‘Bold Girls’
National 5 Set Text Analysis (p60-63)
Expected Responses
Expected responses provided here are guidelines and are not exhaustive – markers should use their discretion to award credit where a pupil clearly deserves to receives
marks for their response.
Question
Expected Response
1
Candidates should summarise the extract using 3 of the following (or other relevant) points:
 Cassie is talking about wanting to kill her husband
 Marie is making sandwiches / trying to distract them / prevent them arguing / ignore their argument (only 1 of these can be
used)
 Nora tells Cassie that she should have been glad that she didn’t suffer the same abuse as her
 Nora makes clear that Sean was a violent and abusive husband
 Nora and Cassie argue about what Sean was really like
 Nora and Cassie argue over the role Martin played in their lives
 Marie eventually stops them from arguing by warning that they will wake the children
2
Candidates should quote an appropriate part of the extract (1), explain specifically what it suggests through close analysis of individual
words (1) and then explain what this makes clear about the relationship between Cassie and Joe. (1)
Alternatively, candidates may gain 2 marks for a very thorough/sophisticated analysis of their quotation.
Possible quotations:
 “here’s me talking about murder”
 “stab him”
 “cut the bastard’s throat”
 “who knows if he’s a heart to be stabbed in at all?”
 “They can have them, anytime they like.”
In general terms candidates should explain that Cassie makes clear that she hates Joe.
Marks
3
3
3a
There are a number of correct ways to answer this question.
Most candidates should provide 2 pieces of evidence with appropriate explanation of each for 4 marks, although some may provide 2
pieces of evidence with a single, extended analytical explanation – this is also acceptable. In order to show conflict, however, candidates
really should include dialogue from both characters meaning that to gain 4 marks they should be encouraged to provide, in most cases,
pairs of quotations (1 from each character, as shown below). If pupils provide 2 quotations with explanations, but the individual quotes
do not, alone, demonstrate conflict, only 3 marks should be awarded. See below for examples of how the distinction may be made.







Nora: And him with his own business and good money coming in. There’s plenty would’ve been glad to be in your shoes , Cassie.
Cassie: (kicking her own shoes off) They can have them, anytime they like.
Nora: I don’t know what you thought marriage would be, but you should’ve learned by your age. You’ve a job to do bringing up
that family and making a decent home for you and your man, so get on with it.
Nora: And he never lifted a finger to her Marie. Not once. [this line alone may be deemed suitable for a mark on its own, but
this will depend on the analysis attached to it]
Cassie: Oh and I should’ve thanked him for that should I? Thank you Joe for not taking the poker to me every Saturday.
Nora: Well you should know what it could’ve been like. You of all people should’ve been able to see when you were well off.
Cassie: No, I don’t know.
Nora: Because you don’t want to know, you never did…Not even when you saw it with your own eyes.
Cassie: (in a low voice) That hardly ever happened.
Nora: That happened every time he had enough drink in him.
Cassie: And didn’t he get big enough to up and kill him! Your precious Martin put my daddy in his grave!
Nora: That’s a black faced lie. [this line is not necessary to gain the mark due to the implication of ‘your precious Martin’]
Any clear example of conflict from the extract should be accepted (there are many more available that are not listed here).
Note: pupils may also be awarded a maximum of 1 mark for a very good, detailed general explanation of the role of the dialogue in
demonstrating conflict between the characters.
4
3b
Candidates should provide a single piece of evidence (1) with supporting analysis/explanation of what it reveals about Marie’s
personality. (1)
 Marie: Pickle with your cheese Cassie?
 Cassie: What’s that supposed to mean?
Marie: Does anyone want some fruit loaf. [a clear explanation would allow this line to gain a mark on its own]
Nora: As if you didn’t know.
 Nora: As if you didn’t know.
Marie: I’ll get some crisps out, we can have crisps with our drinks. [a clear explanation would allow this line to gain a mark on
its own]
Cassie: No, I don’t know.
 Marie: You’ll wake the children.
Candidates may either argue that Marie simply wants to ignore the fight between Cassie and Nora (because she wants to avoid conflict),
or that she attempts to make peace between them by distracting them – either response is acceptable as long as it is explained well and
supported by appropriate evidence.
2
 Cassie: She wouldn’t squash a caterpillar if she found it in her salad…
 Marie pauses on her way back to the kitchen, looking nervously from one to the other
Candidates may also argue that Cassie’s words or the stage directions show us that Marie is kind/gentle/caring/timid.
4
In order to achieve full marks candidates should:
 State which theme they are exploring (no mark awarded for this and not strictly necessary as a separate bullet point)
 Provide a piece of evidence from the extract (1) with analysis/explanation of how it relates to the chosen theme (1)
 Provide a first piece of evidence from the wider text (1) with analysis/explanation of how it relates to the chosen theme (1)
 Provide a second piece of evidence from the wider text (1) with analysis/explanation of how it relates to the chosen theme (1)
 Provide a third piece of evidence from the wider text (1) with analysis/explanation of how it relates to the chosen theme (1)
(Candidates may either quote or make a clear and specific reference to a section of the text for their evidence)
Only one theme should be explored, and pupils must make reference to the entire text (only 2 marks are available for reference to, and
analysis of, the extract itself).
8