w
w
m
e
tr
.X
w
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ap
eP
THINKING SKILLS
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9694/21
Critical Thinking
Key message
Candidates need to realize that when three marks are allocated to one of the short questions in 1 and 2, they
are expected to make more than one point, and in most cases the mark is capped at 2 for anyone who
considers only one side.
General comments
Nearly all candidates attempted all the questions. Despite the range of material to be read and the number
of questions to be answered, there was no evidence that anyone ran out of time. As in previous sessions,
many candidates performed well in at least one question, but very few did so consistently over the three
questions.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
(a)
Nearly all candidates achieved at least one mark for this question, but not many gained the whole
three, by recognizing points on both sides. Unsurprisingly, the most popular (correct) answer was
that the reliability of Dr Gould’s evidence was diminished by his desire to defend his friend.
(b)
As the mark scheme indicates, there were quite a lot of valid points that could be made, and most
candidates identified one or more of them. However, many candidates took it for granted that
because Flora claimed that members of the PM’s staff had claimed that he bullied them, this
“proved” that he had. Sometimes, useful was understood as reliable, and the answer turned into
speculation as to Flora Nosworth’s motives rather than evaluation of what her evidence did or did
not contribute to our understanding of the case. Quite a lot of candidates wrongly claimed that the
usefulness of the evidence was diminished by Flora’s unprofessional conduct in breaching
confidentiality. References to Source D tended to discuss Hilary Askam’s role, rather than keep
the focus on Flora’s evidence as in the question.
(c)
Generally well answered, though some candidates took “How reasonable” to refer to the use of
helplines generally, rather than this specific instance. It was not easy to strike the right balance,
that there was some truth in the claim but it was greatly exaggerated. Most candidates recognized
that Flora had not actually divulged names, but many of them concluded from this that Hilary’s
criticism was entirely unjustified. Only a minority explained how the information which was divulged
did constitute a breach of confidentiality. Many candidates wrongly inferred that Hilary Askam had
been one of the members of the PM’s staff who had telephoned the helpline to complain about
being bullied.
(d)
In order to achieve Level 3, it is necessary to select and evaluate appropriate evidence and also to
consider more than one hypothesis. Many candidates did one or other of these, but very few did
both. There were broadly three possible judgments: that Henry did bully his staff, that the whole
story was a fabrication by his political opponents or (perhaps most plausibly) that his opponents
had exaggerated his problems of personality and behaviour. Even some candidates who had
correctly evaluated the source material in the short questions used it without reservations in part d.
1
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 2
(a)
A fair number of candidates recognized that the key point was confusion between correlation and
cause. A similar proportion rightly pointed out that no other cause was mentioned for the sake of
comparison.
(b)
Many candidates recognized that the support for the claim was weak. The most popular
explanation for the weakness was that the total number of species is not known, which makes it
impossible to state a percentage accurately. Quite a good number of candidates recognized that
the apparent precision of the statistics was vitiated by being based on estimates and an indirect
measure (a mathematical model based on loss of habitats). However, some saw the presence of a
graph or the use of a “mathematical model” as validation of whatever data they might depict.
(c)
Most candidates achieved at least one mark on this question. A significant minority saw that there
does not have to be contradiction between the given statement and the claim quoted from Source
D, since the author of Source D explicitly draws a contrast with something close to the given
statement. Several wrongly discussed the validity or otherwise of the statement without any
reference to the claim at all – resulting in a conclusion of “So the statement is true”, which fails to
answer the question posed.
(d)
Relatively few answers achieved higher than Level 1, as candidates tended to ignore the injunction
to use and evaluate the information provided; instead, while possibly paying lip service to sources
by accepting at face value a string of quotations from them, they produced their own thoughts
about ecology and the worth of flora and fauna to the human race. Critical consideration was
largely absent. Even some candidates who had rightly criticized the sources in earlier questions
used them uncritically in their answers to this question. To achieve Level 3, candidates needed not
only to argue persuasively that the situation in relation to extinctions was critical but also to give
reasons why humans should do something about it: not many did this.
Question 3
Some candidates seemed to find it hard to grasp what exactly the author was arguing. They misunderstood
him to be saying that health did not matter and should not be provided for by a government. The full
implications of something’s being considered a right were not understood.
(a)
Many different reasons were mistaken for the conclusion. Answers in the right area tended to gain
one mark for giving the whole of the first sentence, but some candidates identified the conclusion
precisely enough for two marks. One mark was also given to “A right to health is one of the
fundamental human rights, but this view is seriously mistaken”, even though strictly it did not make
sense. Candidates from some Centres attempted paraphrases or summaries of the whole
passage instead of identifying a particular clause as the main conclusion.
(b)
As is often the case in the passages written for this exam, each paragraph consisted of a miniargument, culminating in an intermediate conclusion which acted as a reason supporting the main
conclusion. In case of ambiguity, anything which could be interpreted as a reason supporting the
main conclusion is accepted as such. In this case, one claim in each of paragraphs 1 to 3 and two
in the final paragraph were accepted as reasons. Many candidates correctly identified at least one
of them, although some quoted so much of a paragraph that marks could not be awarded.
Candidates from some Centres paraphrased each paragraph instead of selecting the intermediate
conclusions.
(c)
Some candidates gained full marks by correctly identifying the fundamental weakness in the
argument, namely the use of straw persons; others expressed essentially the same point in terms
of assumptions. As on previous occasions, however, many interpreted this question as an
invitation to agree or disagree with the author’s opinions, or to tell us what the author says in each
paragraph. Others evaluated the writing from a literary perspective instead of identifying (strengths
and) weaknesses in the reasoning. Candidates from some Centres copied out sections of the
article under the headings “Assumptions”, “Flaws” etc., without explanation. As in previous
sessions, the expression “unstated assumption” was frequently misunderstood as meaning
“unsupported statement”.
