The six sub-questions, decoded

Think of Question 1 as six mini-tasks stacked on top of each other, each one demanding something slightly different from you. Examiners deliberately vary the skill being tested so that by the end, you've shown you can read on every level — from "find me a fact" all the way up to "tell me why the writer chose that specific word." Here's the full map:

Why this matters more than students think

Here's the trap almost everyone falls into at some point: writing a beautifully detailed paragraph for a question that's only worth 2 marks. It feels productive — you're demonstrating understanding! — but the examiner can only award the marks available for that sub-question, full stop. Time spent over-explaining a 2-mark answer is time stolen from Question 4 (the Extended Response), which is worth far more and needs your best writing energy. Precision beats volume, every single time in Question 1.

What's the actual difference?

Explicit information is right there on the surface — the writer has told you directly, in plain words, and you don't need to think hard to find it. If someone asks "what colour is the door?" and the text says "the red door creaked open," the answer is explicit: red. No detective work required.

Implicit meaning is different — it's understood rather than stated. The writer hints at something through their choice of words, imagery, or tone, and you have to connect the dots yourself using logical inference. This is where a lot of students lose marks, because they either miss the hint entirely (reading too literally) or invent a meaning that isn't actually supported by the text (guessing too wildly).

Breaking this down

• Explicit: the corridor is long, cold, and windswept.
• Implicit: the corridor feels creepy and frightening — this isn't stated anywhere, but it's implied through the imagery of the candle flickering and the shadows "quaking and shuddering," almost as if they're alive and afraid too.

The danger zone: jumping too far

Making a correct inference is a skill, and skills have a "sweet spot." Consider this sentence: "The man stumbled into the house on his return from a night out, tripping and cursing his way up the stairs." A logical inference is that the man is drunk — this is supported directly by "stumbled," "tripping," and "cursing." But if you concluded that the man is an alcoholic, you've jumped too far. There's no evidence in this single sentence about his long-term drinking habits — only about his state on this one night. Examiners are specifically trained to spot over-reaching inferences like this, and they won't award marks for conclusions the text doesn't actually support.

Worked example — a full explicit/implicit breakdown

Explicit information:

• Lyuba is a one-month-old baby mammoth who lived about 40,000 years ago
• Scientists do not know how she died ("died mysteriously")
• She was discovered on a riverbank in Siberia
• She is the most perfectly preserved woolly mammoth ever discovered

Implicit meaning (with evidence):

• This is an amazing, rare scientific discovery — evidenced by "only a handful have ever been found before" and "none like her"
• Scientists worldwide are astounded and excited — evidenced by "mesmerised the scientific world"
• Her discovery is major international news — evidenced by "creating headlines across the globe"

Reading like it's an autopsy

Here's a genuinely useful way to think about critical reading: treat the text like an autopsy. You have a piece of writing laid out in front of you, and your job is to dissect it methodically rather than just skim over the surface. To do that well, you need four tools, and knowing when to reach for each one is just as important as knowing what they do.

The 3-step method

Step 1 — Read and highlight the question

Before you even glance at the text, mark up the question itself. Highlight three things: the command word (what you're actually instructed to do — "identify," "explain," "give two"), the focus (the exact words or phrases you need to hunt for in the text), and the marks available (which tells you how much to write).

Step 2 — Scan the text and highlight your evidence

Go to the specified paragraph(s) — and only those paragraphs — and highlight everything that could answer the question. Remember there may be more than one valid answer sitting in the text, so don't stop at the first thing you find if the question demands two or three points.

Step 3 — Write according to the instructions

• If the question asks for two examples, give two clearly separate examples — don't blur them into one sentence.
• If it asks you to use your own words, don't recycle the text's exact language — that earns zero marks even if the meaning is right.
• Match your answer length to the marks on offer.

The whole phrase, not just one word

This is one of the most common places students accidentally throw away marks. When a question asks you to explain a phrase like "forest dweller" or "only faintly resembled," you must explain the meaning of the entire phrase — not just pick out the one word you understand and ignore the rest.

