This document provides marking notes for a comparative analysis of two texts about fathers' relationships with their daughters. The marking notes outline what constitutes an adequate, good, and excellent analysis. An adequate analysis would identify the common theme of fathers struggling in their relationships with daughters and compare attitudes and references to money. A good analysis would provide more depth, such as analyzing causes of dissatisfaction or commenting on techniques used to influence readers. An excellent analysis could further discuss forms/styles, audiences, purposes, and importance of money in more detail. Common pitfalls include insufficiently supported comments, conflating tone and effect, and lack of organization in proving the overriding point about the fathers' struggles.

1. Paper 1 HL Review

2. Part 1: Warmup

3. Compare and contrast these two images

4. Compare and contrast these two images

5. Compare and contrast these two images

6. Compare and contrast these two images

7. Marking Notes

8. General
Both texts are about fathers trying to do their best for their daughters
and not succeeding very well. The first is an interview with a billionaire
father in the UK newspaper The Guardian about his daughters. The
second is taken from a blog post on the site of an organisation in the US
whose mission is to make fathers more responsible and committed
parents.

9. An adequate to good analysis will:
• identify the common theme as being that of the relationship between fathers and their daughters
• recognize that despite the good intentions of the fathers (one an identifiable individual, the other
a hypothetical father), the relationship with their daughters is not as successful as they would
like.
• compare the attitudes of the daughters in both texts and how they are presented (indirectly in
text C, directly in text D)
• compare the way money is referred to in the two texts (for example, the abundance of it in text C,
the lack of it in text D) as well as recognising, in some way, that reference to it is metaphorical in
the latter
• make some observations about the form in which the experience of the fathers is presented to
the reader: interview in text C, imaginary dialogue in text D as well as some remarks about the
layout and visual features of both texts
• identify the audiences and purposes of the texts.

10. A good to excellent analysis may also
• comment more fully on the relationships between father and daughter in the two texts, for
example observing that the daughters appear to have the whip hand
• analyse in more depth the possible causes of the dissatisfaction that both men are experiencing
in their roles as fathers. Possibly also observe that they are represented as being in need of
sympathy
• deal more fully with the differences in tone between the two texts, including that of the
interviewer in text C and that of the introduction to the dialogue in text D
• comment more fully on the techniques used by the website and the blog to influence readers
and, for example, on the effect on the reader of the images and layout in both texts
• comment further on the forms and styles of the interview (C) and the mock interview (D)
• comment in more detail on the audiences and purposes of both texts
• offer comments about the situations these two fathers find themselves in and about the
importance they give to money.

11. Common pitfalls, per criteria

12. Criterion A: Understanding and comparison of
the texts
• To what extent does the analysis show an understanding of the texts,
their type and purpose, and their possible contexts
• If you give purpose only as “to entertain”, “to inform”, etc., this is not
adequate (3 points), so at best it is some (2 points), at worst little (1 point). --
how can a criteria worth 25% be satisfied by a 2-word answer?
• *Are the comments supported by well-chosen references to the
texts?
• Many papers could be described as “summary predominates and
observations are rarely supported by references to the texts” (1 point) but
received 2 points here for other reasons.
• The third marker, showing the similarities and differences – see the
warmup activity.

13. Criterion B: Understanding of the use and
effects of stylistic features
• To what extent does the comparative analysis show awareness of how
the stylistic features of the text, such as language, structure, tone,
technique and style, are used to construct meaning?
• Structure was often discussed, but not discussed how it “constructs meaning”.
• Few distinguished between the author’s tone and the speaker’s tone in text D.
• To what extent does the comparative analysis show understanding of
the effects of stylistic features (including visual texts) on the reader?
• “mood” is the effect of “tone” – to talk about the “effect of tone and mood” is
thus ridiculous
• Look at the effect of the stylistic features (choice of words, etc.) rather than
the effect of what is being said.

14. Criterion C: Organization and development
• The two indicators here are:
• Organization and development
• Balance
• By “development” is meant how the argument is presented so that it
is convincing: for the full 5 points, your piece must do this:
• The comparative analysis is well balanced and effectively organized, with a
coherent and effective structure and development.
• Therefore, you must start off knowing that there is an overriding
point that you are trying to prove about both pieces, and prove it:
“Both texts are about fathers trying to do their best for their
daughters and not succeeding very well.”

15. Criterion D: Language
• In spite of what the IB professes, in practice a single language error is
enough to bring a 5 down to a 4.
• Not using the correct literary terms: the author of text C is not being
sarcastic, he is being ironic.
• Lack of variation
• Drops in register: even if the text uses it, you shouldn’t unless you put
it into quotes: financial “lingo”.