CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
MARK SCHEME GPPW PP2
1 a Which use of water do you think is most likely to contribute to a shortage of water? Why? [4] Indicative Content The following uses of water may be identified from the source: Domestic washing, cooking, drinking, showering and baths Industrial manufacturing, cooling/power stations, mining, Agricultural growing crops, for food, gardening Tourism swimming pools, fountains, golf courses, fishing, boating Other animals to drink, fire fighting Candidates are likely to give the following reasons to justify their choice: Possible further consequences or effects Degree of impact/seriousness for individuals/countries/world How many people/groups/countries are affected Increasing cycle of decline How widespread the problem is How easy to solve Effects on natural world and human ways of life Other reasonable response
1 b Which consequence of a water shortage do you think is most important. Why? [4] Indicative Content The following consequences of water shortage may be identified from the source: Drought Failed Crops Cracked Reservoirs Dirty Water/puddles Animals drink from dirty puddles Bush/forest fires Thirst Hunger/Starvation Arid land/dry riverbeds, lakes Civil unrest Disease Dead trees/plants Other reasonable response Candidates are likely to give the following reasons to justify their choice: Possible further consequences or effects Degree of impact/seriousness for individuals/countries/world How many people/groups/countries are affected Increasing cycle of decline How widespread the problem is How easy to solve Effects on natural world and human ways of life Other reasonable response
Level of Response and Marks Description of Level Level 4: 4 marks Strong Response Clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation; may compare different consequences; usually at least 2 developed arguments clearly linked to the issue; or a range of undeveloped reasons. Holistic understanding of the interrelationship of factors. Level 3: 3 marks Reasonable Response Some reasoned explanation of why one consequence is most significant; usually at least 1 developed argument suggested with some link to the issue, but may be implicit at times; or several undeveloped reasons. Level 2: 2 marks Basic Response Identifies a consequence as significant but argument is weak or not linked to the issue explicitly. Level 1: 1 mark Limited Response Simple identification of a consequence but no attempt to justify or the reasoning is not related to the issue. 0 marks No relevant response or creditworthy material.
2 (a) Identify one opinion in Maksats blog post. Explain why you think it is an opinion. (3) Indicative content Opinion - a personal view or attitude or perspective or belief; judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof or evidence Examples of opinions in Jakobs blog post are: I believe we need to reduce water pollution (to avoid a water shortage) The main problem we face is not a shortage of water but a shortage of clean drinking water Other reasonable response Mark Performance Descriptors Level 3: 3 marks Strong Response Clear explanation of why the statement is an opinion showing strong understanding e.g. its an opinion because Jakob is making a claim about the water shortages that is a personal point of view OR its an opinion because it cannot be proved
Level 2: 2 marks Reasonable Response Clear explanation of why the statement is an opinion or a prediction i.e. only one aspect is addressed or only one aspect is clearly understood and explained. e.g. its an opinion because Jakob is making a claim about the water shortages Level 1: 1 mark Basic Response Identifies an opinion but the explanation is unclear and does not demonstrate understanding e.g. it is an opinion because its what Maksat says 0 No creditworthy material
2 (b) Svetas dad read somewhere that the average person in the developing world only has 10 litres of water every day for drinking, washing and cooking.How reliable is this information? Explain your answer. [3] Indicative Content The following evaluative points are likely to be made: Source is not cited or clear Source may not be accurate The evidence for the statement within the source is not clear Dad may have misinterpreted the source There is some link to the argument/issue Some evidence provided even if weak or tenuous Other reasonable response
Level and Marks Description of Level L4: Strong Response 3 marks Clearly reasoned, credible and structured evaluation; usually at least 2 developed arguments clearly linked to the issue or a wide range (3/4) of undeveloped reasons. Evaluation is clearly focussed upon the argument/evidence, its strengths and weaknesses, and the way it is used to support the opinion. The response is balanced. A convincing overall assessment or conclusion is reached. L3: Reasonable Response 2 marks Some reasonable evaluation mainly focussed upon the argument/evidence, its strengths and weaknesses, and the way it is used to support the opinion. The response is likely to contain at least 1/2 developed evaluative points, usually with 1/2 other undeveloped points. A range (2/3) of brief but clearly appropriate undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band. An overall assessment or conclusion is attempted. L2: Basic Response 1 mark Some basic evaluation which is often unsupported and asserted. The response lacks clarity, is partial and generalised. The response is likely to contain 1/2 undeveloped points only. An overall assessment or conclusion is very weak, asserted and unconvincing, or not attempted. The response is likely to repeat/recycle the opinion or simply assert agreement/disagreement with the views expressed. The response may not contain any clear evaluative points. The response is likely to be tangential to the question. 0 No relevant or creditworthy material
Refer to Source C 3 Whose reasoning works better, Danas or Sarmats? (8) In your answer you should support your point of view with their words and phrases and you may consider: the reliability of their knowledge claims; how reasonable their opinions are; the likeliness of any consequences they predict; whether you accept their values and why; any other relevant issues.
