You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 12 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This is the final lesson in the FSCE 11+ English Comprehension course. It brings together everything you have learned and applies it to a complete non-fiction passage with eight questions. As with the fiction worked examples, every question has a full model answer with examiner commentary explaining exactly why it scores well.
After the worked examples, you will find a summary of all key techniques and a pre-exam checklist to review before test day.
Should Children Be Allowed to Walk to School Alone?
In 1971, 80% of British children walked to school without an adult. Today, that figure has dropped to fewer than 25%. The school run -- parents driving their children to the school gates -- has become one of the defining features of modern family life. But is this change a good thing, or have we created a generation of children who cannot navigate the world independently?
Those who support children walking alone argue that it builds independence, confidence, and resilience. Dr James Morton, a child psychologist at the University of Edinburgh, says: "The journey to school is one of the first opportunities a child has to make decisions independently -- which route to take, how to cross roads safely, what to do if something unexpected happens. These are life skills that cannot be learned in a car."
Walking to school also has clear health benefits. A study by the University of Bristol found that children who walk or cycle to school are, on average, more physically active throughout the day and have lower rates of obesity. In an era when childhood obesity is a growing concern, encouraging children to walk is a simple, free solution.
However, opponents of the idea point to genuine safety concerns. Traffic has increased dramatically since 1971, and many roads near schools lack proper pavements or pedestrian crossings. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, approximately 1,700 children under 16 are seriously injured on British roads each year. For parents, these statistics are terrifying.
There is also the question of "stranger danger." Although statistics show that abductions by strangers are extremely rare -- far rarer than road accidents -- the fear remains powerful. Media coverage of high-profile cases has made parents more anxious than previous generations, even though the actual risk has not increased.
Some schools have tried to find a middle ground. "Walking buses" -- where groups of children walk together along a set route, supervised by trained adult volunteers -- have proved popular in several cities. These schemes give children the experience of walking while addressing parents' safety concerns.
Ultimately, there is no single right answer. The decision depends on the child's age, maturity, the route, and the local area. But perhaps the question we should be asking is not "Is it safe enough?" but "What are we teaching our children if we never let them try?"
What percentage of British children walked to school without an adult in 1971?
Model Answer: "In 1971, 80% of British children walked to school without an adult."
Examiner Commentary: This is a straightforward retrieval question requiring a single piece of information. The answer is correct and concise. No further explanation is needed for 1 mark.
What does the author's use of the phrase "the school run" suggest about how they view it?
Model Answer: "The author describes the school run as 'one of the defining features of modern family life,' which suggests they view it as a significant cultural shift rather than just a practical arrangement. The use of the word 'defining' implies it has become so widespread that it actually characterises modern family life, almost like a ritual. By placing this alongside the dramatic drop from 80% to fewer than 25%, the author seems to view the school run as both a symbol and a cause of declining childhood independence. The tone is not overtly critical, but the rhetorical question that follows -- 'have we created a generation of children who cannot navigate the world independently?' -- implies the author is at least questioning whether this change is entirely positive."
Examiner Commentary: This answer goes beyond simply finding the phrase and instead analyses the word 'defining,' connects it to the statistics, and identifies the implied criticism in the rhetorical question. It demonstrates sophisticated inference by reading between the lines of the author's seemingly neutral presentation.
How does the author use language to present the arguments FOR children walking to school?
Model Answer: "The author uses credible, authoritative language to present the arguments for walking to school, making them sound well-evidenced and persuasive.
The expert opinion of Dr James Morton is introduced with his full title and institution ('a child psychologist at the University of Edinburgh'), which gives his view weight and credibility. His direct quote mentions specific skills -- 'which route to take, how to cross roads safely, what to do if something unexpected happens' -- and this list of three creates a sense of the rich learning opportunities that walking provides. His final comment that 'these are life skills that cannot be learned in a car' is memorable and emphatic, with the contrast between walking and sitting in a car implying that driving children to school is passive and educationally wasteful.
The health argument is presented with factual, scientific language: 'a study by the University of Bristol' and 'on average, more physically active.' This data-driven approach makes the argument feel objective and reliable. The phrase 'a simple, free solution' is particularly effective because it makes walking sound accessible to everyone and makes the alternative (not walking) seem needlessly complicated.
The three positive words 'independence, confidence, and resilience' are listed together in a tricolon (a group of three), which is a classic persuasive device that makes the benefits sound comprehensive and compelling. Overall, the author presents the case for walking using a combination of expert authority, scientific evidence, and persuasive rhetorical techniques."
Examiner Commentary: This is an excellent answer that analyses language at multiple levels: the use of expert opinion, specific word choices, rhetorical techniques (tricolon, contrast), and the overall effect. It demonstrates awareness of how non-fiction writers build persuasive arguments through language choices.
Identify one fact and one opinion from the passage. Explain how you can tell the difference.
Model Answer: "A fact from the passage is that 'approximately 1,700 children under 16 are seriously injured on British roads each year.' This is a fact because it is a specific statistic from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that can be verified and measured.
An opinion is Dr Morton's view that 'the journey to school is one of the first opportunities a child has to make decisions independently.' While this is a reasonable viewpoint from an expert, it is still an opinion because it is a personal interpretation of child development, not a measurable fact. Another expert might argue that children make independent decisions in other contexts earlier.
The difference between facts and opinions is that facts can be proved with evidence and data, while opinions are personal beliefs or interpretations that others might disagree with, even when they come from experts."
Examiner Commentary: This answer clearly identifies one fact and one opinion, explains why each one is categorised that way, and provides a clear definition of the difference. The observation that expert opinions are still opinions (not facts) shows mature understanding.
How convincing do you find the argument against children walking to school? Explain your answer.
Model Answer: "The argument against children walking to school is moderately convincing but has some notable weaknesses.
Its strongest point is the road safety statistic: '1,700 children under 16 are seriously injured on British roads each year.' This is a powerful, specific figure from a credible organisation (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents), and the author acknowledges that 'for parents, these statistics are terrifying.' This emotional appeal combined with hard data makes the safety argument genuinely persuasive.
However, the 'stranger danger' argument is less convincing. The author actually undermines it within the passage by stating that abductions are 'extremely rare -- far rarer than road accidents' and that 'the actual risk has not increased.' The argument here is essentially that parents are afraid, but that their fear is disproportionate to the real danger. This transparency is admirable, but it weakens the case against walking.
A further weakness is that the arguments against walking do not offer an alternative solution to the problems that walking would solve -- namely, childhood obesity and lack of independence. The opponents point to dangers but do not explain how children will develop resilience and health if they are always driven.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 12 lessons in this course.