w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
s
er
om
.c
Pre-U
MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2009 question paper
for the guidance of teachers
9777 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
9777/01
Paper 1 (Written Paper), maximum raw mark 30
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.
Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the
examination.
•
CIE will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes.
CIE is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2009 question papers for most IGCSE, GCE
Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level syllabuses.
Page 2
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – May/June 2009
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
NB: The AOs are inter-dependent and it is thus not feasible to see them discretely so the marking of
all answers will be holistic.
AO1
AO2
AO3
Critical analysis and evaluation of argument structure:
• to understand and apply the language of reasoning;
Analysis and
• to analyse the structure of argument, by identifying the conclusion,
evaluation of
reasons (premises), assumptions and any counter-argument;
arguments
• to assess the technical strength/weakness of the argument by
testing the acceptability, relevance and sufficiency of the premises to
support the conclusion.
Situating the argument in its context:
• identify and evaluate the use of key expressions and ideas, clarifying
them as needed;
Analysis and
• assess the credibility of sources (collected by the candidate);
evaluation of
• identify alternative/rival perspectives and assess their relationship to
contexts
the case presented;
• identify desirable ends/outcomes from which to judge rival
perspectives.
Presentation, communication and collaboration:
• use language and other appropriate media to convey complex
concepts and ideas with clarity;
• establish a context or framework of understanding sufficient for
Communication
audiences to understand and respond to the presentation;
• demonstrate ability to create a coherent and well-elaborated
personal perspective and articulate its relationship to alternative
perspectives.
There is no requirement to use technical Critical Thinking terms to access any level, and candidates
will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the demands of the question.
© UCLES 2009
Page 3
1
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – May/June 2009
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
Study Document 1.
(a) (i) Identify two examples or pieces of evidence in Document 1.
[2]
Evidence
The following are examples/pieces of evidence that candidates might choose:
• Links with regimes such as Burma and Sudan
• China’s suppression of groups within its own country
• French apology to China over pro-Tibetan demonstrations
• Experience of Denmark
• Removal of effective opposition to China on the UN HRC
• Cash given to African states has bought China support
• China’s increased control to deal with opposition or demonstrations at the Olympics.
•
Award one mark for each example/piece of evidence.
(ii) Evaluate these two examples or pieces of evidence.
[4]
The nature of the evaluation will depend upon the two examples/pieces of evidence
chosen in (a)(i). Whichever examples/pieces of evidence are chosen, responses must
focus on evaluation and not simply repeat the examples given in part (a)(i).
Candidates may use a variety of criteria to evaluate the evidence, e.g. evaluation for
accuracy, for reliability, for representativeness, for usefulness. No set criteria are to be
expected.
•
•
•
Two marks are available for the evaluation of each example/piece of evidence.
To access the higher mark, candidates should have fully evaluated the evidence.
Where the evaluation is not developed or is general, award one mark (e.g. the
figures are too general).
Evaluation
The following are examples/pieces of evidence that candidates might evaluate:
Consideration of whether Friedman’s examples are reliable or representative. The
examples used to support the claims are frequently from just one country or experience.
In places, no precise evidence is provided, but assertions are made, as over the impact
of the Sichuan earthquake or over African nations shipping a large percentage of GDP to
China every year. No figures are given.
The language used. Does ‘embrace of odious regimes’ cast doubts on the author’s
objectivity? Similarly, what does the uses of ‘corrupt, authoritarian regimes’ and ‘a few
bold voices’ tell us?
The Message of the Olympics – this is the writer’s interpretation of how they will be used
and is not supported.
© UCLES 2009
Page 4
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – May/June 2009
Syllabus
9777
(b) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning in Document 1.
Paper
01
[12]
Responses should focus on both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument put forward
in Document 1.
•
•
•
At Level 1, candidates may consider only one side (e.g. weaknesses).
To reach Level 3, candidates must consider both the strengths and weaknesses.
At Level 2, there is likely to be imbalance, with most of the answer focusing on one side
of the reasoning (strengths or weaknesses).
Level 3
9–12 marks
Level 2
5–8 marks
Level 1
1–4 marks
Sustained evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of reasoning and
evidence, critical assessment with explicit reference to how flaws and
counter argument weaken the claim.
Highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed explanation and reasoning;
clear evidence of structured argument/discussion, with conclusions
reached/explicitly stated in a cogent and convincing manner.
Some evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of reasoning and evidence,
but evaluation may focus on one aspect; assessment of flaws etc may not
link clearly to the claim.
Effective and generally accurate explanation and reasoning; some evidence
of structured argument/discussion; conclusions may not be explicitly stated
or link directly to the analysis.
Little or no evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, although flaws etc may
be identified.
Level of communication is limited, response may be cursory or descriptive;
communication does not deal with complex subject matter.
No set answer is expected. There is much material that candidates might consider, for
example:
Strengths:
• Some precise examples are given to support the claims.
• Case of Denmark showing China using its economic power to force compliance.
• The article provides some evidence to show that some in Africa have been willing to
speak out and this gives the article some balance.