Indicative Content Candidates are expected to evaluate the reasoning in the two statements and compare their effectiveness. They should make a supported judgement with some explanation about which person has the most effective reasoning. Candidates may consider the following types of issue: quality of the argument - clarity - tone emotive; exaggerated; precise - language - balance quality of the evidence - relevance - sufficiency sample - source media; radio - date how recent - factual, opinion, value, anecdote - testimony from experience and expert knowledge claims ability to see sources of bias - gender - political - personal values - experience likelihood of solutions working and consequences of their ideas acceptability of their values to others - how likely other people are to agree with their perspective/view
Level and Marks Description of Level L5: Very Good Response 7-8 marks Clear, credible and well supported judgements about which reasoning works better. Coherent, structured evaluation of how well the reasoning works for both statements with clear comparison. The response is likely to contain at least 3 developed evaluative points, possibly with some undeveloped points. The response is balanced. A clear assessment or conclusion is reached. Explicit, balanced evaluation of both statements. L4: Strong Response 5-6 marks Clear, supported judgements about which reasoning works better. Evaluation of how well the reasoning works for both statements with clear comparison. The response is likely to contain at least 2 developed evaluative points, possibly with 1/2 undeveloped points. A range (3/4+) of brief but clearly appropriate/explained undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level. The response is balanced. An overall assessment or conclusion is reached. Explicit, balanced evaluation of both statements. L3: Reasonable Response 3-4 marks Reasonable judgements about which reasoning works better. Some evaluation of how well the reasoning works for both statements with an attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are likely to be partially supported or asserted. The response is likely to contain at least 1 developed evaluative points, possibly with 1/2 undeveloped points; 2/3 brief undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level. An attempt is made to give an overall assessment or conclusion. L2: Basic Response 2 marks Basic examination of which reasoning works better. The response may only consider one of the statements with little if any attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are likely to be partially supported or asserted, and lack clarity/relevance at times. The response is likely to contain at least 1/2 undeveloped evaluative points. L1: Limited Response 1 mark Limited, if any, unsupported discussion of which reasoning works better. The response is likely to consider only one of the statements very briefly or tangentially. There is very little clarity in the argument. The response is likely to repeat the arguments simply or assert agreement/disagreement with the views expressed. The response may not contain any clear evaluative points. 0 No relevant or creditworthy material
Refer to Sources A, B and C 4 Do you think the water shortage problem is most likely to be resolved by global or individual action? (10) In your answer you should: state your conclusion; give reasons for your opinion; use relevant examples to support your opinion (you may use your own experience); show that you have considered different points of view; explain why you disagree with some of these points of view.
Indicative Content Candidates are expected to argue using reasons and evidence to justify their opinion and judgement about the issue i.e. to compare and assess the effectiveness of different levels of action to help increase supply of water. Candidates are expected to use and develop the material found in the Sources, but should go beyond simply repeating or recycling without adaptation. Other material may be introduced but it is not necessary to gain full marks. Candidates are likely to consider the following arguments: reference to scale of impact on individual/group/governmental/global behaviour/actions how long it takes to make a difference the effects of cultural differences and beliefs barriers to change the power of collective action the difficulties of changing individual behaviour the influence of individuals and groups acting locally the role of vested interests and power differences potential conflict difficulties in coordinating globally and across different countries with independence cost and access to resources to implement change governmental responses and action other reasonable response
Level and Marks Description of Level L5: Very Good Response 8-10 marks Clear, well supported and logical reasoning about the issue. Coherent and well-structured argument. The response is likely to contain a wide range of clearly reasoned arguments and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with at least 3/4 developed points, and some undeveloped points. The response is balanced. A clear, balanced and credible assessment or conclusion is reached. Explicit evaluation of both levels of action. Lower in the band a greater proportion of arguments will be left undeveloped. L4: Strong Response 6-7 marks Clear, supported reasoning about the issue. Clear argument and some structure. The response is likely to contain a range of reasoned arguments and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with at least 2/3 developed points, and some undeveloped points. The response is balanced. An assessment or conclusion is reached. Explicit evaluation of both levels of action. Lower in the band a greater proportion of arguments will be left undeveloped. L3: Reasonable Response 5 marks Reasonable argument about the issue. The response is likely to contain some arguments and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with at least 1 developed point, and some undeveloped points. An assessment or conclusion is attempted but may not be convincing. Lower in the band some arguments may begin to lack clarity, and/or be partial and generalised. L2: Basic Response 3-4 marks Basic argument about the issue. Arguments are unlikely to be supported and mainly asserted. Arguments lack clarity at times and there is no apparent structure. The response is likely to contain only 1/2 undeveloped points. Judgements are likely to be implicit without a conclusion. Lower in the band the arguments are likely to be generalised, partial and lack relevance to the issue with a descriptive approach. L1: Limited Response 1-2 marks Limited and unsupported argument about the issue with very little clarity. The response describes the issue very generally and tangentially. The response is partial and lacking in relevance. 0 No relevant or creditworthy material Date: 2015-04-20; view: 792
|
