Keeping the contributor's recipe
Both texts are newly written practice sources about invented people, places or projects.
Text One: An original report on an invented community recipe collection.
Editors trialled each submitted recipe before preparing it for the collection. The trials were not used to make every recipe alike. Instead, they revealed places where a new cook might be unable to follow the contributor's meaning.
| Submitted direction | What happened during the trial | Published treatment |
|---|---|---|
| “Add a mug of oats” | Different mugs produced noticeably different mixtures | The contributor's usual mugful was weighed and published as 110 g; the original phrase was also quoted |
| “Leave it for a while” | Trial cooks waited for different lengths of time | The contributor confirmed that this meant about 30 minutes |
| “Bake until done” | Trial cooks looked for different signs that baking was complete | The contributor described a firm edge and a pale centre, so these details were added |
The editors did not replace the submitted directions without explanation. Clarifications appeared beside the contributor's words, allowing readers to see which language belonged to the original recipe and which details had been added after testing.
Recipes with the same name were not combined automatically. Two contributors might use different ingredients or shape the food differently, and the collection treated these as individual versions rather than deciding that one was correct. Where a contributor could not confirm an amount, the entry described it as approximate instead of presenting an editorial guess as a fact.
Text Two: An original report about a different invented recipe project.
The project's first draft tried to produce one standard recipe whenever several contributors submitted food with the same local name. Test readers objected that this concealed meaningful differences between households. The final booklet therefore placed separate versions alongside one another and credited each contributor.
Testing remained important, but its purpose changed. Testers checked whether an instruction could be followed, not whether they preferred the result. They asked contributors to explain directions such as “fold it the old way” and placed the added explanation in brackets. Local names for utensils and preparation methods remained in the recipes, with a short glossary for readers unfamiliar with them.
Not every uncertainty could be removed. One contributor remembered the method but not an exact quantity, so the booklet marked the amount as an estimate. Another tester developed a version using a different ingredient. This was printed as a separate adaptation under the tester's name rather than being inserted into the contributed recipe. The finished collection aimed to help someone recreate each version while remaining honest about its source and its limits.
Synthesise what you learn from both texts about how the collections make contributed recipes clear without erasing their individual character.
528 exam-style questions on WJEC GCSE English Language 3.1 Section A (20%) – Reading, covering 3.1.1 Understanding description, narration and exposition texts, 3.1.2 Range of continuous and non-continuous texts, 3.1.3 Short and extended response question types, and 3.1.4 Editing task at word, sentence and text level. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.