Global Perspectives · Oct / Nov 2024 · Paper 12 · 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]
prediction.
Assessment objective: understanding and application of the term ‘prediction’
Main Annotations
A prediction is a statement suggesting something may happen/take place in the future.
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
Farmers will be moved to another areaNext week we will be sending you a leaflet.You will all have access to a cheaper and more reliable form of energy.Your community will be able to see the advantagesYou will be able to swim in the reservoirFarmers and landowners will make moneyWe will support wildlife habitatsWe hope that you will support our plansAward 1 mark for correctly identifying a prediction from the list above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Award 1 mark for a response that demonstrates a clear understanding of a prediction.
Further guidance – note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Why might Adriana’s statement be biased?
3(b)[3]
Assessment objective: understanding and application of the term ‘bias’ Main Annotations
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 possible reasons for bias from Adriana’s statement:
Adriana doesn’t want change and sees the dam negativelyWe all depend on the fish in the river for our livelihood.Money for her family – potential vested interestReference to grandfather and influence of the familyMy family has fished and hunted here for many yearsPart of family heritageThe 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 point.
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.
Which argument is more convincing, Paolo’s or Adriana’s?
3(c)[15]
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:
LogicStructureBalanceClaimsUse of language:
Tone – emotive, exaggerated, preciseClarityEvidence:
Range of information and depthRelevanceSufficiency – sampleSource – media; internetDate – how recentDifferent types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdoteTestimony – from experience and expertSources of bias
Local interestEconomicPersonal valuesExperienceLikely consequences of the ideas presented
Acceptability of their values to others
How likely other people are to agree with their perspective/viewThe 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.
Make a free account to save your answers and see your weak topics and ask the AI why a wrong answer is wrong.