- Max Papers | Ultimate resource for ...maxpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/9694_Oct-Nov-2011-All... · Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2011

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS

GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level

MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2011 question paper

for the guidance of teachers

9694 THINKING SKILLS

9694/11 Paper 1 (Problem Solving), maximum raw mark 30

Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the examination.

• Cambridge will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes.

Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2011 question papers for most IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level syllabuses.

www.maxpapers.com

Page 2 Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version Syllabus Paper

GCE AS/A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9694 11

© University of Cambridge International Examinations 2011

Question Number

Key Question Number

Key

1 B 16 D

2 A 17 B

3 D 18 D

4 A 19 A

5 B 20 C

6 C 21 A

7 B 22 C

8 B 23 D

9 C 24 D

10 B 25 B

11 B 26 C

12 C 27 C

13 C 28 C

14 B 29 A

15 D 30 B

www.maxpapers.com










www.maxpapers.com




Question Number

Key Question Number

Key

1 C 16 A

2 B 17 C

3 C 18 A

4 C 19 B

5 B 20 D

6 A 21 C

7 C 22 C

8 B 23 A

9 C 24 D

10 B 25 C

11 C 26 A

12 C 27 A

13 D 28 C

14 C 29 A

15 B 30 C

www.maxpapers.com










www.maxpapers.com




Question Number

Key Question Number

Key

1 C 16 C

2 B 17 B

3 B 18 B

4 C 19 B

5 C 20 D

6 A 21 C

7 D 22 A

8 B 23 B

9 D 24 D

10 B 25 C

11 C 26 C

12 D 27 D

13 C 28 C

14 B 29 C

15 B 30 B

www.maxpapers.com






9694/21 Paper 2 (Critical Thinking), maximum raw mark 45

This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers.


• Cambridge will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes. Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2011 question papers for most IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level syllabuses.

www.maxpapers.com




1 (a) How reliable is Dr Gould’s evidence (Source B)? Justify your answer. [3] Credit up to three of the following points: Reliable: Dr Gould’s long friendship with Henry Burns means he is in a very good position to know

about his character (good ability to see) [1]. He has a vested interest to speak the truth, because if he were caught actually lying he might

lose his job [1]. Unreliable: Dr Gould has a vested interest to misrepresent the truth in favour of Henry Burns, because

he is a close friend and colleague [1]. He also has a vested interest to misrepresent the truth because he does not want to

endanger the Government or his own job [1]. He is unlikely to have been present at any of the events which have been alleged (poor

ability to see) [1]. Overall, therefore, Dr Gould is probably bending the truth as far as he can in favour of Henry

Burns without actually lying [1]; his evidence is somewhat/not very reliable [1]. Maximum 2 if only one side considered. Award 1 mark for judgment if judgments for both sides are included, even if there is no

summative judgment. (b) How useful is Flora Nosworth’s evidence (Sources C and D)? Justify your answer. [3] Credit up to three of the following points: Useful: Since she took the call, FN has good ability to know what was said [1]. FN’s evidence corroborates the claims made in Source A [1]. FN’s evidence states that allegations of bullying have been made against the PM [1], but not

whether they were true or not [1]. Not useful: Since this item appeared on the website after Source A was published, it could have been

based on that report [1]. She does not give any details of the allegations [1]. The fact that the helpline is confidential means that there is no way of proving whether FN is

telling the truth or not [1]. Even if someone claiming to be a member of the PM’s staff has telephoned the helpline,

there is no proof that they really are who they claim to be [1]. Since the definition of bullying used by the helpline is entirely subjective, the claim may say

more about the complainant’s personality or mental state than about what actually happened [1].

Overall, therefore, the evidence is of some use, but not much (neither decisive nor trivial) [1]. Maximum 2 if only one side considered.

www.maxpapers.com




(c) How reasonable is Hilary Askam’s claim that “anyone who is being bullied at work should not contact this helpline, because there is a real danger that their identity will be revealed” (Source D)? [3]

Credit up to three of the following points: Reasonable: The information which has been divulged does constitute a breach of confidentiality [1], and

it would probably not be too hard to discover the identities of the complainants [1]. Unreasonable: The actual names of the complainants in this case have not been revealed [1]. There is no reason to believe that FN would be similarly indiscreet in cases of less public

interest [1]. Overall, therefore, Hilary Askam has identified a real issue, but has over-stated it [1]. Maximum 2 if only one side considered. (d) How likely is it that Henry Burns has bullied members of his staff? Write a short,

reasoned argument to support your conclusion, with critical reference to the evidence provided and considering plausible alternative scenarios. [6]

Level 3 5–6 marks

A strong answer, which provides a reasoned argument including thorough evaluation of the evidence to support an acceptable conclusion in terms of probability and evaluates the plausibility of at least one different possible course of events.

Level 2 3–4 marks

A reasonable answer, which evaluates the evidence, draws an acceptable conclusion in terms of probability and may mention the plausibility of at least one different course of events.

Level 1 1–2 marks

A weak answer, which refers to the evidence, possibly including a simple evaluative comment. The conclusion may be unstated or over-stated.

Level 0 0 marks

No credit-worthy material.

www.maxpapers.com




Indicative content

• It is likely that Henry Burns has engaged in behaviour which can at least be interpreted as bullying, although he may genuinely not have interpreted it in that way himself. The accusation that he threw dangerous objects and the admission that he threw a newspaper could represent different perspectives on the same incident(s), being over- and under-stated respectively.

• However, it is possible that he really has behaved very badly and some people are attempting to cover it up or that the allegations are entirely malicious and untrue.

• The tone of Source A suggests that The Daily News or its proprietor is opposed to the Government, in which case it has probably made the most of the allegations, and may even have invented them.

• Flora Nosworth’s claim that at least one person claiming to be a member of the PM’s staff had telephoned the helpline is likely to be true, unless – as Hilary Askam alleges – she has personal or political animosity towards the Prime Minister which has caused her to invent false accusations against him. Her claim is corroborated by Source A, but the corroboration is weak since she had read that report before making her own claim. There was presumably no way of verifying the identity of the callers.

• Hilary Askam’s statement focuses on the breach of confidentiality, not on the truth of the allegations. This may imply that the PM is unable to deny the charges.

2 (a) According to the evidence presented in Source A, how reasonable is the claim that

humans are “the biggest cause of extinctions”? [3] Credit up to three of the following points: The article states that there is a correlation between extinctions and the growth of population

and wealth [1], by which it is probably seeking to imply a causal relationship [1]. Although it is quite plausible that the correlation does have a causal basis [1], nothing in this document proves it [1].

So overall, the title is relevant to the intention and contents of the article, but overstates its

conclusion [1]. (b) How well does Source B support its claim that “By 2022, 22% of all species will be

extinct if no action is taken”? [3] Credit up to three of the following points: The prediction is based on the assumption that current rates of extinction will continue to rise

at the same rate as at present [1]; the trend is scarcely credible, since it appears that if the graph were to be extended beyond 2022, all species would be extinct very soon [1]. The prediction is not based on a direct measurement of extinctions, but on a calculation derived from measurement of habitat loss [1]. However, an approximate correlation between habitat loss and extinctions is plausible [1]. The last sentence of the article shows that estimates of the number of species and extinction rates are entirely hypothetical. [1]. The overall support for the claim is poor [1].

