2(a) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument supporting this claim? Assessment objective: evaluation of argument, including reasoning, language and evidence Main Annotations Indicative content: Candidates are likely to discuss the following evaluative points relating to Source 3…

Global Perspectives · Oct / Nov 2024 · Paper 11 · Question 2

0457

As printed in the paper

The question as text

Study Source 3.

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

Show the answer and mark scheme

2(a)[6]
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument supporting this claim?
Assessment objective: evaluation of argument, including reasoning, language and evidence
Main Annotations
Indicative content:
Candidates are likely to discuss the following evaluative points relating to Source 3
Strengths:
Reference to television programme as evidence
Statistics included
Rhetorical questions – appeals to emotions
Use of professional expertise
Use of photo evidence
Suggests alternatives transport
Other reasonable response
Weaknesses:
Does not give specific information about the television programme
Vague information about the expert/little citation
Lack of evidence to support the increase in cycling and walking
Appeals to emotion
Lack of balance
Other reasonable response
The following levels of response should be used to award marks:
Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response
Clearly explained and credible evaluation.
Evaluation is clearly focused on the evidence and/or reasons, the strengths and weaknesses are explained. There is usually some clear reference to the evidence and/or reasons in the source e.g. quotation/summary.
Usually, two (or more) developed/explained/supported points, with some other undeveloped points; or a wide range (usually four or more) of undeveloped points.
Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response
Some strengths and/or weaknesses of the reasons/evidence are identified or described briefly but not usually explained; there may be some lack of clarity and the answer may be difficult to follow at times.
Usually, the response contains one (or more) developed/explained/supported point(s), with some other undeveloped points. Some (usually two or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient to reach this level.
Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response
Limited evaluation of the reasons/evidence which is unsupported and asserted. The response is unclear, tangential, or generalised. Usually contains one or two undeveloped points. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little understanding.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
‘Cycling and walking are becoming more popular in cities.’
2(b)[8]
How could you test this claim?
You may consider the types of information, sources of evidence or methods you might use.
Assessment objective: designing research to test a claim
Main Annotations
Indicative content:
Candidates are likely to discuss the following ways to test the claim stated in Source 3.
Possible types of information:
Compare statistics/information on cycling and walking
Data from city transport department
Individual testimony or personal experience.
Material from government web sites
Publications/documents from pressure groups/charities promoting cycling/walking
Other relevant response.
Possible sources of information:
National and local governments and their departments
International organisations, e.g. United Nations
Experts in healthy activities
Research reports
Pressure groups, charities and NGOs
Media and the internet.
Other relevant response.
Possible methods:
Review of secondary sources/literature/research/documents.
Interview relevant experts
Internet search.
Questionnaires.
Surveys.
Other relevant response.
The following levels of response should be used to award marks:
The following levels of response should be used to award marks:
Level 4 (7–8 marks) Very good response
Clearly reasoned and credible explanation of a range of ways to test the claim. The response usually contains three (or more)
developed/explained/supported points and may contain some undeveloped points.
The response is explicitly related to testing the claim.
Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response
Reasoned and mainly credible explanation of ways to test the claim. The response usually contains two (or more) developed/explained/supported points and may contain some undeveloped points.
The response is related to testing the claim at times.
Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response
Some reasoning and explanation of ways to test the claim. The response usually contains one (or more) developed/explained/supported point(s), and/or a range of undeveloped points. The response may lack clarity. The response is implicitly related to testing the claim.
Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response
Limited explanation of ways to test the claim. The response usually contains one or two simple, undeveloped, and asserted points.
There is little or no relevance to testing the claim and the methods, sources and types of information are generally not appropriate for the claim being tested.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
Further guidance - responses that do not link explicitly to the issue/context and are simply a list of research methods/sources/types of information should not score higher than Level 2.
Identify one opinion from Bina’s statement. Explain why it is an opinion.

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.