List four facts we learn about Arthur Birling's business and social position at the start of the play.
(Total for Question 1 is 4 marks)
2
Identify two separate moments in Act One where Mr Birling makes a confident prediction about the future that the original audience would recognise as ironic.
(Total for Question 2 is 4 marks)
3
Explain how Priestley presents Sheila Birling's character before the Inspector arrives.
(Total for Question 3 is 6 marks)
4
Explain how Priestley uses the character of the Inspector to challenge Mr Birling's view of responsibility.
(Total for Question 4 is 6 marks)
5
Explain how Priestley presents ideas about social class through the character of Mr Birling.
(Total for Question 5 is 8 marks)
6
Explain how Priestley presents Mrs Birling as an unsympathetic character.
(Total for Question 6 is 8 marks)
7
Analyse how Priestley uses stage directions to create atmosphere and meaning at key moments in the play.
(Total for Question 7 is 8 marks)
8
Analyse how Priestley presents the change in Eric Birling's character across the course of the play.
(Total for Question 8 is 10 marks)
9
Analyse how Priestley presents the relationship between Sheila Birling and Gerald Croft.
(Total for Question 9 is 10 marks)
10
Write about how Priestley presents ideas about responsibility in the play.
(Total for Question 10 is 12 marks)
11
Write about how Priestley presents the generational divide between the older and younger Birlings.
(Total for Question 11 is 12 marks)
12
Write about how Priestley uses the character of Eva Smith to explore social inequality, and comment on why Priestley chose to set the play in 1912 while writing and first staging it in the mid-1940s.
(Total for Question 12 is 15 marks)
13
Write about how Priestley presents ideas about gender in the play, and comment on the significance of women's limited social position in 1912.
(Total for Question 13 is 15 marks)
14
Write about the dramatic significance of the Inspector's closing warning about collective responsibility, and comment on why this ending would have felt especially powerful to audiences watching the play in 1945.
(Total for Question 14 is 15 marks)
15
'In An Inspector Calls, Priestley uses the story of one family to make a much bigger political argument.'
Using this statement as a starting point, write about how far you agree, referring to the play as a whole.
(Total for Question 15 is 20 marks)
16
Starting with the moment the Inspector first arrives, write about how Priestley presents ideas about responsibility across the play as a whole, and evaluate how far a modern audience might respond differently to the play's central message than an audience watching in 1945.
In your response you should discuss: - how Priestley presents responsibility in this moment and across the play - the dramatic methods Priestley uses to build his argument - how far a modern audience's response might differ from a 1945 audience's response
(Total for Question 16 is 30 marks)
Mark scheme · GE.T-InspectorCalls Literature: An Inspector Calls (J.B. Priestley)
Question 1
B1 he is a wealthy factory owner/manufacturer (oe)
B1 he hopes to be knighted / is expecting an honour
B1 his daughter Sheila is engaged to Gerald Croft, whose family owns a rival, higher-status firm
B1 any other valid fact, e.g. he was once Lord Mayor / he sees himself as a hard-headed practical man of business / he dismisses talk of workers' rights
Answer: Any four of: he owns a factory/works in manufacturing; he is hoping for a knighthood; his daughter's engagement to Gerald links his family to a higher-status rival firm; he was previously Lord Mayor; he prides himself on being practical and businesslike; he dismisses ideas about collective responsibility for workers.
Question 2
B1 one valid prediction identified (e.g. his confidence that there will be no war)
B1 brief, accurate explanation of why it is ironic (audience knows a major war followed)
B1 a second, different valid prediction identified (e.g. his confidence in the unsinkable ship, or in ever-rising prosperity)
B1 brief, accurate explanation of why the second prediction is ironic
Answer: Any two of: his confidence that war is not coming (later disproved by two world wars); his confidence in the safety of a famous new ocean liner (later disproved when it sinks on its first voyage); his confidence that prosperity will simply keep increasing (later disproved by economic depression and industrial unrest).
Question 3
Level 3 (5-6): Clear, relevant explanation: identifies specific details of Sheila's early presentation (her excitement about her engagement, her playful teasing of Gerald, her comfortable, sheltered family position) and explains a clear effect, supported by reference to the text.
Level 2 (3-4): Some explanation: identifies a relevant detail about Sheila's early character with a generally appropriate comment, with some reference to the text.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited explanation: makes a simple or general comment about Sheila with little development or textual reference.
