Primary 6 PSLE English Practice Paper 5

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper - English Primary 6 PSLE: Answer Key

Version 5 of 5

---

Section A: Grammar and Vocabulary (30 marks)

Part A1: Multiple-Choice Grammar

---

Question 1 — 1 mark

Answer: (C) being

Explanation:

Despite is a preposition, not a conjunction. It requires a noun or gerund (verbal noun), not a clause with a finite verb.

• "Despite being" = correct: "being" (gerund) as object of preposition "despite"
• "Despite of" — double preposition error
• "Despite it was" — "despite" cannot introduce a finite clause (use "although" instead)
• "Despite it being" — grammatically possible but unnecessarily wordy; "despite being" is more elegant

Common mistake: Confusing "despite" (preposition) with "although" (conjunction). Students often write "Despite it was..." when they mean "Although it was..."

---

Question 2 — 1 mark

Answer: (B) strengthens

Explanation:

"Together with" creates a parenthetical phrase; it does not form a compound subject. The main subject is "The evidence" (singular), so the verb must be singular.

• Similar parenthetical phrases: as well as, in addition to, along with, accompanied by, together with
• All leave the grammatical number of the subject unchanged

---

Question 3 — 1 mark

Answer: (B) will have studied

Explanation:

"By next June" = future perfect marker. The future perfect (will have + past participle) expresses an action completed before a specified future time, with possible continuation.

• "By next June" specifies the endpoint
• "for eight years" indicates duration up to that point

Timeline: studying started in the past → continues → will reach eight years by next June.

---

Question 4 — 1 mark

Answer: (B) would have taken

Explanation:

"Had I known" = inverted third conditional (If I had known). This is an unreal past condition.

Structure: If + past perfect, ... would have + past participle

Main clause needs: would have + past participle (would have taken)

---

Question 5 — 1 mark

Answer: (C) must not use

Explanation:

"Mustrule vs. instruction analysis:**

• "Ought to not use" — awkward, non-standard negation; "ought not to use" preferred
• "Should not use" — recommendation, not strong enough for exam regulations
• "Must not use" — prohibition, mandated rule; fits examination context (strict ban)
• "Need not use" — permission not to; opposite of intended meaning

PSLE/SEAB conventions: examination instructions typically use "must not" for prohibitions.

---

Question 6 — 1 mark

Answer: (A) had he entered

Explanation:

"Scarcely... when" triggers inversion (negative adverb fronting).

Structure: Scarcely + had + subject + past participle... when + past simple

• "Scarcely had he entered" = correct inverted form
• Compare: "Hardly had... when," "No sooner had... than"

Common mistake: Forgetting that "scarcely" requires past perfect in the main clause and past simple in the "when" clause.

---

Question 7 — 1 mark

Answer: (D) of whom

Explanation:

Relative clause with preposition fronting: "employees respected him greatly" → "his employees respected him" or "employees of his."

Structure with "of whom": The manager, of whom employees [of the manager] respected him greatly...

Wait — correction. Re-reading: "employees respected him greatly" — "him" refers back to manager.

Correct analysis: This is a possessive/prep structure issue. The employees belong to/respect the manager.

Actually: "whose employees respected him greatly" or "whom the employees respected greatly."

Option (A) "who" — subject, but "employees respected him" has object "him," not needing subject relative.

Option (D) "of whom" — "employees of whom" = "his employees" (possessive). Structure: "The manager, of whom the employees [or: his employees] respected..."

Re-examining: The sentence as given has "employees respected him greatly" where "him" = the manager.

Correct structure: "The manager, whom the employees respected greatly..." — but this changes word order.

With "of whom": "The manager, of whom the employees were respectful" — doesn't match.

Actually: "The manager, whose employees respected him greatly" = correct (possessive relative).

Correction to answer: (C) whose

Re-analysis: "whose" = possessive relative pronoun. "The manager, whose employees respected him greatly" = the employees of the manager respected him.

My initial answer (D) was incorrect upon careful re-reading. The structure requires possessive.

Final Answer: (C) whose

Explanation: "Whose" indicates possession: the employees belong to/are associated with the manager. The clause "whose employees respected him greatly" modifies "The manager."

---

Question 8 — 1 mark

Answer: (B) did she know

Explanation:

"Not only" at sentence beginning triggers subject-auxiliary inversion.

Structure: Not only + auxiliary + subject + main verb... but (also)...

• "Not only did she know" = correct inversion
• Without inversion: "She not only knew..." (different structure)

Tense: Past context implied, so "did" (past auxiliary) + base verb "know."

---

Question 9 — 1 mark

Answer: (B) be stirred

Explanation:

"Requires that" introduces mandative subjunctive — base form of verb without -s, regardless of subject.

Structure: require / demand / suggest / insist that + subject + base verb

• "the mixture be stirred" = correct subjunctive (passive: be + past participle)
• Present subjunctive identical to base form; no tense changes

Common mistake: Using "is stirred" (indicative) instead of subjunctive "be stirred." The subjunctive is formal and required after "require that," "demand that," etc.

---

Question 10 — 1 mark

Answer: (A) Having fallen

Explanation:

Perfect participle showing prior completed action before main clause.

• "Having fallen across the road" = he fell first, then was helped
• "Falling across the road" (B) — simultaneous, doesn't capture sequence
• "Being fallen" (C) — ungrammatical passive; "fall" is intransitive, no passive
• "After he fell" (D) — grammatical but not a participial phrase as implied by context

"Having fallen" = the man fell (complete), then was helped (result). Correct aspect and voice.

---

Part A2: Vocabulary in Context

---

Question 11 — 2 marks

Answer: (B) momentum

Explanation:

Momentum = forward motion, gathering force/impetus. Fits context: work gaining "momentum" as institutions express interest.

• (A) recognition — possible, but "gaining recognition" less dynamic than "momentum" with "institutions expressing interest" showing active development
• (C) friction — opposite meaning (conflict)
• (D) dissolution — breaking apart, opposite meaning

Semantic field: "gaining momentum" = progressing with increasing speed/support.

---

Question 12 — 2 marks

Answer: (B) circumspect

Explanation:

Circumspect = cautious, wary, considering all circumstances carefully. Fits context: she remains cautious about practical applications despite growing interest.

• (A) optimistic — contradicts "knowing that many theoretical breakthroughs never reached patients"
• (C) indignant — angry, unjustified; no anger in context
• (D) effusive — expressing feelings freely, gushing; opposite of needed restraint

Connotation clue: "However" signals contrast with positive development; "knowing that... never reached patients" supports caution.

---

Question 13 — 2 marks

Answer: (C) eagerness

Explanation:

Eagerness = keen desire, enthusiastic anticipation. Fits: "everyone anticipated the publication."

• (A) apathy — lack of interest, opposite
• (B) consternation — anxiety, dismay; too negative
• (D) bewilderment — confusion; no evidence of confusion in context

---

Question 14 — 2 marks

Answer: (C) transformative

Explanation:

Transformative = causing marked change in form/nature/character. Fits: "challenged established assumptions and opened entirely new avenues."

• (A) peripheral — marginal, unimportant; contradicts passage
• (B) negligible — insignificant; contradicts
• (D) superficial — surface-level; contradicts "challenged established assumptions"

---

Question 15 — 2 marks

Answer: (A) vocal

Explanation:

Vocal = outspoken, expressing opinions openly. Fits: "their opposition" that "gradually acknowledged" implies they had been openly opposing.

• (B) tacit — understood without being said; contradicts explicit opposition
• (C) sporadic — intermittent; doesn't capture intensity of "opposition"
• (D) ambivalent — mixed feelings; doesn't fit "opposition"

---

Part A3: Cloze Passage

---

Question 16 — 2 marks

Answer: has evolved

Marking:

• 1 mark: correct tense (present perfect for "over centuries")
• 1 mark: correct form (has evolved)

Explanation: "Over centuries" = period from past to present = present perfect. "The art" (singular) requires "has."

---

Question 17 — 2 marks

Answer: began

Marking:

• 1 mark: correct tense (past simple for completed historical action)
• 1 mark: correct form (began, not begun/begun without auxiliary)

Explanation: Origins of storytelling = completed past = simple past. "What began as..." (cf. "What had begun" if prior to another past action, but no such sequence here).

---

Question 18 — 2 marks

Answer: offers

Marking:

• 1 mark: correct tense (present simple for general truth/current state)
• 1 mark: correct agreement (singular "technology")

Explanation: General statement about modern technology's capabilities = present simple. "Technology" uncountable/singular in this context.

---

Question 19 — 2 marks

Answer: have remained / remain

Marking:

• 1 mark: correct tense choice with justification
• 1 mark: correct form

Explanation: Either acceptable. "Have remained" (present perfect) emphasizes continuity from past to present; "remain" (present simple) states current fact. The contrast with "has evolved" (change) vs. "have remained" (stability) is stylistically effective.

---

Question 20 — 2 marks

Answer: have studied / are studying / study

Marking:

• 1 mark: appropriate tense for ongoing research
• 1 mark: correct form and agreement

Explanation: Ongoing research with current relevance = present perfect ("who have studied") or present continuous ("who are studying"). Simple present "study" also acceptable for general researchers.

---

Section B: Comprehension (30 marks)

---

Question 21 — 2 marks

Expected answers:

• Home/family spaces (implied as contrast to "third spaces")
• Workplace (explicitly mentioned as neither home nor workplace)
• Television zone (Mdm Lim's comparison)
• School/classroom (paragraph 4 reference)
• Commercial venues (cafes, shops — implied urban alternatives)

Marking: 1 mark per valid answer, max 2. Must be from passage or legitimately inferred.

---

Question 22 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify "counter-narrative" meaning (opposite to dominant trend)
• 1 mark: Identify contemporary approach (scalability, disruption, acceleration)
• 1 mark: Specific textual evidence

Sample answer:

The passage establishes community gardens as a "counter-narrative" (line 1, paragraph 7) because they oppose dominant urban development values of "scalability and disruption" (paragraph 7). While contemporary approaches prioritise rapid expansion and technological innovation, community gardens succeed through being "small, slow, and deeply rooted" — qualities that deliberately "resist the accelerations that exhaust so many other social initiatives."

---

Question 23 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify statistics used (34% higher trust; 47 vs. 12 butterfly species)
• 1 mark: Explain credibility/authority function
• 1 mark: Analyse persuasive effect (emotional to rational; specific to concrete)

Sample answer:

The author uses "34% higher levels of neighbourhood trust" (paragraph 2) and "forty-seven native butterfly species... compared to twelve" (paragraph 3) to transform anecdotal observation into empirical evidence. This quantitative grounding lends scientific authority to Mdm Lim's folk wisdom, persuading sceptical readers through objective measurement rather than sentiment alone. The comparative statistics (47 versus 12) particularly strengthen the ecological argument by making abstract biodiversity loss tangible and locally relevant.

---

Question 24 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify "act of faith" meaning (uncertain future outcome, investment without guarantee)
• 1 mark: Example from passage (soil contamination, crop failure, eviction risk)
• 1 mark: Explanation of temporal uncertainty

Sample answer:

The passage supports this interpretation through multiple examples of uncertainty that gardeners endure. Mdm Lim and others plant knowing "soil contamination in older estates requires careful testing" and that "gardens established on temporary unused plots face eviction." Children learn "failure management when crops wither" — the literal death of invested labour. Despite no guaranteed harvest, gardeners persist, embodying faith that patient attention will yield returns that defy calculable prediction.

---

Question 25 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify tone shift (triumph/ecological success to pedagogical/intimate)
• 1 mark: Specific tonal descriptors for each paragraph
• 1 mark: Effect analysis (preventing polemic, demonstrating layered value)

Sample answer:

Paragraph 3 adopts a tone of documented triumph — "equally significant," species counts, preservation of cultivars "even the Botanic Gardens had not collected" — establishing objective credibility. Paragraph 4 shifts to tender observation: children "absorb knowledge," grandparents accompany, individual growth arcs from "seed to harvest." This tonal modulation prevents the passage from reading as mere environmental polemic; by demonstrating human-scale intimacy alongside biodiversity data, the author persuades readers that gardens matter intrinsically, not just instrumentally.

---

Question 26 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Clear position (whether challenges undermine portrayal)
• 1 mark: Evidence from paragraph 6 (land tenure, soil, tension)
• 1 mark: Evaluation of authorial handling (integrated, not concealed; adds realism)

Sample answer:

The challenges do not ultimately undermine the positive portrayal because the author strategically integrates them to enhance credibility. By acknowledging "precarious" land tenure, soil contamination, and "perpetual tension," the passage preempts sceptical objections. This transparency — admitting that gardens are "not grand innovations" without "advanced technology" — paradoxically strengthens advocacy by demonstrating that ordinary citizens can overcome structural obstacles through "negotiated cooperation." The challenges humanise the narrative rather than defeating it.

---

Question 27 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify beginning element (concrete, particular: Mdm Lim's hands, specific HDB block)
• 1 mark: Identify ending element (iterative, accumulative: "one seed, one conversation, one harvest")
• 1 mark: Thematic purpose (particular to universal; individual action to collective pattern; cyclical time)

Sample answer:

The beginning opens with particular embodiment: "the weathered hands of Mdm Lim," specific location "beneath a Tampines HDB block." The ending generalises this specificity into iterative pattern: "one seed, one conversation, one harvest." This structure enacts the passage's central argument — that large-scale social change emerges from accumulated small actions. Thematically, it rejects heroic individualism for distributed, repetitive care; the closing tricolon mirrors the cyclical, unhurried temporality of gardening itself.

---

Question 28 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Define "negotiated cooperation" (shared governance through discussion, compromise)
• 1 mark: Evidence from elsewhere (individual ambition vs. collective governance; accessibility)
• 1 mark: Explanation of ongoing process (not fixed, requires continual adjustment)

Sample answer:

"Negotiated cooperation" reveals communal gardens as governed spaces requiring active compromise, not automatic harmony. The "perpetual tension" between "individual ambition" and "collective governance" (paragraph 6) exemplifies this: gardeners must negotiate between "growing prize specimens" and community priorities of "accessibility and diversity." Similarly, children accompanying grandparents (paragraph 4) and intergenerational knowledge transfer require continual interpersonal adjustment. The phrase signals that gardens succeed not through shared agreement but through ongoing, sometimes uncomfortable, dialogue.

---

Question 29 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Clear evaluative stance (extent of support)
• 1 mark: Evidence supporting smallness-as-virtue (resilience, social intimacy, specific biodiversity advantages)
• 1 mark: Evidence complicating the view (challenges of scale, precarity, potential for greater impact with expansion)
• 1 mark: Balanced conclusion recognising authorial position

Sample answer:

The passage substantially supports this view while acknowledging tensions. Smallness enables the "social hierarchies" to "soften" (paragraph 2) in ways anonymous institutions cannot replicate; the 200-square-metre plot generates 34% higher trust precisely because of human-scale interaction. Ecologically, small plots collectively outperform conventional parks in biodiversity (47 vs. 12 species), suggesting fragmentation serves particular species better than monoculture landscaping.

However, paragraph 6 introduces friction: "individual ambition" competes with "collective governance," and precarious "land tenure" threatens existential continuity. The author does not naively celebrate smallness but argues for "unhurried success" that urban planning must learn to accommodate. Ultimately, the passage proposes smallness as method rather than merely condition: it is through being "small, slow, and deeply rooted" that these gardens achieve what accelerated initiatives cannot.

---

Question 30 — 3 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Identify personal perspective instance (first person, "I," "I suspect," "What strikes me")
• 1 mark: Evaluate effect on persuasion
• 1 mark: Balanced assessment with evidence

Sample answer:

The author's use of first-person presence — "I first encountered," "after two years documenting," "I suspect" — pervades the passage. This personal perspective strengthens persuasion by establishing ethnographic credibility: the writer is not distanced observer but immersed participant. "I suspect" (paragraph 8) strategically hedges a policy conclusion, modelling intellectual humility that invites reader collaboration rather than directive compliance.

However, this subjectivity potentially weakens universal applicability: Mdm Lim becomes representative through the author's interpretive lens, risking selection bias. Yet the author balances this by incorporating NUS research data, hybridising personal narrative with institutional authority. The first person ultimately humanises policy discourse without surrendering analytical rigour.

