Paper 2 Question 2: Summary and Synthesis

Question 2 is the first question that uses both sources. It names a focus — the two writers' experiences, their journeys, the places they describe — and asks what you can infer about the differences between the sources on that focus. A typical wording is: "What can you infer about the differences between the two [subjects]?"

It is worth 8 marks and tests AO1: identifying explicit and implicit information, and synthesising evidence from different texts. AQA reworded this question for 2026 to make the task clearer, so you know exactly what to do: infer and draw out differences across the pair of sources.

This is a content question, not an analysis question. You are summarising what the sources say and imply, and how that differs. You are not analysing language techniques. That work belongs in Questions 3 and 4.

Spend about 9 minutes here. It carries twice the marks of Question 1 but far fewer than the language and comparison questions that follow, so keep it focused and move on.

The firmest rule on this question is a marking limit built into the levels. To reach Level 3 or above, you must deal with both sources and address the difference the question asks about.

AQA's mark scheme is explicit about the cost of using only one text:

• A response of Level 1 quality that deals with only one text is marked 1, not 2.
• A response of Level 2 quality that deals with only one text is marked 3, not 4.

In plain terms, an answer about a single source is capped at 3 marks no matter how sharp it is. The paper is designed to test your ability to read across two texts, so an answer that ignores one throws away half the question.

Before you write, jot two columns — Source A and Source B — and note one detail in each for every point you want to make. If a point has evidence in only one column, it is not yet a synthesised point.

The word that separates the top levels from the bottom is synthesis: combining evidence from both sources into one connected point. The opposite is juxtaposition — placing the two sources side by side without joining them — which the mark scheme names as a Level 1 feature.

Compare two ways of handling the same idea:

Approach	What it looks like	Level
Description (juxtaposed)	"In Source A the train is luxurious. In Source B the train is basic."	Lower
Synthesis	"The train in Source A offers comfort with its 'dining-car', while Source B's 'uncovered carriage' with 'benches' shows a much earlier, plainer stage of travel."	Higher

The synthesised version makes one point about the difference and supports it with a detail from each source in the same sentence or paragraph. Build every paragraph that way: a difference, then evidence from both sides that proves it.

The other lever for the higher levels is inference: reading between the lines to say what a detail implies, rather than restating what it says. AQA's descriptors reward "perceptive inferences" at the top and warn that Level 1 answers "offer paraphrase rather than inference".

Paraphrase repeats the text in different words:

Source B says the carriage was "uncovered", so passengers had no roof.

Inference reads meaning into it:

Source B's "uncovered carriage" implies passengers were exposed to the weather, suggesting comfort was not yet part of rail travel at this early stage.

The move from the first to the second is what lifts a "clear" answer to a "perceptive" one. For every detail you quote, ask "what does this tell me?" and write that, not the detail alone.

Question 2 uses a four-level mark scheme. Each level describes the quality of your inference, synthesis and choice of detail. The examiner fits your whole answer to the best-matching level.

Level	Marks	What it rewards (paraphrased)
4	7–8	Perceptive inferences from both texts; judicious detail; perceptive differences
3	5–6	Clear inferences from both texts; relevant detail; clear differences
2	3–4	Some inference from one or both texts; some appropriate detail; some difference
1	1–2	Simple awareness; paraphrase rather than inference; simple difference

Two words define the ladder. "Clear" (Level 3) means accurate, well-chosen and directly focused on the difference. "Perceptive" (Level 4) means you infer something subtle or beneath the surface and pick the sharpest possible detail. The jump from Level 3 to Level 4 is not about writing more — it is about inferring more deeply and choosing your evidence more precisely.

"Judicious" detail means a small, exactly-right quotation, not a long one. One perfectly chosen phrase from each source beats a sentence copied out.

The biggest trap on Question 2 is drifting into analysis of methods — the work that belongs to Question 4. AQA's own marked example shows a strong Q2 answer that "slips into writing about the writers' perspectives and methods", and the commentary is blunt: where that overlaps with Question 4, those comments are not rewarded.

So keep a clean line between the two questions:

Question 2 (AO1)	Question 4 (AO3)
What the writers experience or describe	How the writers feel and how they convey it
Inference about differences in content	Comparison of perspectives and methods
Supported by a brief detail from each text	Supported by analysis of language and structure

On Question 2, write about the facts and implications of the difference — sizes, purposes, comforts, experiences. Do not name metaphors, adverbs or techniques, and do not analyse the writer's tone. Every sentence should answer "how are the two sources different, and what does that difference tell me?"

A Level 4 paragraph on the difference between two trains might read:

The two trains are at very different stages of development. Source A's train has a "mail van", a "dining-car" and "five sleeping cars", which implies a mature service built for long, comfortable journeys with a range of purposes. Source B's train, by contrast, is only a "little engine" pulling an "uncovered carriage" with "benches", suggesting a brand-new invention where the focus was still on making the machine work, not on the passengers' comfort.

Notice the shape: one clear difference, a "judicious" detail from both sources, and an inference ("implies", "suggesting") drawn from each. There is no language analysis and no writing about tone — only content and what it reveals.

1. Using only one source

An answer about a single text is capped at 3 marks. Give both Source A and Source B genuine attention, and support each point with evidence from both.

2. Describing instead of synthesising

Writing about Source A, then separately about Source B, is juxtaposition, and it sits in the lower levels. Join the two in each point: a difference, then evidence from each side.

3. Paraphrasing rather than inferring

Restating what the text says, without drawing out what it implies, holds you at Level 1 to 2. For every detail, add what it tells you.

4. Analysing language (straying into Question 4)

Naming metaphors, adverbs or techniques earns nothing on this AO1 question, and can waste minutes. Keep method analysis for Questions 3 and 4.

5. Copying out long quotations

The mark scheme rewards "judicious" detail: short, precise references. Quote a phrase, not a whole line, and spend your words on the inference instead.