w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
w
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9777/01
Written Paper
Key Messages
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The amount of time spent answering each question should be allocated according to the number of
available marks.
The key skill needed to achieve high marks is that of evaluation, supported by precise reference to
the passage.
Candidates need to answer the question set and focus on the key words in the question.
A ‘perspective’ can be political, economic or social or global versus local, it is not simply the view of
a passage.
Credit is not given for bringing in knowledge about the issues from outside the passages.
Brief and relevant quotations from the Documents should be used to illustrate a point and to support
arguments.
The strongest candidates reached a supported judgement about the issue under consideration.
General Comments
Candidates understood the issues raised by the two passages and were therefore able to attempt all the
questions. Good answers focused very clearly on the demands of the question. Strong candidates were
able to identify and explain the views put forward in the two passages and this allowed them to advance valid
arguments which were passage based. The use of critical thinking terminology is not a requirement of the
paper, however, some candidates used technical terms effectively to help them answer the question.
Although all candidates finished the paper, a significant number did not leave sufficient time for the final
question. This question is always the most demanding as it requires the use of both passages and
candidates should apportion their time accordingly.
Comments on Specific Questions
Question 1(a)
Most candidates were able to gain the two available marks for this question. When candidates are asked to
‘give’ or ‘identify’ reasons they do not also need to be explained or evaluated. Answers could be given in two
bullet points; a lengthy answer was not required. The reasons given should be different from each other and
fully based on the Document and not on candidates’ other knowledge about the topic. Candidates were able
to suggest that primates were being eaten and that their homes were being destroyed by man.
Question 1(b)
Candidates were able at least to identify areas of strength and weakness within the passage and a
significant number were able to show some evaluative skills. Most answers focused on the issues of
weakness, often considering the absence of evidence concerning the origin of the sources used by the
writer. In strong responses, the required evaluation was developed, focused and supported by material from
the Document. Candidates do not need to evaluate against their own knowledge. There were a number
who adopted a list-like approach, going through all the strengths and then the weaknesses before reaching a
conclusion. In such an approach the conclusion does not always appear to follow from the evaluative
comments. A more effective method is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of evidence
and reach an interim judgement about the evidence under consideration, as demonstrated in the examples
below.
1
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
The document has a lot of specified examples such as ‘monkeys, lemurs, langurs and great apes’ and ‘red
colubuses, langurs, mangabeys, howler and spider monkeys...10 to 20lb each’ which suggests that author is
knowledgeable, lending credibility to the view expressed that primates are under threat of extinction,
although I feel that the lack of specifying where the evidence that these species of primates are threatened
comes from is a great weakness.
The author uses strong evidence to highlight his viewpoint such as, the data on primate endangerment out of
the 634 primate species. The use of statistics backs up the author’s line of argument and strengthens the
argument, as it shows that he/she is not generalising. However, the linchpin of the intermediate conclusion,
that biodiversity and hunting are the key reasons for primate endangerment only seem to be supported by an
unnamed report. The ‘review’ of primate species is unnamed and therefore we cannot judge the reliability of
his evidence. The lack of detail casts doubt on the author’s views, as they are formed from insufficient
evidence and are therefore weak.
The strongest answers were then able to base their overall conclusion on the interim conclusions that had
been made as demonstrated in the answer below.
Despite following a logical argument and using relevant statistics, which back up its conclusion well,
Document 1 poses weak views, which are not inferred from the data and are unbalanced. From a critical
perspective, Document 1 has more weaknesses than strengths.
Question 2
The question required candidates to focus on the reasoning of Document 2 and not the evidence. The
strongest answers were able to focus on the precise demands of the question and evaluated the reasoning.
There was a great deal that candidates could consider and it was not expected that all issues would be
addressed – the quality of the evaluation and argument presented were vital for this question. In considering
the strengths, candidates stressed the author’s citation of a number of scientists, who were seen as experts;
although strong responses noted unsubstantiated claims and therefore weakened reasoning. Candidates
also mentioned the use of appeal to emotion, which might appear to strengthen the argument, although
strong responses considered whether emotive language actually forwarded the argument and suggested
that it might even weaken it. In most answers, candidates gave more attention to the weakness of the
reasoning, focusing on the premise of the argument put forward and the use of emotive language.
The thoroughness with which some of the issues were dealt with was often impressive and this is reflected in
the extract below.
