OxfordAQA English Language: Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: English Language revision notes

---

Section A — Reading

1. Explain what is meant by inference, and how it differs from retrieval of explicit information. [3]

2. Explain how to use the “point, evidence, explanation” structure in an analysis paragraph, and state the most common weakness. [4]

Section B

3. A writer describes a city at night: “Neon spilled across wet tarmac, and the street held its breath between one siren and the next.”

(a) Analyse the effect of the verb “spilled”. [3] (b) Analyse the effect of the personification in the second clause. [3] (c) Comment on the structural effect of joining the two clauses with “and”. [2]

4. Explain four structural features a writer can use to control a reader’s attention across a whole text. [8]

5. Explain how to compare two texts’ viewpoints effectively, giving three things to compare and one common mistake. [6]

6. You are writing an article arguing that homework should be abolished.

(a) Explain three techniques you would use and their effect on the reader. [6] (b) Explain why acknowledging the opposing view strengthens your argument. [3]

7. Composition marks are split between content/organisation and technical accuracy. Name three features of technical accuracy examiners credit directly, and explain what “range” means in this context. [5]

---

Answers

1. Retrieval means finding information stated directly in the text [1]. Inference means working out what is implied but not stated, using clues in the writing [1]; for example, a text that says a character “checked the lock twice” does not state anxiety but implies it [1].

2. Make a point answering the question; provide a short embedded quotation as evidence; then explain how the specific words create the effect and what the reader is led to feel or understand [1] [1] [1]. The most common weakness is that the explanation merely restates the quotation rather than analysing the writer’s choices — the explanation should be the longest part [1].

3. (a) “Spilled” suggests the light is liquid and uncontained, moving of its own accord rather than being directed [1]; it implies excess and mess, so the city seems disordered rather than glamorous [1], and it links visually to the wetness of the tarmac, unifying the image [1]. (b) Personifying the street as holding its breath attributes fear and anticipation to the place itself [1], so the tension belongs to the whole city rather than to any individual [1]; “held” also suggests a deliberate, temporary stillness, implying the calm will not last [1]. (c) The coordinating conjunction places the two images on an equal footing rather than subordinating one [1], creating an accumulating, unhurried rhythm that mirrors the pause the sentence describes [1].

4. Any four, 2 marks each: the opening — beginning in the middle of the action, or with a striking image or question, which creates a question the reader wants answered [1] [1]. Shifts in focus — moving from a wide external view to a single detail, which narrows attention and increases intensity [1] [1]. Paragraph and sentence length — short paragraphs isolate an idea and force a pause, so they carry disproportionate weight [1] [1]. Repetition or a motif returning through the text, which creates cohesion and signals significance [1] [1]. A cyclical or circular ending that returns to the opening image, so the reader measures the distance travelled [1] [1]. Withheld information revealed late, which sustains tension [1] [1].

5. Compare the writers’ attitudes to the same subject — whether they approve, criticise or remain detached [1]; their tone and register, and how formality shapes the reader’s relationship with the writer [1]; the methods each uses to convey the viewpoint — statistics versus anecdote, emotive versus neutral lexis [1]; and the audience and purpose each is writing for, which explains the differences [1]. Common mistake: writing about text A and then text B in two separate halves [1]. Comparison marks require the texts to be placed side by side within the same paragraph, using connectives such as “whereas”, “by contrast” and “similarly” [1].

6. (a) Any three, 2 marks each: rhetorical questions — invite the reader to reach the conclusion themselves, which is more persuasive than being told [1] [1]. Statistics and expert evidence — lend authority and make the argument hard to dismiss as personal opinion [1] [1]. Anecdote — makes an abstract policy argument emotionally concrete and relatable [1] [1]. Direct address and inclusive pronouns — position the reader as an ally who already shares the writer’s concern [1] [1]. The rule of three or a triplet — creates a memorable rhythm that lodges the point [1] [1]. (b) It shows the writer is informed and reasonable rather than one-sided, which makes the reader more willing to trust them [1]. It allows the writer to rebut the strongest opposing point directly, so the reader has no unanswered objection left [1]. A piece that ignores the counter-argument invites the reader to supply it themselves, which weakens the case [1].

7. Any three, 1 mark each: sentence demarcation, including avoiding comma splices [1]; consistent tense throughout the piece [1]; subject-verb agreement [1]; correct use of apostrophes for possession, as distinct from plurals [1]; paragraphing that signals a shift in time, place or topic [1]. Range means using varied sentence structures and precise vocabulary, but this ambition is only credited when it is controlled – a simple word used correctly is worth more than a complex one used wrongly [2].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Identifying a technique without analysing its effect.
• Restating the quotation instead of explaining it.
• Comparing texts sequentially rather than point by point.
• Writing a persuasive piece with no acknowledgement of the other side.
• Reaching for ambitious vocabulary that is used incorrectly, rather than controlled, accurate range.