2
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
(d)
As usual, a fair number of candidates achieved full marks for this question, by producing a
succinct, but slightly complex argument, culminating in a clear conclusion. It was easier to argue
convincingly against the conclusion than to support it. Many chose to support the claim, but
unfortunately some added a qualification to their conclusion, which meant they were arguing to a
conclusion other than the one given and limited them to a maximum of 3 marks. It would have
been wiser for those candidates to argue against the claim as given, using the substance of their
qualification as a reason for so doing; that could have resulted in a more developed argument
deserving Level 3. Those candidates who omitted or ignored the important qualification “first” were
capped at 3 marks. A significant minority of candidates scored only 1 mark, by continuing to
discuss the argument in the passage or by offering a number of disconnected thoughts on the
issue without constructing an argument.
3
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/22
Critical Thinking
Key message
As in previous examinations, candidates need to be aware that many questions require an assessment of
both sides of an argument or position (as indicated by expressions such as ‘how likely….’). Many candidates
respond to this type of question by taking up a position on one side and arguing for it, as if they were in a
debate. However, there are occasions where only one position is possible so candidates need to make a
judgement on this. It is in the nature of most issues that there will be two sides to the question but this
should not be taken as a hard and fast rule.
General comments
Most candidates seemed to respond to the issues raised by the questions and were able to cope with the
content of the sources. Able candidates were able to use the material as a vehicle for illustrating their
thinking skills. Some candidates need to understand that expressing opinions about the issues raised or
showing further knowledge of them is not the focus of the paper and cannot receive much credit if any.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
(a)
A number of candidates discussed the reliability of the report rather than its relevance. This could
not be credited. So, for example, candidates who pointed out that the concerns of the Green
Alliance are not necessarily the concerns of the public (who might not share their ‘green agenda’)
could be credited as this is a point about relevance. However, those who talked about the bias of
the Green Alliance could not be, as this was a point about reliability. Candidates should also be
aware that formulaic answers of the ‘this is a newspaper, it cannot be trusted’ variety are unlikely to
receive much credit in a critical thinking paper. The most able candidates saw that the relevance
depended on what one assumed the public was concerned about. If they were concerned about
effects on health then, in spite of the promise of the title, no mention was made of this in the
source. However, if they were concerned about effects on the environment then the report was
clearly of relevance (irrespective of any issues concerning its reliability).
(b)
Most candidates obtained at least 2 marks here, often pointing out the vested interest of Devandra
Singh and/or Global Incineration making the report unreliable. On the question of its reliability, a
number of candidates pointed out that the official and/or confidential nature of the document
suggested that it gave a reliable insight into the intentions of the local government.
(c)
Again, most candidates obtained 2 marks here with a reasonable number obtaining 3 marks by
pointing out that we could not be sure what the contribution was.
(d)
The issues raised by the sources seemed to engage the interest of the candidates and a
reasonable number considered ‘plausible alternative scenarios’. This enabled more candidates to
access the Level 3 mark band. However, there were still a significant number of candidates who
developed only one side, usually that David Wasim had definitely leaked the information. Such
answers rather ignored the significant information in Source D. Some candidates wrote no more
than they did for the other parts of Question 1 and they need to be aware that, as there are 6
marks being awarded, they need to write rather more. On the other hand, a minority of candidates
wrote at too great a length, meaning they were short of time on Question 3. Some candidates
became over-speculative and went beyond anything the sources suggested. Others, rather
curiously, saw the evidence in Source D as supporting the idea that Wasim had leaked the
4
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
information on the grounds that he was aiming to be director of the Green Alliance. This was not
seen as a legitimate interpretation of Source D.
Question 2
Candidates found this question more accessible than the November Question 2.
(a)
Many candidates answered this question by quoting relevant text rather than making inferences
from the text as was the intention of the question. Such answers were capped on 2 if they referred
to both sources and 1 if they only referred to 1 source. Candidates were also credited if they
examined circumstances in which a cure could be found even if it was unlikely.
(b)
The most able candidates saw that this could not be reliably concluded if, as a result of giving up
smoking, ex-smokers took up equally or more unhealthy habits as a substitute. A somewhat
greater number thought it was unreliable because health could be so damaged that becoming
healthier was not an option. Many candidates took this to be a statement that was related to the
statistics and pointed out that only a minority of smokers got lung cancer anyway which would
make the conclusion unreliable as regards lung cancer. Only the most able candidates
appreciated the distinction between ‘better health and ‘good health’. The former seems to make
the conclusion more reliable at first sight. As regards the latter, it is self-evident that ex-smokers
would not be guaranteed good health just because one major threat to health was removed.
(c)
A number of candidates saw that this was not necessarily a good reason if the risk was small
and/or finding a cure for diabetes would be at the expense of finding a cure for more lifethreatening illnesses (where resources were limited). Candidates could obtain 2 marks if they
developed the more obvious line that it was a good reason because of the costs of blindness to the
individual and society. Some candidates misinterpreted this question as asking for a comparison
with the other problems associated with diabetes mentioned in the source.
(d)
More candidates seemed to be moving beyond a mere reiteration of the material in the sources,
meaning they were moving into Level 2 by attempting some evaluation. Candidates would be
advised to make points and then use the sources to illustrate and reinforce these points rather than
to examine each individual source in turn. Candidates who chose the latter approach seemed
more likely to fall into the trap of simply repeating what the sources told us rather than evaluating
their content. Answers were more or less evenly split between supporting and opposing the
proposition implicit in the question. Only a minority of candidates achieved Level 3 and/or made
the more subtle points such as whether something like an artificial pancreas would ever be relevant
to the rather different condition of cancer.
Question 3
The structure of the argument confused a number of candidates. Most of the reasoning was supporting an
intermediate conclusion which was the focus in part (b). A much shorter argument then used this
intermediate conclusion and reached a main conclusion.
(a)
Very few candidates correctly identified the main conclusion. Those that got close often reduced
their answer to 1 mark by adding extraneous material. The intermediate conclusion used in part
(b) was a very popular answer. Candidates need to realise that a proposition used in part (b) in an
argument of this type is highly unlikely to be the answer to part (a). It is much more likely to be an
intermediate conclusion that goes on to support a main conclusion.
