2(a) Main Annotations Indicative content Candidates are likely to discuss the following evaluative points relating to Source 3 Strengths: personal experience of issue – local resident and business owner examples used to support argument evidence from local expert – doctor any other reasonable…

Global Perspectives · Oct / Nov 2020 · Paper 12 · Question 2

2069

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]
Main Annotations
Indicative content
Candidates are likely to discuss the following evaluative points relating to Source 3
Strengths:
personal experience of issue – local resident and business owner
examples used to support argument
evidence from local expert – doctor
any other reasonable response.
Weaknesses:
mostly anecdotal evidence
biased tone – some exaggeration
examples are vague – no clear evidence from employees or about bicycle users
any other reasonable response.
The following levels of response should be used to award marks: Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response
Clearly reasoned, credible and structured evaluation.
Two (or more) developed points clearly linked to the issue, with some other undeveloped points; or a wide range (four or more) of undeveloped points. Evaluation is clearly focused on the evidence and arguments, their strengths and/or weaknesses and the way they are used to support the claim. There is usually some clear reference to the evidence and arguments in the source e.g. quotation/summary.
Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response
Reasonable evaluation mainly focused on the evidence and arguments, their strengths and/or weaknesses, and the way they are used to support the claim; there may be some lack of clarity and the answer may be difficult to follow at times.
The response may contain one (or more) developed point(s), with some other undeveloped points. Some (two or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient to reach this level.
Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response
Limited evaluation which is often unsupported and asserted. The response is often unclear, tangential and generalised. It contains one or two undeveloped points only. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little understanding.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.
2(b)[8]
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 cyclists
data from businesses, local authority or government
individual testimony or personal experience
material from the internet
other relevant response.
Possible sources of information:
national and local governments and their departments
experts in road safety / cycling
research reports
media and the internet
other relevant response.
Possible methods:
review of secondary sources / literature / research / documents
interview relevant employment agencies and experts
internet search
questionnaires
surveys
other relevant response.
The following levels of response should be used to award marks: Level 4 (7–8 marks) Very good response
Clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation of a range of ways to test the claim. The response contains three (or more) developed points, and may contain some undeveloped points.
The response is clearly and 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 contains two (or more) developed points, and may contain some undeveloped points.
The response is explicitly related to testing the claim.
Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response
Some reasoning and explanation of ways to test the claim. The response contains one (or more) developed point(s), and/or a few undeveloped points. There may be some lack of clarity and the answer may be difficult to follow at times.
The response is related to testing the claim.
Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response
Limited explanation of ways to test the claim. The response contains one or two simple, undeveloped and asserted points.
There is little relevance in the response to testing the claim or 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.
If the response lists or describes methods, sources and types of data without linking to the issue/context, then it should not be placed above Level 2.

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.