3(a) Identify one opinion from Hua’s statement. Explain why it is an opinion. Main Annotations An opinion is an individual’s point of view or belief which is not necessarily shared by others or supported by evidence. Candidates may identify one of the following opinions from Hua’s statement…

Global Perspectives · May / June 2023 · 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 opinion from Hua’s statement. Explain why it is an opinion.
Main Annotations
An opinion is an individual’s point of view or belief which is not necessarily shared by others or supported by evidence.
Candidates may identify one of the following opinions from Hua’s statement:
Climate change is happening quickly.
Energy policy spoils lives.
Only governments can afford to fund expensive energy research.
Heat energy/hydrogen … are other possible solutions that need more research.
The issue is so large that governments must act now.
Only governments can coordinate this type of vast project.
More research into storing renewable solar and wind energy is needed.
Government investment in renewable energy is vital to reduce …
Other reasonable response
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)(i)[1]
Jin argues that energy poverty is best solved at the local level. Identify one example of a fact from Jin’s statement.
Main Annotations
A fact is a statement that is true, correct, accurate or can be proven/verified. Candidates may identify one of the following facts from Jin’s statement:
The World Bank suggests that energy poverty is best solved at the local level.
Solar panels can be used by several families to create a microgrid.
Microgrids have saved time for families on household tasks, helped farmers increase crop yield and provide light in classrooms.
A charity in India recently installed microgrids to power more than 150 villages serving 230 000 people.
Microgrids can deliver electricity to people in remote areas.
Other reasonable response.
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)(ii)[2]
Explain how well this fact supports Jin’s argument.
Main Annotations
Examples of the points that could be made when explaining how well the fact supports the argument:
Very good support as the fact is based on evidence from research or experience that gives confidence to the reader about the claim.
Some support as the fact is relevant to the argument but the fact alone is not much evidence and so may not be relied upon or be sufficient to prove the case.
Limited support as the fact is not relevant and the research is not cited. Use the following levels of response to award a maximum of two marks: Level 2 (2 marks) Good response
An example of a fact is identified correctly. Clear, well-explained evaluation of the use of the fact in the argument. The analysis and evaluation highlights strengths and/or weaknesses and is supported with reference to the argument in the statement e.g. quotations or paraphrased summaries. Level 1 (1 marks) Reasonable response
An example of a fact is identified correctly. Some evaluation of the use of the fact in the argument. The response may occasionally lack clarity. The evaluation is mainly descriptive, asserted and unsupported with little explanation.
Level 0 (0 marks)
An opinion is identified correctly but there is no relevant evaluation of how well the opinion supports the argument.
Further guidance – Q3(b)(i) must be answered correctly to be awarded marks for this question. It is expected that responses will be very brief and not developed.
3(c)[15]
Which argument is more convincing, Hua’s or Jin’s?
Your answer should consider both arguments, and you should support your point of view with their words.
You should also consider:
the strength of their reasoning and evidence
their use of language
the different kinds of information used.
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
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/explanation about which argument is more convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison.
The response contains usually 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 reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source e.g. quotation/summary of ideas. A clear judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
Clear, supported points/explanation about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with 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
Reasonable points/explanation about which argument is more convincing. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison or very good evaluation of only one argument. Some judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
Usually 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 as evidence to support the evaluation. The response may occasionally lack some clarity and by difficult to follow.
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 usually 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.