(b)
Compensating for the 0 marks most candidates obtained in part (a), the majority of candidates
identified 3 reasons.
(c)
The crucial thing in this question is to evaluate the reasoning rather than to challenge the
propositions that constitute that reasoning. Most candidates tended to do the latter, typically
suggesting developing countries might not have the infrastructure to support such an ‘on-screen’
culture. Even where there is extended counter-argument of this type, candidates cannot move
beyond Level 2 in the mark scheme. A number of candidates do not understand assumptions and
refer to explicit statements in the text as ‘assumptions’. Assumptions are essentially things that the
author has taken for granted and might not be, on closer examination, things that can be taken for
granted. Candidates need to make sure they are engaged in the right sort of exercise here – if
they do, then they are more likely to spot obvious flaws such as the contradiction between the
5
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
author referring to ‘the end of the book’ and then suggesting there will still be books being bought
by collectors.
(d)
More or less split between candidates arguing for and against the proposition. More candidates
than usual were slightly confused about the proposition. Some saw it as suggesting that reading
books was not necessary and argued for the importance of reading books and not just having them
on one’s shelf. Others saw it as involving a defence of real books over e-books. Such answers
were capped on 3 marks, normally, as they had not argued for or against the actual proposition
offered. Some candidates wrote at rather great length in this part of the question and were in
danger of offering an essay rather than an argument. However, most of such candidates managed
to hit the criteria for Level 3.
6
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/23
Critical Thinking
Key message
As in previous examinations, candidates need to be aware that many questions require an assessment of
both sides of an argument or position (as indicated by expressions such as ‘how likely….’). Many candidates
respond to this type of question by taking up a position on one side and arguing for it, as if they were in a
debate. However, there are occasions where only one position is possible so candidates need to make a
judgement on this. It is in the nature of most issues that there will be two sides to the question but this
should not be taken as a hard and fast rule.
General comments
Most candidates seemed to respond to the issues raised by the questions and were able to cope with the
content of the sources. Able candidates were able to use the material as a vehicle for illustrating their
thinking skills. Some candidates need to understand that expressing opinions about the issues raised or
showing further knowledge of them is not the focus of the paper and cannot receive much credit if any.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1
(a)
A number of candidates discussed the reliability of the report rather than its relevance. This could
not be credited. So, for example, candidates who pointed out that the concerns of the Green
Alliance are not necessarily the concerns of the public (who might not share their ‘green agenda’)
could be credited as this is a point about relevance. However, those who talked about the bias of
the Green Alliance could not be, as this was a point about reliability. Candidates should also be
aware that formulaic answers of the ‘this is a newspaper, it cannot be trusted’ variety are unlikely to
receive much credit in a critical thinking paper. The most able candidates saw that the relevance
depended on what one assumed the public was concerned about. If they were concerned about
effects on health then, in spite of the promise of the title, no mention was made of this in the
source. However, if they were concerned about effects on the environment then the report was
clearly of relevance (irrespective of any issues concerning its reliability).
(b)
Most candidates obtained at least 2 marks here, often pointing out the vested interest of Devandra
Singh and/or Global Incineration making the report unreliable. On the question of its reliability, a
number of candidates pointed out that the official and/or confidential nature of the document
suggested that it gave a reliable insight into the intentions of the local government.
(c)
Again, most candidates obtained 2 marks here with a reasonable number obtaining 3 marks by
pointing out that we could not be sure what the contribution was.
(d)
The issues raised by the sources seemed to engage the interest of the candidates and a
reasonable number considered ‘plausible alternative scenarios’. This enabled more candidates to
access the Level 3 mark band. However, there were still a significant number of candidates who
developed only one side, usually that David Wasim had definitely leaked the information. Such
answers rather ignored the significant information in Source D. Some candidates wrote no more
than they did for the other parts of Question 1 and they need to be aware that, as there are 6
marks being awarded, they need to write rather more. On the other hand, a minority of candidates
wrote at too great a length, meaning they were short of time on Question 3. Some candidates
became over-speculative and went beyond anything the sources suggested. Others, rather
curiously, saw the evidence in Source D as supporting the idea that Wasim had leaked the
7
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
information on the grounds that he was aiming to be director of the Green Alliance. This was not
seen as a legitimate interpretation of Source D.
Question 2
Candidates found this question more accessible than the November Question 2.
(a)
Many candidates answered this question by quoting relevant text rather than making inferences
from the text as was the intention of the question. Such answers were capped on 2 if they referred
to both sources and 1 if they only referred to 1 source. Candidates were also credited if they
examined circumstances in which a cure could be found even if it was unlikely.
(b)
The most able candidates saw that this could not be reliably concluded if, as a result of giving up
smoking, ex-smokers took up equally or more unhealthy habits as a substitute. A somewhat
greater number thought it was unreliable because health could be so damaged that becoming
healthier was not an option. Many candidates took this to be a statement that was related to the
statistics and pointed out that only a minority of smokers got lung cancer anyway which would
make the conclusion unreliable as regards lung cancer. Only the most able candidates
appreciated the distinction between ‘better health and ‘good health’. The former seems to make
the conclusion more reliable at first sight. As regards the latter, it is self-evident that ex-smokers
would not be guaranteed good health just because one major threat to health was removed.
(c)
A number of candidates saw that this was not necessarily a good reason if the risk was small
and/or finding a cure for diabetes would be at the expense of finding a cure for more lifethreatening illnesses (where resources were limited). Candidates could obtain 2 marks if they
developed the more obvious line that it was a good reason because of the costs of blindness to the
individual and society. Some candidates misinterpreted this question as asking for a comparison
with the other problems associated with diabetes mentioned in the source.
(d)
More candidates seemed to be moving beyond a mere reiteration of the material in the sources,
meaning they were moving into Level 2 by attempting some evaluation. Candidates would be
advised to make points and then use the sources to illustrate and reinforce these points rather than
to examine each individual source in turn. Candidates who chose the latter approach seemed
more likely to fall into the trap of simply repeating what the sources told us rather than evaluating
their content. Answers were more or less evenly split between supporting and opposing the
proposition implicit in the question. Only a minority of candidates achieved Level 3 and/or made
the more subtle points such as whether something like an artificial pancreas would ever be relevant
to the rather different condition of cancer.
