These are original Marlbridge practice questions, not past exam questions. Passages marked “written by Marlbridge” are original; the lines from Edgar Allan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart (1843) and The Cask of Amontillado (1846) are in the public domain. The mark points are a suggested Marlbridge rubric, not an official scoring guideline. Allow about 45 minutes.
Question 1 (multiple choice · core)
In The Tell-Tale Heart (1843), Poe’s narrator says, “True!—nervous—very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad?” This opening most strongly suggests that the narrator
- (A) is a calm and trustworthy witness.
- (B) expects to be accused of madness and defends himself, which raises doubt about his reliability.
- (C) is addressing a friend who has praised him.
- (D) is describing someone else’s illness.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). The defensive question and the breathless punctuation suggest anxiety and a wish to persuade. An unprompted defence of one’s sanity makes readers suspicious.
- (A) contradicts the evidence of agitation.
- (C) misreads the question, which is a protest.
- (D) is contradicted by “I had been and am”.
Question 2 (multiple choice · core)
The same narrator says, “Object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man.” What is the most likely effect of this passage on his reliability?
- (A) It increases the reader’s trust, because he gives a clear motive.
- (B) It shows that he is lying about the murder.
- (C) It shows that the narrator has forgotten what happened.
- (D) It decreases the reader’s trust, because the claims of no motive and of love are set against the murder he describes, and he does not explain the contradiction.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (D). The staccato denials do not match the act, and the narrator offers no explanation. The gap between his claims and his deed signals unreliability.
- (A) is the reverse: he gives no motive at this point.
- (B) goes beyond the evidence: the issue is the mismatch between his claims and his actions, not a proven lie about the murder.
- (C) is unsupported: he remembers in detail.
Question 3 (multiple choice · core)
Passage written by Marlbridge.
I have no interest whatever in the outcome of the election. I merely note, for the record, that Mr Hale’s accounts have never been audited, that his dinner guests leave early, that his dog is ill-bred, and that, on three separate occasions, he has failed to tip his hat to me.
The best evidence that the narrator is unreliable is
- (A) the phrase “for the record”.
- (B) the contradiction between his claim of having no interest and the long list of complaints.
- (C) the mention of the dog.
- (D) the use of “that”.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). Self-contradiction between what the narrator says about himself and what he does is a classic sign of unreliability.
- (A) is a phrase that adds formality but is not the contradiction.
- (C) is part of the catalogue, not the main evidence.
- (D) is a grammatical feature with no relevance.
Question 4 (multiple choice · core)
Setting written by Marlbridge. Two letters describe the same meeting. One writer says the visitor “left in tears”. The other says the visitor “left laughing”. What is the best response?
- (A) Ignore both letters.
- (B) Decide that the story has a mistake.
- (C) Assume that the longer letter is right.
- (D) Treat the contradiction as evidence, and consider what each writer could see, what each wants and what the rest of the text supports.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (D). Contradiction between narrators invites the reader to weigh vantage point, motive and other evidence.
- (A) discards the evidence.
- (B) assumes an error rather than a deliberate source of meaning.
- (C) uses an arbitrary rule.
Question 5 (multiple choice · core)
Passage written by Marlbridge.
Mother and Mr Ames spoke in low voices in the hall, and Mother said “Not in front of Nell”, and Mr Ames went out very red in the face. I was nine, and I thought it was about the biscuits.
The narrator is best described as
- (A) limited in understanding, so that the reader can infer more than she does.
- (B) deliberately lying.
- (C) an omniscient narrator.
- (D) a narrator without a perspective.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (A). A child reports what she sees but misreads its significance, and the reader sees the likely adult meaning. This produces irony.
- (B) is unsupported: she reports honestly.
- (C) is contradicted by her limited understanding.
- (D) ignores that her age and understanding shape what she says.
Question 6 (multiple choice · stretch)
At the end of The Cask of Amontillado (1846), Montresor reports, “My heart grew sick—on account of the dampness of the catacombs.” The most likely function of this line is to
- (A) show that the catacombs were unhealthy.
- (B) suggest that the narrator deflects the signs of his own conscience by attributing his feeling to the setting.
- (C) prove that Montresor regrets nothing.