It is not necessary for candidates to refer to Sources A or C to answer this question, but valid

points based on either of them should be credited.

www.maxpapers.com




(c) ‘Extinction is part of the constant evolution of life.’ To what extent does this statement contradict the claim of Source D that the world is

“…in the midst of an irreversible large-scale extinction of species”? [3] Credit up to three of the following points: The statement does not contradict this claim [1], although it does reduce its impact to some

extent [1]. Source D recognises that a rhythm of species development and extinction has always been part of life [1], but it claims that the rate of extinction is currently much higher than in previous eras [1] because of the influence of humans [1] and that it is “irreversible” [1].

(d) ‘Urgent action is required to prevent an irreversible large-scale extinction of species.’ Write a short, reasoned argument to support or challenge this claim, using and

evaluating the information provided in Sources A – D. [6]

Level 3 5–6 marks

A strong, reasoned argument, which uses and evaluates all or most of the evidence provided.

Level 2 3–4 marks

A reasonable, simple argument, which uses and/or evaluates evidence.

Level 1 1–2 marks

A weak answer, which makes some reference to evidence but consists of opinion and/or assertion rather than argument or an argument which makes no reference to evidence.

Level 0 0 marks


Indicative content

• The rate of extinctions seems to be high, but probably not as high as the documents would have us believe.

• The global rate of extinction referred to in Source C is doubly hypothetical, extrapolating from a much smaller number (869 extinctions since 1500).

• If a lot of those extinctions consist of plants, fungi and insects (as implied by Source D), and if a high proportion are of species which have not yet been observed, described or identified (as Sources B, C and D admit), then arguably they will not be much loss. Alternatively, it may be argued that all species are equally valuable and that their value is independent of human observation.

• Source D cites only the highest figure estimated by the IUCN, rather than a more moderate figure. No reasons are given as to why the rates of extinction should have “almost certainly increased” since 2004.

• Some of the causes of extinction identified in Source D are beyond human control, although we could in principle reduce the destruction of habitats and global warming.

• All the sources seek to persuade the reader that a large number of species are in danger of becoming extinct, but none of them gives reasons why anyone should do anything about it.

www.maxpapers.com




3 (a) Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify the main conclusion. [1]

2 marks: This view [The view that a right to health is one of the fundamental human rights] is

seriously mistaken. 1 mark: recognizable paraphrase of the above. 1 mark: It is very widely accepted that a right to health is one of the fundamental human

rights, but this view is seriously mistaken. (b) Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify three reasons

used to support the main conclusion. [3]

• It is impossible for us to have a duty to preserve health.

• A right to health would claim too much.

• They [all the kinds of welfare provision that support health] are too diverse to be brought together as a single entitlement.

• That [the UNIC’s definition of the right to health] is ridiculous.

• They [governments] do not infringe anyone’s rights when they limit their spending on health.

(c) Evaluate the reasoning in the argument. In your answer you should consider any

strengths, weaknesses, flaws and unstated assumptions. [5]

Level 3 4–5 marks

Evaluation of strength of argument with critical reference to strength/weakness, including some of: flaws, support given by reasons to intermediate conclusions, use of evidence, inconsistency, analogies, assumptions.

Level 2 2–3 marks

Relevant extended counter-argument (3 marks). Specific counter-assertions/agreements (2 marks) Single point of evaluation only (2 or 3 marks)

Level 1 1 mark

Discussion of the topic without specific reference to the passage or general counter-assertion/agreement or weak attempt at evaluation.

Level 0 0 marks

No relevant comments. Summary/paraphrase of the passage.

Indicative content

• The example in para 1 effectively illustrates the point being made.

• The argument in para 1 depends on the controversial assumption that rights exist only where some specific person or institution has a corresponding duty.

• The argument in para 1 also depends on the assumption that it is impossible for anyone to have a duty to do something which they are not capable of doing (“ought implies can”), but this is not controversial.

• The argument in para 2 is probably based on a straw person – the right to health which the UN and others allege probably refers to major, long-term, disabling diseases, not minor temporary afflictions such as colds.

• The argument in para 3 depends on the assumption that diverse goods cannot be the object of a human right, but no argument is offered to support this assumption.

• The examples given at the end of para 4 strengthen the claim that governments have many calls on them which are not obviously inferior to the support of health.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) ‘The first priority of any government should be preserving the health of its citizens.’ Write your own short argument to support or challenge this claim. The conclusion of

your argument must be stated. [5]

Level 3 4–5 marks

Developed, coherent argument. Reasons strongly support conclusion. Development may include intermediate conclusion or apt examples. Simply structured argument 4 marks. Effective use of IC &c 5 marks.

Level 2 2–3 marks

A simple argument. One reason + conclusion 2 marks. Two or more separate reasons + conclusion 3 marks.

Level 1 1 mark

Some relevant comment.

Level 0 0 marks

No relevant comment.

Maximum 3 marks if conclusion is implied but not stated. Maximum 3 marks if argued to wrong conclusion. No credit for material merely reproduced from the passage.

Indicative content (specimen 5-mark answer) It can scarcely be doubted that preserving the health of its citizens is an important task of

government, within the limits of the resources available. However, it should not necessarily be their first priority.

Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have argued that the most basic duty

of a government is to provide security. It protects against internal threats by providing a police force and against external enemies by means of an army. Governments which fail to protect their citizens in these ways have lost validity. Health therefore cannot be the first priority of a government, since security is.

It can also be argued that education is even more important than health, because whereas

health is temporary, the benefits of education are long-term. Governments often have to make hard choices between competing calls on their resources, and in doing so they should take the long view. Providing primary education to all of their citizens and opportunities for higher education to those who can benefit from it should be a core strategy.

Important though it is, therefore, preserving the health of its citizens should not be any

government’s first priority.

www.maxpapers.com










www.maxpapers.com




1 (a) How relevant is the report in the Rajkhan Times (Source A) to public concern about the proposed incinerators? [3]

Relevance not clear [1]. If the public is concerned about how ‘green’ the incinerators are then

there is some evidence here that incinerators are not very green [1]. However, if the public is concerned about health effects then, apart from the headline, there is no evidence about the public health effects [1]. The report is relevant in that it informs that incinerators may be built in the area in question [1]. The article may create concern about incinerators where none existed before [1].

Because the report is based on material from the Green Alliance, as an environmental group

they may have concerns about waste incinerators which are exaggerated and/or which are not shared by the public so it is not necessarily relevant to public concern as such [2 marks].

Give 1 mark per valid point. Only award judgement mark if followed by some assessment. (b) How reliable is the information given in Source B? Justify your answer. [3] Given that they are making such an effort to keep it secret, we can reliably conclude that the

council does intend to build waste disposal incinerators [1]. However the information about the safety of these incinerators is less certain as it comes from a source with a vested interest (Global Incineration) to present them as safe [1]. The information about national legislation would seem to be reliable [1] as Devandra Singh has no motive to say this is the case if it is not even though the evidence of Source C suggests collusion with Global Incineration [1]. Reliability of information on safety increased by expertise of Global Incineration [1]. Reliability of information about safety decreased by evidence of collusion between Singh and Global Incineration [1]. Reliability increased by fact that it is an official/secret memo therefore authoritative document on council’s intentions [1].

Give 1 mark per valid point, including judgements. (c) How significant is the e-mail to David Wasim from the editor of the Green Alliance

Monthly (Source E)? [3] It is significant [1]. It is highly plausible that this e-mail refers to the confidential information

that Wasim has leaked to the editor [1] and that he is the ‘highly-placed source’ referred to in the article [1]. However, we cannot be sure that it refers to this [1] and may refer to something completely different [1]. The e-mail is dated 01/02/2011 which is the sort of time scale consistent with Wasim receiving the confidential information on 25/01/2011 and taking time to reach a decision about leaking it [1].

