Studyledge

Descriptive Composition: Question 7

Syllabus W1, W2

Structured 5 marks

A candidate is planning a description of an elderly flower-seller on a market corner and has brainstormed six possible details:

  1. She had old hands.
  2. Her fingers were stained a faint green from decades of trimming stems.
  3. She wore a cardigan.
  4. Every few minutes, she nudged one crooked stem back into line so the bucket looked symmetrical again.
  5. She was probably in her seventies.
  6. A cracked watch, stopped at some hour long past, hung loose on her wrist.

Select the three details that would make the strongest description, and for each of the three you reject, explain in one sentence why it is too generic to keep. [5]

Show worked solution Hide worked solution

Worked solution

Assessment focus

This tests the ability to judge detail for specificity rather than quantity, recognising that a small number of precise, sensory or behavioural details builds a stronger picture than a longer list of vague ones, and being able to explain the distinction in each case.

Mark scheme (5 marks)

  • Up to 3 marks (1 each) for correctly selecting details 2, 4 and 6 as the strongest three.
  • Up to 2 marks for justifications of the three rejected details that name the specific problem (vagueness, telling rather than showing, redundancy) rather than a generic “it’s boring.”

Model answer

Keep:

  • Detail 2 (“stained a faint green from decades of trimming stems”), specific, sensory, and implies a whole history of repeated physical work.
  • Detail 4 (“nudged one crooked stem back into line”), a precise behavioural detail that implies pride and habitual care, without stating either quality directly.
  • Detail 6 (“a cracked watch, stopped at some hour long past”), a single specific object that hints at a story beyond the immediate scene.

Reject, with reasons:

  • Detail 1 (“She had old hands”), states age generically with no specific sensory detail; it tells rather than shows, and duplicates the work detail 2 already does far more precisely.
  • Detail 3 (“She wore a cardigan”), factually accurate but unremarkable; it does not distinguish this flower-seller from anyone else and adds nothing to the picture.
  • Detail 5 (“She was probably in her seventies”), a vague guess at age rather than a concrete, chosen detail; it tells the reader a fact instead of letting specific detail imply it.

Why this works

Details 2, 4 and 6 each do more than one job: they suggest age, character and history without ever stating them, and, crucially, they do not overlap with one another (work, habit, and a hint of the past are three different angles on the same person). Details 1, 3 and 5 are rejected not because they are false, but because they are the kind of detail any elderly market trader might have, so they do nothing to individualise this particular woman.

Common pitfalls specific to this task

  • Choosing detail 1 alongside detail 2, not noticing they cover the same ground (old age via hands) and that detail 2 already does this more precisely.
  • Rejecting detail 6 in favour of detail 3 or 5, mistaking “factual” for “vivid”. A cardigan or an age estimate is a fact, but not a distinctive, chosen image.