Question 3
The structure of the argument confused a number of candidates. Most of the reasoning was supporting an
intermediate conclusion which was the focus in part (b). A much shorter argument then used this
intermediate conclusion and reached a main conclusion.
(a)
Very few candidates correctly identified the main conclusion. Those that got close often reduced
their answer to 1 mark by adding extraneous material. The intermediate conclusion used in part
(b) was a very popular answer. Candidates need to realise that a proposition used in part (b) in an
argument of this type is highly unlikely to be the answer to part (a). It is much more likely to be an
intermediate conclusion that goes on to support a main conclusion.
(b)
Compensating for the 0 marks most candidates obtained in part (a), the majority of candidates
identified 3 reasons.
(c)
The crucial thing in this question is to evaluate the reasoning rather than to challenge the
propositions that constitute that reasoning. Most candidates tended to do the latter, typically
suggesting developing countries might not have the infrastructure to support such an ‘on-screen’
culture. Even where there is extended counter-argument of this type, candidates cannot move
beyond Level 2 in the mark scheme. A number of candidates do not understand assumptions and
refer to explicit statements in the text as ‘assumptions’. Assumptions are essentially things that the
author has taken for granted and might not be, on closer examination, things that can be taken for
granted. Candidates need to make sure they are engaged in the right sort of exercise here – if
they do, then they are more likely to spot obvious flaws such as the contradiction between the
8
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
author referring to ‘the end of the book’ and then suggesting there will still be books being bought
by collectors.
(d)
More or less split between candidates arguing for and against the proposition. More candidates
than usual were slightly confused about the proposition. Some saw it as suggesting that reading
books was not necessary and argued for the importance of reading books and not just having them
on one’s shelf. Others saw it as involving a defence of real books over e-books. Such answers
were capped on 3 marks, normally, as they had not argued for or against the actual proposition
offered. Some candidates wrote at rather great length in this part of the question and were in
danger of offering an essay rather than an argument. However, most of such candidates managed
to hit the criteria for Level 3.
9
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/31
Problem Analysis and Solution
Key message
This examination assesses the twelve problem-solving skills detailed in the syllabus, and as such candidates
should be aware that, where available, partial credit is generously awarded for evidence of these skills, even
if the correct final answers are not eventually arrived at. Thus it is vital for candidates always to present their
working, and to do so in a clear and orderly fashion, if they are to gain marks to their full potential.
Candidates should also be encouraged to develop the skills to find efficient methods and present concise
solutions, as a lack of these caused some candidates to sumbit themselves to unnecessary time pressures.
Comments on specific questions
Both Question 1 and Question 2 required candidates to master a collection of rules and limitations from a
realistic situation, as precisely phrased in the introductory text, and then answer directed questions based on
them. The precise interpretation of what is given in the text is crucial here; almost every statement in the
introductory text is vital to a correct set of answers.
Question 1
(a)
This was answered fairly well, in general. The question was answered by a structured listing of the
alternatives by some candidates – and the mark scheme credited those answers which attempted
such a systematic listing, even if they did not reach the correct answer. Most of those who
succeeded in this question did so by appreciating the simple pattern in the permutations. A
significant minority of candidates did not appreciate that the question asked for Sophie’s original
solution to be excluded. This illustrates the need for careful scrutiny of the restrictions given in the
question itself.
(b)
The need to consider how the different collections of keys should be combined defeated most
candidates. A number of candidates managed to gain partial marks by listing the number of keys
available to each finger (3, 3, 3, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2) and combining them incorrectly, but this was not
available if they just gave an (incorrect) final answer: a reminder of the need to show working at all
stages.
(c)
Those who coped with part (b) tended to fare well on part (i) of this question, otherwise not. A
large number of candidates were able to suggest an example for part (ii), which merely required a
careful scrutiny of the two keyboards. There was, however, much scope for careless error here,
and a significant number of candidates gave answers which seemed to show an understanding of
the problem, but which fell short of identifying the appropriate restrictions on all 8 letters. Part (iii)
required a thoroughly robust sense of how the different permutations interlinked, and was
successfully completed by very few candidates indeed. This reinforced the importance of
understanding how to systematically consider the combination of independent events, as stated in
the syllabus.
(d)
This question was not answered well by most candidates, although many may have perceived it to
be dependent on the previous parts, which it was not. Those who did attempt part (i) were often
correct in their analysis of the implication of swapping adjacent keys. Very few appreciated the
irrelevance of this knowledge for the attacker in part (ii).
10
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 2
(a)
The majority of candidates correctly saw how to calculate the difference in time periods necessary
to equate the two men’s $100 payment.
(b)
This question was attempted by trial and improvement by some candidates, but an efficient method
was needed to approach the correct solution; as with all ‘trial and improvement’ answers, clear and
systematic working was needed to gain method marks. Those who attempted to model the
problem algebraically tended to reach the right answer, but there was limited confidence in doing
this.
(c)
Most candidates managed to appreciate the inference that could be drawn from the lower figures
for females.
(d)
A significant number of candidates gave elaborate creative answers to this which did not recognise
that gender inequalities alone could not lead to the disparity in the figures. This question was not
answered well by most candidates.
(e)
Part (i) was looking for the specific annuity needed to maximise the highest return. Part (ii) was
answered correctly by very few candidates, requiring a very careful appreciation of what could be
inferred from the different annuities.
Question 3
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 1s. It is designed to prompt
candidates to investigate a fairly large ‘solution space’, and thus offers a chance for decisive and structured
experimentation. It demands careful, well explained working; there are many marks to be gained by
intelligent attempts at finding a solution which demonstrate some modelling skill, irrespective of whether the
optimum is reached, and candidates should be encouraged to make tentative attempts at the questions, with
explanatory comments where necessary, even if they are not able to pursue them fully.
