Latin Extension 2016 HSC exam pack (archive)
2016 Latin Extension HSC exam papers (archived)
Marking guidelines
Marking guidelines are developed with the examination paper and are used by markers to guide their marking of a student's response. The table shows each question and the criteria with each mark or mark range.
Sample answers may also be developed and included in the guidelines to make sure questions assess a student's knowledge and skills, and guide the Supervisor of Marking on the expected nature and scope of a student's response. They are not intended to be exemplary or even complete answers or responses.
Marking feedback
Select from the link(s) below to view feedback about how students performed in this year’s examination.
Use the feedback to guide preparation for future examinations. Feedback includes an overview of the qualities of better responses. Feedback may not be provided for every question.
Feedback on written examination
Characteristics of better responses:
- clear and fluent translations were provided which accounted for every word (Q1)
- literal translations for hac faciunt, nuda simplicitas; and elegant, witty and contextually appropriate translations for desultor amoris were provided (Q1)
- mythological references were provided and linked them to Ovid’s purpose (Q2b)
- due emphasis was given to Catullus’ and Ovid’s approaches to love as being the main focus of the question (Q3)
- recognition of the different tones of Catullus’ and Ovid’s addresses to the gods: earnest, serious for Catullus; light-hearted, playful, even subversive for Ovid (Q3)
- in considering Ovid’s approach to love, examining how he depicted it for Aurora as well as for himself (Q3).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- not sustaining a fluent translation for the entirety of the extract (Q1)
- not linking effectively and fluently carmine nomen habent to the three subjects Io…et quam…quaeque) (Q1)
- mistranslating tenses, for example deserviat, norit (Q1)
- providing uneven responses, focusing primarily on the Catullus extract (Q3)
- being distracted by the wording ‘prayers’ in the question and focussing on the investigation of prayer structure in both extracts, at the expense of the differing approaches to love (Q3)
- providing a summary or description of the extracts rather than an analysis (Q3)
- inserting copious references to linguistic devices regardless of their relevance (Q3).
Characteristics of better responses:
- clear, fluent and idiomatic translations reflecting the tone of the author, accounting for every word and selecting vocabulary most appropriate to context (Q4a and Q5a)
- recognition that the subject of the verbs in the first line was indeed a girl, that laniare was dependent on fuit impetus, and that optima referred to oscula (Q4a)
- the selection of specific elegiac features relevant to the given extract, rather than a general discussion of the extract (Q4b).
Characteristics of weaker responses:
- faciem erroneously translated as a verb (Q4a)
- uncertainty as to the subject of sicut erant (Q4a)
- confusion as to the meaning of hac and its function in the line (Q5a).
HSC exam resources
Search for more HSC standards materials and exam packs.
Latin Extension syllabus
Find out more about the Latin Extension syllabus.
Request an accessible format of this publication.