w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
s
er
om
.c
Pre-U Certificate
MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2010 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 October/November 2010 question papers for most IGCSE,
Pre-U, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level
syllabuses.
Page 2
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – October/November 2010
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
Analysis and
evaluation of
arguments
Critical analysis and evaluation of argument structure:
to understand and apply the language of reasoning;
to analyse the structure of argument, by identifying the
conclusion, reasons (premises), assumptions and any counterargument;
•
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;
•
assess the credibility of sources (collected by the candidate);
•
identify alternative/rival perspectives and assess their
relationship to the case presented;
•
identify desirable ends/outcomes from which to judge rival
perspectives.
•
AO2
AO3
Analysis and
evaluation of
contexts
Communication
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
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.
© UCLES 2010
Page 3
1
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – October/November 2010
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
What does the author of Document 1 think that the USA today could learn from wartime
Germany’s energy policy?
[2]
The author suggests that the USA could see how Germany was able to utilise synfuels developed
from coal and that this offers the best way forward for supplying fuel needs, particularly for
transport. They might point to the success of this policy and suggest the US should therefore see
it as viable for their own circumstances. Candidates can also be credited if they mention that the
USA could see the advantage of being independent of foreign supplies.
2
(a) Summarise the main evidence given in Document 1.
[4]
In order to access the higher marks candidates must make use of the whole document. If
they concentrate only on the evidence put forward on wartime Germany the maximum mark
available is 2 as they will not have considered the main evidence.
It is likely that answers will consider the success of Hitler’s policy of blitzkrieg in the early
stages of World War II and link this to the heavy reliance upon coal.
There may be some consideration of the other forms of energy used to power areas of life
apart from transport.
There may be some consideration of the declining oil reserves in key area, which support the
argument for the need to find an alternative.
There may be some consideration of the costs of producing oil from the alternatives.
Award a maximum of two marks for the summary of any piece of evidence, depending upon
how well it is developed or one mark for each piece of evidence that is briefly explained.
(b) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence in Document 1.
[10]
Responses should focus on both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument put forward
in Document 1. However, at Level 1 it is likely that candidates will consider only the
weaknesses. In order to achieve 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
the weakness of the reasoning, although some answers may focus largely on the strengths.
However, an answer that focuses ONLY on the strengths or weaknesses can still achieve
Level 2 if the evaluation is strong.
© UCLES 2010
Page 4
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – October/November 2010
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
Level 3
Sustained evaluation of strength and weaknesses of reasoning and
8–10 marks evidence, critical assessment with explicit reference to how flaws and
counter argument support 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.
Level 2
4–7 marks
Some evaluation of strengths or 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.
Level 1
1–3 marks
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.
Candidates might refer to some of the material used in 2 (a) but should also take notice of
the author and his purpose. Candidates should also pay attention to the language used in
Document1. Candidates might consider the sources used to support the argument as they
are both from sources that would support the use of hydrocarbons, such as Exxon Mobil and
the Oil and Gas Journal. However, they might also question the evidence put forward in
support of such claims as neither offer precise examples or evidence to show that fossil fuels
or hydrocarbons are the only source available in great enough supply, it is simply asserted.
Candidates might also comment on reference to the evidence of costs, how reliable are
they?
Candidates may refer to many of the sweeping and unsupported statement put forward in
Document1. What is the scale of the hydrocarbons available?
They might consider whether the example of the Second World War has any relevance today
in the current economic situation. Some might also doubt the figures given as Germany did
use oil from Russia, Romania etc.
There might be some discussion as to the suggestion that synfuels are suited for transport
and that the author is not suggesting that they will solve all issues.
Some answers might suggest that one of the strengths of the evidence is the reference to
areas where oil production is in decline.
© UCLES 2010
Page 5
3
Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version
Pre-U – October/November 2010
Syllabus
9777
Paper
01
To what extent do the perspectives in Document 2 challenge or reinforce those put
forward in Document1?
[14]
Level 3
10–14 marks
Sustained evaluation of strength and weaknesses of reasoning and evidence,
critical assessment with explicit reference to how flaws and counter argument
support 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.
Level 2
5–9 marks
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.
Level 1
1–4 marks
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.
Responses should focus on key reasons and evidence in both documents in order to compare
alternative perspectives and synthesise them in order to reach a reasoned judgement. In order to
assess whether Document 2 challenges or reinforces 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 very little comparison of the passages or evaluation and candidates may
simply describe the documents or identify areas of similarity and difference. At Level 2 there will
be some evaluation and comparison, but it will be either poorly developed or limited in the areas
covered. At Level 3 candidates will reach 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.
Candidates may reach the judgement that, taken together, the two documents offer different
perspectives, but still reach the same conclusion that the supply of fossil fuels is in decline and an
alternative needs to be found. Answers may 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. However, it is likely most will see that the solution suggested in the passages differs.
Candidates may point to the different perspectives put forward on the availability of hydrocarbons
as Document 2 does not believe that there is sufficient available to solve the problem or at a
reasonable cost, unlike Document 1.
Document 2 also takes the argument further and considers the impact that the change will have.
It does mention the environmental impact, which is not considered in Document 1. Document 2
also raises problems associated with renewable energy and therefore offers a more balanced
perspective. Document also puts forward other solutions, such as the cutback in consumption.
Candidates should critically assess the use of examples and evidence in order to reach a judgement.
© UCLES 2010