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