Skip to main content
A-LevelEnglish LanguageReading: text analysis and comparison9093/12 · May/June 2021 · Q225 Marks

Read the following text, which is an editorial piece about the environment from the LA Times, an American newspaper. Human activities could erase 1 million of our fellow species It's hard to imagine a more dire assessment of what we humans have done to the world than the 1,500-page United Nations report released Monday in Paris that says, among other things, that our collective activities have put some 1 million plant and animal species at risk of extinction, many within decades. While environmentalists and other scientists have warned for years that humans are uniquely dangerous to the habitability of the planet, the new report takes a deep and broad look at exactly what those impacts have been so far, and what they foretell. It isn't pretty. The report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services involved the work of more than 450 researchers and relied on 15,000 scientific and government reports; it took three years to complete. It's an astounding accounting of what we have wrought, warning that extinction rates are accelerating rapidly and making clear that without fundamental changes to how we live and organize human societies, the massive decline in biodiversity will endanger humankind as well, because our fate is so deeply interwoven with that of other species. 'The overwhelming evidence presents an ominous picture,' said Robert Watson, chair of the U.N. body that presented the report. 'The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.' The rate of global change in nature during the past 50 years, the report says, 'is unprecedented in human history.' Not coincidentally, the world population has increased from 3.7 billion to 7.6 billion since 1970. Despite the dire risk from our burning of fossil fuels, it seems that climate change is only the third biggest threat to existence of global species, at least for the moment. At the top of the list is land use, including development, logging, hunting, mining and harvesting, and man's impact on the oceans from pollution and overfishing. Three-quarters of the earth's surface bears the scars of human presence, as does two-thirds of the marine environment, the report says. Urbanized areas have doubled since 1990 and pollution from plastics has increased tenfold. Over-hunting and overfishing have undercut the natural diversity crucial to sustainability. Some scientists argue that the global ecosystem is undergoing a 'sixth extinction,' much like what happened to the dinosaurs and other lifeforms during five previous global catastrophes. But this is the first such crisis in which the blame does not fall on a massive asteroid strike or pervasive volcanic activity but on the behavior of a single species: us. The message is clear: Unless the world drastically reorders its priorities and alters its policies, the despoliation of nature will continue. So what is to be done? A lot of hard work. The report recommends a wide range of actions, including less intrusive and lower-impact land-use policies and integration of agriculture with development, stronger focus on conservation and retention of ecological diversity, localization (and 'improved distribution') of agricultural food chains, stronger marine protections and use policies, and in urban areas a better focus on sustainable development in making planning decisions. Of course, those steps require political will, and if the decades-long fight to counter the worst effects of climate change from global warming is any indicator, we may be in trouble. The issue is global, and correcting the course of human behavior takes leadership and international cooperation. We hope this report, and a global consensus on the dangers we face from climate change and a variety of other behaviors, will lead to smarter, less damaging policies. This isn't a matter of balancing the survival of one species or another against the human need for food, water and shelter. This report warns in no uncertain terms that we face an existential threat of our own making. It's humankind's to fix, and the urgency of doing so can't be overstated.

  1. Analyse the text, focusing on form, structure and language.[25]

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (May/June 2021). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

  1. [25] Mark according to the levels of response marking criteria in Table C.
  2. [25] Additional guidance: The analysis should address the style, form, genre, structure and language of the text (including specific and relevant references), explaining how they create meaning in relation to audience and purpose.
  3. [25] The comments below are illustrative and are not intended to be exhaustive. Candidates may make other valid comments that should be credited.
  4. [25] Candidates may organise their response in any appropriate way. They are not required to focus on form, structure and language in separate sections.
  5. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Form
  6. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Form - The typical text conventions used in the editorial (journalistic form)
  7. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Form - The ways in which the purpose (to present the official opinion of the publication) affects the content and style of the text
  8. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Form - The ways in which the editorial appeals to its intended audience, e.g. through the serious tone and formal register used in the text
  9. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Form - Any other relevant aspect of the text's form.
  10. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure
  11. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - The ways in which paragraphs are constructed and sequenced in the text
  12. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - The ways in which ideas are developed to build an argument and present an unequivocal opinion/view on the issue being considered
  13. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - Varying paragraph length and how this enables the writer to develop certain points in depth/detail, or make high impact points for dramatic effect
  14. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - The use of discourse markers for organisation/cohesion
  15. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - The use of a range of cohesive devices – tense agreement, anaphoric/cataphoric refences, substitution, etc.
  16. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Structure - Any other relevant structural feature in the text.
  17. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language
  18. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Choice/connotations of lexis: emotive vocabulary, e.g. dire, endanger, warned, extinction, ominous, wrought, despoliation, existential, threat, etc.
  19. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Use of first-person plural pronouns to indicate collective responsibility
  20. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Numerical/ quantitative terms add weight to the argument
  21. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Use of listing in sentences such as, eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide, and the effect this has on the reader
  22. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Contractions used to create a less formal register/ slightly conversational tone
  23. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - The inclusion of facts and statistics to give credibility to the opinions presented in the editorial
  24. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - The effect of the metaphor Three quarters of the earth's surface bears the scars of human presence
  25. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - The inclusion of quotes from third party experts
  26. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Use of the third person
  27. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Formal tone
  28. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Lexical fields concerned with the global environment / sustainability /climate change / natural science
  29. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - The use of sentences containing colons to dramatically illustrate the seriousness of the situation
  30. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Sentence variety and function
  31. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - The way in which adverbs are used in the text
  32. [25] Responses might analyse the following: Language - Any other relevant language feature in the text.

Write your answer and get it marked

On Oracle Prep you can write or photograph your own answer and have it marked by AI against this mark scheme, with feedback on what you missed.

Sign up free →

About this question

Topic
Reading: text analysis and comparison, A-Level English Language (syllabus 9093). Structured question, 25 marks.
Source
A-Level English Language, May/June 2021 Paper 1 Variant 2, question 2.

Questions and mark schemes are from past examination papers and remain the copyright of the exam board. How Oracle Prep builds its content

Related English Language questions

© 2026 Oracle Prep