Moreover, the author uses sweeping statements that considerably weaken the articles power to persuade; by
saying that ‘there is virtual unanimity among scientists’ that mass extinction is occurring, very little
consideration is given to those scientists (no proportion is given so it could be substantiated) that disagree
with the intermediate conclusion of the article, that biodiversity is suffering due to mass-extinction. By not
fully justifying this smaller, preliminary conclusion, either by using a counter-argument or by using figures to
display unanimity in the scientific world, he undermines his own conclusion that policies need to focus more
on dealing with extinction than economic issues.
At the very top level, candidates were willing to offer an overall judgement about the reasoning and did not
simply produce a list of strengths and weaknesses. Candidates should be encouraged to reach an overall
judgement, but it should be stressed that this must follow from the argument and interim judgements that
have been reached in the rest of the response. A strong and well balanced conclusion is clearly seen in the
extract below.
The lack of credibility and preciseness throughout the article makes it very hard for the reader to be
convinced by the author’s argument, as his reasons are not founded in infallible truth. Although his use of
counter-argument does show that the overall conclusion is not limited in terms of appreciation of different
viewpoints, this was the exact problem with his intermediate conclusion, as it somewhat undermined the
main conclusion later on. This results in the article being severely limited in its ability to convince.
2
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 3
Candidates found this question the most demanding. Most were able to show an understanding of the views
offered by both Documents, but some were distracted by this and offered a comparison of the content or
views offered in the Documents. Stronger responses deployed the evaluative skills applied to the previous
questions. The Key Message bullet points have drawn attention to what is meant by a perspective, rather
than a view and those candidates who were able to focus on the differing perspectives were able to achieve
high marks. Strong responses noted that Document 2 offered a more politically orientated perspective and
also a much broader one, dealing with more than primates, which was the focus of Document 1. This is
seen in the extract below:
Document 1 is very focused on the topic of primates, whereas Document 2 is much more broad in its
perspective, covering the biodiversity of all wildlife, so at first the documents do not seem very similar and
Document 2 appears to be more convincing with its perspectives on the threats to biodiversity. While
Document 2 acknowledges the link between all wildlife, Document 1 insists that the deforestation is only
affecting primates and does not refer to any other wildlife.
Some responses drew attention to the different geographical perspectives offered by the two Documents –
Document 1 focused on Asia, whereas Document 2 was more global and considered a wider range of
habitats.
Some answers also looked at the scale of the threat and used this to argue that although the perspectives
were in some ways different in terms of the species under threat; they both concluded that the threat was
serious. This is clearly seen in the extract below:
Although these arguments are quite different, as well as the message being the same, the perspectives of
the threat itself are very similar. Document 1 uses the voice of an expert to say the threats are ‘really really
serious’ whereas Document 2 also describes the ‘global crisis’ so both documents are admitting a grave
severity in the level of threat to biodiversity and the mass extinction of numerous species. The issue is the
same, and the level of worry for how severe an issue it is has been recognised by both documents,
suggestive of a real problem and a valid perspective to both, so in this respect the document reinforce each
other.
Other candidates were able to see the political and economic focus of the second Document and compared
that with Document 1, which ignored that perspective. Some also argued that Document 1 was more
negative in its assessment as Document 2 suggested that attempts are being made to address the problem.
At the highest level candidates then critically assessed the use of examples and evidence to reach a
judgement. The strongest answers provided a clear conclusion in which they reached a judgement, which
followed through the line of argument of earlier paragraphs. Many suggested that although Document 2
offered a more balanced and wider perspective, the evidence used was limited and that Document 1,
although much narrower in its consideration, provided the more convincing argument. However, the very
best answers were able to see the two Documents together and suggest that although they offered different
perspectives, they reached the same conclusion; that biodiversity was in serious danger. This approach is
clearly seen in the example below:
To bring this all together it seems that although the arguments and the logic of each is contradictory,
essentially the conclusions and the message of each perspective are the same. Both articles believe that
humans are making no impact to change a real and true threat to the life of nature on earth, whether
primates or wildlife as a whole so despite the weakness of each argument the issue is real and both
perspectives offered feel that is something humans have to change.
3
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 9777/02
Essay
Key Messages
●
●
●
The word limit is important. Essays significantly short of the word limit cannot develop sufficient
arguments to achieve high marks.
Choosing a good question is central to achieving success in this component.
Evaluation should include cross-referencing and research.
