These are original Marlbridge practice questions, not past exam questions. The passages below were written by Marlbridge for practice. Questions 1 to 5 refer to the weighing-house passage printed in the study guide (Bartholomew Lisle, his granddaughter Nell and the machine that weighs by itself). The marks in the rubrics are a suggested Marlbridge rubric, not an official scoring guideline. Answer every question before opening its answer.
The weighing-house passage (written by Marlbridge).
Bartholomew Lisle had kept the weighing-house at the end of Quay Street for forty years, and in that time he had never once been wrong by so much as an ounce. Merchants who distrusted one another trusted his scales. They came to him with sacks of grain and bales of wool, and he stood among them in his brown apron like a man standing between two quarrelling nations, saying nothing, turning the brass weight a quarter-turn until the beam sat level.
When his granddaughter Nell came to tell him that the new harbour company would install a machine that weighed by itself, she found him polishing the pan of the great scale with the hem of his apron. “It will be quicker,” she said. “It will be exact.” “I am exact,” he said, without looking up. “What the machine will not be,” he added, after a moment in which the shop was silent except for the slow tick of the beam, “is sorry when it is wrong.” He lifted the pan to the light, found nothing to correct, and set it down as gently as a sleeping child.
Question 1 (multiple choice · foundation)
Which is a defensible thesis about the weighing-house passage?
- (A) The passage is about a weigher named Bartholomew.
- (B) Bartholomew keeps a weighing-house and has a granddaughter.
- (C) By making Bartholomew’s quiet care matter more than the machine’s exactness, the passage suggests that trust depends on a person who can be answerable for error.
- (D) The writer uses a simile.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (C). It makes an arguable claim about meaning and gives a reason.
- (A) and (B) are summaries; no one could disagree with them.
- (D) names a device but makes no claim about what it does.
Question 2 (multiple choice · core)
Which best describes a line of reasoning for the thesis in Question 1(C)?
- (A) A list of every simile in the passage
- (B) A logical sequence of claims, such as: his neutrality is established; the machine’s exactness is set against his answerability; his final care shows a moral practice
- (C) A paragraph retelling the plot
- (D) The conclusion of the essay
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). A line of reasoning is the sequence of claims that work together to defend the thesis.
- (A) A list of devices does not argue anything.
- (C) Retelling the plot is summary.
- (D) A conclusion may restate the line of reasoning but is not itself the line.
Question 3 (multiple choice · core)
A student writes: “Bartholomew stands ‘like a man standing between two quarrelling nations’. This shows that he is a good man.” What is the main weakness?
- (A) The quotation is inaccurate.
- (B) The commentary repeats a general judgment and does not explain how the simile works or how it supports a thesis.
- (C) The quotation is too short.
- (D) The sentence is in the present tense.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). “Good man” restates the obvious without explaining what the simile makes the reader understand.
- (A) The quotation matches the passage.
- (C) A short quotation is usually a strength.
- (D) Present tense is the normal convention for discussing literature.
Question 4 (multiple choice · core)
Which thesis is weakest because it lists devices without a claim?
- (A) “The writer uses a simile, dialogue and a closing image.”
- (B) “The passage suggests that care, not speed, makes a person trustworthy.”
- (C) “Bartholomew’s patience contrasts with the speed of the machine to show that trust rests on a person.”
- (D) “Although Bartholomew values exactness, he values accountability more.”
Answer and explanation
Answer: (A). It names techniques but gives no interpretation.
- (B), (C) and (D) each state an interpretive claim.
Question 5 (multiple choice · stretch)
A student says, “I cannot write a thesis until I have found all my evidence.” Which statement about interpretation is best?
- (A) That is correct; evidence must always come first.
- (B) Interpretation is recursive: a claim can emerge from evidence, or a claim can lead you to look for evidence.
- (C) A thesis is not needed if the evidence is good.
- (D) A thesis must be written before reading the passage.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). Developing an interpretation moves back and forth between claims and evidence.
- (A) and (D) fix an order that is not required.
- (C) Evidence needs an interpretation to support.
Question 6 (short answer · core)
Write a defensible thesis (one or two sentences) for the weighing-house passage and a three-step line of reasoning. (4 points)
Answer and explanation
Sample response (written by Marlbridge). Thesis: “The passage presents Bartholomew’s pride in exactness as, at root, a form of responsibility: the community trusts his scales because he can be answerable when he is wrong, which a machine cannot be.” Line of reasoning: (1) The opening builds him as a silent, patient guarantor between “two quarrelling nations”. (2) Nell’s offer of exactness contrasts with his phrase “sorry when it is wrong”, redefining trust as accountability. (3) The closing gesture, setting the pan down “as gently as a sleeping child”, shows his work as a moral practice.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (4 points).
| Point | Awarded for |
|---|---|
| 1 | A thesis that makes an arguable claim (not summary) |
| 2 | The thesis includes a reason or idea, not just a list of devices |
| 3 | Three claims in a logical order |
| 4 | The claims build and each connects to the thesis |
Question 7 (short answer · core)
A student has chosen this evidence: Nell says “It will be exact,” and Bartholomew replies “I am exact.” Their commentary reads: “This shows that Bartholomew is exact.” Rewrite the commentary in two or three sentences so that it explains and links to the thesis from Question 6. (4 points)
Answer and explanation
Sample response (written by Marlbridge). Bartholomew repeats Nell’s word “exact” but turns it into a statement about himself, which shows that he understands exactness as a personal quality, not a feature of an instrument. By saying it “without looking up” he treats the claim as obvious, yet his next sentence reveals that the quality he cares about is being “sorry”, and so the exchange begins to redefine exactness as responsibility. That supports the thesis that trust rests on a person who can answer for error.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (4 points).
| Point | Awarded for |
|---|---|
| 1 | Explains what the exchange shows beyond restating it |
| 2 | Uses a precise detail (“without looking up” or the repeated word) |
| 3 | Connects it to the paragraph’s claim |
| 4 | Links to the thesis in a final sentence |
Question 8 (short answer · stretch)
Use the suggested self-assessment table in the study guide to assess this student paragraph, then name one change that would raise it a level.
Bartholomew is a very good weigher. The writer says he has “never once been wrong by so much as an ounce.” This shows how good he is at his job. The writer also uses a simile, which is a good device.
Answer and explanation
Sample response. Thesis strand: not present in the paragraph. Evidence and commentary: the quotation is accurate, but the commentary only restates “good at his job” and praises the simile as “good” without saying what it does, so this is “not yet”. Control and nuance: the paragraph repeats one idea, so it is also “not yet”. One change: replace the last two sentences with commentary that explains what “never once been wrong” implies about the community’s trust, link it to a claim about the person, and name what the simile suggests about his role.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (4 points).
| Point | Awarded for |
|---|---|
| 1 | Notes the missing claim or thesis connection |
| 2 | Identifies weak commentary (restatement and praise) |
| 3 | Rates against the table accurately |
| 4 | Proposes a specific change that adds interpretation |
How did you do?
Count your correct multiple-choice answers (out of 5) and your rubric points (out of 12). If you missed questions 1 to 5, reread “What a thesis is” and “The line of reasoning” in the study guide. If your written scores were low, redo Question 7, adding one sentence at a time for explain, connect and link. Then try the checklist.