Grammar schools / NWSSEE English (continuous writing) / Mock 10
Nonsuch and Wallington Second Stage Entrance Examination · Second Stage
NWSSEE English Mock Paper 10
Preparation for the Nonsuch and Wallington Second Stage Entrance Examination, sat for admission to Nonsuch High School for Girls and Wallington High School for Girls. This is an original mock paper written by Revision Library. It is not a past paper and it is not an official specimen.
Print the paper (PDF)Paper and mark scheme (PDF)
- Time allowed
- 45 minutes
- Total marks
- 25
- Questions
- 1
- Level
- Stretch
- You have 45 minutes for this paper. There is one task and it is worth 25 marks.
- Spend about five minutes planning and checking your work, and about forty minutes writing.
- Write your answer on the lined pages of this booklet. There is no rough paper, so make your plan in the space beneath the task.
- Read the whole task, including the planning box, before you start. Marks are given for covering everything you are asked to cover.
- Marks are given for how well your writing matches the form, the audience and the purpose you are given, and for your spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Continuous Writing
Answer this one task. Write in sentences and paragraphs.
- 125 marks
"Thank you for agreeing to test Lantern. Please write to me directly rather than filling in a form. I would rather have the truth in November than good manners in March."
A games designer has sent early copies of a new board game, Lantern, to twelve testers of your age, along with the note above. You have played it four times. The first game was the best evening you have had all year. By the fourth, two players had given up before the end, and you now believe you understand why.
Write a letter to the designer to give her an honest judgement of Lantern and to explain what she should change and what she must not touch.
Planning: your letter must begin with this sentence, exactly as it is written here.
"Lantern is not broken, and that is what makes this letter difficult to write."
Any answer that has been prepared before the examination, and that does not meet the form or the task set on this page, will be given no marks whatever its quality.
Spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Answers, mark scheme and worked explanations
- 125 marks
Gate: form and task (pass or fail)
- The answer is a letter, with a salutation, a sustained address to one named reader and a sign-off. A review written for the public, or a set of notes, fails this gate.
- It begins with the given sentence, word for word.
- It is written to the game's designer, who asked for the truth. It must therefore be honest without being unkind, and it must not retreat into flattery.
- It reaches a judgement, explains what should change and states what must be protected. A letter that only praises, or that only criticises, has not done the task.
- An answer that is obviously a prepared piece fitted to this page, and that does not address the form or the task set, receives no marks overall.
Content and audience (10 marks)
- 9-10: The judgement is genuinely earned. The writer moves beyond saying that the fourth game dragged and works out why, using the difference between the first evening and the fourth as evidence. What must not change is identified as precisely as what must, and the reasoning shows an understanding that a change in one part of a game affects the rest of it. The register is exactly right for a professional who asked to be told the truth: candid, specific and respectful of her work.
- 6-8: A clear, honest judgement with real evidence and a sensible separation of what to change from what to keep. The analysis of why the game slowed is asserted more than it is worked out.
- 3-5: Opinion without diagnosis, or a letter so anxious not to offend that no judgement survives. What must not change is left unaddressed.
- 0-2: A recount of four evenings of playing, or unexplained praise.
Structure and style (8 marks)
- 7-8: Ordered so that the argument is easy to accept: the verdict early, the evidence next, the diagnosis after it, then the change and the protected element, then a close that offers something. Paragraphs are purposeful and the tone is controlled throughout, particularly at the points where criticism is being delivered.
- 5-6: Logically ordered and clearly paragraphed, though the diagnosis and the recommendation are tangled together.
- 3-4: Written in the order the four games were played, so the analysis never gathers into a judgement.
- 0-2: No shape, or a letter that stops instead of closing.
Technical accuracy (7 marks)
- 6-7: Accurate sentence demarcation across complex reasoning, correct commas and apostrophes, correct handling of the game's title, and secure spelling in words such as judgement, designer, deliberately and disappointing.
- 4-5: Mostly accurate, with a few slips in longer analytical sentences.
- 2-3: Repeated sentence errors, or an inconsistent way of writing the game's name.
- 0-1: Errors frequent enough to distract a reader who is being asked to trust the writer's judgement.
This is the most demanding task in the set, and it is demanding for a reason that has nothing to do with long words. You are being asked to criticise something you liked, to a person who made it, who asked you for the truth and who will be disappointed by it. Handling that well is real writing. The sentence you are given tells the designer immediately that the problem is not obvious and that you are not enjoying delivering it, which is the most honest opening you could have.
The heart of the answer is diagnosis. Saying the fourth game was slow is a description. Working out why it was slow is analysis, and that is where the marks are. The evidence is sitting in the task: the first game was wonderful and the fourth was not, with the same game and the same people. Something changed, and what changed was that everybody had learnt how it worked. Games that are thrilling while you are still guessing can become slow once everyone is playing carefully. That is one explanation, and there are others. Choose one and follow it through.
Then respect the second half of the instruction. You are asked what she must not touch, and that is harder than it sounds, because the thing that made the first evening extraordinary may be the same thing that made the fourth one drag. If it is, say so. A designer will value a tester who can tell her that her best idea and her problem are the same idea far more than one who lists five improvements.
Get the register right. She asked to be told the truth in November, so hedging is a failure of the task, not politeness. But truth-telling is not rudeness. Write about the game rather than about her, be specific rather than sweeping, and give her the evidence so she can disagree with your conclusion if she wants to. Say clearly what you liked, once and without exaggerating.
Three mistakes cost the most marks here. Retreating into praise, so that no honest judgement ever appears. Redesigning the whole game, which is not what was asked and is the fastest way to sound as though you did not understand it. And working through the four evenings in order, which uses up the page on a recount and leaves nothing for the analysis.
Plan for five minutes and do the thinking then: your verdict in one sentence, your explanation of why the fourth game slowed, the single change you will recommend, and the thing you will defend. Write for about thirty-three minutes in six or seven paragraphs. Use the last five to check that the letter has a proper close, that your judgement is stated somewhere near the beginning rather than only at the end, and that every criticism is followed by the evidence that led you to it.
Nonsuch and Wallington Second Stage Entrance Examination, Second Stage, English (continuous writing). Written by Revision Library on 2026-08-28, independent check pending.
The rest of the set
Free 11+ mock papers, no login
Original papers with full mark schemes and worked explanations, printable as PDFs.