General Comments
There was a wide variety of essay topics and questions. Most candidates clearly understood the task and
genuinely engaged with their question. Successful essays demonstrated a focused and positive approach to
a question which was in the candidate’s own view important and worthy of study and reflection.
A clear question is essential. Essays which had a focused question, two clearly defined perspectives and a
balanced and reflective argument achieved high marks. Successful candidates formulated their question
simply and clearly. Candidates choose their own question and all material should address the question.
Two clearly defined perspectives can be established through two contrasting sources. These can then be
placed into a wider context, as required, compared, reflected upon, and the candidate can reach a clear
conclusion. Some excellent essays offered a more general approach and less emphasis on individual
viewpoints, the strongest candidates sometimes developed their perspectives by commenting on two or even
three sources on each side. This approach was not always appropriate as it could lead to a rounded
discussion of a topic without that opposition of perspectives. Very few essays merely contrasted two
sources. Candidates should avoid confining their evaluation to the sources rather than the perspectives.
Good essays provided a balanced argument and showed an awareness of differing ways of looking at the
world, or different values, and assessed the merits of each. Candidates need to avoid taking a question and
developing one perspective but not the other. Both perspectives need to be scrutinised and candidates
should ensure that arguments are not misrepresented. In a minority of cases, candidates wrote about issues
they cared deeply about, which is good, but did not evaluate views opposed to their own. Candidates need
to demonstrate that they can appreciate the view they do not hold. A careful approach is required for ethical
questions where the ethics of one perspective are affected by religious views. An awareness of the differing
religious positions held in the world is a significant part of having a global perspective.
Reflection is very important and may show that the study has changed a candidate’s opinions, or that they
have been confirmed. Good candidates are aware that reflection is not just assertion of personal opinion; but
is rooted in the preceding argument and supported.
Centres are reminded of the comments in past Principal Examiner’s reports. The task is unchanged, and
comments and advice from the past sessions may therefore be very valuable. Centres’ attention is also
drawn to the existence, from next session, of a title proposal system which will support candidates in
choosing an appropriate question.
Evaluation
Candidates need to evaluate the perspectives in their question, but it also helps if they evaluate the sources.
Good responses evaluate perspectives by setting them in an understanding of the wider context (which can
also be helpful for reflection). As this is a researched essay, evaluation will involve finding and applying
external knowledge. Two examples are included from this session, with comments and ideas for
improvement:
4
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
In order to better illustrate his point, Sapontzis uses an analogy: “presumably, slavery benefited slave
owners, but it is an ethically unacceptable institution, nonetheless.” Here, Sapontzis makes a reference to an
entirely irrelevant topic: slavery. Animal experimentation and slavery are two entirely different practices and
therefore cannot be compared, making this a fallacious argument.
This is a good example of evaluation of source only. It may be fair to dismiss the analogy, but the evaluation
would be improved by consideration of the parallel. The author was trying to make a point about profit as a
sufficient reason for performing an action. A candidate should reconsider the inclusion of a source if they
deem it to be fallacious. If it is impossible to find balanced sources to support a perspective, it will be virtually
impossible to evaluate the perspective itself fairly and in a balanced way.
A weakness of the article is the fact that it is an opinion article. Etzioni does not support any of his claims
with statistical or factual evidence and merely relies on logic to convey his point. This weakens his argument
because it makes his reasons weaker and less likely to be accurate.
Candidates who find a strong but unsupported view in an article need to research it to see whether the views
and generalisations stand up to scrutiny. This is part of the requirement for “wider context”.
Length of Essays
Most essays were within the 1500 word limit this session. A decreasing proportion of candidates wrote
considerably less than the word allowance and these essays did not develop arguments sufficiently to gain
high marks.
Labeling and Presentation
Centre administration was good. Nearly all essays were clearly labelled with the candidate’s name and all
had Centre name and candidate number. Some Centres submitted scans of their attendance sheets and
cover sheets with their essays. This helps with accurate and efficient administration.
Centres’ attention is drawn again to submission deadlines and they are reminded of the importance of
meeting deadlines.
5
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 9777/03
Presentation
Key Messages
●
●
●
Successful presentations fully engaged with issues and perspectives from the Resource Booklet.
Good answers consisted of the candidate’s own reasoning, supported by references to credible
research materials.
In strong answers, thinking, reasoning and presentation skills were used to help address the
question.
