3(a) Identify one value judgement from Mio’s statement. Explain why it is a value judgement. Main Annotations A value judgement is a statement of an ethical or moral principle or belief, about what is right and wrong, or what is regarded as important, or similar. The following examples are found…

Global Perspectives · May / June 2022 · 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]
Identify one value judgement from Mio’s statement. Explain why it is a value judgement.
Main Annotations
A value judgement is a statement of an ethical or moral principle or belief, about what is right and wrong, or what is regarded as important, or similar. The following examples are found in Mio’s statement:
It is right to care for your health.
Our individual choices are important.
We should also look after each other.
Award 1 mark for correctly identifying a value judgement from the list above. However, candidates may use their own words.
Award 1 mark for a response that demonstrates an understanding of a value judgement.
Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)(i)[1]
Identify one opinion from Ren’s statement.
Main Annotations
Candidates may identify one of the following examples of opinion:
Mio, you are too hopeful.
Most people are selfish and think only about themselves.
Governments must take action.
Governments should use schools to teach children about the importance of looking after the planet.
Individual actions are too small …
Global organisations are too distant from the problems …
This will encourage people to use public transport
Only a government can afford …
Other appropriate response
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]
Ren argues that government action is the best way to solve transport problems in cities.
Explain how well this opinion supports Ren’s argument?
Main Annotations
Examples of the points that could be made when explaining how well opinion supports the argument:
Very good support as the opinion is based on evidence from personal experience that gives confidence to the reader about the claim. The statement will be based on enthusiastic and committed support from the author.
Some support as the opinion is relevant to the argument but the argument may be slightly unbalanced, distorted or selective, so is not entirely reliable.
Limited support as the opinion is asserted with little evidence and is based on personal experience which may not be the same as other people. Use the following levels of response to award a maximum of two marks: Level 2 (2 marks) Good response
An opinion is identified correctly in Q(b)(i) and there is explained evaluation of how well the opinion supports the argument.
Level 1 (1 marks) Reasonable response
An opinion is identified correctly in Q(b)(i) and there is some asserted evaluation of how well the opinion supports the argument.
Level 0 (0 marks)
There is no evaluation of how well the opinion supports the argument OR an opinion has not been correctly identified in Q(b)(i).
3(c)[15]
Which argument is more convincing, Mio’s or Ren’s?
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
Wide range of clear, credible and well explained 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, frequent reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source e.g. quotation/summary of ideas.
A judgement is reached.
Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response
A range of clear, explained points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with some 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
Some points about which argument is more convincing with some explanation. 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 occasionally as evidence to support the evaluation. The response may occasionally lack some clarity and by difficult to follow at times.
A judgement is reached.
Level 2 (4–6) Basic response
A few points about which argument is more convincing. There may be only one argument considered in any detail, with little attempt at comparison. Evaluative points are mainly asserted or descriptive and lack clarity/relevance at times.
The response usually contains two (or more) undeveloped points.
A 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.

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.