- (D) show that the story takes place in winter.
Answer and explanation
Answer: (B). An explanation that avoids the obvious cause, guilt or horror, suggests a narrator reluctant to face his own feelings.
- (A) takes the narrator’s excuse at face value.
- (C) is contradicted by the sickness of heart, which implies a feeling of some kind.
- (D) is not supported.
Question 7 (written response · core)
Passage written by Marlbridge.
I have never wished the Colonel ill. If I mentioned his debts to the club, it was from concern; if I mentioned them twice, it was from greater concern. That the Colonel has since resigned and gone abroad is a thing I regret, though I cannot help observing that the club is much quieter.
Write a paragraph of about 120 to 150 words explaining the evidence that the narrator is unreliable.
Answer and explanation
Model response. The narrator’s self-presentation is contradicted by his own account. He opens with the flat claim that he “never wished the Colonel ill”, an over-insistent denial, and then describes mentioning the Colonel’s debts to the club twice, justifying the second as “greater concern”. The escalating excuse sounds like rationalisation. His regret at the Colonel’s departure is undercut by the “though”, which pivots at once to satisfaction: “the club is much quieter”. The Colonel’s side is entirely absent, so the reader sees only what the narrator chooses to say. The pattern of denial, self-justification and a slip into relief suggests that he enjoyed the Colonel’s fall, and that his concern was a cover for rivalry.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (6 points).
| Point | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 1 | Identifies the opening denial as over-insistence |
| 2 | Identifies the “concern” and “greater concern” escalation as self-justification |
| 3 | Notes the pivot after “though” and the quotation about the club |
| 4 | Notes the omission of the Colonel’s perspective |
| 5 | States a conclusion about the narrator’s motive or reliability, supported by the evidence |
| 6 | Uses precise quotation and clear analytic language |
Question 8 (written response · core)
Scenario written by Marlbridge. A story has two narrators. The cook narrates a wedding day as she sees it from the kitchen. The bride narrates the same day from the church. The cook says that the bride “smiled all day”. The bride says that she “did not stop trembling”.
Name one kind of information each narrator could provide that the other could not, and explain what the contradiction invites the reader to do.
Answer and explanation
Model response. The cook can provide details of the preparations, the household’s talk and the bride’s public appearances as seen from outside, while the bride can provide her private feelings and sensations, which no one else can observe. The contradiction between “smiled all day” and “did not stop trembling” invites the reader to see that the bride’s smile was a performance hiding fear, and to reflect on the difference between how people appear and how they feel. The reader is also invited to consider why each narrator tells the day as she does, since the cook may want to see happiness and the bride may need to confess fear.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (4 points). One point for information accessible only to the cook (external events); one for information accessible only to the bride (internal states); one for explaining the contradiction (public appearance against private feeling); one for considering each narrator’s motive or perspective.
Question 9 (written response · stretch)
Choose a short story with an unreliable or limited narrator, or use Poe’s The Cask of Amontillado (1846). In 120 to 150 words, explain how the narrator’s reliability affects the reader’s understanding of another character.
Answer and explanation
Model response (The Cask of Amontillado). Montresor claims that he bore “the thousand injuries of Fortunato” but refused to endure “insult”, yet the story never says what either was. The reader therefore cannot judge whether Fortunato deserves his fate, and the omission makes Montresor’s justification a claim without evidence. Because the narrator tells the story with calm and with careful planning, the reader is invited to see his reasons as pretext, and to see Fortunato, whose name suggests good fortune and who is led through the catacombs in a fool’s costume, as a victim of Montresor’s pride. The narrator’s reliability thus changes the meaning of Fortunato: from an offender to a man whose guilt is never established.
Suggested Marlbridge rubric (4 points). One point for identifying a specific sign of unreliability or omission; one for naming how it affects the reader’s view of the other character; one for evidence from the text; one for a conclusion about what the narrator’s reliability reveals. Any well-supported story earns credit.
How did you do?
- 8 to 9 correct or well-supported answers: Move on to the Topic 7.5 study guide.
- 5 to 7: Re-read the signs of unreliability in the study guide and redo the written questions.
- 4 or fewer: Work through both worked examples again, then use the revision notes and checklist.