Give 1 mark per valid point. Max 2 marks if only one side considered.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) How likely is it that David Wasim leaked confidential information to the Green Alliance? Write a short, reasoned argument to support your conclusion, with critical reference to the evidence provided and considering plausible alternative scenarios. [6]

Level 3 5–6 marks


Level 2 3–4 marks


Level 1 1–2 marks


Level 0 0 marks


Indicative Content David Wasim is clearly a committed member of the Green Alliance as evidenced by his blog

which gives him a motive for leaking information about council plans to build waste incinerators. The fact that the council wants to suppress this information until national legislation allows it to be bulldozed through would give him further incentive to reveal this information before it became public knowledge. As the memo went to senior planning officers we can be sure he was included. However, we have no evidence to suggest he would have known about the possible collusion between Global Incineration, Dev Singh and Asha Akbar. Even if he had, this is not relevant to the ‘green’ motive. His blog suggests that he would not have risked losing his job (Source B makes clear that this will be the consequence of being found out) given his financial commitments and also that he was personally ambitious to rise further. His blog also suggests that he accepts that there are some good green arguments for incinerators even if it is not official Green Alliance policy. Looking at the issue from an informed planning position, Wasim may see objections to incinerators as popular prejudice which the Green Alliance is exploiting to get support. Source C suggests possible collusion between Singh, Akbar and Global Incineration Inc., and that they are aware of possible problems with Wasim. It is possible that Wasim is being ‘stitched up’ as he is regarded as a threat given his green politics and that Singh and Akbar are exploiting an opportunity to get rid of Wasim even though he is not responsible for the leak.

On balance it would appear that it is unlikely that Wasim is responsible for the leak because:

• What he has to lose if found out

• He seems ambitious to get a better job

• He may be being stitched up

• Even as a member of the Green Alliance, he may be in favour of incinerators

www.maxpapers.com




2 (a) Consider Sources A and B. How likely is it that a cure for cancer will ever be developed? [3]

Unlikely [1] but not impossible [1] (but 0 if just this). Unlikely

Complexities of the condition. Successful treatment will discourage further research. Cancer may be a normal part of the ageing process.

Not impossible

A chance discovery from other research might offer a cure. As with diabetes there may be a demand for a renewed search for a cure. Just because it is normal does not mean it is impossible to cure.

(b) Consider Source C. “…one will enjoy better health as a result of giving up smoking.” How reliable is this conclusion? [3] Unreliable because:

• The person who had stopped smoking might have taken up equally unhealthy substitute habits e.g. eating cream buns.

• The person’s mental health may have suffered either due to withdrawal symptoms or absence of beneficial effects of smoking to control nerves.

• The person’s health may be already so severely damaged through smoking that this is a case of ‘too little, too late’.

3 marks for any one of these. 2 marks if candidate refers to continuation of already existing non-smoking related habits.

This is less directly related to giving up smoking and it may still be the case they would be healthier overall. Also for:

• The figures show that 90% of smokers do not get lung cancer

• There is no evidence that giving up smoking will improve your health

• Smokers may still ingest smoke passively even if they have given up smoking 1 mark if candidate refers to other causes of ill health not necessarily related to continuation

of existing unhealthy habits, e.g. arthritis. Also, if candidate says the conclusion is reliable because of the well-known bad effects of smoking.

www.maxpapers.com




(c) “There is an increased risk of blindness.” (Source D.) How good a reason is this to suggest more resources should be put into finding a

cure for diabetes? [3] Gives some grounds for this as clearly the condition has serious consequences for the

individual even if controlled. However, it is possible a more effective route would be finding some way of combating side effects such as these. Also, there is the question of how to distribute scarce resources in funding health care – would money spent on finding a cure for diabetes be at the expense of research into more life-threatening conditions? We also need to know the degree of risk of going blind – it might be quite low.

1 mark for any 1 of the above points, 2 marks for 1 point if well-developed.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) Should scientists continue to search for a cure for cancer? Write a short, reasoned argument to support your conclusion, using and evaluating

the information provided in Sources A–E.

Level 3 5–6 marks


Level 2 3–4 marks


Level 1 1–2 marks


Level 0 0 marks


Indicative content Sources A and B strongly suggest that the search for a cure is something of a search for the

‘Holy Grail’. Candidates who develop this line of reasoning should refer to the fact that ‘cancer’ is actually 200 different conditions / cancers develop differently in individuals therefore any cure likely to be only appropriate to them – this could be developed along DNA lines / cancer is an inevitable part of the ageing process.

Sources D and E, however, show the unsatisfactory nature of merely treating chronic

conditions such as diabetes and how a search for a cure has continued and looks likely to be successful. Genuine cures in the case of cancer and diabetes would clearly considerably increase the life expectancy of individuals with these conditions.

Source C hints at a rather different line of reasoning along the lines of the extent to which

cancer is self-inflicted through lifestyle choices and is therefore better prevented rather than cured.

The problem with concluding that the diabetes model is appropriate to cancer (i.e. research

for a cure should continue) is that cancer seems more inherently incurable than diabetes for a variety of reasons. It seems to be a more complex condition to do with mutation of cells etc. rather than mere bodily malfunction as in the case of diabetes. It would be difficult to see how something like an ‘artificial pancreas’ would be appropriate to cancer. In any case this could be seen as a sophisticated treatment rather than a cure. Also, the side effects of treating cancer as a chronic condition might not be as serious as in the case of diabetes.

www.maxpapers.com




3 (a) Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify the main conclusion [2]

The era of the mass or ‘public’ library will have been very short [2]. If this is the case one can conclude that the era of the mass or ‘public’ library will have been very short perhaps as little as 100 years [1].

(b) “So the end of the book also signals the end of the library.” Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify three reasons

used to support this claim. [3]

• Future generations will be quite happy reading text on a screen

• Some Internet companies are already anticipating a future in which books will only exist ‘on-line’

• The vast majority of people will be able to access text on the internet, (via their phones or personal computers)

• They will not need a building physically containing texts in book form

• People without access to the Internet do not need a library to gain such access

• If this vision of the future is correct we will see the end of the library

www.maxpapers.com




(c) Evaluate the reasoning in the argument. In your answer you should consider any strengths, weaknesses, flaws and unstated assumptions. [5]

Use the grid below. Refer to indicative content below.

Level 3 4–5 marks


Level 2 2–3 marks

Relevant extended counter-argument (3 marks). Specific counter-assertions/agreements (2 marks). Single point of evaluation only (2 or 3 marks).

Level 1 1 mark


Level 0 0 marks

No relevant comments. Summary/paraphrase of passage.

Assumptions To be happy about reading text online means one never needs or prefers a hard copy of a

text. The preference for a book is purely cultural and not built into more universal aspects of

human biology such as perception. The transition to generations happy to read text online will be very rapid. The transition will have the same time-scale throughout the world. Assumes libraries have no other functions than accessing books. Flaws Contradiction between ‘books will only exist online’ and ‘people will still want to own books as

physical objects’. Conflation between ‘being happy about reading online text’ and ‘only needing online text’. Slippery slope in moving from texts being on-line to the end of the book. Other points about reasoning The point that ‘online’ text does not need a building to contain these texts seems a valid one

as does the point about internet cafes etc. being all one needs to access these texts if one does not have access to or own a computer. So this is quite strong reasoning.

