a

factual documentary, called "Megalodon: the monster shark lives". This claimed to 20

show that Carcharadon megalodon still exists. That this creature once lived, and

that it was magnificent and terrifying is undisputed. The marks of its monstrous

teeth on their bones suggest that it ate whales.

Does the monster shark still live, as the title suggests? Though it is supposed to be

impossible to prove a negative, in this case we can say with a high degree of 25

confidence that it does not. It does not appear in the fossil record in the past two

million years or so. It depended for its food and reproduction on shallow water, so

it is not, as the movie makers would like us to believe, lurking unseen in the abyss.


3 | P a g e

There have been no sightings, no carcasses, no remains of any prey, no terrifying

encounters. At 60 feet long, highly mobile and frequently hungry, it's not the kind 30

of thing that would be easily overlooked.

The film showed what it claimed was amateur footage, shot on a camera

supposedly recovered from a wreck, of four suspiciously beautiful people fishing off

the coast of South Africa on April 5th 2013. Suddenly, the footage shows, the boat

was attacked by something enormous. Its passengers were never seen again. The 35

"found footage" was followed by clips from South African news programmes

reporting the event.

But there appears to be no record of these deaths, or of the news reports. The

film ran more "amateur footage" and a photo, which purported to show a whale

carcass that had been attacked by a giant shark. A marine biologist called Collin 40

Drake assures us that "you can clearly see a bite radius in the whale… The whale

looks to be almost bit in half, it's absolutely insane. Local marine biologists

analysed the whale and determined – as crazy as it sounds - that the tail was

bitten off in one bite." Which local marine biologists? Analysed it where? And while

we're at it, who the hell are you? 45

Good question. No one has been able to find any record of a marine biologist

called Collin Drake, or of the other expert contributor to the programme, another

"marine biologist" called Madelyn Joubert. They are as elusive as the giant shark.

Importantly, Discovery chose to use the word 'dramatised' instead of 'fictional', the

one they used in the disclaimers for their Mermaids ‘mockumentaries’. 'Dramatized' 50

simply means acted out – it doesn't tell you whether the original story is real or

fake."

Unsurprisingly perhaps, this concatenation of bunkum broke all viewing records,

bringing in 4.8 million people on the first showing, which according to one source is

"more viewers than any other show in the history of the Discovery Channel". It 55

keeps being repeated and is still front and centre on Discovery's website.

This film was designed to provoke a deep and thrilling fear in those who watched

it. It is by no means the only one which has exaggerated the dangers posed by

sharks, which has been a lucrative exercise since Jaws was first shown in 1975. But

it takes this venture to a new level. 60

When a premise is irrational, the actions that follow from it are likely to be

irrational as well. The Western Australian shark cull is likely to have been strongly

influenced by an irrational terror of sharks - inculcated by shows of this kind. They

succeed at the expense of the living world.


4 | P a g e

MARKS

Questions

1. Re-read lines 1-10.

(a) From the first paragraph, identify the ‘two factors at work’ which have led

to the shark cull in Western Australia. 2

(b) Analyse how the writer’s language in lines 7-10 underlines his criticism of

this cull. 2


Describe the two desires mentioned by the writer, and explain why they might seem

paradoxical. 3


(a) By referring to at least two features of language in lines 19-29, show

how the writer’s language conveys his scepticism about the claims made by

the programme. 4

(b) Identify any two reasons given in these lines to suggest that the

‘Megalodon’ is extinct. 2


(a) Explain the importance of Discovery’s description of their programme as

‘dramatised’. 2

(b) From lines 53-56, explain how the writer’s language conveys his

disapproval of the Discovery programme. 2

(c) What point do you think the writer is trying to establish by mentioning

the viewing figures at this stage in his argument? 2


(a) Summarise the argument the writer presents in these lines. 4

(b) Evaluate the final paragraph’s effectiveness as a conclusion to the

passage as a whole. 2


5 | P a g e

Passage 2

In the second passage below, Jenny Diski, writing in The Guardian newspaper,

considers the same topic.

Read the passage and attempt the question which follows. While reading, you may

wish to make notes on the main ideas and/or highlight key points in the passage.

