Global Perspectives · May / June 2021 · 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)[2]
Main Annotations
A vested interest is a special concern about something due to personal gain or advantage; a strong reason for supporting a particular point of view or action to gain individual or group benefit/advantage, which could be economic, social, political, or other.
Candidates may identify one of the following:
Ivan has a vested interest in governments spending more money on hospitals because he has an illness.Ivan wants governments to tax rich people and multi-national companies to pay for hospitals because he has an illness.Nadia is a member of an environmental action group therefore believes that more money should be spent promoting sustainable development.Kate Raworth works for Oxford Environmental Change Institute so has a vested interest in promoting sustainable development, as indicated by her quote.Other reasonable response.Award 1 mark for correctly identifying a vested interest from the list above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Award an additional 1 mark for a response that demonstrates a clear understanding of vested interest. This does not need to be a definition. Do not accept bribery or bias as a proxy for vested interest.
Further Guidance
Note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)(i)[1]
Main Annotations
A prediction is a statement or claim about the future.
Candidates may identify one of the following predictions:
If more people work more people will pay taxes.If more people work governments will have more to spend.Spending 13% of a country’s annual income on public services will reduce inequality (by 20%).1 mark should be awarded for identifying one of the above.
Further Guidance
Note that the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)(ii)[2]
Main Annotations
Indicative content
Examples of the points that could be made when explaining how well the prediction supports the argument:
Very good support as the prediction highlights that the best way to increase government spending is to raise more money through taxation.Some support but the prediction is not directly related to Ivan’s argument as it is about the benefits of people working rather than reforms to the taxation and benefit system.Limited support as it is based on assertion with little evidence.Not much support as the author has a vested interest which makes the statement unreliable.Other reasonable response.Use the following levels of response to award a maximum of 2 marks. Level 2 (2 marks) Good response
A prediction is identified correctly and there is clear evaluation of how well the prediction supports the argument.
3(c)[15]
Main Annotations
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.Possible 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 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 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 about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with 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
Reasonable points about which argument is more convincing. Some evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison or a very good evaluation of only one argument. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
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.
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 usually 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.
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.