Global Perspectives · May / June 2026 · Paper 11 · Question 3

0457

As printed in the paper

The question as text

Study Source 4. Which argument is more convincing, Carl’s or Luna’s? Your answer should: • consider both arguments • evaluate their reasoning, evidence and use of language • support your judgement with their words and ideas. [16]

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

Show the answer and mark scheme

Your answer should:

consider both arguments

evaluate their reasoning, evidence and use of language

support your judgement with their words and ideas.

Main Annotations

Tables E and F

Use these tables to give marks for each candidate response.

Table E

Analysis (AO1)

Level

Description

7–8 4

Consistently analytic throughout and fully supported

Analyses a wide range of aspects of both arguments.

Frequent use of relevant material taken from the

source.

Clear and explicit comparison of the two arguments. 5–6 3

Mainly analytic and supported

Analyses a range of aspects of both arguments.

Some use of relevant material taken from the source.

Clear comparison of the two arguments.

3–4 2

Partly analytic and descriptive with some support

Analyses a limited range of aspects of both

arguments.

Occasional use of material taken from the source.

Implied comparison by simple juxtaposition of the two arguments.

1–2 1

Descriptive and unsupported

Analyses a limited range of aspects of one argument.

Little or no use of material taken from the source.

No creditable response

Table F

Evaluation (AO1)

Level

Description

7–8 4

Consistently evaluative throughout and fully explained • Detailed and reasoned explanation of a wide range of evaluative points throughout the response.

Both reasoning and evidence within the arguments in

the source are evaluated explicitly.

Clear, supported judgement consistent with the

candidate’s argument.

5–6 3

Mainly evaluative and explained

Reasoned explanation of a range of evaluative points

within most of the response.

Reasoning and/or evidence within the arguments in the source are evaluated.

Judgement generally consistent with the candidate’s

argument.

3–4 2

Partly evaluative with little explanation

A limited range of evaluative points that are mostly

descriptive and/or asserted with little explanation.

Reasoning and/or evidence within the arguments in the source are mostly described.

Judgement lacks some clarity and may be partly

inconsistent with the candidate’s argument.

1–2 1

Descriptive without explanation

One or two evaluative points that are asserted,

tangential or not relevant.

The topic or the arguments in the source are described. • Judgement is unclear and inconsistent with the

candidate’s argument or may not be included.

No creditable response

0 Indicative content

Candidates are expected to evaluate the arguments presented in Source 4. They should make a supported judgement with some explanation about which person has the most convincing argument. Candidates may support their judgement by considering some of the following aspects of the arguments. Strength of reasoning:

logic

structure

balance

claims

Use of language:

tone – emotive, exaggerated, precise, measured

clarity

Evidence:

range of information and depth

relevance

sufficiency – sample size

source – media; internet

date – how recent

different types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdote

testimony – from experience and expert

Sources of bias or vested interest:

local interest

economic

personal values

experience

Possible consequences of the ideas or actions presented.

Acceptability of their values to others:

how likely other people are to agree with their perspective/view. Other relevant responses should be credited.

Examples of evaluative points candidates are likely to discuss are outlined as follows.

Argument

Strengths

Weaknesses Carl

Passionate about subject

Not much evidence,

Uses many reasons and

mainly opinion

relevant examples to give

Some assertion clarity and explain

Some exaggeration

Clear, logical argument

A negative tone focusing

Focus on rewarding hard

on potential problems work and talent

Little statistical evidence

Other relevant response.

No balance or discussion of counterarguments

Few specific actions proposed

Other relevant response.

Argument

Strengths

Weaknesses Luna

Uses many relevant

Some assertion examples

Little respect for Carl’s

Clear, logical argument

perspective

Frequent reference to

Harsh language at times research evidence

Some exaggeration

Refers to reputable

Other relevant response. organisations/people,

e.g. UN, New Zealand,

professor Smith with

expertise/ability to know

Has some

citation/referencing to

verify research

data/evidence

Other relevant response.

AO1 Analysis

AO1 Evaluation

‘More organisations should become cooperatives.’

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.