Questions 5 & 6 (OCR GCSE English Language): Model Answers

Answer

The superiorly thick smoky clouds rolled in like boulders, ready to crush anything in their way. The darkness was engulfing and seemed to fully consume any speck of light. Any last hope was gone… Without warning, water came gushing down—throwing itself onto the gagged knife-like rocks.

The rocks seemed to slice the water from its many thousands of sharp daggers, embedded all over it. The water came gushing down like a waterfall along the jagged surface of the wise rock.

The merciless winds caused the enormous waves to crash and erupt like lava coming down from a raging volcano. It split like an aggressive wild animal, angered by the vigorous storm. The waves punched and beat the rocks with all of their might, and the wind gusts knifed the piercing thorns of branches.

Branded upon the colossal tree trunk was a single blinding white light, which had cut through the immensely thick cloud and fog—like a laser. Its source could vividly be made out to be an inferior and small lighthouse, perched on the top of a cliff, which was like a bird sat upon its nest, just watching its home shatter to a thousand pieces.

The murky water below was an opaque block, of which only faint ghost-like shadows of sea creatures could be seen. With each wave, the fragile bodies of sea creatures were thrown carelessly onto the surrounding shore and rocks. Those that survived had seemed to have lost all will to live; they were too exhausted from fighting with the merciless waves to even desperately flap their limbs and fins.

Up above, hiding in any sort of shelter from the ice-like winds they could find, were a flock of seagulls. They had seemingly lost their way because of the greatly thick opaque clouds. Despite this, the vigorous, superior wind remained, forcing everything out of its way, with no struggle shown—only complete ease.

The boulders of clouds remained to loom over the coast like an overprotective mother over its misbehaving child. No end was in sight; not a hint of the immensely powerful wind giving up any time soon.

Or seemingly ever.

Answer

I have to admit it: I am one of those who, given a spare few minutes, will get out my phone to indulge in a quick scroll. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—it doesn't matter the app, or really what posts I am looking at. It is the mindlessness of the task which I enjoy, the fact that it requires very little of my brain power to do. Of course, it is this scrolling that many businesses are eager to pounce on with their brightly-coloured, eye-catching ads ready to divert my attention. Many dislike this feature. Yet there are some who—in my humble opinion—are using this new advertising regime for a better reason.

Those people are charities.

Whereas there are plenty of advertisements for the latest beauty product promising to strip away layers of my skin, sites such as JustGiving are starting to use the easy access to people to show them alternative ways they could spend their money. With just a click of a button or a swipe of a finger, you can see a whole range of charitable events that fundraisers are taking part in. One more click and you can donate some money. One final click and you can share your donation with all of your friends or followers, encouraging them to do the same. Many sites also offer a chance to 'upgrade' your profile picture to show which charities or events you are supporting; the feed suddenly becomes awash with support for new causes. When huge charity fundraisers, like Red Nose Day, come around, the conversation online encourages greater interest from an even bigger pool of people, reaching all around the world.

Why, then, are some so cynical of this support of charity work?

I've heard it argued that this kind of charity support isn't 'real', that those donating money are doing it more for the praise it gets them ("You're such a good person!") than to genuinely help the charities they are donating towards. Furthermore, there is a widespread fear that if you just donate money because the tagline—a sentence summarising the issue—pulls at your heartstrings, then you don't really understand who or what you are supporting, and you could be making a grave mistake.

To some extent, I do understand these ideas. After all, how many viral photographs or videos have you seen supporting a charity—and how many of those people participating actually donated money? For the famous Ice Bucket challenge, statistics from BBC News suggested that only one in ten people who produced a video then went on to make a donation.

However, I cannot help but feel that these cynics are somewhat missing the point. Is it self-centred to donate money just so people think you are a good person doing a good deed? Yes, of course. Is there the possibility that clever marketing could take advantage of this and encourage you to donate to a charity that perhaps isn't going to use the money as wisely as they could? Absolutely. However, in the best case scenario, where a genuine charity wants to make a real, positive impact on the world and attracts the attention of people who wouldn't otherwise go looking for them, doesn't this ultimately mean that this positive change will happen more quickly and with better resources to play with? The answer, I feel, is yes.

We can always strive to make charity giving better and more genuine. However, I am not going to be a snob and say no to support. I don't think you should, either.