Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.
The first edition of my puzzle guide had already been printed when Saira told me that one clue could lead to two answers. She had tested the puzzles without seeing my solutions, and her note showed exactly where the wording failed. I changed the clue for the next edition. In its final pages, I added a note saying which clue had been revised after her test solve.
That note was not a general thank-you. It let readers see that the puzzle had been checked by someone approaching it without my assumptions. Saira had not written the guide or supplied its answers; her contribution was to expose a weakness that I had missed.
Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.
Our local-history group had arranged its display timeline around dates copied from a set of old notices. While checking the sequence, Arun found a council minute that placed one event a year later than our draft said. We changed the date and added a small note beside the entry identifying the record Arun had found and his part in checking the chronology.
The note mattered because visitors could distinguish the date supported by the minute from our interpretation of why the event had happened. Arun had not chosen the display’s argument or written its captions. His check corrected one point and made the basis for that correction visible.
Both texts describe the ways contributors’ work is acknowledged.
What similarities do the ways the contributors’ work is acknowledged share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.
834 exam-style questions on Edexcel GCSE English Language 2.3 Content: non-fiction study and transactional text types, covering 2.3.9 Write an article, 2.3.10 Write a letter, 2.3.11 Write a review, 2.3.12 Write a text for a speech, and 2.3.13 Write a section for a guide, textbook, leaflet or booklet. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.