This question depended upon familiarity with the different mathematical averages, which most candidates
seemed to have. However, a significant number of candidates did not attempt the question, which does
perhaps suggest a lack of confidence in the necessary mathematical foundations.
(a)
This question was answered well by most candidates. A confident minority offered 64, 64, 64, 64,
64 as their answer. Most worked backwards from the total.
(b)
The subtleties of this question were missed by most candidates, the most common answer being
45. The requirement for a whole number answer was missed by some, and reinforces the need to
study the general restrictions in the stem carefully.
(c)
This question was tackled well by most candidates, offering a minor restriction on the logic required
for (a).
(d)
This question required an orderly attack on the different restrictions, and many candidates did not
lay out their attempts in an clear way. In particular, candidates should be encouraged to not leave
attempts at a question half-finished if possible. A complete answer, as part of such an
investigation, is more likely to gain method marks, even if it does not satisfy all the requirements.
Too many candidates seemed simply to stop mid-answer when they felt that they were not going to
succeed completely.
(e)
This question required a demonstration and was clearly difficult for most candidates. The most
common correct answer appealed to the fact that the four oarsmen must have a 44 kg difference if
the newspaper was referring to the mean, which would not fit with the other requirements.
(f)
As with part (d), candidates struggled to lay out a progressing series of attempts at this
investigative question. Solutions which only included four weights, because there was no fifth
number which could work, were unable to gain many method marks, since they disregarded most
of the requirements.
11
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 4
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 2s. It is designed to test
candidates’ ability to interrogate interlinked sets of data, and requires careful identification of the relevant
information, and appreciation of how the varieties of information need to be combined. In order to answer
such questions well, candidates need to pursue orderly searches of the data, noting down the information
they need, and then lay out the possible solutions carefully and exhaustively.
(a)
Most candidates succeeded in answering this correctly. A quick scrutiny of the “weekend only” and
“not Monday” timings showed that only one time was needed.
(b)
This question was answered well by most candidates. The most common misconception seemed
to depend upon mistaking ‘daily’ as ‘on weekdays’ (not weekends). A few candidates gave one
number for the total number of showings: this again illustrates the need for careful reading of the
question.
(c)
This question was reliably answered by candidates who offered a small amount of working (in
terms of when the films began and ended). Such working is likely to gain candidates credit.
(d)
Part (i) was well answered by most candidates. Part (ii) required careful consideration of the
possibilities, and a precise tracking of when films started and finished. This is a typical example of
what such data search problems require, and they are designed to transcend the limits of what can
be managed in the candidate’s head. A systematic listing of the options is therefore encouraged,
with an appropriate eye open for which are clearly impossible. Part (ii) required a subtle
understanding of where the buses were at any given time, and seemed to be too demanding for all
but the strongest candidates.
12
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/32
Problem Analysis and Solution
Key message
This examination assesses the twelve problem-solving skills detailed in the syllabus, and as such candidates
should be aware that, where available, partial credit is generously awarded for evidence of these skills, even
if the correct final answers are not eventually arrived at. Thus it is vital for candidates always to present their
working, and to do so in a clear and orderly fashion, if they are to gain marks to their full potential.
Candidates should also be encouraged to develop the skills to find efficient methods and present concise
solutions, as a lack of these caused some candidates to sumbit themselves to unnecessary time pressures.
Comments on specific questions
Both Question 1 and Question 2 required candidates to master a collection of rules and limitations from a
realistic situation, as precisely phrased in the introductory text, and then answer directed questions based on
them. The precise interpretation of what is given in the text is crucial here; almost every statement in the
introductory text is vital to a correct set of answers.
Question 1
(a)
This was answered fairly well, in general. The question was answered by a structured listing of the
alternatives by some candidates – and the mark scheme credited those answers which attempted
such a systematic listing, even if they did not reach the correct answer. Most of those who
succeeded in this question did so by appreciating the simple pattern in the permutations. A
significant minority of candidates did not appreciate that the question asked for Sophie’s original
solution to be excluded. This illustrates the need for careful scrutiny of the restrictions given in the
question itself.
(b)
The need to consider how the different collections of keys should be combined defeated most
candidates. A number of candidates managed to gain partial marks by listing the number of keys
available to each finger (3, 3, 3, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2) and combining them incorrectly, but this was not
available if they just gave an (incorrect) final answer: a reminder of the need to show working at all
stages.
(c)
Those who coped with part (b) tended to fare well on part (i) of this question, otherwise not. A
large number of candidates were able to suggest an example for part (ii), which merely required a
careful scrutiny of the two keyboards. There was, however, much scope for careless error here,
and a significant number of candidates gave answers which seemed to show an understanding of
the problem, but which fell short of identifying the appropriate restrictions on all 8 letters. Part (iii)
required a thoroughly robust sense of how the different permutations interlinked, and was
successfully completed by very few candidates indeed. This reinforced the importance of
understanding how to systematically consider the combination of independent events, as stated in
the syllabus.
(d)
This question was not answered well by most candidates, although many may have perceived it to
be dependent on the previous parts, which it was not. Those who did attempt part (i) were often
correct in their analysis of the implication of swapping adjacent keys. Very few appreciated the
irrelevance of this knowledge for the attacker in part (ii).
13
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 2
(a)
The majority of candidates correctly saw how to calculate the difference in time periods necessary
to equate the two men’s $100 payment.
(b)
This question was attempted by trial and improvement by some candidates, but an efficient method
was needed to approach the correct solution; as with all ‘trial and improvement’ answers, clear and
systematic working was needed to gain method marks. Those who attempted to model the
problem algebraically tended to reach the right answer, but there was limited confidence in doing
this.
(c)
Most candidates managed to appreciate the inference that could be drawn from the lower figures
for females.
(d)
A significant number of candidates gave elaborate creative answers to this which did not recognise
that gender inequalities alone could not lead to the disparity in the figures. This question was not
answered well by most candidates.
