Skip to content

Year 10 English | Understand, justify, check

Compare the standards behind a judgement

Texts can agree on events yet judge them differently because they value different outcomes. A strong comparison identifies those criteria, examines the evidence each writer selects and explains the relationship without inventing a simple opposition.

Read: Two views of Market Street

Writer A: “The repaired façades and reopened shopfronts show Market Street recovering. People can walk through again, deliveries have resumed, and the empty windows now display goods. These visible changes deserve recognition after years of closure.” Writer B: “The restored street matters, but recovery is an incomplete description if the former traders cannot afford the new rents. A place can regain its buildings while losing the relationships that made it familiar. Reopening is a beginning; who can return will shape what follows.”

You can reread this original passage while answering.

What to notice

A judgement such as recovery depends on what the writer counts as success. A restored building, renewed trade and the return of former traders are related but distinct outcomes.

What to do

State each writer’s criterion, connect it to a precise detail and develop a comparative claim. Use qualification where the texts leave something unresolved rather than forcing one writer to be wholly right or wrong.

Why it works

Comparing criteria explains how viewpoints are constructed. It moves analysis beyond summarising one text followed by the other, and avoids treating different emphases as factual contradictions.

Work through an example

Do the writers disagree about whether Market Street reopened?

  1. Both commentaries accept that the buildings and street have reopened.
  2. Writer A treats renewed physical and commercial activity as recovery.
  3. Writer B asks whether former traders can return, so the disagreement concerns the standard for recovery rather than the reopening itself.

A common mistake

Avoid reducing the comparison to positive versus negative. Writer B explicitly values restoration while questioning whether it is sufficient for the broader claim.

A strategy to try

Build a sentence using “Both…, but…”. Follow it with evidence for the shared position and the differing criterion. Check that the contrast concerns the texts’ actual claims.

Try it now

Try three questions

No account is needed. These examples do not change saved learning progress. Choose an answer and check it for an explanation; you can try again.

1. Which distinction best explains the writers’ different judgements?
Help: a starting point

Identify the evidence each writer selects as most important.

Help: the next step

Ask what each writer would need to see before calling the place recovered.

2. How does Writer B qualify the word “recovery”?
Help: a starting point

Read the acknowledgement at the start of Writer B’s comment.

Help: the next step

Connect it with the later condition about former traders returning.

3. Which comparative statement is most defensible?
Help: a starting point

Find the point on which both writers agree.

Help: the next step

Add a contrast that names the extra criterion B introduces, without inventing a factual contradiction.

For parents and carers

Ask for a comparative argument rather than a list of techniques. The questions focus on selected evidence, a contested term and a defensible synthesis. These short passages model analytical reading; they do not replace extended essay writing or teacher feedback.

Ready for more practice?

Choose a skill in the Year 10 English practice hub. Full app access follows the current guest and account options.

Continue Year 10 English