You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson identifies the most important extracts from DNA, provides model analysis, and teaches you the specific skills needed for the GCSE exam. Whether you are studying for AQA, Edexcel, or another exam board, the fundamental skills are the same: close reading, analysis of language and structure, and connecting the extract to the whole play.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Extract provided? | Yes — you will be given a short extract from the play |
| Time recommended | 45–55 minutes depending on exam board |
| Key Assessment Objectives | AO1 (response), AO2 (language/form/structure), AO3 (context), AO4 (SPaG) |
| Balance | Approximately 60% extract analysis, 40% wider play |
Examiner's tip: Always read the extract twice before you begin writing. On the first read, absorb the content. On the second, annotate — underline key words, identify techniques, note connections to themes.
Leah tells Phil about bonobos — apes that are our closest relatives and that, unlike chimpanzees, resolve conflict through social bonding rather than violence. She asks Phil whether he thinks humans are more like bonobos or chimps. Phil says nothing.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Language | Leah's speech is long, flowing, and conversational — contrast with Phil's silence |
| Content | The bonobo/chimp comparison raises the play's central question: is human violence innate or chosen? |
| Structure | Placed in Section 1 — establishes the philosophical framework before the moral crisis deepens |
| Character | Reveals Leah's intelligence, need for connection, and role as the play's moral commentator |
| Theme | Nature vs nurture; morality; human nature |
Point: Kelly uses Leah's discussion of bonobos to introduce the play's central philosophical question about human nature.
Evidence: Leah explains that bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, resolve conflict through cooperation rather than violence, and asks Phil — and by extension the audience — whether humans are fundamentally peaceful or aggressive.
Analysis: The bonobo reference functions as a thematic lens for the entire play. By establishing that a species almost identical to humans has chosen peace, Kelly implies that the group's subsequent violence is a choice, not a biological inevitability. The scientific register of Leah's speech contrasts with the moral chaos that follows, and Phil's silence in response suggests his indifference to the question — he will act without moral reflection.
Link: This extract connects to the play's wider exploration of whether the group's behaviour is driven by inherent cruelty or social pressure. Kelly seems to align with the view that violence is chosen — which makes the group's moral failure all the more damning.
Phil breaks his silence to outline an elaborate plan: they will steal a jumper belonging to a man on his street, plant the man's DNA on Adam's clothing, leave the belongings near a road, and have Brian report a fictional abduction to the police.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Language | Phil's speech is clear, precise, commanding — no emotion, no hesitation |
| Structure | This is the first time Phil speaks at length — his silence has built anticipation |
| Character | Reveals Phil's intelligence, his amorality, and his capacity for cold planning |
| Dramatic effect | The group immediately obeys — Phil's authority is established |
| Theme | Power, conformity, morality (or its absence) |
Point: Kelly uses Phil's cover-up speech to establish him as the group's true leader — and to reveal that his intelligence is entirely disconnected from morality.
Evidence: Phil's plan is forensically detailed — he understands DNA evidence, police procedure, and human psychology (choosing Brian as the witness because his genuine distress will be convincing).
Analysis: The precision of Phil's language is chilling. Where other characters stumble, repeat themselves, and speak in fragments, Phil's instructions are clinical and complete. This contrast in register signals that Phil operates on a different level from the group — his mind is clear precisely because it is unburdened by conscience. The group's immediate compliance connects to Milgram's findings: people obey those who project calm authority, even when the instructions are morally wrong.
Link: Phil's plan sets the play's moral trajectory. Each subsequent section builds on this initial decision, with the consequences growing more severe. Kelly suggests that a single act of amoral intelligence can set an entire group on a path of escalating moral failure.
Mark and Jan report that Adam has been found alive in the woods. Rather than relief, the group reacts with panic — if Adam is found, their cover-up collapses, the innocent man will be freed, and they will face consequences.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Language | Fragmented, panicked — overlapping speech, repetition |
| Structure | This is the play's climax — the point of maximum tension |
| Dramatic irony | The audience recognises that survival = good news; the characters see it as disaster |
| Theme | Responsibility, morality — the group's priorities are inverted |
| Character | Each character's response reveals their moral position |
Point: Kelly creates the play's most devastating moment of irony when Adam's survival is treated as a catastrophe rather than a relief.
Evidence: When Mark and Jan report that Adam is alive, the group does not celebrate — they panic. Their concern is not for Adam's wellbeing but for the exposure of their cover-up.
Analysis: This inversion — life as threat, survival as disaster — is the play's most damning indictment of the group. Kelly forces the audience to confront the full extent of the group's moral collapse: they have reached a point where another human being's life is valued less than their own comfort. The fragmented, overlapping dialogue in this scene mirrors the group's psychological fragmentation — no one can process the information coherently. The structural placement at the climax of the play means this moment carries maximum dramatic weight.
Link: This extract is the turning point that leads to Phil's most extreme proposal — killing Adam. Kelly shows that the cover-up has created its own terrible logic: having committed to the lie, the group must now commit to even greater evil to maintain it.
Phil tells the group that they need to "finish this" — a euphemism for killing Adam to prevent the cover-up from being exposed.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Language | Euphemistic — "finish" instead of "kill" or "murder" |
| Character | Phil's escalation from cover-up to murder proposal |
| Theme | Power, morality, the slippery slope of moral compromise |
| Effect on group | Brian collapses; others comply or remain silent |
| Structure | Placed after the climax — the darkest consequence of the rising action |
Point: Kelly uses Phil's euphemistic language to show how moral atrocity can be disguised through linguistic evasion.
Evidence: Phil says they need to "finish this" rather than explicitly proposing murder.
Analysis: The word "finish" transforms the act of killing into the completion of a task — as if Adam's death is merely the final item on a to-do list. This euphemism enables the group to contemplate murder without confronting the word itself. Kelly shows that language shapes moral perception: by controlling the terms in which the choice is framed, Phil makes the unthinkable seem merely practical. Brian's breakdown at this moment reveals that not everyone can be protected by euphemism — some moral realities break through regardless of how they are named.
Link: This moment connects to the wider theme of language as a tool of power. Throughout the play, the group uses euphemism and avoidance to distance themselves from the reality of their actions — from John Tate banning the word "dead" in Section 1 to Phil proposing murder without using the word in Section 3.
Richard sits with Phil on the street (replacing Leah). He reports what has happened to each member of the group: John Tate has found God, Cathy is the new leader and more violent than ever, Brian has had a complete breakdown, Danny and Lou are inseparable, and Leah has left.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Language | Richard's tone is matter-of-fact — the horror has been normalised |
| Structure | The substitution of Leah with Richard is structurally devastating |
| Character | Richard represents passive acceptance; his ordinariness makes the aftermath more disturbing |
| Theme | Consequences, identity, the new normal |
| Ending | The open, unresolved conclusion forces the audience to judge |
Point: Kelly's structural decision to replace Leah with Richard in the final street scene powerfully dramatises the play's themes of interchangeability and moral erosion.
Evidence: In Section 4, Richard occupies Leah's position beside Phil. He reports the group's fates in a calm, neutral tone, and Phil responds with the same silence he showed Leah.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.