There may be a number of reasons why some Internet companies want to put all existing

texts online – it does not follow that it must mean that they anticipate the end of the book as we know it.

Being privately owned does not necessarily support the statement ‘only accessible to a small

elite’. These privately-owned libraries may have been owned by people who wanted ordinary people to access them.

If people want to own books as physical objects they might also want to borrow them for the

same reason. An analogy here might be with hiring a classic car. The analogy with shops selling vinyl doesn’t really work as there is a case that vinyl records

are actually functionally better in producing sound. The analogy would only work if people purchased vinyl just to own it as an object as opposed to use it to produce music.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) ‘It is important to own books and not just to read them’. Write your own short argument to support or challenge this claim. The conclusion of your argument must be stated. [5]

Use grid below. Refer to indicative content below.

Level 3 4–5 marks

Developed, coherent argument. Reasons strongly support conclusion. Development may include intermediate conclusion or apt examples. Simply structured argument 4 marks. Effective use of IC 5 marks

Level 2 2–3 marks


Level 1 1 mark


Level 0 0 marks


Cap on Level 2 if conclusion is implied but not stated. No credit for material merely

reproduced from the passage. Wrong conclusion cap on Level 2. Indicative content For Books are attractive objects that enhance the appearance of a room. Many books are for reference and it is convenient if one has them to hand. Some books may become valuable in the future and be an investment. Many complex novels re-pay re-reading and if one owns them this can be done easily. Against Books take up a great deal of space. It is wrong to treat books as a form of decoration – this is not their true purpose. Most books are only worth reading once – people rarely return to them once they have been

read. Reference can be now done on the Internet – one does not need books to look things up in

any more.

www.maxpapers.com










www.maxpapers.com




1 (a) How relevant is the report in the Rajkhan Times (Source A) to public concern about the proposed incinerators? [3]

Relevance not clear [1]. If the public is concerned about how ‘green’ the incinerators are then

there is some evidence here that incinerators are not very green [1]. However, if the public is concerned about health effects then, apart from the headline, there is no evidence about the public health effects [1]. The report is relevant in that it informs that incinerators may be built in the area in question [1]. The article may create concern about incinerators where none existed before [1].

Because the report is based on material from the Green Alliance, as an environmental group

they may have concerns about waste incinerators which are exaggerated and/or which are not shared by the public so it is not necessarily relevant to public concern as such [2 marks].

Give 1 mark per valid point. Only award judgement mark if followed by some assessment. (b) How reliable is the information given in Source B? Justify your answer. [3] Given that they are making such an effort to keep it secret, we can reliably conclude that the

council does intend to build waste disposal incinerators [1]. However the information about the safety of these incinerators is less certain as it comes from a source with a vested interest (Global Incineration) to present them as safe [1]. The information about national legislation would seem to be reliable [1] as Devandra Singh has no motive to say this is the case if it is not even though the evidence of Source C suggests collusion with Global Incineration [1]. Reliability of information on safety increased by expertise of Global Incineration [1]. Reliability of information about safety decreased by evidence of collusion between Singh and Global Incineration [1]. Reliability increased by fact that it is an official/secret memo therefore authoritative document on council’s intentions [1].

Give 1 mark per valid point, including judgements. (c) How significant is the e-mail to David Wasim from the editor of the Green Alliance

Monthly (Source E)? [3] It is significant [1]. It is highly plausible that this e-mail refers to the confidential information

that Wasim has leaked to the editor [1] and that he is the ‘highly-placed source’ referred to in the article [1]. However, we cannot be sure that it refers to this [1] and may refer to something completely different [1]. The e-mail is dated 01/02/2011 which is the sort of time scale consistent with Wasim receiving the confidential information on 25/01/2011 and taking time to reach a decision about leaking it [1].

Give 1 mark per valid point. Max 2 marks if only one side considered.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) How likely is it that David Wasim leaked confidential information to the Green Alliance? Write a short, reasoned argument to support your conclusion, with critical reference to the evidence provided and considering plausible alternative scenarios. [6]

Level 3 5–6 marks


Level 2 3–4 marks


Level 1 1–2 marks


Level 0 0 marks


Indicative Content David Wasim is clearly a committed member of the Green Alliance as evidenced by his blog

which gives him a motive for leaking information about council plans to build waste incinerators. The fact that the council wants to suppress this information until national legislation allows it to be bulldozed through would give him further incentive to reveal this information before it became public knowledge. As the memo went to senior planning officers we can be sure he was included. However, we have no evidence to suggest he would have known about the possible collusion between Global Incineration, Dev Singh and Asha Akbar. Even if he had, this is not relevant to the ‘green’ motive. His blog suggests that he would not have risked losing his job (Source B makes clear that this will be the consequence of being found out) given his financial commitments and also that he was personally ambitious to rise further. His blog also suggests that he accepts that there are some good green arguments for incinerators even if it is not official Green Alliance policy. Looking at the issue from an informed planning position, Wasim may see objections to incinerators as popular prejudice which the Green Alliance is exploiting to get support. Source C suggests possible collusion between Singh, Akbar and Global Incineration Inc., and that they are aware of possible problems with Wasim. It is possible that Wasim is being ‘stitched up’ as he is regarded as a threat given his green politics and that Singh and Akbar are exploiting an opportunity to get rid of Wasim even though he is not responsible for the leak.

On balance it would appear that it is unlikely that Wasim is responsible for the leak because:

• What he has to lose if found out

• He seems ambitious to get a better job

• He may be being stitched up

• Even as a member of the Green Alliance, he may be in favour of incinerators

www.maxpapers.com




2 (a) Consider Sources A and B. How likely is it that a cure for cancer will ever be developed? [3]

Unlikely [1] but not impossible [1] (but 0 if just this). Unlikely

Complexities of the condition. Successful treatment will discourage further research. Cancer may be a normal part of the ageing process.

Not impossible

A chance discovery from other research might offer a cure. As with diabetes there may be a demand for a renewed search for a cure. Just because it is normal does not mean it is impossible to cure.

(b) Consider Source C. “…one will enjoy better health as a result of giving up smoking.” How reliable is this conclusion? [3] Unreliable because:

• The person who had stopped smoking might have taken up equally unhealthy substitute habits e.g. eating cream buns.

• The person’s mental health may have suffered either due to withdrawal symptoms or absence of beneficial effects of smoking to control nerves.

• The person’s health may be already so severely damaged through smoking that this is a case of ‘too little, too late’.

3 marks for any one of these. 2 marks if candidate refers to continuation of already existing non-smoking related habits.

This is less directly related to giving up smoking and it may still be the case they would be healthier overall. Also for:

• The figures show that 90% of smokers do not get lung cancer

• There is no evidence that giving up smoking will improve your health

• Smokers may still ingest smoke passively even if they have given up smoking 1 mark if candidate refers to other causes of ill health not necessarily related to continuation

of existing unhealthy habits, e.g. arthritis. Also, if candidate says the conclusion is reliable because of the well-known bad effects of smoking.

www.maxpapers.com




(c) “There is an increased risk of blindness.” (Source D.) How good a reason is this to suggest more resources should be put into finding a

cure for diabetes? [3] Gives some grounds for this as clearly the condition has serious consequences for the

individual even if controlled. However, it is possible a more effective route would be finding some way of combating side effects such as these. Also, there is the question of how to distribute scarce resources in funding health care – would money spent on finding a cure for diabetes be at the expense of research into more life-threatening conditions? We also need to know the degree of risk of going blind – it might be quite low.

