3(a) Identify one fact from Kari’s statement. Explain why it is a fact. Main Annotations A fact is a statement that is true, correct, accurate or can be proven/verified. The following examples of facts are found in Kari’s statement Some political parties use data to spread fake news and false…

Global Perspectives · May / June 2022 · 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)[2]
Identify one fact from Kari’s statement. Explain why it is a fact. Main Annotations
A fact is a statement that is true, correct, accurate or can be proven/verified. The following examples of facts are found in Kari’s statement
Some political parties use data to spread fake news and false information.
Some political parties use data to get your vote.
Data can be misused, computers hacked and identities stolen.
Our computers are attacked every 39 seconds according to a security magazine.
Award 1 mark for correctly identifying a fact from the list above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Award 1 mark for a response that demonstrates a clear understanding of a fact.
Further guidance – note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)[3]
Explain why Lars’ statement might be biased.
Main Annotations
Candidates may identify one of the following reasons for bias from Lars’ background:
He works for a large data storage company who may benefit from the storage of large amounts of digital data.
Candidates are likely to identify the following evidence of bias from Lars’ statement:
Lack of balance – for example no focus on negative use of digital data.
Emotive examples – e.g. use of data to save lives / prevent disasters.
Downplaying the other side of the debate – ‘a few fears about privacy’. 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. The response contains two (or more) credible points.
Level 2 (2 marks) Reasonable response
A basic or partial understanding/explanation of why the statement may be biased. The response contains one credible points.
Level 1 (1 mark) Limited response
A limited or unclear explanation of why the statement may be biased. Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
Further guidance – note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(c)[15]
Which argument is more convincing, Kari’s or Lars’?
Main Annotations
J
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
Possible 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
Wide range of clear, credible and well explained points about which argument is more convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison.
The response usually contains three (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points.
Material from the sources is used as evidence to support the evaluation; clear, frequent reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source e.g. quotation/summary of ideas.
A judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
A range of clear, explained points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with some comparison.
The response usually 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.
Material from the sources is used as evidence to support the evaluation; some reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source e.g. quotation/ summary of ideas.
A judgment is reached.
Level 3 (7–9 marks) Reasonable response
Some points about which argument is more convincing with some explanation. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison or a very good evaluation of only one argument. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
The response usually contains 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.
Some material from the sources may be used occasionally as evidence to support the evaluation. The response may occasionally lack some clarity and by difficult to follow at times.
A judgement is reached.
Level 2 (4–6) Basic response
A few points about which argument is more convincing. There may be only one argument considered in any detail, with little attempt at comparison. Evaluative points are mainly asserted or descriptive and lack clarity/relevance at times.
The response usually contains two (or more) undeveloped points.
A 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.
Further Guidance
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.