Close Reading: The Question on Both Passages HIGHER

What are they? All Higher Close Reading papers have two articles For passage 2, There is one question comparing both papers – usually worth 5 marks You need to have a good understanding of each writer’s overall line of argument as well as the specific points/ideas

Final Question You have to identify the key areas on which the passages agree/disagree. This will require you to get to the heart of each writer’s argument. EXAMPLE: 2015 paper: 9. Look at both passages. Both writers express their views about intensive farming. Identify three key areas on which they agree. You should support the points you make by referring to important ideas in both passages. You may answer this question in continuous prose or in a series of developed bullet points. 5

SQA ADVICE Candidates should identify three key areas of agreement/disagreement in the two passages. Candidates can use bullet points in this final question, or write a number of linked statements. I find 3 separate sections/mini-paragraphs works best for this. You can quote but don’t have to. Often better to refer to key details in a more general way. If you do quote, keep the quotations short and follow with explanation of point to show your understanding. Again, not using quotes seems to be more successful.

Marking Marking will reflect quality of response in 2 areas: 1.Identification of the essential areas of disagreement in attitude/ideas 2.Reference to/treatment of the ideas which inform the writers’ attitude

Answer Structure around ESSENTIAL (broad) areas of agreement/disagreement (what general points the two passages disagree on) For each area, develop the specific ideas/points made in each passage to support this area of agreement/disagreement Advice: Give 3 topic sentences which indicate 3 areas. This counts for 3 marks. Leave space between each, then, go back and add in details/specifics to get up to 4/5 marks, giving each passage’s portrayal of this area.

The following guidelines should be used: Five marks — identification of three key areas of agreement with detailed/insightful use of supporting evidence Four marks — identification of three key areas of agreement with appropriate use of supporting evidence Three marks — identification of three key areas of agreement Two marks — identification of two key areas of agreement One mark — identification of one key area of agreement Zero marks — failure to identify any key area of agreement and/or misunderstanding of task

N.B. A candidate who identifies only two key areas of agreement may be awarded a maximum of four marks, as follows: two marks for identification of two key areas of agreement a further mark for appropriate use of supporting evidence to a total of three marks OR a further two marks for detailed/insightful use of supporting evidence to a total of four marks

A candidate who identifies only one key area of agreement may be awarded a maximum of two marks, as follows: one mark for identification of one key area of agreement a further mark for use of supporting evidence to a total of two marks

Example Comparison on the 2011 paper: Essential Areas of Disagreement 1.the general status of video games 2.the intellectual benefits of video games 3.the educational benefits of video games 4.the challenge involved in video games 5.the reward(s) involved in video games

2011 Main ideas to support Passage 1Passage 2 Video games are viewed as pointless, but they are not They develop the brain in a number of ways The chess/algebra analogy High level thinking skills are involved They are challenging, at times extremely hard They can appear simple but are often very complex Unlike other entertainment, pleasure is not immediate They tap into the brain’s natural desire for reward The process is more important that the (often simplistic) content They are addictive They are a threat to literacy They require no thought or effort They may pretend to be educational but are totally lacking in educational value They encourage slovenly behaviour and thinking They offer immediate and simple pleasures

A key area on which they disagree is whether video games teach young people anything. The writer of Passage 1 thinks that video games can be educational and teach them important analytical skills. The writer of Passage 2 disagrees, arguing that video games have a detrimental effect on children’s education and don’t teach them anything. Another key area on which the passages disagree is whether or not they provide instant gratification. The writer of Passage 2 thinks that video games immediately glorify and praise people who have achieved little through the game. The writer of Passage 1, however, thinks that the games provide players with delayed gratification, only achieved once they have done many hard tasks. The writers also disagree about whether video games are difficult. An important idea of the first passage is that gaming is hard and can present complex challenges. The writer thinks that games make young people think. However, the writer of passage 2 considers the games to be very basic and easy. He thinks that they require young people to do little or no thinking in return for rewards and that they are spoon-fed.

A key area on which they disagree is whether video games teach young people anything. The writer of Passage 1 thinks that video games can be educational and teach them important analytical skills. The writer of Passage 2 disagrees, arguing that video games have a detrimental effect on children’s education and don’t teach them anything. Another key area on which the passages disagree is whether or not they provide instant gratification. The writer of Passage 2 thinks that video games immediately glorify and praise people who have achieved little through the game. The writer of Passage 1, however, thinks that the games provide players with delayed gratification, only achieved once they have done many hard tasks. The writers also disagree about whether video games are difficult. An important idea of the first passage is that gaming is hard and can present complex challenges. The writer thinks that games make young people think. However, the writer of passage 2 considers the games to be very basic and easy. He thinks that they require young people to do little or no thinking in return for rewards and that they are spoon-fed.