1 mark for any 1 of the above points, 2 marks for 1 point if well-developed.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) Should scientists continue to search for a cure for cancer? Write a short, reasoned argument to support your conclusion, using and evaluating

the information provided in Sources A–E.

Level 3 5–6 marks


Level 2 3–4 marks


Level 1 1–2 marks


Level 0 0 marks


Indicative content Sources A and B strongly suggest that the search for a cure is something of a search for the

‘Holy Grail’. Candidates who develop this line of reasoning should refer to the fact that ‘cancer’ is actually 200 different conditions / cancers develop differently in individuals therefore any cure likely to be only appropriate to them – this could be developed along DNA lines / cancer is an inevitable part of the ageing process.

Sources D and E, however, show the unsatisfactory nature of merely treating chronic

conditions such as diabetes and how a search for a cure has continued and looks likely to be successful. Genuine cures in the case of cancer and diabetes would clearly considerably increase the life expectancy of individuals with these conditions.

Source C hints at a rather different line of reasoning along the lines of the extent to which

cancer is self-inflicted through lifestyle choices and is therefore better prevented rather than cured.

The problem with concluding that the diabetes model is appropriate to cancer (i.e. research

for a cure should continue) is that cancer seems more inherently incurable than diabetes for a variety of reasons. It seems to be a more complex condition to do with mutation of cells etc. rather than mere bodily malfunction as in the case of diabetes. It would be difficult to see how something like an ‘artificial pancreas’ would be appropriate to cancer. In any case this could be seen as a sophisticated treatment rather than a cure. Also, the side effects of treating cancer as a chronic condition might not be as serious as in the case of diabetes.

www.maxpapers.com




3 (a) Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify the main conclusion [2]

The era of the mass or ‘public’ library will have been very short [2]. If this is the case one can conclude that the era of the mass or ‘public’ library will have been very short perhaps as little as 100 years [1].

(b) “So the end of the book also signals the end of the library.” Using the exact words from the passage as far as possible, identify three reasons

used to support this claim. [3]

• Future generations will be quite happy reading text on a screen

• Some Internet companies are already anticipating a future in which books will only exist ‘on-line’

• The vast majority of people will be able to access text on the internet, (via their phones or personal computers)

• They will not need a building physically containing texts in book form

• People without access to the Internet do not need a library to gain such access

• If this vision of the future is correct we will see the end of the library

www.maxpapers.com




(c) Evaluate the reasoning in the argument. In your answer you should consider any strengths, weaknesses, flaws and unstated assumptions. [5]

Use the grid below. Refer to indicative content below.

Level 3 4–5 marks


Level 2 2–3 marks

Relevant extended counter-argument (3 marks). Specific counter-assertions/agreements (2 marks). Single point of evaluation only (2 or 3 marks).

Level 1 1 mark


Level 0 0 marks

No relevant comments. Summary/paraphrase of passage.

Assumptions To be happy about reading text online means one never needs or prefers a hard copy of a

text. The preference for a book is purely cultural and not built into more universal aspects of

human biology such as perception. The transition to generations happy to read text online will be very rapid. The transition will have the same time-scale throughout the world. Assumes libraries have no other functions than accessing books. Flaws Contradiction between ‘books will only exist online’ and ‘people will still want to own books as

physical objects’. Conflation between ‘being happy about reading online text’ and ‘only needing online text’. Slippery slope in moving from texts being on-line to the end of the book. Other points about reasoning The point that ‘online’ text does not need a building to contain these texts seems a valid one

as does the point about internet cafes etc. being all one needs to access these texts if one does not have access to or own a computer. So this is quite strong reasoning.

There may be a number of reasons why some Internet companies want to put all existing

texts online – it does not follow that it must mean that they anticipate the end of the book as we know it.

Being privately owned does not necessarily support the statement ‘only accessible to a small

elite’. These privately-owned libraries may have been owned by people who wanted ordinary people to access them.

If people want to own books as physical objects they might also want to borrow them for the

same reason. An analogy here might be with hiring a classic car. The analogy with shops selling vinyl doesn’t really work as there is a case that vinyl records

are actually functionally better in producing sound. The analogy would only work if people purchased vinyl just to own it as an object as opposed to use it to produce music.

www.maxpapers.com




(d) ‘It is important to own books and not just to read them’. Write your own short argument to support or challenge this claim. The conclusion of your argument must be stated. [5]

Use grid below. Refer to indicative content below.

Level 3 4–5 marks

Developed, coherent argument. Reasons strongly support conclusion. Development may include intermediate conclusion or apt examples. Simply structured argument 4 marks. Effective use of IC 5 marks

Level 2 2–3 marks


Level 1 1 mark


Level 0 0 marks


Cap on Level 2 if conclusion is implied but not stated. No credit for material merely

reproduced from the passage. Wrong conclusion cap on Level 2. Indicative content For Books are attractive objects that enhance the appearance of a room. Many books are for reference and it is convenient if one has them to hand. Some books may become valuable in the future and be an investment. Many complex novels re-pay re-reading and if one owns them this can be done easily. Against Books take up a great deal of space. It is wrong to treat books as a form of decoration – this is not their true purpose. Most books are only worth reading once – people rarely return to them once they have been

read. Reference can be now done on the Internet – one does not need books to look things up in

any more.

www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level




9694/31 Paper 3 (Problem Analysis and Solution), maximum raw mark 50




www.maxpapers.com

Page 2 Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version Syllabus Paper GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9694 31


1 (a) How many passwords could she create in this way, excluding the one she has already used? [2]

There are 4 ways to select the fifth letter, 3 the sixth, etc. So (4 × 3 × 2 × 1) – 1 ways. 23. 1 mark for 4! = 24 and 1 mark for – 1.

OR 1 mark for a systematic attempt to list the passwords [i.e. if solution involves one letter held while the others are permuted, and then another letter given a similar treatment. Not necessary for the list of permutations to be complete].

(b) How many possible passwords could Agnès make (including any already used by

others)? [2] Agnès has 3 choices for the first, second and third, 6 for the fourth, 5 for the fifth, 2 for 6th, 7th,

and 8th. 3 × 3 × 3 × 6 × 5 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 6480. 1 mark for 3 × 3 × 3 × 6 × 5 × 2 × 2 × 2 with missing or incorrect answer. OR 1 mark for the correct eight numbers combined according to an incorrect process (for

example 3 + 3 + 3 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 26). (c) (i) How many possible passwords could Fred make? [1] Fred has 3 × 3 × 3 × 6 × 6 × 2 × 2 × 1 = 3888. (ii) Give an example of a password that could be used by Agnès but not Fred. [1] A valid password starting with W, ending in M or with second letter Z is necessary and

sufficient. E.g. WSCBJIOP, AXCFJKOM, QZCRHILP. (iii) How many passwords could be made by Fred but not Agnès? [2] To determine the number that only Fred can produce, it is simplest to calculate the

number that are common. The differences between keyboards are the position of W and Z, the location of M, and the positions of Q and A. As Q and A use the same finger, they can be ignored.

The common set is 2 × 2 × 3 × 6 × 5 × 2 × 2 × 1 = 1440, so there are 3888 – 1440 = 2448 unique to Fred.