(e)
Part (i) was looking for the specific annuity needed to maximise the highest return. Part (ii) was
answered correctly by very few candidates, requiring a very careful appreciation of what could be
inferred from the different annuities.
Question 3
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 1s. It is designed to prompt
candidates to investigate a fairly large ‘solution space’, and thus offers a chance for decisive and structured
experimentation. It demands careful, well explained working; there are many marks to be gained by
intelligent attempts at finding a solution which demonstrate some modelling skill, irrespective of whether the
optimum is reached, and candidates should be encouraged to make tentative attempts at the questions, with
explanatory comments where necessary, even if they are not able to pursue them fully.
This question depended upon familiarity with the different mathematical averages, which most candidates
seemed to have. However, a significant number of candidates did not attempt the question, which does
perhaps suggest a lack of confidence in the necessary mathematical foundations.
(a)
This question was answered well by most candidates. A confident minority offered 64, 64, 64, 64,
64 as their answer. Most worked backwards from the total.
(b)
The subtleties of this question were missed by most candidates, the most common answer being
45. The requirement for a whole number answer was missed by some, and reinforces the need to
study the general restrictions in the stem carefully.
(c)
This question was tackled well by most candidates, offering a minor restriction on the logic required
for (a).
(d)
This question required an orderly attack on the different restrictions, and many candidates did not
lay out their attempts in an clear way. In particular, candidates should be encouraged to not leave
attempts at a question half-finished if possible. A complete answer, as part of such an
investigation, is more likely to gain method marks, even if it does not satisfy all the requirements.
Too many candidates seemed simply to stop mid-answer when they felt that they were not going to
succeed completely.
(e)
This question required a demonstration and was clearly difficult for most candidates. The most
common correct answer appealed to the fact that the four oarsmen must have a 44 kg difference if
the newspaper was referring to the mean, which would not fit with the other requirements.
(f)
As with part (d), candidates struggled to lay out a progressing series of attempts at this
investigative question. Solutions which only included four weights, because there was no fifth
number which could work, were unable to gain many method marks, since they disregarded most
of the requirements.
14
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 4
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 2s. It is designed to test
candidates’ ability to interrogate interlinked sets of data, and requires careful identification of the relevant
information, and appreciation of how the varieties of information need to be combined. In order to answer
such questions well, candidates need to pursue orderly searches of the data, noting down the information
they need, and then lay out the possible solutions carefully and exhaustively.
(a)
Most candidates succeeded in answering this correctly. A quick scrutiny of the “weekend only” and
“not Monday” timings showed that only one time was needed.
(b)
This question was answered well by most candidates. The most common misconception seemed
to depend upon mistaking ‘daily’ as ‘on weekdays’ (not weekends). A few candidates gave one
number for the total number of showings: this again illustrates the need for careful reading of the
question.
(c)
This question was reliably answered by candidates who offered a small amount of working (in
terms of when the films began and ended). Such working is likely to gain candidates credit.
(d)
Part (i) was well answered by most candidates. Part (ii) required careful consideration of the
possibilities, and a precise tracking of when films started and finished. This is a typical example of
what such data search problems require, and they are designed to transcend the limits of what can
be managed in the candidate’s head. A systematic listing of the options is therefore encouraged,
with an appropriate eye open for which are clearly impossible. Part (ii) required a subtle
understanding of where the buses were at any given time, and seemed to be too demanding for all
but the strongest candidates.
15
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/33
Problem Analysis and Solution
Key message
This examination assesses the twelve problem-solving skills detailed in the syllabus, and as such candidates
should be aware that, where available, partial credit is generously awarded for evidence of these skills, even
if the correct final answers are not eventually arrived at. Thus it is vital for candidates always to present their
working, and to do so in a clear and orderly fashion, if they are to gain marks to their full potential.
Candidates should also be encouraged to develop the skills to find efficient methods and present concise
solutions, as a lack of these caused some candidates to sumbit themselves to unnecessary time pressures.
Comments on specific questions
Both Question 1 and Question 2 required candidates to master a collection of rules and limitations from a
realistic situation, as precisely phrased in the introductory text, and then answer directed questions based on
them. The precise interpretation of what is given in the text is crucial here; almost every statement in the
introductory text is vital to a correct set of answers.
Question 1
(a)
This was answered fairly well, in general. The question was answered by a structured listing of the
alternatives by some candidates – and the mark scheme credited those answers which attempted
such a systematic listing, even if they did not reach the correct answer. Most of those who
succeeded in this question did so by appreciating the simple pattern in the permutations. A
significant minority of candidates did not appreciate that the question asked for Sophie’s original
solution to be excluded. This illustrates the need for careful scrutiny of the restrictions given in the
question itself.
(b)
The need to consider how the different collections of keys should be combined defeated most
candidates. A number of candidates managed to gain partial marks by listing the number of keys
available to each finger (3, 3, 3, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2) and combining them incorrectly, but this was not
available if they just gave an (incorrect) final answer: a reminder of the need to show working at all
stages.
(c)
Those who coped with part (b) tended to fare well on part (i) of this question, otherwise not. A
large number of candidates were able to suggest an example for part (ii), which merely required a
careful scrutiny of the two keyboards. There was, however, much scope for careless error here,
and a significant number of candidates gave answers which seemed to show an understanding of
the problem, but which fell short of identifying the appropriate restrictions on all 8 letters. Part (iii)
required a thoroughly robust sense of how the different permutations interlinked, and was
successfully completed by very few candidates indeed. This reinforced the importance of
understanding how to systematically consider the combination of independent events, as stated in
the syllabus.
(d)
This question was not answered well by most candidates, although many may have perceived it to
be dependent on the previous parts, which it was not. Those who did attempt part (i) were often
correct in their analysis of the implication of swapping adjacent keys. Very few appreciated the
irrelevance of this knowledge for the attacker in part (ii).
16
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 2
(a)
The majority of candidates correctly saw how to calculate the difference in time periods necessary
to equate the two men’s $100 payment.