IF ONLY SHARKS COULD WINK

“We were all promised that the sea was safe,” said a witness to the most recent

shark attack in Sharm el-Sheikh in which a tourist died. Bad things sometimes

happen to people as a result of what we call nature: if, for example, they live near

an active volcano or above a seismic fault line. Though we're very sorry, we aren't

surprised. 5

But when we designate nature a place to go for our leisure activities, we are taken

aback if it does damage to us. People feel that paying for a beach holiday entitles

them to expect commerce to promise and provide a safe sea. If they wanted a

dangerous vacation they would have paid for one.

Sharks aren't party to the contract between tourist and tour operator. Why would 10

anyone take the word of a government official that nothing will harm you if you go

out of your depth? No one can confidently assure you that even if you stay quite

close to shore an oceanic whitetip shark won't swim into the shallows – it would be

uncharacteristic, but a possible consequence of the depletion of its food supply out

at sea because of overfishing; or the result of adventure providers obliging tourists 15

who fancy a cage dive by throwing bloody trails of chum (gallons of ground-up fish)

over the side of their boats to draw sharks. I went on one of those dives once and

wondered if, for the sharks – flicking back and forth around the submerged cage

full of tasty-looking humans in wetsuits – it was as aggravating as getting the

shopping home only to find there's no key to the sardine tin. 20

But it almost certainly isn't, because sharks are not humans. This sounds obvious –

but we spend a great deal of our time with animals, dangerous and otherwise,

assuming that they are rather like us. Nietzsche observed that we can never see

round our own corner. But we like to think we know how it is with animals: usually

that it's like it is with us, only simpler and more "natural". Often animals are kind 25

enough or care little enough not to respond to humans in ways we find unpleasant.

Occasionally – though only if they feel threatened or hungry – they take us by

surprise. Not because they are inconsistent or malign, but because, through our

vanity, we get animals wrong.

Sharks have always had a hard time from people – their fins make good soup and 30

their flesh, tasty steaks; their livers provide useful oil; their skins are tanned to


6 | P a g e

make clothes; and, since 1974, they've become the bogey creature of choice for

humans. Peter Benchley, author of ‘Jaws’, regretted the effect his book – and the

film – had, and turned shark conservationist to make reparation. He hadn't read up

on them before he wrote the novel, and his rationale for using sharks as the arch-35

enemy was mostly based on their appearance.

We cosset the dogs we have bred over centuries deliberately to enhance their

devoted juvenile characteristics. Their charm, willingness to obey, neediness and

doggedness are the result of humans selectively breeding them to retain their

puppy-like physical and mental features even in adulthood. The more infantile a 40

creature looks – big forward-facing eyes, wide bulbous head, small chin, softness, a

flatter face – the more we love it and believe it to be capable of loving us.

Sharks could hardly appear less soft: the tiny eyes don't look as if they are

communicating, they only look; and we can't help but see the fixed formation of

the jaws as a heartless grin. In fact very few animals have expressive faces. The 45

philosopher Emmanuel Levinas questioned whether most animals have faces at all.

What faces do, he said, was essentially to look back at us, mirror us, and silently

plead: "Don't kill me, I'm like you."

An ape can look at us and, raising an eyebrow, wrinkling a nose or pushing out its

lips, communicate its attitude. A shark doesn't ask questions, or tell you anything at 50

all. It makes shark-like judgments about its environment – which we may or may not

be part of, and we may or may not understand. Without an eyebrow to raise or

facial muscles to vary its expression, we can see that it feels nothing for us. Being

compulsively expressive creatures, this offends us so much that we believe the

shark's lack of affect communicates enmity. 55

Enmity is the opposite of that island town ironically called Amity in Jaws, where

basking holidaymakers were pursued and persecuted by an unusual shark that

passionately desired to kill them, rather than to be left alone with enough of the

right kind of food to get on with being a shark.

Question

7. Both writers express their views about our attitudes toward sharks. Identify key

areas on which they agree. In your answer, you should refer in detail to both

passages. 5

You may answer this question in continuous prose or in a series of developed

bullet points.