Indicative content:
Sheila is introduced as excited and happy about her engagement, suggesting a young woman comfortable in her privileged family life
her light, teasing questioning of Gerald about where he was 'last summer' shows a hint of suspicion beneath the celebratory mood, foreshadowing her later development
she initially accepts her family's celebratory, self-congratulatory mood without challenge, showing she has not yet questioned her position or her family's values
small moments of independent thought, such as her willingness to gently tease or question rather than stay entirely silent, hint at the more perceptive character she becomes once the Inspector arrives
Question 4
Level 3 (5-6): Clear, relevant explanation: analyses how the Inspector's calm, controlled questioning and refusal to be intimidated undermine Mr Birling's authority, with clear reference to the text.
Level 2 (3-4): Some explanation: identifies a relevant method the Inspector uses with a generally appropriate comment, with some textual reference.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited explanation: makes a simple or general comment on the Inspector with little development.
Indicative content:
the Inspector remains calm and unhurried even when Mr Birling tries to use his social status and business connections to intimidate him, undermining Birling's assumption that authority follows from wealth
his method of questioning one character fully before moving to the next, refusing to let the family close ranks, structurally prevents Mr Birling from controlling the interview as he controls his household
the Inspector directly states the idea that everyone bears some responsibility for one another, opposing Birling's belief that a man should only look after himself and his own family
by revealing that Birling's own decision (sacking Eva Smith for asking for higher wages) began the chain of events, the Inspector demonstrates that Birling's practical business decisions have real moral consequences, contradicting Birling's dismissal of such concerns as sentimental
Question 5
Level 4 (7-8): Clear, well-supported explanation: analyses how Birling's speech and actions present the attitudes of the wealthy business class in 1912, with well-chosen textual reference and clear understanding of context.
Level 3 (5-6): Clear explanation: explains how Birling's views reflect class attitudes, with relevant textual reference and some understanding of context.
Level 2 (3-4): Some explanation: identifies a relevant point about Birling's class attitudes with some textual reference.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited explanation: makes a simple or general comment on Birling with little development.
Indicative content:
Birling's pride in his knighthood prospects and his concern for how a public scandal might damage his reputation shows a class obsessed with appearance and status rather than moral substance
his dismissive attitude towards his workers, treating a request for fair wages as an inconvenience rather than a legitimate concern, presents the wealthy manufacturing class as detached from the real hardship of those beneath them
his admiration for Gerald's family firm, which he sees as more socially superior to his own, shows how the play presents class as a hierarchy that even wealthy characters are anxious about climbing
Priestley, writing in 1945 but setting the play in 1912, uses Birling's confident, dismissive attitudes to let a post-war audience judge the complacency of the pre-war capitalist class with the benefit of hindsight
Question 6
Level 4 (7-8): Clear, well-supported explanation: analyses specific methods (her refusal of responsibility, her cold judgement of Eva, the dramatic irony of her final revelation) with well-chosen textual reference.
Level 3 (5-6): Clear explanation: explains at least two relevant methods with relevant textual reference.
Level 2 (3-4): Some explanation: identifies one relevant method with some textual reference.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited explanation: makes a simple or general comment with little development.
Indicative content:
Mrs Birling refuses to accept any responsibility for her actions throughout the interview, presenting her as rigid and unwilling to examine her own conduct even when questioned directly
her cold, moralising judgement of the pregnant young woman who came to her charity committee for help, blaming the girl rather than the men involved, presents her as harsh and hypocritical
the dramatic irony of her confidently condemning 'the girl's' unnamed lover as the person truly responsible, not realising she is describing her own son, makes her judgemental attitude appear especially misguided to the audience
even at the play's end, when other characters have begun to change, Mrs Birling remains committed to denying wrongdoing, presenting her as the character least willing or able to learn from the evening's events
Question 7
Level 4 (7-8): Convincing, well-supported analysis: analyses more than one use of stage directions (lighting, setting, sound, the doorbell) and their combined effect on meaning, with precise reference and subject terminology.
Level 3 (5-6): Clear analysis: explains how at least one significant stage direction creates atmosphere or meaning, with relevant reference.
Level 2 (3-4): Some analysis: identifies a relevant stage direction with a generally appropriate comment.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited analysis: makes a simple or general comment on staging with little development.
