Global Perspectives focus on past papers component 1 question 3 and 4

• Engels
• Middelbare school
• vwo
• Leerjaar 4

Global Perspectives

Today

Focus on past papers:

 component 1

question 3 and 4

3. Study Source 4.

(a) Identify one opinion from Source 4. (1)

(b) Identify one prediction from Source 4.(1)

(c) Identify an example of a vested interest in Source 4. Explain why this is a vested interest. (3)

(d) Which argument is more convincing, Isa’s or Jusse’s?

Your answer should consider both arguments and you should support your point of view with

their words.

You should also consider:

• the strength of their reasoning and evidence

• their use of language

• the different types of information used.

Marking scheme 3A 1 point

 

Candidates may identify one of the following opinions from Source 4:

• I’m really worried about migrants.

• It is no longer safe to walk in the streets.

• I think that refugee gangs will increase the crime rate.

• Migrants take our jobs and our people are unable to get work.

• Why should migrants use our schools and hospitals when they have not

paid for them in taxes, like the rest of us? It is not fair.

• The number of migrants should be restricted.

• Many should be sent back to their own country.

• They are the responsibility of their own government.

• I believe that people in developed countries should help people in less

developed countries.

• If all countries shared the task of supporting refugees, the problem

could be solved.

1 mark should be awarded for identifying of one of the above opinions.

Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However,

candidates may use their own words.

Marking scheme 3B 1 point

Candidates may identify one of the following predictions from Source 4:

• I think that refugee gangs will increase the crime rate.

• If all countries shared the task of supporting refugees, the problem

could be solved.

• If our governments and the world’s international organizations worked

together, we could improve education and employment in poorer

countries.

1 mark should be awarded for identifying of one of the above predictions.

Further guidance – the only acceptable answers are listed above. However,

candidates may use their own words.

4 ‘Governments should allow people to migrate between countries if they want to.’ Do you agree

with this statement? (24)

In your answer, you should:

• state your opinion

• give reasons and evidence to support your opinion

• use the material in the sources and/or any of your own ideas

• consider different arguments and perspectives.

Marking scheme 3C 3 points: Indicative Content

A vested interest is a strong personal interest (involvement, commitment, point of view or similar) because of potential personal advantage or gain, maybe economic, social, political, or other.

The following examples are found in Source 4.

• Isa has a vested interest in stopping migration as her employer uses migrants who work for less and this means she is unable to get a pay rise.

• Jusse has a vested interest in encouraging governments to work with international organisations as he works for the United Nations.

• A developed country helping a less developed country if the developed country explicitly gains from the relationship.

Award 1 mark for correctly identifying a vested interest from the list above.

However, candidates may use their own words.

Award an additional 1 mark for a response that demonstrates some understanding of a vested interest.

Or

Award an additional 2 marks for a clear understanding of a vested interest applied accurately to the example identify from Source 4.

The response must include a correct example of a vested interest to be awarded additional marks for the explanation.

Marking scheme 3D 15 points Indicative content

Candidates are expected to evaluate the arguments presented in Source 4 and compare their effectiveness. They should make a supported judgement with some explanation about which person has the most convincing

argument.

Candidates may support their judgement by considering: Strength of reasoning:

• logic

• structure

• balance

• claims.

Authority and expertise

• ability to know.

Use of language:

• tone – emotive, exaggerated, precise, measured

• clarity.

see next slide --> 

Evidence:

• range of information and depth

• relevance

• sufficiency – sample

• source – media; internet

• date – how recent

• different types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdote

• testimony – from experience and expert.

Sources of bias or vested interest:

• local interest

• personal interest

• political

• economic

• personal values

• experience.

Likely consequences or implications of the ideas presented

Acceptability of their values to others

• how likely other people are to agree with their perspective/view

• the extent to which the views expressed are supported by the candidate.                                  see next slide -->

The following levels of response should be used to award marks:

Level 5 (13–15 marks) Very good response

Clear, credible and well supported points about which argument is more convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison. The response contains at least three (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points. A clear judgement is reached.

Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response

Clear, supported points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation of both arguments, with comparison.  The response contains at least two (or more) developed evaluative points and may include some undeveloped points. A wide range (five or more) of undeveloped but clearly appropriate points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level. A judgment is reached.

Level 3 (7–9 marks) Reasonable response

Reasonable points about which argument is more convincing. Some  evaluation of one or both arguments, with an attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported or asserted. Some

tendency to describe the statements rather than evaluate explicitly. One (or more) developed evaluative points, possibly with some undeveloped points; three (or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower level. An attempt is made to give an overall judgement.

                                                                                                                                                                        see next slide -->

Level 2 (4–6) Basic response

Basic points about which argument is more convincing. There may be only one argument considered in any detail, with little attempt at comparison. Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported and lack

clarity/relevance at times. Mainly describes the statements rather than evaluate. The response contains two (or more) undeveloped points. A basic judgement may be reached.

Level 1 (1–3 marks) Limited response

Limited and unsupported points about which argument is more convincing. The response considers the arguments briefly and/or tangentially. There is little clarity. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little understanding or simply agree/disagree with the arguments presented. The response may not contain any clear evaluative points. 

Level 0 (0 marks)

No relevant response or creditworthy material.

Marking scheme 4 (24 points) Indicative content

Candidates are expected to make a judgement about the issue, i.e. whether  Governments should allow free movement of people between countries, using reasons and evidence to justify their opinion. Candidates may use and develop the material found in Sources 1 to 4, but should go beyond simply repeating or recycling without adaptation. Other material may be introduced but is not necessary to gain full marks.

Candidates may consider some of the following:

• reference to scale of impact on countries, migrants, the economy

• reference to different consequences and implications for individuals/groups/government/world

• how long it might take to make a difference

• barriers to change

• the power of collective action, e.g. cooperation between countries over migration

• the influence of individuals and groups on decision making

• the role of vested interests and power differences

• potential conflicts of interest

• difficulties in planning and coordinating improvements

• cost and access to resources to implement change

• other reasonable response.

                                                                                                                                                                See next slide -->

The following levels of response should be used to award marks:

Level 5 (20–24 marks) Very good response

Clear, well supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and perspectives are clearly considered.

The response contains a wide range of clearly reasoned points and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with four (or more) developed points, and some undeveloped points.

The response is very well-structured and a clear judgement is reached.

Level 4 (15–19 marks) Good response

Clear, supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and perspectives are considered.

The response contains a range of reasoned points and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with three (or more) developed points, and some undeveloped points.

The response is generally well-structured and a judgement is reached.

Level 3 (10–14 marks) Reasonable response

Some supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and perspectives are included.

The response contains some points and/or evidence to support the views expressed, with two (or more) developed points, and some undeveloped points. The response is structured but at times difficult to follow and an attempt is made to give an overall judgement.

Level 2 (5–9 marks) Basic response

Basic reasoning about the issue. Different arguments are included; perspectives, if present, are unclear.

The response relies on assertion rather than evidence but contains one (or more) developed point(s) or a range of undeveloped points. The response lacks structure and is difficult to follow though a basic

judgement may be attempted.

Level 1 (1–4 marks) Limited response

Limited and unsupported reasoning about the topic in general. Different

arguments may be included.

Evaluate your performance and score. How do you assess your work. What was your score on questions 1 - 4?
Which part(s) of component do you need to work on? Why so?

Team up with a classmate and show each other your work and assessment. Give each other feedback and insert the feedback you've received below: