3(a) Assessment objective: understanding and application of the term ‘opinion’ Main Annotations An opinion is a point of view or someone’s belief, that is subjective, not necessarily shared by others, and may not be verifiable. Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4. It is not…

Global Perspectives · Oct / Nov 2024 · 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]
Assessment objective: understanding and application of the term ‘opinion’
Main Annotations
An opinion is a point of view or someone’s belief, that is subjective, not necessarily shared by others, and may not be verifiable.
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
It is not possible for my business to use electric vehicles.
New sources of energy are not reliable.
Technology has not progressed enough to transport very heavy products.
It is fantasy to think that the wind and sun will produce enough electricity to power billions of vehicles.
We will have to use oil to make fuels for a lot longer.
People say we should pay more taxes to stop using diesel fuel.
If the government charge us more tax we will go out of business.
My workers will be unemployed.
We cannot just get rid of oil for a bit of pollution.
1 mark for correctly identifying an opinion from the list above.
1 mark for a response that demonstrates a clear understanding of an opinion. Further guidance – note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)(i)[1]
Ahram is arguing that we should find less polluting ways to travel. Identify one fact from Ahram’s statement.
Assessment objective: understanding and application of the term ‘fact’ Main Annotations
Candidates may identify one of the following from Ahram’s statement:
Pollution is creating environmental problems
A science programme described healthier ways to travel
My children walk two kilometres to school
Our local politician says we need to act now to make a difference
Public transport/cycling/walking is good for the environment/cheaper/ healthier.
1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above facts.
Further guidance – note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Explain how well this fact supports Ahram’s statement.
3(b)(ii)[2]
Assessment objective: evaluation of evidence supporting an argument Main Annotations
Examples of the points that could be made when explaining how well the fact supports the argument:
Supports very well because it explains why Ahram supports his views
Some support as the value judgement is relevant to the argument but it is only based on opinion and not evidence.
Limited support as is simply a statement of his beliefs without evidence. Use the following criteria to award a maximum of two marks.
Award 1 mark for an attempt to say how well the fact supports the argument e.g. ‘It supports the argument quite well.’ or ‘It gives some support.’ Or ‘it supports poorly because …’ or ‘it reduces the credibility’.
Award 1 mark for making a link to the argument e.g. ‘because it provides some evidence for Ahram’s argument.’ or ‘ … the fact gets the attention of the reader.’
Further guidance – Q3bi must be answered correctly to be awarded marks for this question.
Which argument is more convincing, Bina’s or Ahram’s?
3(c)[15]
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 types of information used.
Assessment objective: analyse and evaluate evidence and reasoning used to support claims and perspectives
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
consequences of the ideas presented
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
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 supported 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 strengths and/or weaknesses of the arguments are identified or described but mainly not explained. Evaluative points are partially supported or simply described/asserted. Some discussion of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison, or an evaluation of only one argument.
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.
Material from the sources may be used occasionally to support the evaluation. The response may lack some clarity and be 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, not explained 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.