Indicative content:
the initial description of the lighting as warm and comfortable, before turning brighter and harder once the Inspector arrives, signals a shift from the family's self-satisfied private world to a more exposed, interrogated one
the single, unchanging dining-room setting across the whole play creates a sense of confinement, forcing the family to face the consequences of their actions without any change of scene to escape into
the sound of the front doorbell, both at the Inspector's arrival and again in the play's closing moments, is used structurally to signal that the family's ordeal may not yet be over, building a cyclical sense of dread
the timing of the play as continuous, real-time action across the stage directions reinforces the sense that the family cannot pause or delay the moral reckoning the Inspector brings
Question 8
Level 4 (9-10): Convincing, well-structured analysis: tracks Eric's presentation from his uneasy early behaviour through to his direct challenge of his parents, with judicious textual reference and confident subject terminology.
Level 3 (6-8): Clear analysis: explains at least two stages of Eric's development with relevant textual reference.
Level 2 (3-5): Some analysis: identifies a relevant stage of Eric's development with some textual reference.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited analysis: makes a simple, undeveloped point about Eric with little textual reference.
Indicative content:
Eric is presented early on as awkward and unsettled, laughing oddly and drinking more than is comfortable, hinting at a hidden guilt before the Inspector's questioning reveals its cause
as his involvement in Eva's story emerges, Eric is shown to be genuinely distressed by what he has done, distinguishing his guilt from his parents' more defensive reactions
his open anger at his mother once he learns she turned away the same girl he had wronged, without knowing the connection, marks a decisive break in family loyalty in favour of moral honesty
by the play's end, Eric joins Sheila in openly criticising his parents for wanting to forget the evening's lessons, presenting him as one of the younger generation who has been genuinely changed by events
Question 9
Level 4 (9-10): Convincing, well-structured analysis: tracks the relationship from celebratory engagement through exposure and reassessment, with judicious textual reference and confident terminology.
Level 3 (6-8): Clear analysis: explains at least two stages of the relationship with relevant textual reference.
Level 2 (3-5): Some analysis: identifies a relevant point about the relationship with some textual reference.
Level 1 (1-2): Simple, limited analysis: makes a simple, undeveloped point with little textual reference.
Indicative content:
the relationship begins as a socially convenient, celebratory engagement, useful to both families and presented with apparent affection but little real testing
Sheila's early teasing questions about Gerald's absence the previous summer hint at an underlying awareness that the relationship may not be as secure as it appears
the revelation of Gerald's affair with Eva/Daisy severely damages the relationship, and Sheila's calm but hurt reaction shows a maturity and honesty that contrasts with her parents' denial
by the play's end, Sheila's decision not to simply accept Gerald's returned ring without further reflection presents her as unwilling to return to a relationship built on the old, unquestioning assumptions
Question 10
Level 4 (10-12): Convincing, well-structured response: sustained analysis of how responsibility is presented through several characters/methods across the whole play, with judicious quotation and confident subject terminology.
Level 3 (7-9): Clear response: explains how responsibility is presented through at least two characters/methods, with relevant quotation.
Level 2 (4-6): Some response: identifies relevant moments relating to responsibility with some supporting quotation.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, limited response: makes a simple, undeveloped point about responsibility with little or no quotation.
Indicative content:
the Inspector's central message directly opposes individual, self-interested responsibility with a collective idea that everyone's actions affect others, and this message frames the whole play's structure
the older generation (Mr and Mrs Birling) consistently deny personal responsibility, minimising their own roles and insisting the matter is now closed once the Inspector leaves
the younger generation (Sheila and Eric) accept responsibility more fully, showing genuine guilt and a willingness to change their future behaviour as a result
the cyclical structure, ending with a phone call announcing a real inspector and a real death, punishes the family's refusal to learn by suggesting the consequences of ignoring responsibility will return
Priestley, writing shortly after the Second World War, uses the play to argue for a more socially responsible, collective future, making responsibility as much a political as a personal theme
Question 11
Level 4 (10-12): Convincing, well-structured response: sustained analysis of the generational divide through several characters/methods, with judicious quotation and confident subject terminology.
Level 3 (7-9): Clear response: explains the generational divide through at least two characters/methods, with relevant quotation.
Level 2 (4-6): Some response: identifies relevant moments relating to the generational divide with some supporting quotation.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, limited response: makes a simple, undeveloped point with little or no quotation.
