AQA A-Level English Literature B: Paper 2 Texts and Genres — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, testing exam technique and understanding of Paper 2’s structure rather than reproducing set-text analysis itself — they do not assume Option 2A or 2B, or any specific set text. Use these alongside genuine set-text study and timed practice on real unseen passages from official past papers.

Related: Paper 2 Texts and Genres study guide and revision notes.

Section A

1. State whether Paper 2 is open book or closed book, and explain one practical consequence this has for how a candidate should prepare their set texts. [3]

2. Name the three sections of Paper 2 and the number of marks each carries. [3]

3. State the three text requirements a candidate’s set-text list must satisfy. [3]

Section B

4. Explain why the specification describes “crime writing” and “political and social protest writing” as elements rather than fixed genres. [6]

5. Explain what distinguishes a genuinely connective Section C essay from two mini-essays written side by side. [8]

6. Explain how the elements framework used for set texts should also be applied to the Section A unseen-passage question. [6]

Section C

7. A student spends most of their revision time memorising quotations from their three set texts. Explain why this is not the most effective use of revision time for this paper, and suggest a more effective alternative. [8]

8. A student’s Section C essay for a mock exam analyses their first set text in full, then analyses their second set text in full, with no explicit comparison between the two. Explain what is missing from this response and how it could be improved. [8]

Answers

1. Paper 2 is an open-book exam [1]. Candidates may take clean, unannotated copies of their set texts into the exam room [1]. The practical consequence is that revision should prioritise building a mental map of where in each text the specification’s “elements” appear, so that material can be located and used quickly, rather than memorising quotations word-for-word for their own sake [1].

2. Section A — a compulsory question on an unseen passage, 25 marks [1]. Section B — an essay on one of the candidate’s own set texts, 25 marks [1]. Section C — an essay connecting two of the candidate’s set texts, 25 marks [1].

3. One post-2000 prose text [1]; one poetry text [1]; a further text, with one of the three texts pre-1900 [1] (a single text may satisfy more than one requirement simultaneously, for example a pre-1900 poetry text).

4. The specification’s own elements lists (such as detection and investigation, or the pursuit of power and rebellion) are features to identify and weigh in a text, not a checklist every text must fully satisfy [2]. This matters because many set texts pre-date the genre being recognised as a formal literary tradition — a text may display some named elements strongly while barely touching others [2]. Treating the label as a fixed genre risks an essay that forces a text to fit every element equally, rather than accurately noting which elements are prominent and which are largely absent, which the specification’s own “elements” framing is designed to allow for [2].

5. A genuinely connective essay tracks one specific element (for example, the treatment of guilt, or the structure of a power struggle) across both set texts simultaneously, using discussion of one text to illuminate or complicate the point being made about the other [4]. Two mini-essays side by side instead analyse each text in an isolated block, with any comparison — if it appears at all — confined to a brief closing paragraph, which does not demonstrate sustained comparative analysis across the full response [4].

6. Because the unseen extract is drawn from the same genre territory as the chosen option (crime, or political and social protest writing), the same analytical habits developed for set texts — identifying which named elements the passage displays, and how strongly — apply directly [3]. Practising this transfer explicitly matters because Section A is often under-revised relative to the set texts, despite testing exactly the same underlying analytical skill on unfamiliar material rather than a different skill altogether [3].

7. Because the exam is open book, a clean copy of each set text is available during the exam itself, so success depends on locating and analysing relevant material quickly under time pressure, not on recalling exact wording from memory [4]. A more effective use of revision time is building a mental map of each text — noting which sections deal with which specification elements (for example, where detection and investigation is most prominent, or where a power struggle intensifies) — so that supporting material can be found rapidly once in the exam room [4].

8. What is missing is a genuine comparative argument: the response as described analyses each text separately, which is characteristic of two mini-essays rather than a connective essay [3]. It could be improved by selecting one specific element common to both texts and restructuring the response around that element throughout, moving between the two texts within each paragraph — for example, discussing how each text treats the restoration (or absence) of moral order in the same paragraph, rather than covering this point for one text in an early paragraph and for the other text in a later, disconnected paragraph [5]. This sustained interweaving, rather than sequential coverage, is what Section C rewards [+ overall coherence mark, allow 8 max].

Where marks are usually lost

Treating a named element (such as “detective-hero and nemesis”) as a box to tick rather than a feature to weigh for strength of presence in a specific text. Writing Section C as two separate text analyses, sometimes with a token comparative sentence added only in the conclusion. Under-revising the unseen-passage question in Section A because it feels less “revisable” than prepared set texts, despite carrying identical marks to each essay section. Bringing an annotated or additional-material copy of a set text into the exam room, which breaches the open-book conditions. Being unable to state clearly which of a candidate’s three texts satisfies the pre-1900 requirement and which satisfies the post-2000 prose requirement.