Global Perspectives · Oct / Nov 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]
Main Annotations
Candidates may identify one of the following from Chiku’s statement:
The city is only 50 km away.We have a large car.I go to school by car every day by car.Fuel and road taxes are expensive.I have 100 per cent attendance.I know there is a problem with pollution.I am in good health.I arrive at school with clean clothes.We can visit relations more easily (whatever the weather).1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above.
Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)[1]
Main Annotations
Candidates may identify one of the following from Source 4:
This number of cars will increase in the future.I will be more healthy when I am older.1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above.
Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(c)[3]
Main Annotations
A value judgement is a statement based upon ethical or moral principles about what is right or wrong or important.
The following examples are found in Source 4.
This was wrong as I was not able to learn very well.We should all try to keep as healthy as possible.I think two wheels are best.Award 1 mark for correctly identifying an example of value judgement from the list above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Award an additional 1 mark for a response that demonstrates some understanding of a value judgement.
Or
Award an additional 2 marks for a clear understanding of a value judgement applied accurately to the example identify from Source 4.
3(d)[15]
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:
logicstructurebalanceclaims.Use of language:
tone – emotive, exaggerated, preciseclarity.Evidence:
range of information and depthrelevancesufficiency – samplesource – media; internetdate – how recentdifferent types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdotetestimony – from experience and expert.Sources of bias
local interesteconomicpersonal valuesexperience.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 responseClear, credible and well supported points/explanation 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. Material from the sources is used as evidence to support the evaluation; clear reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source e.g. quotation/summary of ideas.
A clear judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
Clear, supported points/explanation 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. 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
Reasonable points/explanation about which argument is more convincing. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison or very good evaluation of only one argument. Some 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. Some material from the sources may be used as evidence to support the evaluation. The response may occasionally lack some clarity and by difficult to follow.
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.
Make a free account to save your answers and see your weak topics and ask the AI why a wrong answer is wrong.