TASK 1 — A Strong Defence of Freedom of Expression

This guide provides a comprehensive breakdown of how to analyse a strong defense of freedom of expression, using a specific exam text about Salman Rushdie. You will learn to identify key rhetorical devices, understand their effects, and structure an answer that earns top marks.

Why this matters on the exam

Tasks like this one, which involve a short non-fiction text followed by comprehension (1A) and analysis (1B) questions, are a staple of the English written exam. The topic of freedom of speech is a recurring theme in the curriculum because it connects to core values of democracy, citizenship, and intercultural competence. You are expected to be able to understand and comment on how language is used to persuade an audience about such important societal issues.

In previous exams, similar tasks have appeared. For instance, a past paper might ask you to analyse the main message of a political speech or comment on the language used in an opinion piece about media trust. This task format tests several key skills in a compact form:

• Reading Comprehension: Can you accurately identify the main argument of a text? (Task 1A)
• Analytical Skill: Can you move beyond summary to explain how the writer builds their argument? (Task 1B)
• Use of Metalanguage: Can you correctly name and explain rhetorical and literary devices?

Mastering this task type demonstrates your ability to engage critically with persuasive texts, a central skill for both academic success and active participation in a democratic society. The examiner is not just checking if you know what a rhetorical question is; they are checking if you understand its function within a specific argumentative context.

Core concepts: Rhetorical Tools for Persuasion

To analyse how the author builds a strong defense of freedom of expression, you need a toolbox of terms. These are not just labels to "spot," but analytical concepts to help you explain the writer's strategy. Here are some of the most relevant devices used in the provided text.

Common pitfalls students fall into

In marking thousands of exam papers, examiners see the same mistakes repeatedly. Avoiding these common traps is a direct path to a higher grade when tackling a task on a text like this one.

1. Device Spotting without Analysis: The most frequent error is simply listing devices. A student might write, "The author uses emotive language and a rhetorical question." This only shows that you can identify a feature. It scores very few points because it does not demonstrate analytical understanding.
   How to avoid: For every device you mention, you must explain its function and effect. Use a simple "What-How-Why" model: What device is used (e.g., a rhetorical question)? How is it used (provide the quote)? Why is it used (explain its specific effect on the reader and how it supports the text's main message).
2. Vague Explanations of Effect: Another common pitfall is using generic phrases like "it makes the text more interesting" or "it persuades the reader." These statements are too general to be meaningful.
   How to avoid: Be specific. Instead of "it persuades the reader," write: "It aims to evoke a sense of shame and urgency in liberal readers who may have previously taken free speech for granted." Instead of "it makes it interesting," write: "The stark contrast between Rushdie's bravery and others' cowardice creates a compelling narrative of a lone hero."
3. Ignoring the Prompt's Constraints: The task specifies a combined word count of 200–300 words for both 1A and 1B. Many students write a very long summary for 1A, leaving little room for the more complex analysis in 1B.
   How to avoid: Be disciplined. Task 1A requires a brief statement of the main message—aim for 2-3 sentences. The bulk of your words and effort should be dedicated to Task 1B, where you can showcase your analytical skills, a task that often involves grappling with complex issues like growing mistrust and hostility towards independent media.

What the examiner looks for

An examiner is not just ticking boxes. They are looking for evidence of genuine understanding and critical thinking. When assessing your response to this task, a senior examiner is searching for the following qualities:

• Precision in Terminology and Analysis: A top-tier response moves beyond generic labels. Instead of saying the author uses "bad words," a grade 6 student writes, "The author employs pejorative adjectives like 'sanctimonious' and 'senseless' to strip the attackers of any moral or intellectual credibility." The examiner's comment here would be: "Excellent use of precise metalanguage to analyse word choice."
• Connecting Device to Message: It is not enough to analyse a device in isolation. The best answers consistently link the effect of each device back to the text's central argument. An examiner might note: "The student successfully demonstrates how the rhetorical question and the use of emotive language work together to reinforce the main message that freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be actively defended." If this link is missing, the comment could be: "Good identification of devices, but the analysis lacks a clear connection to the text's overarching purpose."
• Evidence-Based Argumentation: Every claim you make must be supported with evidence from the text. This means quoting directly and judiciously. A weak response might say, "The author is angry." A strong response says, "The author's indignation is palpable through loaded phrases such as 'outrageous call' and 'senseless bullying', directly framing the opposition as both morally and logically deficient." The examiner values this direct use of textual evidence to substantiate an analytical point.

Grade progression 3→6

Let's examine how the analysis of a single device—the rhetorical question—might look at different grade levels. This illustrates how depth of analysis, precision of language, and connection to the main message separate a basic response from an excellent one. …