7 | P a g e

Marking instructions for each question

Passage 1

Question Expected Response Max mark

Additional Guidance

1 a Candidates should demonstrate understanding of two ‗factors‘ which have led to the shark cull.

Candidates must use their own words. No marks are awarded for verbatim quotations from the passage.

1 mark for one point from the additional guidance. Two marks only available for a recognition of two different views – i.e. one from before and after the „Plus‟.

2 Possible answers include:

We wish to obliterate any sense of hazard from our existence (‗the desire to eliminate all risk from our lives‘)

We want the planet to be completely secure (‗move through a world that is safe, predictable and tame, with "no alarms and no surprises"‘)

Plus

We seek out things that are dangerous; we want things to be exciting (‗our lives sometimes feel exceedingly dull‘)

We miss the feeling that our lives may be under threat (‗We have gained much from the predictability we've manufactured, and lost something too‘).

or any other acceptable answer.

b Candidates should analyse how the language conveys his disapproval.

Marks will depend on the quality of comment on appropriate language feature.

2 marks may be awarded for reference plus detailed/insightful comment; 1 mark for reference plus more basic comment; 0 marks for reference alone.

Possible answers shown in the ―Additional Guidance‖ column.

2 Possible answers include: Word Choice

‗impulses‘ suggests something rash, unthinking…

‗unscientific‘ suggests something lacking in logic…

‗counterproductive‘ suggests something detrimental, self-harming…

‗endangers‘ suggests something imperilled, threatened…

‗depleted‘ suggests run down…

‗sustain‘ suggests nurturing, supporting (and this would be removed)…

‗ecosystem‘ suggests something natural, pure…


8 | P a g e


Additional Guidance

Imagery

‗a grand act of vandalism‘: this is something damaging and destructive.

Sentence Structure

The parenthesis on line 9 underlines his view that a cull is not needed since shark numbers are already low.


2 Candidates should demonstrate understanding of the two desires, for two marks, then go on to describe the contradiction inherent in these desires.


1 mark for one point from the additional guidance.


We want to make certain that people are always safe, even in uncultivated places (‗to ensure that nothing untoward ever happens to anyone, even to those who venture into the wild waters of the Indian Ocean‘).

We want to exaggerate dangers that are out there to a much greater degree than is realistic (‗believe that any remaining hazards presented by the natural world are far more dangerous than they really are‘).

This seems paradoxical since the safer we become the more we exaggerate any possible dangers / we want to be scared, even as we‘re removing any hint of danger.



9 | P a g e


Additional Guidance

3 a Candidates should analyse how the language conveys his disbelief.




4 Possible answers include: Word Choice

‗purported‘ suggests something false, something based on appearance…

‗claimed‘ suggests something without proof…

‗it does not‘ uses simple language to make clear his certainty it is not true…

Sentence Structure

Concession that shark did indeed exist before argument that it cannot possibly live now.

Question on line 24 is then answered, making clear his view that this is nonsense.

Parallelism / listing of evidence – ‗It does not… It depended… There have been‘ – emphasises extent and range of evidence to not believe this shark now exists.

Listing at line 29 of lack of evidence.

Repetition of ‗no‘ in lines 29-30 to emphasise the absence of evidence.

Word order – line 30 – draws attention to size of creature, emphasising how silly it is that it could be hiding.

Tone

Sarcastic tone of ‗it‘s not the kind of thing that could be easily overlooked‘ emphasises writer‘s incredulity.


b Candidates should demonstrate understanding of two pieces of evidence to suggest the shark no longer exists.


The creature isn‘t listed in the accounts we keep of fossils.


10 | P a g e


Additional Guidance



It did not stay in deep water to eat and breed so would be easy to see.

No witnesses have seen one.

No body of one has ever been found.

We‘ve never found the remnants of what it eats.

There have been no scary run-ins with the shark.

It‘s far too enormous and greedy to stay hidden.


4 a Candidates should demonstrate understanding of the difference between Discovery‘s use of ‗dramatised‘ instead of ‗fictional‘.




‗Fictional‘ would make clear the story was false.

