Introduction

Question 4 is the ‘evaluation’ question where you respond to a statement from a student. The assessment objective is AO4:

Evaluate texts critically and support this with appropriate textual references

For this question you are given a statement about the source. The question asks you to comment on a certain part of the text. You have to respond to the statement and evaluate the extent to which you agree.

Question 4 is an assessment of your ability to evaluate how effectively a certain effect is achieved. It relies upon your personal response to the text and the choices that the writer has made.

What does Question 4 assess?

Question 4 is designed to assess your ability to critically evaluate a text. You are expected to consider the writer’s methods and explain how these are used to convey ideas, supporting your views with appropriate textual references.

What is the focus of the question?

You will be presented with a statement relating to a specific part of the extract. Your task is to respond to this by evaluating the extent to which you agree with it. The phrase “To what extent do you agree?” will always be included in the question. This consistent phrasing offers you both structure and freedom: you can explore your own interpretations while being reminded to consider the effect on you as a reader.

What is the purpose of the statement?

The statement is there to stimulate your thinking and give you a clear starting point for your evaluation. It helps to focus your response on a particular idea or method used in the text.

What is expected in your response?

The most important element of your answer is the quality of your evaluation. This includes your assessment of the ideas presented and the methods used by the writer. You do not need to include a counter-argument or address both sides of the statement, but your personal judgement must be clearly informed and supported with evidence from the text.

You are free to agree, partially agree, or disagree with the statement—as long as your opinion is justified with textual evidence. Maintaining a critical distance is key: rather than simply describing or summarising, you need to analyse and evaluate the writer’s techniques and their effects.

How is the question structured?

You will always be provided with three bullet points to guide your answer. These bullet points:

• Help you structure your response logically.
• Direct your attention to how the writer shapes meaning and guides the reader.
• Encourage you to go beyond the basics by considering any additional features you believe are relevant to the question.

Here are some steps to use to approach the question.

1. Highlight the focus of the question – this supports you to select the correct evidence. Then highlight beside the lines the question wants you to focus on – this ensures you only select from the correct place.

2. Underline the two parts of the statement – label them A and B. This will be the evidence that you find in the text.

3. Start your answer using the words of the question and give your overall idea about the question focus – some students call this an ‘introduction’.

4. Use the ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the student statement to guide your analysis and evaluation of writer’s methods.

Here is an example question with the key parts highlighted:

Focus on this part of your answer on the second part of the source, from line 19 to the end.

A student said, 'This part of the story, set in the hat shop, shows that the red haired girl has many advantages in life, and I think Rosable is right to be angry.'

To what extent do you agree?

In your response, you could:

• consider your own impressions of the red-haired girl
• evaluate how the writer conveys Rosabel's reactions to the red-haird girl
• support your response with references to the text.

The part of the statement highlighted in blue is the focus of the question.

The part of the statement highlighted in yellow is your ‘A’ statement’.

The part of the statement highlighted in green is your ‘B’ statement.

Each of these provide the focus of your paragraph – you must then identify which methods the writer uses to achieve these and evaluate the extent to which they are effective.

What can I evaluate?

Here is a mind map showing some of the different things you need to think about when evaluating a text.

When my brother Fish turned thirteen, we moved to the deepest part of inland because of the hurricane and, of course, the fact that he’d caused it. I had liked living down south on the edge of land, next to the pushing-pulling waves. I had liked it with a mighty kind of liking, so moving had been hard—hard like the pavement the first time I fell off my pink two-wheeler and my palms burned like fire from all of the hurt just under the skin. But it was plain that Fish could live nowhere near or nearby or next to or close to or on or around any largish bodies of water. Water had a way of triggering my brother and making ordinary, everyday weather take a frightening turn for the worse.

       Line 20: Unlike any normal hurricane, Fish’s birthday storm had started without warning. One minute, my brother was tearing paper from presents in our backyard near the beach; the next minute, both Fish and the afternoon sky went a funny and fearsome shade of grey. My brother gripped the edge of the picnic table as the wind kicked up around him, gaining momentum and ripping the wrapping paper out of his hands, sailing it high up into the sky with all of the balloons and streamers roiling together and disintegrating like a birthday party in a blender. Groaning and cracking, trees shuddered and bent over double, uprooting and falling as easily as sticks in wet sand. Rain pelted us like gravel thrown by a playground bully as windows shattered and shingles ripped off the roof. As the storm surged and the ocean waves tossed and churned, spilling raging water and debris farther and farther up the beach, Momma and Poppa grabbed hold of Fish and held on tight, while the rest of us ran for cover. Momma and Poppa knew what was happening. They had been expecting something like this and knew that they had to keep my brother calm and help him ride out his storm. 

