Latin Continuers 2015 HSC exam pack (archive)

Characteristics of better responses:

• translations were clear and fluent. The complexity of the initial sentence, cum…non modo… verum etiam… tum was handled well and there were colourful renderings for domestici praedones (Q1)
• candidates demonstrated familiarity with stylistic features (Q3)
• a clear understanding of the different facets of Cicero’s self-portrayal and an articulation of how Cicero exploits them in the presentation of his case was demonstrated. Appropriate reference was made to both extracts, and responses were supported with relevant examples from other sections of the speech. Candidates understood the context of the given extracts, and explained the significance of the summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi, distinguishing them from the iudices (Q4).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates did not account for every word in the extract and confused the different uses of cum…tum (Q1)
• some responses did not go beyond the identification of the two stylistic features, or they made very tenuous links between these and the enormity of the crime of parricide  (Q3b)
• lengthy descriptions of features of Cicero’s self-portrayal were made but without links to the presentation of the case. Responses/treatments focused almost exclusively on the two extracts without reference to the rest of the speech (Q4)
• candidates quoted liberally from the Latin text without demonstrating understanding of how the Latin is relevant to the argument. When not quoting, responses should be written in English and not half Latin, half English (Q3 and Q4).

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates showed familiarity with Virgil’s style: although it was possible to select from a number of stylistic devices, excellent comments were made about the use of the prayer formula (Q7aiii)
• candidates demonstrated the ability to apply correctly the rules of scansion (Q7aii)
• in the extended response, candidates were able to distinguish between the roles of individual gods and that of Jupiter as the executor of fate; perceptive comments were made about the pursuit of individual agendas by these deities and the mirroring of the human drama
• candidates established their argument within the context of the conflict between Aeneas and Turnus, and referred to other relevant examples from Book XII (Q8).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates did not take careful note of the requirements of the question and ignored the phrase ‘at this point in the narrative’. They described the characters of Turnus and Aeneas in general terms, rather than linking the simile to the portrayal (Q7b)
• in the extended response, candidates did not adhere to the requirements of the question, but focused on largely irrelevant stylistic devices, or on the mere description of episodes involving the gods. Candidates discussed ‘the gods’ in general, and did not distinguish between the actions and/or motives of individuals (Q8)
• candidates quoted liberally from the Latin text without demonstrating their understanding of how the Latin is relevant to their argument. When not quoting, responses should be written in English and not half Latin, half English: the frequent insertion of Latin words into the English response can mar the flow of the argument (Q7 and Q8).

Characteristics of better responses:

• candidates made use of the dictionary entries given for the vocabulary (Q9f, Q10f)
• candidates avoided translations that were too literal for longi pars maxima luctu (line 214) and cara sororum pectora (lines 215-6), and rendered effectively the double ipsum (line 218 Q9f)
• candidates recognised patterns of parallelism and were able to exploit these to arrive at their translations (Q9f, but in particular Q10f).

Characteristics of weaker responses:

• candidates did not make effective use of the dictionary entries and did not always select vocabulary appropriate to context (Q9f, Q10f)
• candidates did not take into account the connection between the identification/analysis of items in the short-answer questions and the way in which those same items are translated in the extract (Q9, Q10)
• similar words were frequently confused: for example similar words were frequently confused: for example, praecipuus and praeceps, luctus and lux, ferro and fero, certamina and certe, regnum and rex, (Q9f).