Worked Example — "forest dweller" (2 marks)

Notice this phrase actually contains two separate ideas bundled together — "forest" and "dweller" — and the mark scheme rewards each one:

• Mark 1: an area with trees / a jungle / a wooded place
• Mark 2: living in / inhabited / occupier / reside in

Notice how neither of these repeats the original words "forest" or "dweller" — that's the "own words" rule in action.

Worked Example — "only faintly resembled" (2 marks)

• Mark 1: hardly / scarcely / barely / just weakly / just slightly / not much
• Mark 2: (looked) like / appeared similar (to)

Straightforward, but easy to rush

These questions are the most "findable" in Question 1 — the answer is usually sitting explicitly in the text. But don't let that fool you into rushing. The most common error here isn't misunderstanding the text; it's not giving enough separate points, or accidentally pulling an answer from the wrong paragraph.

Worked Example — 1(a), 1 mark

Question: What is the other name for an Eohippus, according to paragraph 1?
Answer: dawn horse [1]

Simple — but notice the answer is copied almost word-for-word. For a 1-mark identification question like this, you generally can use the text's own words, unlike in 1(b) where "your own words" is explicitly required.

Worked Example — 1(c), 2 marks: "Give two of the main ways horses were used"

Answer: artistic inspiration / inspired Stone Age cave painters [1]  +  transport [1]

Two separate ideas, each stated briefly. No need for lengthy sentences — a phrase per point is enough.

Worked Example — 1(d), 2 marks: "Identify two reasons why..."

Answer (any two, 1 mark each):

• Physical proof was discovered that horses lived there a long time ago (ancient samples)
• Lots of pictures/cave art of horses alongside other domesticated animals suggests horses may have also been tamed at that time
• Detailed/life-sized pictures suggest people had the opportunity to get up close — not just observe from a distance

Why this one is worth double-checking

Question 1(e) is usually the longest and most demanding of the six, worth 6 marks split into two 3-mark parts. It typically asks you to explain why something was thought or believed, and then explain why that thinking changed — testing R1, R2, and R3 all at once. Because it's worth 3+3, the golden rule from Topic 1 applies hard here: you need three distinct points for each part, not one deeply explored point.

Worked Example — Part (i), 3 marks: "Explain why scientists first thought Botai was 'the most likely place'"

• Enormous collections of horse remains [1]
• Ceramic remains suggested diet included horse milk [1]
• Evidence of damaged teeth suggested horses wore mouthpieces [1]

Worked Example — Part (ii), 3 marks: "Explain why scientists no longer believe this"

Here's an important detail: this part specifically requires answers predominantly in your own words — answers that are entirely copied from the text will not be credited.

• There was no way to corroborate the theory indefinitely [1]
• DNA analysis showed Botai horses were not genetically linked to modern horses [1]
• There was an alternative explanation for the apparent tooth damage (naturally prone to dental issues, not mouthpieces) [1]

Analyse, don't describe

This is the most sophisticated sub-question in Question 1, and it's where students most often fall back into "describing" instead of "analysing." Analysing means digging into why a writer chose a specific word — what associations, images, or feelings it creates — rather than just restating what the word means.

Worked Example — Part (i), 2 marks: "Why does the writer use 'explosion' rather than 'increase'?"

Notice this question isn't just asking what "explosion" means — it's asking why THIS word was chosen over a more neutral alternative. That comparison is the key to unlocking analysis marks.

• Suggests something sudden / overnight / not gradual [1]
• Suggests something huge / massive / impactful, with a profound effect — whereas "increase" alone doesn't indicate how dramatic the change was [1]

Worked Example — Part (ii), 3 marks: "What does 'elegant, living machines, powered only by grass' suggest about horses?"

This phrase is a powerful example of an oxymoron-like contrast — pairing "elegant, living" (organic, graceful, beautiful) against "machines... powered" (mechanical, functional, industrial). Good analysis unpacks that tension:

• Suggests horses are beautiful, graceful creatures [1]
• "Machines" implies they have industrial-level strength and power [1]
• The contrast between something so powerful being fuelled naturally, "only by grass," creates a sense of wonder — it's almost unbelievable, and hints at an environmentally friendly, green form of transport/energy [1]