Indicative content:
Mr and Mrs Birling repeatedly try to reassert parental authority and control the interview, showing an older generation confident in its fixed social attitudes
Sheila and Eric increasingly challenge their parents' attempts to minimise what has happened, presenting the younger generation as more willing to question inherited assumptions
the older Birlings' insistence that nothing will really change once the Inspector has gone contrasts sharply with Sheila's warning that their attitude will not simply be forgotten
Priestley structures the ending so the older generation's relief at a possible hoax is immediately undercut by a new phone call, siding the play's final judgement with the more perceptive younger characters
this divide reflects Priestley's own hope that a younger, post-war generation might build a fairer society than the one that preceded two world wars
Question 12
Level 4 (12-15): Convincing, critical response: sustained, perceptive analysis of Eva's function across the whole play with judicious quotation and confident terminology; contextual point about the 1912/1940s time gap integrated fully into the argument.
Level 3 (8-11): Clear, relevant response: explains Eva's role through several methods with relevant quotation; makes a clear, appropriate contextual point.
Level 2 (4-7): Some, generic response: identifies relevant moments relating to Eva with some quotation; makes a generic or partly relevant contextual comment.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, limited response: makes a simple, undeveloped point with little or no quotation; little or no contextual comment.
Indicative content:
Eva never appears on stage and is known only through the other characters' accounts, making her a representative figure for the many working-class women affected by the decisions of the wealthy, rather than an individualised character
each family member's mistreatment of Eva, in turn, builds a cumulative picture of how ordinary decisions by the privileged (dismissal, unfair judgement, exploitation, refusal of help) combine to devastating effect on someone with no social power
her use of two names, Eva Smith and Daisy Renton, suggests how easily a working-class woman's identity could be reshaped or overlooked by those with power over her
Priestley set the play in 1912, before both world wars and the widespread social reforms that followed, so his post-war audience could judge the Birlings' attitudes with the knowledge of exactly what unchecked inequality and complacency would lead to
writing in the mid-1940s, immediately after a war that had reshaped British society and just before the creation of the welfare state, Priestley used the 1912 setting to argue directly for the social changes his contemporary audience was then debating
Question 13
Level 4 (12-15): Convincing, critical response: sustained, perceptive analysis of gender across several characters and methods, with judicious quotation and confident terminology; contextual point about 1912 women's roles integrated fully.
Level 3 (8-11): Clear, relevant response: explains how gender is presented through at least two characters/methods, with relevant quotation and a clear contextual point.
Level 2 (4-7): Some, generic response: identifies relevant moments relating to gender with some quotation; makes a generic or partly relevant contextual comment.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, limited response: makes a simple, undeveloped point with little or no quotation; little or no contextual comment.
Indicative content:
Eva's powerlessness, unable to secure fair pay, protection from an affair, or charitable help once she is judged immoral, shows how few options a working-class woman had to resist mistreatment by men or by other women in power
Mrs Birling's position on the charity committee, deciding whether Eva deserves help, shows how even women who benefited from the era's limited opportunities could still exercise harsh, unaccountable power over women with less status
Sheila's growing independence and refusal to be simply reassured or managed by the male characters by the play's end suggests a more assertive model of womanhood emerging in the younger generation
Gerald and Eric's very different but equally consequence-free treatment of Eva highlights how the era's expectations placed the burden of consequence and judgement disproportionately on women rather than the men involved
in 1912, married women had very limited independent legal and economic status, and unmarried working women had few protections, meaning the play's female characters have dramatically different degrees of power depending on class as well as gender
Question 14
Level 4 (12-15): Convincing, critical response: sustained, perceptive analysis of the closing warning's dramatic and structural significance, with judicious quotation and confident terminology; contextual point about 1945 audiences integrated fully.
Level 3 (8-11): Clear, relevant response: explains the significance of the closing warning through at least two methods, with relevant quotation and a clear contextual point.
Level 2 (4-7): Some, generic response: identifies relevant features of the ending with some quotation; makes a generic or partly relevant contextual comment.
Level 1 (1-3): Simple, limited response: makes a simple, undeveloped point with little or no quotation; little or no contextual comment.
Indicative content:
the Inspector's final speech widens the play's focus from one family's guilt to a general warning addressed directly to the audience, turning a domestic drama into a broader moral and political statement
the warning that ignoring collective responsibility will bring suffering functions as a direct threat rather than a gentle suggestion, giving the ending unusual dramatic force for a domestic play
the timing of the speech, immediately before the ambiguous revelation about the Inspector's identity, means the audience is left to weigh its truth for themselves rather than having it confirmed or dismissed by events
audiences in 1945 had just lived through a second devastating war within a single generation, so a warning about the consequences of ignoring shared responsibility for one another would have resonated as urgent and literal rather than abstract
the play's original context, arriving alongside major debates about post-war reconstruction and the creation of a fairer welfare state, meant the Inspector's message spoke directly to real political choices the audience was then facing
Question 15
Level 4 (16-20): Compelling, critical response: sustained, sophisticated engagement with the statement across the whole play; judicious, precisely selected quotation; perceptive analysis of language, form and structure with consistently precise subject terminology; contextual understanding woven fully into the argument.