‗Dramatised‘ suggests that it could possible be authentic. or any other acceptable answer.

b Candidates should analyse how the language conveys his condemnation of the programme.




Possible answers include:

‗Unsurprisingly‘ creates a weary tone…

‗concatenation of bunkum‘ suggests a load of silly ideas being thrown together…

Use of the figure ‗4.8 million‘ suggests propagation of nonsense…

‗keeps being repeated‘ suggests the damage is continuing…

‗still front and centre‘ suggests damaging promotion… or any other acceptable answer.


11 | P a g e


Additional Guidance

c Candidates should be able to recognise why the writer feels the viewing figures are worthy of note.




The incredible amount of people who watched it / the fact it is continually repeated is damaging since it spreads a falsehood which creates a climate of fear.


5 a Candidates should summarise the closing argument presented.




The film awakens a primal terror in the viewer (‗film was designed to provoke a deep and thrilling fear‘).

The film makes sharks seem much more problematic for us than they are (‗exaggerated the dangers posed by sharks‘).

If we‘re led by things that illogical, we‘ll do something which is similarly unreasonable (‗When a premise is irrational, the actions that follow from it are likely to be irrational as well‘).

The mass killing of sharks is a direct result of this illogical terror we feel (‗shark cull is likely to have been strongly influenced by an irrational terror of sharks‘).

The popularity of such programmes comes at our cost since it damages our wildlife (‗They succeed at the expense of the living world‘).


b Candidates should evaluate the final paragraph‘s effectiveness as a conclusion to

The following points could be made, but all points which candidates propose will have to be judged on their merits:


12 | P a g e


Additional Guidance

the passage as a whole.

Marks will depend on the quality of comment. For full marks there must be appropriate attention to the idea of a conclusion. A more basic comment may be awarded 1 mark.

Possible answers shown in the “Additional Guidance” column.

The repeated reference to ‗irrational‘ emphasises the writer‘s overall claim that TV programmes about sharks lead us to scientifically unsound attempts to reduce their numbers.

The references to ‗strongly influenced‘ and ‗inculcated‘ reinforce the cultural impact of these shows.

The closing, short, blunt sentence sums up the whole passage.



13 | P a g e

Passage 2

Question Expected Response Max Mark

Additional Guidance

8 Candidates should identify key areas of agreement in the two passages by referring in detail to both passages.

There may be some overlap among the areas of agreement. Markers will have to judge the extent to which a candidate has covered two points or one.

Candidates can use bullet points in this final question, or write a number of linked statements. Evidence from the passage may include quotations, but these should be supported by explanations.

Approach to marking shown in the “Additional Guidance” column.

Key areas of disagreement shown in grid below. Other answers are possible.

5 The mark for this question should reflect the quality of response in two areas:

identification of the key areas of agreement in attitude/ideas

level of detail given in support

The following guidelines should be used:

Five marks — comprehensive identification of three or more key areas of agreement with full use of supporting evidence

Four marks — clear identification of three or more key areas of agreement with relevant use of supporting evidence

Three marks — identification of three or more key areas of agreement with supporting evidence

Two marks — identification of two key areas of agreement with supporting evidence

One mark — identification of one key area of agreement with supporting evidence

Zero marks — failure to identify any key area of agreement and/or total misunderstanding of task


14 | P a g e

Area of agreement George Monbiot Jenny Diski

1 Attempts to control nature / the wild

We have tried to remove any hint of danger from the world.

We refuse to accept that there will be dangers when we venture into the wild.

2 The danger posed by sharks.

We overstate the dangers posed by sharks, partly because of the films we watch.

That sharks are unlikely to attack us, even if there is a chance because of our actions.

3 The role of the media That ‘documentaries’ and films serve to whip up hysteria about sharks which makes us afraid.

That sharks are turned into villains rather than animals by the movies.

4 (Primeval) fear of sharks.

A primal fear of sharks is whipped up by movies and it is entirely irrational.

That the appearance of a shark causes us to be afraid in ways that we are not of other dangerous animals.

[END OF MARKING INSTRUCTIONS]

national qualifications · 2015-04-02 · in august last year, the discovery channel released a...

Documents