General Comments
The strongest candidates reached a very high level of performance, synthesising a number of skills
successfully to present their own thoughtful, reasoned case. The most successful candidates had conducted
significant research on an issue they had chosen from the Resource Booklet. They had reflected on the
issue and on the various different perspectives, and had used research evidence critically to support their
own line of reasoning. These candidates came to a conclusion which genuinely followed from their
reasoning, and presented a personal perspective gained from deep thought about the issues. Their work
was characterised by a strong control of the material and arguments. The very best candidates were also
able to bear an audience in mind and differentiate their presentation from a piece of work intended to be read
rather than heard.
Resource Booklet
Many candidates genuinely engaged with specific issues and lines of reasoning in the Resource Booklet.
These candidates framed relevant questions and kept issues from the Resource Booklet at the centre of their
presentations (supported by their own research and thinking). Successful questions included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is Western intervention in other countries’ internal affairs ever justifiable?
Is the intervention of the USA on other nations in political conflicts ever beneficial to the receiving
countries?
Is it fair to blame China for tense Sino-India relations?
Is Pakistan hindering peace in the global war on terror?
To what extent does the news media play a detrimental role in international relations?
To what extent do media sources heighten tensions between states in conflict, such as China and
India?
To what extent is Western media actively pursuing an anti-China narrative?
A proportion of candidates could have improved their performance by rooting their presentation firmly in the
Resource Booklet. Presentations should be focused on specific issues in the Resource Booklet rather than
dealing with generic issues. For example, Documents 1 and 3 were news documents with very clear
opposing perspectives on the issue of border disputes between India and China. Document 4 mentioned the
biased Western media in the context of the hypocrisies of reporting on riots in Western countries and in
China. The question, ‘Is the media biased?’ was insufficiently rooted in the specific issues in the documents.
It did not allow sufficient debate to generate a strong, reasoned presentation.
Candidates are asked to show how their presentation relates to the pre-release materials. This explanation
should help them to firmly root the presentation in the Resource Booklet and to avoid leaps to generic or
tangentially related issues.
6
© 2011
Cambridge Pre-U
9777 Global Perspectives November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Reasoning and Research
The most successful candidates produced their own arguments, making thoughtful use of relevant, credible
sources based in significant research to support their own thinking and coming to a conclusion which
followed from their reasoning and reflection. A significant number of candidates marshalled their arguments
very skilfully. These candidates considered documents, sources and evidence and wove them into their own
perspective. Candidates must reference their sources carefully and ensure that when quotations are used,
they support their work, rather than being given in place of their own work.
Engagement with ideas and perspectives embedded in sources is very important. Issues of credibility or
weakness in argument should be mentioned if they can be used to help the candidate’s reasoning – for
example a weakness in an argument might be a reason why a candidate does not accept that view fully, or it
might give the candidate the opportunity to find a stronger way of supporting that view.
In this task of presenting a line of reasoning, candidates should show that they make thoughtful and critical
use of others’ lines of reasoning, rather than detailing strengths and weaknesses of the reasoning.
Clarifying key terms is a skill embedded in the critical path, which can be used to inform and direct a line of
reasoning. This is different from merely providing dictionary definitions of terms. The strongest candidates
questioned ambiguous or uncertain terms, with awareness of the perspectives that informed the use of the
terms. Considering that the Western news media are not homogenous and that different perspectives and
approaches are found within the Western news media is a useful form of clarification. Quoting a definition
from Wikipedia is of less value.
Considering how a government official visiting a village can be deemed an act of respect or duty by the
Indians and an act of territorial aggression by the Chinese (because they lay claim to that land), and
genuinely trying to understand the different views which underlie the different meanings assigned to this act,
is a useful way of clarifying key terms.
Perspectives and engagement
The strongest candidates engaged sympathetically and intellectually with genuinely different perspectives
and the thinking that underlies them. Strong candidates tried to go beyond their ‘home’ perspective, to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of their ‘home’ perspective, to genuinely engage with the ‘other’
perspective and really try to understand the writer’s viewpoint. For instance, those candidates who tried to
see Western media reporting from the Chinese point of view and to explore whether there were double
standards in how riots were covered, were engaging with the Chinese perspective. Those who dismissed
the comment about Western media bias in the Chinese source because all Chinese media is censored were
less fully engaged.
Submission of work
Centres are asked to follow the instructions for submission of electronic work and only use the approved file
formats and label all work correctly. Candidates must include their names, candidate numbers and Centre
name and numbers within every piece of work they submit. It is advisable to build in a little leeway in case
problems arise so that work can still be submitted by the deadline.
7
© 2011