3(a) Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4. It is no surprise that the rate of violent crime is rising in some countries Governments must reduce inequality. I know that we cannot prevent crime without more resources. 1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of…

Global Perspectives · May / June 2020 · Paper 12 · Question 3

2069

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)[1]
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
It is no surprise that the rate of violent crime is rising in some countries
Governments must reduce inequality.
I know that we cannot prevent crime without more resources. 1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of the above. Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)[1]
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4.
Countries where citizens and police do not have easy access to weapons have less violent crime and fewer deaths from shootings.
Most countries with high rates of gun ownership have high rates of gun crime.
Much violent crime is linked to the supply of illegal drugs by criminal gangs
In Portugal, these actions improved health and lowered crime rates. 1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of the above. Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(c)[3]
Indicative content
A vested interest is a strong personal interest in something because you could get an advantage from it, for example financial.
The following examples are found in Source 4.
Jack is a police officer and argues for more resources for the police.
Eve is a lawyer and may get work from changes to the law.
Award 1 mark for correctly identifying vested interest from the list above. Award an additional 1 mark for a response that demonstrates some understanding of vested interest.
Or
Award an additional 2 marks for a clear understanding of vested interest applied accurately to the example identified from Source 4.
3(d)[15]
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 about which argument is more convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison.
The response contains three (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points.
A clear judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
Clear, supported points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with comparison.
The response 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.
A judgment is reached.
Level 3 (7–9 marks) Reasonable response
Reasonable points about which argument is more convincing. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
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.
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 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.