Afterwards Squealer was sent round the farm to explain the new arrangement to the
others.
‘Comrades,’ he said, ‘I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade
Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades,
that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No
one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be
only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might
make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? Suppose you had
decided to follow Snowball, with his moonshine of windmills – Snowball, who, as we now
know, was no better than a criminal?
‘He fought bravely at the Battle of the Cowshed,’ said somebody.
‘Bravery is not enough,’ said Squealer. ‘Loyalty and obedience are more important. And
This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The Quality of Written Communication is very high and the candidate's clarity of written expression means that their answer is both thoroughly engaging and insightful, without being a challenge to read, Sure, there is challenging vocabulary used, but it is spelled and structured correctly. Where the candidate could improve is there use of more complex punctuation points like colons, semi-colons and parentheses. Some evidence of the use of these is in this answer, but a more proficient usage conveys a confidence in the writing and this enthusiastic flair is something the examiners love to see.
Level of analysis
The danger with all questions based on extracts is that candidate will limit themselves to what the extract shows and comment on little else. This is a bad idea as there are marks to be had in understanding the entirety of the prescribed text and so evidence of this understanding must be shown, but in a good balance. If there is too much emphasis on other parts of the novel, then the candidate is not demonstrating enough analysis of the extract given, but too little knowledge demonstrated of the rest of the play, and this limits the extent of your evidenced understanding. This candidate has nicely drawn on a number of influences, both within the extract and from other parts of the novel, and demonstrates a sound understanding of Orwell's characters Squealer and Napoleon. To gain further marks in this instance, I would like to see a better use of contextual appreciation. That is, for the candidate to not recognise or comment on the reflection of Squealer as Vladimir Lenin or Napoleon and Joseph Stalin can be considered counter-productive. It is important that these contextual factors are included even in short-answer questions.
Response to question
There are two questions here, but both are shorter writing tasks that will hold fewer marks than a typical exam question. The first question asks the candidate to consider the presentation of Squealer, and the attitude the reader has on him from the given extract. The second question is based on the character of Napoleon, and how Orwell's description paints a picture of him for the reader. The answer retain a very good focus on the question and very few spare words are used. That is to say, that there are very few words here that don't elicit marks. Candidate aiming for top band answers should want to learn how to write concisely and precisely.
