🧭 Framework
The PETEL Essay — 6 paragraphs the examiner expects
Every Section B essay in O/L English Literature is graded on the same skeleton: a sharp thesis, four body paragraphs that each prove one point with quoted evidence and a named technique, and a conclusion that lifts the argument back up to the text's significance. This page teaches that skeleton — once it's habit, the marks come.
The structure at a glance
| 1 · Introduction | Open with the mandatory line: "The phenomenon poet, X," or "The veteran poet, X," — swap "poet" for playwright / novelist / writer depending on the text. Only poems get the choice; plays, novels and prose always use "The veteran <playwright/novelist/writer>, X,". Name the text, sketch the context in one or two sentences, and end with a razor-sharp thesis that lists the angles the essay will prove. |
|---|---|
| 2-5 · Body (×4) | Each paragraph is a single P-E-T-E-L block — see below. |
| 6 · Conclusion | Open with the mandatory line: "This study probes to analyse…" or "This extract probes to examine…". Synthesise the four body points, re-state the thesis in fresh words, and close with one overarching insight. |
The PETEL block — body paragraph anatomy
| P · Point | A strong topic sentence that names this paragraph's one idea and links to the thesis. |
|---|---|
| E · Evidence | A short, seamlessly embedded quotation from the text. Quote sparingly — use only the words you will actually analyse. |
| T · Technique | Name the literary device explicitly and put it in italics: visual imagery, metaphor, juxtaposition, hyperbole, dramatic irony, refrain, symbolic naming… |
| E · Explanation | Two to four sentences of deep analysis: how the technique creates meaning, why the writer chose it, what it makes the reader feel or understand. |
| L · Link | One concluding sentence that ties this paragraph's finding back to the thesis, so the examiner sees the argument advancing. |
Worked example — one PETEL paragraph
From a model essay on The Bear · topic: the duality of human nature.
Point — Chekhov first stages this duality through Mrs. Popova, whose performance of
eternal mourning conceals an unmistakable hunger for life.
Evidence — She vows that she will "never go out… never see the light," and that her
dead husband will see "how well I can love," yet she pauses repeatedly before the mirror,
powders her face, and admits that her dimples "haven't gone."
Technique — Chekhov uses dramatic irony together with self-revelatory soliloquy,
so that the audience perceives what Popova cannot openly confess.
Explanation — Her language insists on death while her gestures rehearse for life,
exposing a self divided between the role of the faithful widow and the woman still alive
within the black dress. The mourning is sincere, but it is not the whole of her; it is a
costume worn over a contradictory desire that the play steadily uncovers.
Link — Through Popova, Chekhov establishes the first half of his argument: that the
surface a person presents to the world is rarely the complete truth of who they are.
Tone & style — non-negotiables
- Formal, academic, objective. Never use first-person (no I, me, my).
- Vary sentence rhythm — a short sentence after two long ones is rewarded.
- Quote sparingly and accurately. Long blocked-out quotations waste marks.
- Always name the writer (Chekhov, Robinson, Angelou…) — not "the author" repeatedly.
- The thesis goes at the end of paragraph 1 and is mirrored — not copied — in paragraph 6.
- Intro must start with: for a poem — "The phenomenon poet, X," or "The veteran poet, X," (your choice). For a play, novel or prose text — always "The veteran playwright / novelist / writer, X," — there is no "phenomenon" option.
- Conclusion must start with: "This study probes to analyse…" or "This extract probes to examine…" (either works for any text type).
Examples: "The phenomenon poet, Maya Angelou,…" (poem, either opener) · "The veteran playwright, Anton Chekhov,…" (play, veteran only) · "The veteran novelist, R. K. Narayan,…" (novel, veteran only).
- Long, unfocused quotations dropped in without analysis.
- Naming a technique but never explaining how it works.
- A thesis that just lists themes instead of making an arguable claim.
- A conclusion that only repeats the introduction.
- Switching to "I think" or "in my opinion".