• Evidence that France has been quick to apologise for its support of the Dalai Lama.
• The writer acknowledges that China has made some concessions over Tibet, adding to
the balance of the argument.
Weaknesses:
Answers may argue, for example, that
• Much of Friedman’s argument is personal opinion/assertion, with little support, e.g.
comments about the Tibetan issue are vague and not substantiated;
claim African nations repay China with natural resources or political capital;
assertion that European governments worry about Chinese funds being used to shore
up corrupt authoritarian regimes;
assertions made about China’s response to opposition during the Olympics.
• No statistical support is provided to show that China is the world leader in capital
punishment and imprisoned activists.
• Writer asserts own political viewpoint and does not offer a balanced point of view.
• Some statements are sweeping, e.g. ‘From Seoul to Sydney to San Francisco, citizens
in democracies were angered’.
• Argument tries to play on the emotions of the reader by suggesting that it is wrong that
other governments are not willing to put human rights before economic gain.
© UCLES 2009
Page 5
2
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – May/June 2009
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
Study Documents 1 and 2.
To what extent does the perspective in Document 2 challenge or reinforce the perspective
in Document 1?
[12]
Responses should focus on key reasons and evidence in both documents in order to compare
alternative perspectives and synthesise them to reach a reasoned judgement.
In order to assess how successfully Document 2 challenges Document 1, candidates should
consider not only the content of the Documents, but critically assess the arguments put forward
through a consideration of issues such as purpose and language.
At Level 1, there will be little comparison of the passages or evaluation. Candidates may simply
describe the documents or identify areas of similarity and difference.
To reach Level 3, candidates will offer a sustained judgement about whether the reinforcement or
challenge is effective. In order to do this, they will have covered a significant range of issues, and
evaluated them clearly.
At Level 2, there will be some evaluation and comparison, but it will be either poorly developed or
limited in the areas covered.
Level 3
9–12 marks
Level 2
5–8 marks
Level 1
1–4 marks
Answers at this level will demonstrate a sustained judgement about whether the
reinforcement or challenge is effective. There will be sustained evaluation of
alternative perspectives; critical assessment with explicit reference to key issues
raised in the passages leading to a reasoned and sustained judgement.
Highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed explanation and reasoning; clear
evidence of structured argument/discussion, with conclusions reached/explicitly
stated in a cogent and convincing manner.
Answers at this level will be more than just a comparison of the two documents;
there will be some evaluation, but this will not be sustained and may focus on one
perspective; assessment may not link key reasons and evidence clearly to the
perspective or to the reasoned judgement.
Effective and generally accurate explanation and reasoning; some evidence of
structured argument/discussion; conclusions may not be explicitly stated or link
directly to analysis.
Answers at this level will compare a few points and there will be little or no
evaluation of perspectives, although some relevant evidence or reasons may be
identified. If there is any judgement it will be unsupported or superficial.
Level of communication is limited; response may be cursory or descriptive;
communication does not deal with complex subject matter.
Candidates may reach the judgement that, taken together, the two documents offer different
perspectives, but still reach the same conclusion. Answers might then suggest that because both
authors reach the same conclusion, but from different angles, the overall credibility of the
argument of each article is augmented.
Friedman’s key reason for arguing that China should not be seen as a great power is her record
on human rights and her manipulation of other nations in order that her record should not be
challenged. The author also argues that the Olympics will be used to uphold the regime and that
any slackening of repression will be minimal. Kim, on the other hand, uses a more traditional
measure of great power status, namely economic growth, but still reaches the same conclusion.
He points to localising pressures and China’s vulnerability in knowledge power as being key
limiting factors.
© UCLES 2009
Page 6
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – May/June 2009
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
Candidates should critically assess the use of examples and evidence. Friedman uses a limited
number of examples from which to draw his conclusions and support his political point of view,
whereas Kim’s view is based on more objective evidence. However, candidates may argue that
the moral basis of Friedman’s argument might be considered to be correct, although some may
balance this by mentioning western abuses of human rights. [NB long passages on this should
not be credited.]
Both writers do acknowledge some limits to their arguments, Friedman pointing to some criticism
from within Africa and Kim suggesting that in terms of aggregate growth China has made great
advances.
Candidates may comment that the different nature of the documents are reflected in their content
and reasoning. Both authors are academics, but Friedman is writing journalism whereas Kim is
writing an academic paper. Friedman’s comments are emotive and are written in a loaded
language, whereas some arguments in Kim’s academic article are supported by statistical
evidence – although personal observations do slip through, e.g. “the unpleasant downside …”
[start para 1]. Friedman’s article contains sweeping or unsupported generalisations. Kim’s
argument is sustained on two fronts, the localising pressures and the weakness in ideas
/information, whereas Friedman’s argument is one-dimensional.
Other judgements which are supported by reasoning are acceptable. Weaker candidates may
digress into accounts of US abuses of human rights and suggest that they are no better than
China, but are still considered a great power. Such an answer cannot access a mark above 4
(top Level 1).
No set answer is expected. What matters is the quality of the reasoning used by the candidate to
reach her/his judgement.
© UCLES 2009