Global Perspectives · May / June 2024 · 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 fact from Saga’s statement. Explain why it is a fact. Main Annotations
Indicative Content
A fact is a statement that is true, correct, accurate or can be proven/verified. Candidates may identify one of the following facts from Saga’s statement:
Digital technologies make work more efficient/time and money are saved/allocation of tasks and delivery times much faster.(A study by Hertfordshire University (2021) shows that) 4.4 million people in England and Wales work for gig economy digital platforms.The number of people (working in the gig economy) is growing.The International Labour Organization estimates that internationally the number of online taxi and delivery platforms rose from 142 in 2010 to over 777 in 2020.If businesses grow, more jobs are created/people and governments prosper/standards of living rise.Many people want to work part-time, remotely and flexibly.(Digital technologies) make work more efficient.Other reasonable responseAward 1 mark for correctly identifying a fact from the list above.
However, candidates may use their own words.
Award 1 mark for a response that demonstrates a clear understanding of a fact.
Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use their own words.
3(b)(i)[1]
Identify one example of an opinion from Nil’s statement.
Main Annotations
Indicative Content
An opinion is a point of view or someone’s belief, that is subjective, not necessarily shared by others, and may not be verifiable.
Candidates may identify one of the following examples of an opinion:
(I am sorry, Saga, but) I disagree.New technology causes many problems for workers.Most benefits are for the employers.This is unfair and wrong.Too many people are having to rely on casual and insecure jobs.Gig economy platforms are using new technologies to exploit workersGovernments need to introduce new laws to protect workers in the gig economy.Workers are treated like disposable labour.Other reasonable 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.
Marks will not be awarded for:
There is no job securityGig economy workers have fewer rights/do not get a national minimum wage, paid holidays, or sick pay.3(b)(ii)[2]
Explain how well this example of an opinion supports Nils’ argument. Main Annotations
Indicative Content
Examples of the points that could be made when explaining how well opinions supports the argument:
Very good support as the opinion is based on personal experience that gives confidence to the reader about the claim.The opinion is about worker problems so supports the claim a lot because it is relevant.Some support as the opinion is relevant to the argument but lacks objective research evidence, so is not credible.Limited support as the opinion may not be the same as other people’s. It may have some bias.Use the following criteria to award a maximum of two marks:
Award 1 mark for an attempt to say how well the opinion supports the argument e.g. ‘It supports the argument quite well.’ or ‘It gives some support.’ Award 1 mark for making a link to the argument e.g. ‘because it provides some evidence for Nil’s argument about new technology.’ or ‘ … the opinion gets the attention of the reader on workers.’
Further guidance – Q3bi must be answered correctly to be awarded marks for this question. It is expected that responses will be very brief and not developed, usually one or two sentences.
3(c)[15]
Which argument is more convincing, Saga’s or Nils’?
Your answer should consider both arguments, and you should support your point of view with their words.
You should also consider:
the strength of their reasoning and evidencetheir use of languagethe different types of information usedMain 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:
logicstructurebalanceclaimsUse of language:
tone – emotive, exaggerated, preciseclarityEvidence:
range of information and depthrelevancesufficiency – samplesource – media; internetdate – how recentdifferent types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdotetestimony – from experience and expertSources of bias
local interesteconomicpersonal valuesexperiencePossible 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; frequent reference to the evidence and/or arguments in the source throughout the response e.g. quotation/summary of ideas.
A well supported judgement is clearly 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 supported judgment is reached.
Level 3 (7–9 marks) Reasonable response
Some strengths and/or weaknesses of the arguments are identified or described but mainly not explained. Evaluative points are partially supported or simply described/asserted. Some discussion of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison, or an evaluation of only one argument.
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.
Material from the sources may be used occasionally to support the evaluation. The response may lack some clarity and be 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 asserted or descriptive but not explained and lack clarity and/or 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 unexplained 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 discuss 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.