Paper 1 Question 4: Evaluation

Paper 1 Question 4 is the evaluation question and the highest-value reading question on the paper. It prints a statement about part of the source and asks: "To what extent do you agree and/or disagree with this statement?"

In the 2026 sample paper, the statement is that the hyena "could be seen as funny rather than threatening" and "is actually no serious threat to Pi", and you must "focus on the second part of the source, from line 20 to the end." The question offers three prompts: consider your impressions of how the character behaves, comment on the writer's methods, and support your response with references.

It is worth 20 marks and assesses AO4 (Assessment Objective 4): "evaluate texts critically and support this with appropriate textual references." AO4 is assessed only on Paper 1, and only here.

Feature	Detail
Marks	20
Objective	AO4 (critical evaluation)
What you read	The stated part of the source (in 2026, line 20 to the end)
What you do	Agree / disagree with a statement, and justify it
Time	About 20 minutes

The key shift from earlier questions: you need an opinion. Question 2 and Question 3 ask how the writer does something; Question 4 asks how well, and wants you to take a side and defend it.

Evaluation is the skill of forming a judgement about how successfully a writer does something and then justifying that judgement. It is more than analysis: you are not only explaining how a method works, you are weighing up whether the writer achieves the effect the statement describes.

Compare the two skills on the same detail:

Skill	Sounds like
Analysis (AO2)	"The repeated 'yip yip' is onomatopoeia that makes the sound vivid."
Evaluation (AO4)	"The repeated 'yip yip' is more comic than frightening, so it supports the idea that the animal is no real threat."

The evaluation version does everything the analysis does, then adds a judgement tied back to the statement. That word "so" — the move from method to verdict — is what earns AO4 marks.

AO4 rewards a critical response: you decide how convincingly the writer creates an impression, and you back your decision with the writer's methods and the text. Description of what happens, with no judgement, stays low.

There is no single correct answer to Question 4. You may agree with the statement, disagree with it, or argue that both readings are valid. Examiners reward a convincing, well-supported judgement whichever route you take.

The 2026 answers and commentaries make this explicit. The top-level Response A argues that the hyena is "both threatening and comical" and treats the statement as not a simple "either/or" — and it reaches the highest level. The commentary notes that other top-level answers "may succeed equally well by exploring only one element of the statement." So a fully one-sided answer can score just as highly as a balanced one.

Three workable positions:

1. Agree — the hyena really is funny and no real threat; build every point towards that.
2. Disagree — it stays frightening throughout; the humour never removes the danger.
3. Both — it is funny and threatening at once, and the tension between the two is the point.

Whatever you choose, commit to it. A judgement you argue consistently beats a vague "there are good points on both sides" that never decides anything.

Pick the position you can support best from the text, not the one you personally believe.

Because Question 4 rewards a sustained argument, give it a clear shape. State your overall position first, then build paragraphs that each make one evaluative point.

A dependable paragraph pattern:

Step	What to write
Impression	The evaluative point: how you respond, tied to the statement
Method	The writer's technique that creates that response
Evidence	A brief, precise quotation from the correct lines
Effect	How the method shapes the reader's response, and how far it supports the statement

Worked example on an original detail. Suppose a source describes a stray dog that "trembled, then bared its teeth". Evaluating whether it is threatening:

At first the dog seems pitiful rather than dangerous: the verb "trembled" invites sympathy and undercuts any real menace, so I partly disagree that it is a threat. Yet the writer immediately follows this with "bared its teeth", and the swift shift keeps the reader uneasy. The effect is a creature that is both vulnerable and dangerous, which is why the impression is never simply one thing.

Notice the shape: an evaluative claim, the method named, a short quotation, and a verdict on how far it supports the statement. Three or four paragraphs like this make a strong answer.

Two boundary rules protect your marks on Question 4.

Stay in the stated lines. The 2026 question restricts you to "line 20 to the end." Evidence from earlier in the source is out of focus and cannot be rewarded, however good the analysis. Before you write, find where the stated section begins and end.

Track the section's development. The best answers do not treat the section as static; they show how the impression changes across it. The 2026 mark scheme's top level notices how the hyena's behaviour, "increasingly sick and confused", moves towards "the sudden anti-climax [that] removes any remaining sense of a threat". Tracking that shift — from apparent menace to collapse — is exactly the critical reading AO4 rewards.

A useful sequence: how does the section begin, how does the impression develop in the middle, and where does it end up? An evaluation that follows that arc reads as a genuine argument, not a list.

Because it is worth 20 marks, spend about 20 minutes here, but leave enough time for the 40-mark writing task in Section B.

Question 4 is marked with a levels-based mark scheme: the examiner fits your whole answer to the level that best matches it. Here are the 2026 levels for AO4, paraphrased.

Level	Marks	What it rewards (AO4)
4	16–20	Perceptive, detailed evaluation; a convincing, critical understanding of ideas; perceptive grasp of methods; judicious textual detail
3	11–15	Clear, relevant evaluation; clear understanding of ideas and methods; a range of relevant references
2	6–10	Some evaluation; some understanding of ideas and methods; some evaluative comment; some appropriate references
1	1–5	Simple, limited evaluation; simple understanding; simple comment; simple references

The step up the levels is the step from describing the section to evaluating it critically. The mark scheme notes that reference to the writer's methods "may be implicit", and the evaluative "I do/I don't agree" may be implicit too — but the judgement must be there and must be supported.

The difference between Response B (Level 2) and Response A (Level 4) in the 2026 commentaries is not the amount written. Response B keeps a focus but its comments on method are "not yet specific enough"; Response A ties a precise, critical judgement to well-chosen methods throughout.

1. Describing instead of evaluating

The most common cause of a Level 2 answer. Retelling what the character does, without judging how successfully the writer creates an impression, misses AO4. Add a verdict to every point: does this support the statement, or not?

2. Writing about the wrong lines

Question 4 names the section to focus on (in 2026, line 20 to the end). Analysis of earlier lines, however strong, sits outside the focus and earns nothing. Locate the boundary before you begin.

3. Ignoring the statement

The statement is the whole task. Answers that analyse the section but do not address whether they agree drift away from AO4. Refer back to the statement's wording in most paragraphs.

4. Sitting on the fence with no argument

"There are points on both sides" is not a judgement. You may argue both readings, but you must decide how they relate and commit to that. A clear line of argument is what lifts an answer.

5. A model paragraph

Here is a Level 4-style evaluation on an original source, where a storm is described as "spent, muttering" by the end, to show the move from method to judgement:

By the close of the section I largely agree that the storm is no longer a threat: the writer's choice of "spent" drains it of energy, and personifying it as "muttering" reduces a force that earlier "screamed" to something almost sulky and harmless. The shift from a violent verb to a petty one charts the storm's decline, and the reader's fear falls away with it. What began as danger ends as anticlimax, so the writer deliberately dismantles the menace rather than sustaining it.

Notice the shape: a clear position on the statement, the method named, a brief quotation, and a judgement about how the writer shapes the reader's response across the section.