1 mark for 1440. OR 1 mark for logic but faulty arithmetic. Creditworthy answers must delineate the

correct collection of cases for the problem to be answered. (d) (i) How many times larger is the collection of acceptable passwords which include

such an error than the collection of those that could come from the random generator? [1]

There are seven possible switches of adjacent letters, (and each one cannot be

produced from any other switch) so there are 7 times as many. Allow 8 [for identifying the total acceptable password increase, error or no error].

www.maxpapers.com



(ii) An attacker knows the rules for generating and checking the passwords. What difference does allowing a transposition make to the (very small) chance of guessing the password of a particular user? [1]

It makes no difference since all variants are treated as equivalent. 2 (a) If a 50-year-old man and a 60-year-old man both make a $100 payment at the same

time, how much longer will the 50-year-old have to wait than the 60-year-old before getting at least $100 back? [2]

Answer: 4 years. Allow sensible rounding of 4.17. If 2 marks can not be awarded, award 1 mark for seeing: 100/4.02 → 25 years or 100/4.83 → 21 years or 100/4.02 – 100/4.83 → 24.87 – 20.70 → 4.17 → rounded to 5 years. (b) Simon believes that if he dies at the average age for a male, he will have received the

same amount in total whether he were to purchase an annuity at 50 or 60. What would the average age of death have to be for Simon to be right? [2]

4.83(x – 60) = 4.02(x – 50) 0.81(x – 60) = 40.2 x = 109.63 Allow sensible rounding (including 110). If 2 marks can not be awarded, award 1 mark for attempting to formulate the problem

algebraically or by trial and improvement. (c) The figures in the table are lower for females than for males, and yet are fair, in that

they have the same total expected payment. What must be the reason for this? [1] (With all other parameters being the same,) the average age of death must be greater for

females. (d) The rate is less for males than females for joint life policies, although it was greater for

males than females for policies only covering the policyholder. Suggest a reason for this. [2]

If the person taking out the annuity and partner were always of the same age then the figures

should be equal; as they are not it must be because there is an expected age difference. On average, the male in a pair is older. SC: It may be the case that couples in which the man takes out the policy tend to live longer. If 2 marks cannot awarded, award 1 mark for answers which show some appreciation that

the age difference between the husband and wife is the (likely) cause. SC: award 1 mark for an answer which offers an explanation relating to possible incentives

that might be offered to attract females to take out the policies.

www.maxpapers.com



(e) (i) Which option gives them the highest return next year? [1] The highest immediate return would be for John to put all the money into a single life

policy for him. (2 x $4.36). (ii) Of all the many different options for annuities available to them, the one which will

give Janet and John the highest expected total return is the ‘female and husband’ annuity. Explain why this is the case. [2]

The only reason that one can be better than the others is if there is some extra

information known to them but not those setting the rates. In this case we (only) know that they are the same age, which means that John is younger than would be expected for a spouse and can thus expect to live for longer.

This means that she should put all the money into the female + spouse option: $4.19 If 2 marks can not be awarded, award 1 mark for simply pointing out that the assumed

age difference between man and wife does not apply to Janet and John / any reference to the non-averageness of John and Janet as causes of the anomaly. Individual life expectancies in a marriage are not independent of each other.

3 (a) Give an example of five weights which have a mean of 64kg. [1] Any five numbers which add up to 320, all of which are between 55 and 100 inclusive (units

not needed). (b) What is the largest range that the weights from 1968 could have had, given that the

claims made by the first newspaper are correct (and assuming that it used the mean in its calculation of the average)? [3]

Largest = 22. 45 is the largest range achievable if the mean is to be 64 [55/55/55/55/100], but

it must half this (or less) if the range is to double by 1988. 3 marks for the correct answer. If 3 marks cannot be awarded, 2 marks for an answer of 22.5. 1 mark for appreciating that the greatest possible range is 45. (c) Give an example of five weights which have a mean of 72 kg, and a median of 64 kg. [2] Five weights between 55 and 100 which add up to 360, and a median of 64. E.g. 64/64/64/84/84. 1 mark for weights with a mean of 72. 1 mark for weights with a median of 64.

www.maxpapers.com



(d) Give an example of five weights for the year 1968 and five weights for the year 1988 which could have supported the claims by both of the newspapers (assuming the first newspaper had used the mean in its calculations, and the second had used the median). [3]

Possible answer: 1968 = 60, 61, 64, 64, 71 and 1988 = 64, 64, 64, 82, 86. 1 mark for answers in which the range is doubled. If this first mark is awarded, award the two further marks if the medians are 64 (1 mark), and

the means increase from 64 to 72 (1 mark). (e) Show that the third newspaper could not have been referring to the mean, when it

refers to the average above. [2] Mean of the five athletes goes from 64 to 72, and cox is 55. So mean of oarsmen is ((5 x 64) – 55)/4 = 66.25 (or 66) in 1968. And is ((5 x 72) – 55)/4 = 76.25 (or 76) in 1988. Which is not more than 11kg Alternative explanation: the mean of the five athletes increasing from 64 to 72 entails a total

increase of (360 – 320) 40kg. If the mean weight of the four oarsmen were to increase by 11, this would entail an increase of (4 x 11) 44 kg. So the 3rd newspaper report’s use of the mean would conflict with the previous two.

2 marks if the candidate shows the underlined figures. If 2 marks cannot be awarded, award 1 mark for a correct calculation of the means of the

rowers for a particular valid collection of weights, OR an attempt to calculate the change in total weight implied by the oarsmen’s increase referring to the mean.

(f) Find five weights for year 1968 and five weights for the year 1988 which are consistent

with all three newspaper reports. [4] correct answers: 1968: 55 [cox], 64, 64, 65 & 72. 1988: 55 [cox], 64, 64, 88 & 89. Award 4 marks for these weights, given unambiguously. If 4 marks cannot be awarded, give 1 mark for each (awarded independently of each other)

of the following four requirements being fulfilled: (i) two sets of five weights which include a cox (55/56kg), have the right median (64kg), and

have a mean which increases from 64 to 72. (ii) two sets of 5 weights whose range doubles. (iii) two sets or weights for the four oarsmen which increase by (more than) 11. (iv) two sets or weights for the four oarsmen whose range (more than) triples.

www.maxpapers.com



4 (a) At what time will the last film finish each day? [2] Answer: 22:59 award 2 marks If 2 marks cannot be awarded, award 1 mark for evidence that Lupine Jives will be the last

film to finish. (b) How many times will each of the five films be shown during this seven-day period? [3] Answer: Colossal 22 times Wolf Gang 29 times Illinois 28 times award 3 marks Mahatma 36 times Lupine Jives 30 times Deduct 1 mark for each incorrect figure. (Minimum 1 mark if candidates get at least one film

correct.) Penalise oversight of ‘not Mon’s and ‘extra shows’ once only. (c) (i) Which two films will Dustin watch this Thursday? [2] Answer: Mahatma (17:40 to 19:03) award 1 mark and Illinois (20:20 to 22:02) award 1 mark Times need not be given. Alternatively, award 1 mark for a second film that correctly follows an incorrect first film;

e.g. Illinois (18:00 to 19:42) and Wolf Gang (20:30 to 22:08) OR: Colossal (17.25 start) and Mahatma (19.35 start) OR Wolf Gang (18:15 to 19:53) and Illinois.

(ii) How long after the second film finishes will he have to wait for a bus to take him

home? [2] Answer: 8 minutes (22:02 to 22:10) award 2 marks 2 marks for a fully correct follow through from part (c)(i). If 2 marks cannot be awarded, award 1 mark for sight of correct finish time for second

film (may be seen in part (c)(i)) OR for a correct waiting time/finishing time consistent with an incorrect finishing time (seen) of a film.

