The task

Paper 2 asks you to write a comparative essay on two literary works studied during the course. You receive four general questions and answer one. None names particular works or authors. You choose the pair that lets you build a convincing answer.

You have 1 hour 45 minutes to complete the examination, which carries 25 marks and contributes 35% of the final assessment at SL and 25% at HL. The format, questions and assessment criteria are identical at SL and HL, and across English A: Literature and English A: Language and Literature. You write without access to the works.

Comparison is the argument

A comparative essay uses the reading of two works together to develop an answer to the chosen question. Writing a separate account of each work, then adding a final sentence about their similarities, does not adequately establish a relationship between them.

The figure shows how this works: the chosen question directs a comparative claim. That claim draws on evidence and analysis from both works and leads to a comparative conclusion. Comparison needs to shape the whole discussion, not just its opening and closing.

Take George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible (1953). Both allow discussion of institutional power, but that shared subject is only a starting point. A comparative argument could examine how Orwell’s changing commandments expose the manipulation of collective memory, while Miller’s courtroom exchanges expose the control of what can count as truth. The connection lies in how each work presents authority controlling the terms through which people understand events.

What the assessment rewards

The course objectives come together in this task. You need to know the works accurately and interpret their implications, then analyse how they construct meaning and communicate a persuasive comparison.

Criterion B totals 10 marks, split between B1 and B2. The distinction matters. Perceptive analysis of each work does not automatically make the comparison perceptive.

You may analyse local textual features, broader authorial choices, or both. Imagery can reward close discussion; so can narrative perspective, the arrangement of scenes or an ending. The quality of your explanation matters more than the number of techniques you identify.

Put this into practice: write a claim that identifies a meaningful relationship between the works and answers the chosen question. Then identify what each work contributes to that claim.

Find the exact demand

A question sets a focus. It doesn't invite you to reproduce everything you know about a theme. Separate its instruction, central concern and qualifying terms. The instruction tells you what intellectual task to carry out. The concern identifies what to investigate, while the qualifiers set the answer’s boundaries.

Take this invented illustrative question: Compare how two works you have studied present the consequences of challenging authority.

Here, compare requires you to establish a relationship between the works. The word present directs your attention to literary construction, while consequences of challenging authority specifies the concern. Writing about authority in general would miss both the challenge and its consequences.

The figure moves from instruction, central concern and qualifying terms to relevant evidence, then to a comparative claim. Follow that movement to keep the question in view as you select material.

Turn the concern into an interpretation

Don't assume that a key term in the question means exactly the same thing in both works. Authority might be political, religious, domestic or cultural. Public resistance could constitute a challenge; so could private refusal or an attempt to expose a lie. The consequences might affect an individual or a community, or threaten the survival of an institution.

The works must support these distinctions before they become useful. In Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), deprivation and coercion crush the hens’ resistance to the seizure of their eggs. Proctor’s refusal to authorize a false public confession in Miller’s The Crucible (1953) leads to his execution. Use these as precise references, not as a reason to retell either plot.

A comparative claim could be: Both works present resistance as physically costly, but Orwell emphasizes the regime’s capacity to suppress collective opposition, whereas Miller gives an individual refusal a moral force that the court cannot fully control.

By interpreting the consequences, that claim answers the question. It also gives you a reason to examine form. Orwell compresses the narration of the hens’ defeat, whereas Miller extends the final confrontation; resistance therefore receives different degrees of narrative and dramatic prominence.

Choose evidence for the question, not the other way round

Knowing an episode well doesn't necessarily make it useful evidence. Choose moments that establish your specific claim, then explain the writer’s choices within them. To make a reference analytical, connect what happens with how the writer presents it and why that presentation matters.

You don't need equal numbers of similarities and differences in a comparison. Either can carry the argument if it deepens the reading. Saying that both works contain rebellion identifies a connection. Explaining how they treat rebellion’s consequences differently develops that connection.

Watch for the common trap: replacing the actual question with a nearby, easier one. Repeating a key word won't prevent it. A paragraph can mention authority repeatedly without ever explaining the consequences of challenging it.

Put this into practice: restate the question’s demand in one precise sentence. Select a relevant moment from each work, then write a comparative claim explaining what those moments reveal together.

Eligible works and appropriate pairings

Choose two works studied during the course. A work already used for the individual oral or the HL essay cannot be used for Paper 2. Knowing a work well does not remove this restriction.

The guide recommends preparing three eligible works to give you flexibility when choosing your question and pairing. That is a preparation recommendation. The essay itself discusses two works, not three.

In the figure, the selection process moves from studied works through assessment eligibility, fit to the chosen question and scope for comparison, ending with two selected works. Your pair must pass every test. Eligibility alone does not make a work relevant to every question.

You don't have to choose works that share a literary form. If their forms differ, ask what that difference allows each writer to do. A novel can mediate events through a narrator; a play can expose conflict through dialogue and stage action. These distinctions matter when they help explain different treatments of the question. Simply classifying the works is not enough.

Detailed reference does not require quotation

You cannot access the works during the examination. Quotations are not required; detailed references are. Instead of reproducing the wording, you can identify a particular confrontation, recurring image, narrative shift, structural pattern or ending and analyse its significance.

‘The writer uses conflict’ is too general to establish much. Give the reader something specific to assess: identify the participants and situation, then explain the relevant choice of presentation and its implications. If you quote, keep the wording accurate. Don't present an approximate memory as an exact quotation.

Balance and formal communication

Give both works substantial analytical attention. Your paragraphs need not be identical in length, but neither work should serve as a brief illustration in an essay mainly about the other.

Keep the discussion focused on the question, with logical connections between its stages. Accurate terminology and clear reasoning make literary writing formal; inflated vocabulary does not. Take care, too, to distinguish how a writer constructs a perspective from what a character personally believes. A character’s assertion is not automatically the work’s final judgment.

Preparation through the learner portfolio

The learner portfolio is not separately assessed. It does, however, give you a place to develop the comparisons that Paper 2 depends on. Use it to:

• Group works around shared concerns and investigate meaningful differences.
• Explore how literary form changes the treatment of a concern.
• Test which pairings respond productively to different question focuses.
• Connect works with the course’s areas of exploration and central concepts.
• Compare successive practice essays to identify how your analysis, comparison and communication have developed.

Build flexible knowledge rather than a fixed essay waiting for a vaguely suitable question. Even a prepared comparison needs reshaping to fit the actual task.

Put this into practice: establish a pool of three eligible works. Record precise references under several shared concerns, then distinguish what each possible pairing would allow you to argue.