(b)
This question was attempted by trial and improvement by some candidates, but an efficient method
was needed to approach the correct solution; as with all ‘trial and improvement’ answers, clear and
systematic working was needed to gain method marks. Those who attempted to model the
problem algebraically tended to reach the right answer, but there was limited confidence in doing
this.
(c)
Most candidates managed to appreciate the inference that could be drawn from the lower figures
for females.
(d)
A significant number of candidates gave elaborate creative answers to this which did not recognise
that gender inequalities alone could not lead to the disparity in the figures. This question was not
answered well by most candidates.
(e)
Part (i) was looking for the specific annuity needed to maximise the highest return. Part (ii) was
answered correctly by very few candidates, requiring a very careful appreciation of what could be
inferred from the different annuities.
Question 3
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 1s. It is designed to prompt
candidates to investigate a fairly large ‘solution space’, and thus offers a chance for decisive and structured
experimentation. It demands careful, well explained working; there are many marks to be gained by
intelligent attempts at finding a solution which demonstrate some modelling skill, irrespective of whether the
optimum is reached, and candidates should be encouraged to make tentative attempts at the questions, with
explanatory comments where necessary, even if they are not able to pursue them fully.
This question depended upon familiarity with the different mathematical averages, which most candidates
seemed to have. However, a significant number of candidates did not attempt the question, which does
perhaps suggest a lack of confidence in the necessary mathematical foundations.
(a)
This question was answered well by most candidates. A confident minority offered 64, 64, 64, 64,
64 as their answer. Most worked backwards from the total.
(b)
The subtleties of this question were missed by most candidates, the most common answer being
45. The requirement for a whole number answer was missed by some, and reinforces the need to
study the general restrictions in the stem carefully.
(c)
This question was tackled well by most candidates, offering a minor restriction on the logic required
for (a).
(d)
This question required an orderly attack on the different restrictions, and many candidates did not
lay out their attempts in an clear way. In particular, candidates should be encouraged to not leave
attempts at a question half-finished if possible. A complete answer, as part of such an
investigation, is more likely to gain method marks, even if it does not satisfy all the requirements.
Too many candidates seemed simply to stop mid-answer when they felt that they were not going to
succeed completely.
(e)
This question required a demonstration and was clearly difficult for most candidates. The most
common correct answer appealed to the fact that the four oarsmen must have a 44 kg difference if
the newspaper was referring to the mean, which would not fit with the other requirements.
(f)
As with part (d), candidates struggled to lay out a progressing series of attempts at this
investigative question. Solutions which only included four weights, because there was no fifth
number which could work, were unable to gain many method marks, since they disregarded most
of the requirements.
17
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Question 4
This question follows the model offered by previous 9694 Paper 4 Question 2s. It is designed to test
candidates’ ability to interrogate interlinked sets of data, and requires careful identification of the relevant
information, and appreciation of how the varieties of information need to be combined. In order to answer
such questions well, candidates need to pursue orderly searches of the data, noting down the information
they need, and then lay out the possible solutions carefully and exhaustively.
(a)
Most candidates succeeded in answering this correctly. A quick scrutiny of the “weekend only” and
“not Monday” timings showed that only one time was needed.
(b)
This question was answered well by most candidates. The most common misconception seemed
to depend upon mistaking ‘daily’ as ‘on weekdays’ (not weekends). A few candidates gave one
number for the total number of showings: this again illustrates the need for careful reading of the
question.
(c)
This question was reliably answered by candidates who offered a small amount of working (in
terms of when the films began and ended). Such working is likely to gain candidates credit.
(d)
Part (i) was well answered by most candidates. Part (ii) required careful consideration of the
possibilities, and a precise tracking of when films started and finished. This is a typical example of
what such data search problems require, and they are designed to transcend the limits of what can
be managed in the candidate’s head. A systematic listing of the options is therefore encouraged,
with an appropriate eye open for which are clearly impossible. Part (ii) required a subtle
understanding of where the buses were at any given time, and seemed to be too demanding for all
but the strongest candidates.
18
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/41
Applied Reasoning
Key message
Candidates need to effectively plan time allocation for each question according to the demands of, and
marks for, each question. A significant proportion of candidates wrote more in response to Question 3 (9
marks) than Question 4 (30 marks) – an unwise allocation of time and effort.
General comments
There were very few candidates who did not complete all questions. Candidates who had good grasp of
core skills CT1–12 were able to demonstrate their ability to explain flaws and assumptions in the passages
and gain credit. Those who demonstrated the skills of synthesis, by judicious selection and evaluation of
stimulus material in order to construct critical reasoning in a meticulous and rational manner, gained higher
marks.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1 (a) and (b)
There was evidence that many of the comments made in the report for June 2011 have been taken on
board, as many of the misconceptions and weaknesses identified there were improved upon in this session.
This question expects candidates to have understood how numbers and data may be subjected to
manipulation for use in arguments. It is aimed at assessing candidates’ ability to identify flaws in the use of
statistics in supporting a particular claim, understand what might reasonably be inferred from a given set of
statistics, and spot invalid use of statistics.
Question 1 (b) drew on the skills of evaluating evidence (CT11) and engaging in inference and deduction
(CT12), but in the context of statistical evidence. Candidates need to understand the difference between a
critical thinking ‘statistics’ question and a critical thinking ‘credibility of evidence’ question. Attempts to
explain weaknesses in the use of statistics by reference to e.g. vested interest miss the point of the question.
What was looked for in this question was for candidates to identify in part (a) flaws in the statistics
themselves, or the way they were presented, and in part (b) how the validity of the inference drawn from the
statistics given may be doubted. In this way the tasks were distinct, and an answer to (b) along the lines of
“the inference is not valid because of my answer to (a)”, which was fairly common, does not properly address
this distinction.
Many candidates lost time by needlessly writing up lengthy or elaborate responses which earned them no
extra credit. In part (a), only brief responses, just sufficient to pinpoint distinct weaknesses, were required.
