yeah you do.
unless they throw a weapon curveball at you, all questions can be answered with the same content, aka quotes+analysis. its just a matter of changing the argument of your essay mid-exam, which really isn't that hard if you know you're texts well.
QFT
I think for most responses (I would be VERY careful with module B) generic ideas, that cover most aspects of the rubric would be quite effective. However, in this context, knowing your texts *well* and how they relate to the module is still requisite for higher marks - otherwise, actually interpreting the question in relation to your texts, and adapting your argument accordingly may prove significantly more difficult.
Usually the best way to ensure a grounded understanding of the module and safeguard against exam-shock, is writing a couple of different essays to HSC questions (perhaps with different ideas). Thereafter, it's just a matter of practising them; writing for other HSC questions, trial questions, text types - create exam styled conditions that test your understanding, and capacity to improvise. Have your response marked, and learn from your inadequacies.
I don't necessarily think this approach is any less valid than the traditional on-the-spot response - it still requires hard work, understanding, and anlytical thought in adapting your argument. Of course, it may be un-necessary for those with greater confidence in their English skills, but for those who lack it (I don't mean ability, note the premise of my argument above), it's just a little safer.
NOTE: It is useless to memorise introductions and conclusions. This is another aspect of improvisation that must be acquired with understanding/practice.