(d) (i) What is the time of the latest bus that Nicole can catch from Redford? [1] Answer: 14:35

www.maxpapers.com



(ii) What is the earliest time that they will be able to leave the Red Carpet? [3] Answer: 20:58 or 21.00 (the bus departure time) award 3 marks If 3 marks cannot be awarded, award 1 mark each for evidence of the following (max 2):

• If they see Colossal last they won’t leave until 22:39. • It is possible to see either Illinois or Mahatma before the 17:25 showing of Colossal

and the other one afterwards. • The 19:35 showing of Mahatma will finish before the 20:20 showing of Illinois.

Alternatively, award up to 2 marks for the second-best solution (such as Mahatma,

followed by Colossal followed by Illinois: finishes at 22.02, first bus leaving at 22.10). Award 1 mark for a finish time consistent with a correct alternative ordering (the two

remaining alternatives (I – M – C and M – I – C) both finish at 22:39, catching the 23:20 bus.

(e) Between which two villages and at approximately what time do the buses pass for the

last time each day? [2]

Answer: Between Redford and Hepburn. Accept any time or time interval between 21:07 and 21:10 (inclusive).

www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level








www.maxpapers.com


















www.maxpapers.com

















www.maxpapers.com















www.maxpapers.com














www.maxpapers.com











www.maxpapers.com












www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level








www.maxpapers.com


















www.maxpapers.com

















www.maxpapers.com















www.maxpapers.com














www.maxpapers.com











www.maxpapers.com












www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level




9694/41 Paper 4 (Applied Reasoning), maximum raw mark 50




www.maxpapers.com


GCE A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9694 41


1 (a) Identify three points that weaken the credibility of the statistics in the passage. [3] 1 mark for each distinct, clearly-expressed and relevant comment: e.g.

• 60% increase is over a period of 30 years whereas 30% decrease is over a period of no more than 11 years. These arbitrary periods may have been selected to accentuate the apparent decline.

• Confusing cause and correlations – other possible explanations. There is conflation of different statistics. 30% decrease in applicants for medicine and 30% increase in applicants for computer and media studies could well be a coincidence. The correlation does not prove one caused the other.

• 30% increase in media studies has no baseline for comparison / similar percentages (30 and 30) do not mean similar numbers.

• The number opting to do medicine may not be the same as the number studying medicine / there might have been a change in the application procedure that has discouraged unrealistic applications

• Survey mentions UK, US and India but the statistics only relate to US – generalizing from the particular.

• The passage firstly claims “almost half”, and then claims “50%”; almost half is not precise whereas 50% is precise.

• The people that chose to respond to the survey are not a random sample.

• The 50% who say they plan to reduce the number of patients or stop practising could cover a huge range of responses, as to how significantly they reduce working hours and number of patients they see. Furthermore, some of those planning to stop practising may simply be retiring, not ‘quitting’.

(b) “We are on a slope of very worrying decline in human resources where medicine is

concerned.” Do you think the evidence in the 2nd paragraph is sufficient for this inference to be

drawn? Briefly justify your answer. [2] 1 mark for weak response comprising of judgment and minimal explanation. 2 marks for

justification plus a well-developed response. No credit for repeating or restating 1(a) in (b) but credit may be awarded if a point identified in 1(a) is elaborated with different / fresh critical insight / dimension to support whether the inference can or cannot be drawn.

• The 4% (12 000) is not a sufficiently representative sample to help us draw the conclusion

that there is real decline of those who would be doctors. The doctors who bothered to complete the questionnaires may have been those about to retire or those who were sufficiently dissatisfied to want to express their wishes.

• Doctors who say they are planning to cut back or quit may change their mind.

• Difficult to gauge how much to worry about without knowing what demand there is for doctors.

• There is insufficient information of the doctor-patient ratio to infer the impact of the withdrawal of doctors.

• Paragraph 2 presents no information that the number of doctors quitting or reducing patient contact has changed over time, so there is no real evidence of a ‘decline’.

• There may be other possible reasons for doctors choosing to leave the medical profession or cutting back such as that the medical industry may be over-populated or there are too many doctors per population.

www.maxpapers.com




2 Briefly analyse HGA’s argument in Document 1, by identifying its main conclusion and reasons, as well as any intermediate conclusions and counter-arguments. [6]

R1 – It is not equal rights to force / draw women into these professions / (to be scientists and

engineers / science and technology). R2 – If men are naturally better at (or more interested in) science and maths, we should not force

women to be what they are not supposed to be. IC1 – (Therefore) it would be (more) sensible to let each sex do what they are good at. R3 – However, gender equality activists (who challenge natural perceptions of men and women

and ask them to think differently) are biased and insecure people with grudges against the opposite sex.

R4 – Human beings of both sexes are always seeking equality because they want respect and recognition for their abilities.

R5 – Equality is realised when men and women respect each other and their differences. IC2 – (Therefore we can assert two facts:) that women are different from men, but they are

equal to men. R6 – Most women would prefer to be acclaimed and respected as the inspirational force behind

the movers and shakers of the world than be made to do the moving and the shaking themselves. IC3 – If the sexes can stop thinking they have to fight each other for equal rights and

respect each other for who they are, science and technology will benefit. MC – (Therefore) Gender equality in science and technology should be about men and

women having equal respect for each other and not about equal rights. CA (counter-argument) – (It is not ‘equal rights’ to think that) because science and technology is getting impoverished, owing to decreasing numbers of scientists and engineers, the solution is to draw more women into these professions.

Mark Allocation Summary or gist without any ICs or MC – 1 mark. Credit CA as IC MC + gist – 2 marks. MC + 1 IC – 3 marks. MC + 2 ICs – 4 marks. MC + 3 ICs – 5 marks. Identification of CA – 1 mark. If only ICs and / or CA are identified cap at 5 as follows: 1 IC + gist – 2 2 IC – 3 3 IC – 4 +1 for identification of CA.

www.maxpapers.com




3 Give a critical evaluation of HGA’s argument in Document 1, by identifying and explaining strengths, weaknesses, implicit assumptions and flaws. [9]

Para 1 “It is not ‘equal rights’ to think that because science and technology is getting impoverished,

owing to decreasing numbers of scientists and engineers…draw women…tantamount to forcing women””

Assumption: That most scientists and engineers are men. Conflation: Drawing (≠ force) people does not necessarily mean they have to force them.

Drawing is encouraging rather than forcing. There are a variety of ways of drawing/persuading people.

Assumption: That science’s impoverishment is due to men not being bothered (rather than men

not being capable). Para 2 “If men are naturally better at (or more interested in) science and technology, we should not force

women to be what they are not supposed to be. Researchers say that women are naturally better at verbal skills than men, but you don’t therefore see men getting all uptight about it and pushing young boys to pursue a social service career, which needs verbal skills.”

Flawed Analogy: The reasons for women shunning science and tech may not be the same as

for men shunning social services. Generalisation from ‘many’ to ‘all’ / confusion between ‘many’ and ‘all’. Para 3 “Instead of trying to compete… Are we so caught up in ‘equal rights’ to the point where we are

nurturing young girls to think that they have to fight the boys and overcome them?” Assumption: Involving both genders in same area would cause competition. Slippery Slope / Conflation / Shift in meaning: Presents equal rights movement as sliding from

healthy notion of competition to unhealthy strife / overcoming. “It would be more sensible to let each sex do what they are good at…. If you give a Lego to a girl

and a doll to a boy…your daughter creatively builds a doll’s house from the Lego and your son enjoys dismembering the doll by running his toy bulldozer over it.”

