Paper 1 Creative Reading and Writing: Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers and their unseen extracts. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Paper 1 study guide | Paper 1 revision notes | Paper 2 practice questions

---

Section A — Reading (practise on any short unseen extract of your choice)

1. Choose a short (200-400 word) extract of prose fiction. List four pieces of information the extract states explicitly about the setting or a character. [4]

2. From the same extract, select one phrase you find effective and explain the writer’s use of language, including the effect created. [8]

3. Explain how the writer has structured the extract to interest the reader, referring to the opening, the middle and the ending. [8]

4. “The writer makes this a genuinely engaging opening.” To what extent do you agree? Evaluate the extract’s opening two paragraphs, using the text to support your response. [20]

Section B — Writing

5. Write a description suggested by the following image or scenario: An abandoned house at the edge of a town, seen at dusk. [40]

6. Question 4 carries 20 of Section A’s 40 marks. Explain what this means for how exam time and revision time should be allocated across the four reading questions. [3]

7. A student decides to compare the Paper 1 extract with a poem studied in class, hoping this will strengthen their answer. Explain why this is a wasted strategy on this paper specifically. [2]

8. Technical accuracy is worth 16 of the 40 marks available in Section B, marked as a separate allocation from the 24 marks for content and organisation. Explain why spelling and punctuation errors specifically cap the technical-accuracy mark, even when a response’s ideas and structure are strong. [3]

---

Answers (worked approach, since Section A depends on your chosen extract)

1. Look strictly for information the text states, not information you infer — e.g. a name, a place, a time of day, a physical description given directly. Four separate, clearly stated details score full marks.

2. A strong answer: (a) quotes a short, precise phrase; (b) names the technique (e.g. “the verb choice…”, “this metaphor…”); (c) explains the specific effect on the reader/meaning, not a generic “it makes it interesting.” Two well-developed points at this depth typically score in the top band.

3. Track the extract’s shape across all three stages: what the writer focuses on first and why, how the focus shifts in the middle (zooming in on detail, changing pace, introducing a twist), and how the ending resolves, withholds or redirects the reader’s attention. Naming specific structural features (a short sentence for pace, a paragraph break for a shift in focus) with a clear “why” is what separates this from a plot summary.

4. State a clear judgement (fully agree / partly agree / disagree) and sustain it. Support with specific textual evidence from the opening two paragraphs, evaluating rather than just describing — e.g. explaining why a particular technique succeeds or falls short in creating engagement, not simply identifying that it’s present.

5. Mark against: content and organisation (structure, ambitious vocabulary, a clear shape with an opening, development and ending) and technical accuracy (a range of correctly punctuated sentence structures, accurate spelling). A strong response plans a clear structure before writing — for example, moving from an establishing wide shot of the house, to closer sensory detail, to a final image or reflection — rather than a list of description with no shape.

6. Question 4 is worth as many marks as Questions 1–3 combined [1], so it deserves a correspondingly larger share of the reading time available, not the same amount of time as each shorter question [1]. It is also the paper’s designed “stretch” question, testing a sustained evaluative argument rather than a single isolated skill, so revision time should prioritise practising this extended response, not just the shorter identification and analysis tasks [1].

7. Paper 1’s Section A works from a single extract, and AO3 (comparing writers across texts) is not assessed on this paper — it belongs entirely to Paper 2 [1]. Time spent drawing in an unrelated text earns no marks here and would be better spent developing the analysis of the given extract itself [1].

8. At 16 of 40 marks, technical accuracy accounts for 40% of the writing task’s total, not a minor add-on [1]. Content and organisation (24 marks) and technical accuracy (16 marks) are marked as separate allocations, so persistent spelling and punctuation errors cap only the technical-accuracy mark, not the content and organisation mark [1]; because that allocation is still 40% of the section, weak accuracy caps a substantial share of the available marks even where the ideas are strong, so time must be left at the end specifically to check the writing [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Retelling what happens in the extract instead of analysing the writer’s choices.
• Identifying a technique without explaining its specific effect.
• Writing a continuation of the extract for the creative writing task rather than an original piece.
• Running out of time on Section B because too long was spent perfecting Section A answers.
• Uneven sentence variety in the creative writing response — several sentences in a row with the same structure and length.
• Attempting to compare the extract with another text, as if AO3 applied here — it does not; comparison is tested only on Paper 2.
• Treating all four reading questions as equally deserving of time, rather than weighting time toward Question 4’s 20 marks.