Part (b) required candidates to supply brief but clear explanations as to whether the evidence alluded to
supported the claim made. Some candidates lost focus on the statistics and went on to offer post hoc
explanations such as “we need to worry because the world would be in a worse position if human resources
in medicine were to decline...”. Many candidates merely restated their responses from (a) in (b), which
amounted to no more than repetition and so could not be credited. A significant number pointed to the low
return rates, without then expressing why it affected the credibility. For example, “less than half returned the
questionnaires” on its own could gain no mark, but an explanation such as “less than half of 27 000
questionnaires sent out is not sufficiently representative” or “the conclusions drawn from only 12 000 returned
of 27 000 are insufficient to generalise to all practising doctors” could achieve credit.
19
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Several candidates did not read Question 1 (b) carefully, and used information from the first paragraph to
answer, thereby losing credit as the question specifically required them to evaluate the evidence in the
second paragraph.
Question 2
The majority of candidates were able to achieve at least 2 marks by identifying the main conclusion correctly.
Some candidates were able to neatly identify the main reasoning and gain credit. Many wrote far more than
was necessary, not realising that they were only required to identify correctly the main conclusion,
intermediate conclusions and counter-argument in order to earn full credit. Candidates should write out the
identified feature in full, not use ellipsis. Again this session, several candidates commented on the literary
structure of the argument rather than the reasoning structure, and could not be credited e.g. “HGA writes
persuasively and adopts a balanced approach, sometimes using rhetorical ploys. He therefore succeeds in
affirming the importance of women...” – such responses belong to literary criticism not critical thinking. Some
candidates lost marks by not keeping to the exact wording or giving close paraphrase of the main conclusion,
or by misconstruing the question e.g. “gender equality in science and technology consists mainly of mutual
respect for each other rather than equal rights”. This is describing gender equality and is not the conclusion
of an argument about gender equality.
Question 3
This question is a real test of skills that lie at the heart of critical thinking activity. Candidates have to be able
to demonstrate their critical thinking skills of identifying and evaluating assumptions, flaws, strengths (if any)
and weaknesses of a given argument, in order to gain credit. The best answers accurately identified
assumptions, flaws and/or weaknesses, and offered well-developed explanations of why these were
weaknesses within the argument. If a strength is identified, this should point to a critical element of how the
reasoning strengthens the argument; it should not be a mere comment commending the argument.
It was good that several candidates were able to identify and explain the obvious flaws that stuck out, such
as ‘stereotyping’, ‘ad hominem’ and ‘generalisation’. On the whole, though, there is much scope for
improvement in candidates’ responses to this key question. A substantial number of candidates offered
counter-assertions, merely disagreeing with a line of reasoning without doing any critical thinking e.g. “the
argument assumes that women do not usually want a career in science, whereas many may want to join this
field” is a mere counter-assertion; this assumption is explicit in the argument and is not an implicit
assumption upon which the reasoning depends. The aim is not merely to disagree with the premises of the
argument, but to criticise the validity of the reasoning. Similarly, many candidates attempted to evaluate a
given claim by simply stating “there is no evidence” to support it. To counter-assert that there is no evidence
for a claim is merely to pose a vague or weak challenge and cannot earn credit.
Question 4
This question, which is the ultimate test of the candidates’ aptitude for applied reasoning, carries the most
marks (30). The assessment objective targets the following higher-order skills of critical reasoning:
•
ability to judiciously use some or all the documents;
•
ability to refer critically to the documents while building one’s case;
•
ability to draw significant inferences and construct critical reasoning by juxtaposing multiple
documents;
•
ability to develop the more subtle aspects of complexities that are apparent;
•
ability to creatively and coherently build one’s own argument, using perspectives and inferences
drawn from the stimulus sources, as well as one’s own ideas;
•
ability to acknowledge or foresee and respond to counter-positions that challenge or could possibly
challenge one’s own arguments.
There was evidence that most candidates saw the importance of making critical references to the given
source documents. There were several very good responses, where candidates demonstrated their ability to
judiciously select documents, evaluate the information or claims therein, cross-refer, and compare and
contrast competing claims within the documents to help them build a coherent argument. However, many
20
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
candidates were so absorbed in evaluating sources and weighing up which side of the argument they
supported that they neglected the task of constructing their own further arguments. Very good responses,
while sifting and evaluating the sources, also creatively constructed their own arguments; the best responses
were able to anticipate some counter-arguments that could arise against their own position.
Weaker responses tended to summarise the source documents, rather than critically interpret them and draw
inferences for the task of constructing an argument. On the other hand, those who concentrated solely on
constructing their own argument, with very little if any reference to documents, were, however good their
argument, limited to lower band 2 credit. Candidates who tended to agree or disagree with documents on
the basis of their own opinions, without critical reference to the arguments within those documents, did not
score higher than band 2. Candidates who constructed a good argument but did not give a clear or explicit
conclusion, or only implied a conclusion, were unable to access the higher bands.
21
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/42
Applied Reasoning
Key message
Candidates need to effectively plan time allocation for each question according to the demands of, and
marks for, each question. A significant proportion of candidates wrote more in response to Question 3 (9
marks) than Question 4 (30 marks) – an unwise allocation of time and effort.
General comments
There were very few candidates who did not complete all questions. Candidates who had good grasp of
core skills CT1–12 were able to demonstrate their ability to explain flaws and assumptions in the passages
and gain credit. Those who demonstrated the skills of synthesis, by judicious selection and evaluation of
stimulus material in order to construct critical reasoning in a meticulous and rational manner, gained higher
marks.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1 (a) and (b)
There was evidence that many of the comments made in the report for June 2011 have been taken on
board, as many of the misconceptions and weaknesses identified there were improved upon in this session.
This question expects candidates to have understood how numbers and data may be subjected to
manipulation for use in arguments. It is aimed at assessing candidates’ ability to identify flaws in the use of
statistics in supporting a particular claim, understand what might reasonably be inferred from a given set of
statistics, and spot invalid use of statistics.
Question 1 (b) drew on the skills of evaluating evidence (CT11) and engaging in inference and deduction
(CT12), but in the context of statistical evidence. Candidates need to understand the difference between a
critical thinking ‘statistics’ question and a critical thinking ