3(a) Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4. To make people work hard you need strong managers Workers need to respect authority Workers need to do what they are told Workers sometimes have good ideas People who make trouble, question too much and don’t work hard should be…

Global Perspectives · May / June 2020 · Paper 11 · Question 3

0457

As printed in the paper

The question as text

Study Source 4.

Read automatically from the paper; the printed page above is exact.

Show the answer and mark scheme

3(a)[1]
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
To make people work hard you need strong managers
Workers need to respect authority
Workers need to do what they are told
Workers sometimes have good ideas
People who make trouble, question too much and don’t work hard should be dismissed
Managers must be in control and workers must work
1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above.
Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)[1]
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
According to recent surveys, many directors in the UK say that a good leader of a company is excellent at creating relationships.
Last year, managers in Japan said that listening to workers ideas enables a company to solve problems and produce goods of higher quality
In Europe, many companies give workers a financial stake in the organisation.
Cooperatives are organisations controlled by a large number of members
In cooperatives, employees participate in setting policies and making decisions.
In 2015, cooperatives across Europe provided more than 4.7 million jobs and have an annual turnover of 1005 billion Euros – more than Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden combined.
1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above.
Further guidance –the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(c)[3]
Indicative content
Bias is a tendency or prejudice for or against something; an attitude of strong like or dislike; an unbalanced approach not prepared to consider counter-arguments or other points of view.
Candidates are likely to identify the following reasons from aspects of Dewi’s background/experience that suggest possible bias:
Dewi owns a company.
Dewi employs large numbers of people.
Candidates are likely to identify the following reasons from aspects of the statement that suggest possible bias:
Lack of balance/focus on the management perspective only.
Emotive language.
Lack of evidence to support opinion.
Focused only on personal/local experience.
The following levels of response should be used to award marks: Level 3 (3 marks) Good response
A clear and full explanation of why the statement may be biased supported with evidence from the statement. Two points, at least one developed. Level 2 (2 marks) Reasonable response
A basic or partial understanding/explanation of why the statement may be biased. Identification of one point with development or two undeveloped points.
Level 1 (1 mark) Limited response
An identification of a point to suggest bias without clear explanation. Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
3(d)[15]
Indicative content
Candidates are expected to evaluate the arguments presented in Source 4 and compare their effectiveness. They should make a supported judgement with some explanation about which person has the most convincing argument.
Candidates may support their judgement by considering:
Strength of reasoning:
logic
structure
balance
claims
Use of language:
tone – emotive, exaggerated, precise
clarity
Evidence:
range of information and depth
relevance
sufficiency – sample
source – media; internet
date – how recent
different types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdote
testimony – from experience and expert
Sources of bias
local interest
economic
personal values
experience
Likely consequences of the ideas presented
Acceptability of their values to others
how likely other people are to agree with their perspective/view The following levels of response should be used to award marks. Level 5 (13–15 marks) Very good response
Clear, credible and well supported points about which argument is more convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison.
The response contains three (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points.
A clear judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
Clear, supported points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with comparison.
The response contains two (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points. A wide range (four or more) of undeveloped but clearly appropriate points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level.
A judgment is reached.
Level 3 (7–9 marks) Reasonable response
Reasonable points about which argument is more convincing. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
One (or more) developed evaluative points, possibly with some
undeveloped points; three (or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level.
An attempt is made to give an overall judgement.
Level 2 (4–6) Basic response
Basic points about which argument is more convincing. There may be only one argument considered in any detail, with little attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported and lack clarity/relevance at times.
The response contains two (or more) undeveloped points.
A basic judgement may be reached.
Level 1 (1–3 marks) Limited response
Limited and unsupported points about which argument is more convincing. The response considers the arguments briefly and/or tangentially. There is little clarity. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little understanding or simply agree/disagree with the arguments presented. The response may not contain any clear evaluative points.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
Responses that give a very good evaluation of only one argument may achieve Level 3 but no higher.

Practise this paper →

Make a free account to save your answers and see your weak topics and ask the AI why a wrong answer is wrong.