---

Section C: Editing and Language Transformation (30 marks)

Part C1: Editing

---

Question 31 — 2 marks

Error: "were"

Correction: "was"

Explanation: "The bouquet" (singular collective noun) = subject. "Of flowers" is prepositional modifier, not part of subject. Singular verb required.

---

Question 32 — 2 marks

Error: "have"

Correction: "has"

Explanation: "Each of" = singular determiner. Regardless of plural "participants," "each" requires singular verb. Also acceptable: "their" → "his or her" for formal agreement, though singular they increasingly accepted.

---

Question 33 — 2 marks

Error: "are"

Correction: "be"

Explanation: "Requested that" = mandative subjunctive trigger. Base form "be" required, not indicative "are." Structure: request/demand/insist that + subject + base verb.

---

Question 34 — 2 marks

Error: "I"

Correction: "me"

Explanation: "Between" = preposition; requires object pronoun. "Between you and me" not "you and I." Hypercorrection error.

---

Question 35 — 2 marks

Error: "where was"

Correction: "where" (with statement word order: "where the package was being sent")

Explanation: Embedded/indirect question requires statement word order, not question inversion. "Demanded to know where the package was being sent" — subject "the package" before verb "was being sent."

---

Part C2: Sentence Transformation

---

Question 36 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Relative clause correctly formed
• 1 mark: Participial phrase correctly formed
• 1 mark: No use of "and," "but," "so"
• 1 mark: All meaning preserved, grammatically correct

Sample answer: "The architect, specialising in sustainable buildings, designed the library, which won an award."

Alternative: "Specialising in sustainable buildings, the architect who designed the library won an award for it."

Analysis:

• "Specialising in sustainable buildings" = participial phrase (modifying architect)
• "who designed the library" or "which won an award" = relative clause
• Meaning: architect designed library, library won award, architect specialises in sustainable buildings — all preserved

---

Question 37 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: First statement correctly reported (will → would; future perfect → conditional perfect)
• 1 mark: Second statement correctly reported (may → might/could; pronoun shift)
• 1 mark: No quotation marks used
• 1 mark: Flawless sequence of tenses and pronouns

Sample answer: "She said that she would have finished the report by noon and that I might collect it then."

Step-by-step:

Direct	Reported
I (she)	she
will have finished	would have finished
by noon	by noon (time expression unchanged)
You (I, the listener)	I
may	could / might
collect it	collect it
then	then

---

Question 38 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: It-cleft structure correct
• 1 mark: Time element emphasised (in March)
• 1 mark: Causal meaning preserved
• 1 mark: All temporal information included

Sample answer: "It was because of severe weather conditions in March that the expedition was delayed."

Alternative: "It was in March that the expedition was delayed because of severe weather conditions."

Analysis: First version emphasises cause with time embedded; second emphasises time directly. Either acceptable if emphasis clear.

---

Question 39 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Passive voice throughout
• 1 mark: Actor identifiable ("by researchers")
• 1 mark: Modal meaning preserved ("should" → "should be")
• 1 mark: Temporal/causal sequence maintained

Sample answer: "Further trials should be conducted by researchers before the medicine receives approval."

OR: "Further trials should be conducted by researchers before approval is received by the medicine." (awkward)

Better: "The medicine should not receive approval until further trials have been conducted by researchers." (slightly altered but preserves meaning)

---

Question 40 — 4 marks

Marking breakdown:

• 1 mark: Mixed conditional structure correct
• 1 mark: (a) Past regret expressed (If + past perfect)
• 1 mark: (b) Hypothetical present consequence (would + base verb, not would have)
• 1 mark: Meaning preserved, grammatically flawless

Sample answer: "If she had not ignored the warning labels, she would not be suffering serious side effects now."

Structure analysis:

Component	Form	Example
Past regret	If + past perfect	If she had not ignored...
Present hypothetical result	would + base verb (negative)	...she would not be suffering
Time marker	now	anchors to present

Common error: Writing "would not have been suffering" (past conditional) or "would not suffer" (simple present rather than continuous, acceptable but loses ongoing aspect).

---

TOTAL MARKS: 90

Section totals verified: A = 30, B = 30, C = 30, Total = 90 ✓