Stereotyping the genders or use of stereotypes to argue his point. The example of girls building contradicts the claim that females are less suited to science and

technology.

“Gender equality activists who challenge natural perceptions of men and women and ask them to think differently are biased and insecure people with grudges against the opposite sex”.

Ad Hominem: This is an ad hominem argument – attacking the activists rather than their arguments.

www.maxpapers.com




Para 4

“Human beings of both sexes are always seeking equality because they want respect and recognition for their abilities. True equality between men and women is realised when they respect each other and that includes respecting each other’s differences.”

Conflation – mutual respect between genders is conflated with gender equality. Circular reasoning / Begging the question – human beings seek equality because they want

respect and recognition, therefore respecting each other makes them equal to each other. Necessary / Sufficient condition: Respect is necessary for equality but not sufficient. Conflation of notion of respect with notion of equal rights; or digression – digresses from talking

about equality in science and technology to equal rights in general. “It also explains why, historically, men have made the most contributions in scientific discoveries

and technological inventions.” Other possible explanations: There are other explanations e.g. women were not given the

opportunities in those days because of dominant cultural perceptions. “Women do not, on the whole, have the same brainpower as men – they cannot problem-solve as

well as men can (even if they are more perceptive and can identify problems more quickly).” Possible contradiction: this contradicts his earlier claim that “women are equal to men”. Ambiguous or narrow definition of brainpower – brainpower is defined as ability to solve

problems, but the other related mental functions such as identifying problems are not seen as due to brainpower.

Strength: The majority of the reasoning is about respect and recognition and, in that regard,

does support the main conclusion that gender equality should be about men and women having equal respect for one another.

Overall Evaluation The argument is overall flawed leading to a considerably overdrawn conclusion. The intermediate conclusion, “If the sexes can stop thinking they have to fight each other for

equal rights, and respect each other for who they are, science and technology will benefit”, is crucial to acceptance of the main conclusion but is itself very weakly supported. Just how respect between genders will benefit science and technology has not been established.

The dismissal of equality of opportunity makes the overall argument quite weak. Marks For each sound evaluative point 1 mark and 2 marks for a developed point, to a maximum of 8

marks. Up to 2 marks for an overall judgement on the argument. Maximum 9 marks.

www.maxpapers.com




4 ‘Gender equality in science and technology does not matter.’ To what extent do you agree with this statement? Construct a well-reasoned argument in

support of your view, commenting critically on some or all of Documents 1 to 5, and introducing ideas of your own. [30]

Band Overall Within Score

Developed consideration of counter-positions. Knows precisely what complexities face own argument.

Ba

nd

IV

27

–3

0

Can consider counter-positions to own argument and reflect on implications in arriving at conclusion.

Simple statement of 1 or 2 counter-arguments to own argument.

30 29 27

Well-constructed, coherent argument. Candidates introduce their own ideas and arguments building their own position. Can compare and contrast documents and draw precise / developed inferences through synthesising arguments from different documents. Good interpretation of sources.

26 24 22

Ba

nd

III

17

–2

1 / 2

2–

26

A critical stance: ideally an evaluation of sources, and explicit consideration of counter-arguments (or conflicting sources). Must reference 3 + documents.

Developed critical reasoning of at least one point, and development of further argument. Can compare and contrast documents relevantly and/or has good interpretation of sources.

21 19 17

Some independent reasoning / Implicit critical reasoning. Clear statement of 3/4 reasons in support.

16 14 12

Ba

nd

II

07

–1

1 /

12

–1

6

A reasoned stance: a clear conclusion, supported by reasons clearly expressed but uncritically selected from the sources. Reference to at least 2 documents.

Develops further argument relevant to conclusion but without any reference to any of the sources. Reasons indiscriminately selected. Little clear independent or no independent reasoning. Some irrelevance/deviation from the question. May be multiple conclusions with little support for each one.

11 09 07

Reproduced reasoning from (2) and (3). Disorganised. Unconvincing attempts to construct reasoning.

06 04 02

Ba

nd

I

02

–0

6

0–

1

“Pub rhetoric”: unclear or no conclusion; reasoning that goes off question target at a tangent; substantial irrelevant material. Completely misunderstands or no understanding of question.

Stream of consciousness. Wholly irrelevant / deviant / incoherent material. No attempt.

01 0 0

www.maxpapers.com




4 Indicative Content Credit will be given for the judicious use of resources in the documents. Candidates need

to refer to stimulus documents relevantly, availing of the material therein to support or challenge in building up their case, e.g. a case can be made for the conclusion by corroborating claims in documents 1, 4 and 5, while claims in documents 2 and 3 can avail for the opposing side.

Credit will be given for the assessment and interpretation of evidence. E.g. document 3

shows that it is lack of opportunity rather than lack of ability that puts women’s participation on the back foot. The data in document 4 can be interpreted in varying ways to further the nature versus nurture debate.

Credit will be given for critical analysis and evaluation of stimulus sources. E.g. it might be pointed out that the writer of document 1 is biased rather than objective, while source of document 2 provides an informed and well-researched analysis of gender inequality and how it impacts science and technology. Or it can be pointed out that Dr Summers may have been quoted out of context, given Denise Denton’s comments.

. Credit will be given for the critical reasoning and inferences candidates construct by

comparing and contrasting claims and arguments in conflicting and corroborating sources; or through synthesising arguments from different sources. Credit will be given for further arguments and for other examples of observations they bring to the debate. E.g. candidates can bring together claims from documents 1, 4 and 5 and forge critical reasoning e.g. they may infer that there are many aspects of gender differences in the nature versus nurture problem that make gender equality a moot issue. Similarly, implications can be drawn from document 4 which contradict document 2 or document 5, but which support document 1, which enables further lines of reasoning to be drawn to build own argument for or against the conclusion. Or insights from a range of documents may be combined to form critical reasoning to support the given argument: such as that “gender equality in science and technology does not matter insofar as ensuring equality of opportunity for talent and quality, irrespective of gender, must take priority.” Candidates can use their own knowledge and ideas of gender issues to build a coherent case / further argument for the conclusion proposed.

To obtain higher bands, candidates should anticipate counter-arguments and objections

to their own position, and offer some response to these. No marks are reserved for the quality of written English or specialist knowledge of the subject

matter/s in the stimulus material. It is the quality of critical thinking and reasoning alone which is under assessment, and provided the candidate has made his or her thought processes sufficiently clear to be understood, full credit will be given.

www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level








www.maxpapers.com
























www.maxpapers.com
















www.maxpapers.com


















technology.



www.maxpapers.com




Para 4















www.maxpapers.com








Ba

nd

IV

27

–3

0



30 29 27


26 24 22

Ba

nd

III

17

–2

1 / 2

2–

26



21 19 17


16 14 12

Ba

nd

II

07

–1

1 /

12

–1

6



11 09 07


06 04 02

Ba

nd

I

02

–0

6

0–

1



01 0 0

www.maxpapers.com














www.maxpapers.com


GCE Advanced Level








www.maxpapers.com
























www.maxpapers.com
















www.maxpapers.com


















technology.



www.maxpapers.com




Para 4















www.maxpapers.com








Ba

nd

IV

27

–3

0



30 29 27


26 24 22

Ba

nd

III

17

–2

1 / 2

2–

26



21 19 17


16 14 12

Ba

nd

II

07

–1

1 /

12

–1

6



11 09 07


06 04 02

Ba

nd

I

02

–0

6

0–

1



01 0 0

www.maxpapers.com














www.maxpapers.com