Level 3 (11-15): Clear, well-structured response: sustained, clear engagement with the statement; well-chosen quotation; explains effects of language and structure with accurate subject terminology; relevant context clearly shown.
Level 2 (6-10): Some, generic response: attempts to engage with the statement with some relevant quotation; comments on language/structure with limited subject terminology; some awareness of context.
Level 1 (1-5): Simple, limited response: simple or narrative response with limited textual reference; simple or no comment on language/structure; little or no awareness of context.
Indicative content:
agree: the Birling family's individual failings towards Eva Smith are shown to add up to a single, connected chain of cause and effect, which the Inspector explicitly generalises into an argument about how society as a whole treats its most vulnerable members
agree: the Inspector's direct address to the audience in his closing speech moves beyond the Birling family entirely, making an explicit political statement about collective responsibility that the domestic plot exists to illustrate
agree: the deliberate contrast between the older Birlings' capitalist, self-interested outlook and the younger characters' growing acceptance of collective responsibility mirrors a real political argument between individualism and social reform that Priestley supported
qualify: the play is also constructed as a genuinely engaging domestic mystery, with the tension of the interrogation, the twist of the Inspector's uncertain identity, and the family's shifting relationships giving it dramatic interest beyond its political message
qualify: some readers might argue the family's specific, detailed personal guilt is explored so fully in its own right that the political argument, while clearly present, functions as an extension of powerful character drama rather than the play's sole purpose
context: Priestley was closely associated with socialist politics and wrote the play as Britain considered how to rebuild society after the Second World War, supporting a reading of the play as a deliberately political piece using family drama as its vehicle
Question 16
Level 4 (25-30): Compelling, critical evaluation: sustained, sophisticated evaluation of responsibility across the whole play; judicious, precisely selected references including embedded quotation; perceptive analysis of language, form and structure with consistently precise subject terminology; contextual understanding of 1945 versus modern reception woven seamlessly into the argument.
Level 3 (17-24): Critical, exploratory evaluation: exploratory, critical response with a clear line of argument sustained across the play; judicious range of references; analyses effects of language, form and structure with precise subject terminology; contextual factors integrated fully where relevant.
Level 2 (9-16): Detailed, well-structured evaluation: consistently clear, detailed evaluation of responsibility; well-chosen range of references; explains effects of language, form and structure with subject terminology used accurately; understanding of relevant context clearly shown.
Level 1 (1-8): Simple or clear evaluation: simple or clear response with some relevant reference; some comment on language/structure with limited or accurate use of subject terminology; some or little awareness of context.
Indicative content:
the Inspector's calm, unhurried arrival immediately after Mr Birling's speech dismissing collective responsibility sets up a direct dramatic and ideological confrontation that structures the rest of the play
his method of interviewing each family member in turn, revealing information at a controlled pace, builds a cumulative argument that responsibility is shared and interconnected rather than isolated to a single guilty individual
the split between the older Birlings, who ultimately deny lasting responsibility once doubt is cast on the Inspector's identity, and the younger Birlings, who accept it regardless, dramatises a generational argument about whether moral lessons can be evaded
the cyclical structure, ending with a phone call announcing that an inspector is really on his way, punishes complacency and denies the audience (and the Birlings) an easy escape from the play's warning
methods: Priestley's use of dramatic irony throughout, particularly around Mr Birling's confident predictions, allows a knowing audience to judge the characters' complacency about responsibility more harshly than the characters can judge themselves
evaluation: a 1945 audience, having just lived through mass wartime loss and facing debates about a fairer post-war society, was likely to receive the warning about shared responsibility as an urgent, immediately relevant political argument
evaluation: a modern audience, more distanced from those specific historical circumstances, may respond more to the play's psychological and moral drama, or read it through modern debates about inequality and accountability, rather than experiencing the same immediate political urgency
evaluation, counter-view: despite this distance, ongoing modern concerns about social inequality, exploitation and corporate or institutional accountability arguably keep the Inspector's core message widely resonant for contemporary audiences, even if the specific historical trigger has changed