          That hurricane had been the shortest on record, but to keep the coastal towns safe from our Fish, our family had packed up and moved deep inland, plunging into the very heart of the land and stopping as close to the centre of the country as we could get. There, without big water to fuel big storms, Fish could make it blow and rain without so much heartache and ruin. 

          Settling directly between Nebraska and Kansas in a little place all our own, just off Highway 81, we were well beyond hollering distance from the nearest neighbour, which was the best place to be for a family like ours. The closest town was merely a far-off blur across the highway, and was not even big enough to have its own school or store, or gas station or mayor. 

          Monday through Wednesday, we called our thin stretch of land Kansaska. Thursday through Saturday, we called it Nebransas. On Sundays, since that was the Lord’s Day, we called it nothing at all, out of respect for His creating our world without the lines already drawn on its face like all my grandpa’s wrinkles. 

          If it weren’t for old Grandpa Bomba, Kansaska- Nebransas wouldn’t even have existed for us to live there. When Grandpa wasn’t a grandpa and was just instead a small-fry, hobbledehoy boy blowing out thirteen dripping candles on a lopsided cake, his savvy hit him hard and sudden—just like it did to Fish that day of the backyard birthday party and the hurricane—and the entire state of Idaho got made. At least, that’s the way Grandpa Bomba always told the story. 

          “Before I turned thirteen,” he’d say, “Montana bumped dead straight into Washington, and Wyoming and Oregon shared a cozy border.” The tale of Grandpa’s thirteenth birthday had grown over the years just like the land he could move and stretch, and Momma just shook her head and smiled every time he’d start talking tall. But in truth, that young boy who grew up and grew old like wine and dirt, had been making new places whenever and wherever he pleased. That was Grandpa’s savvy.

 

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

A student said “The writer intrigues us with what happened to Fish by telling us about the Grandpa, who seems like a strange person with interesting stories”

To what extent do you agree?

In your response, you could:

• consider your own impressions about the characters
• evaluate how the writer has created these impressions
• support your opinions with references to the text.

In this extract, which explores the extraordinary powers of both Fish and Grandpa, the writer captures our attention by presenting an unusual but emotionally grounded scenario. The blending of magical realism with everyday family life makes the characters feel both fantastical and relatable. By introducing supernatural powers in a matter-of-fact tone, the writer encourages the reader to suspend disbelief and engage more deeply with the strange but compelling world of the story.

Firstly, the writer successfully intrigues us through the unusual experiences of Fish. The statement that “Fish’s birthday storm started without warning” disrupts our expectations and immediately sets a surreal tone. The concept of a storm being tied to a child’s emotional state is both unsettling and fascinating, creating suspense as we try to understand the cause. When the narrator notes that Fish “went a funny shade of grey,” it introduces a moment of mystery and concern. The colour imagery of “grey” not only reflects the visual change in Fish but also symbolises emotional turmoil and perhaps even fear or sadness. It humanises Fish, implying that his powers are burdensome rather than empowering, which builds both intrigue and sympathy in the reader. The violent natural imagery—trees “shuddering,” rain “like gravel,” and party decorations being “disintegrated”—further shows the terrifying scale of his power, reinforcing the unpredictability and danger Fish embodies.

In addition, the writer presents Grandpa as an eccentric and magical figure whose stories blur the line between truth and legend. The idea that “Nebransas would never have existed” without Grandpa is playfully exaggerated, adding to the mythical quality of his character. His claim to have created Idaho on his thirteenth birthday is clearly impossible, yet the narrator recounts it without scepticism, suggesting that such powers might be real within this fictional world. This technique of magical realism both entertains and mystifies the reader. The description of Grandpa as a “hobbledehoy boy” who “blew out thirteen dripping candles” adds a nostalgic, almost poetic quality to the narrative, reinforcing his whimsical presence. Interestingly, unlike Fish—whose powers are dangerous and cause chaos—Grandpa’s abilities are portrayed more serenely, as he “makes places” rather than destroys them. His calm demeanour in contrast to his powerful abilities suggests wisdom and experience, adding to the intrigue of how such powers evolve over time and are passed down through generations.

How To Approach Paper 1 Question 4

Model Answer -  Paper 1 Question 4