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 Maksat’s 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 Jakob’s 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. it’s an opinion because Jakob is making a claim about the water

shortages that is a personal point of view

OR it’s 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. it’s 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 it’s what Maksat says

0 No creditworthy material

2 (b) Sveta’s 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, Dana’s or Sarmat’s? (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: 1666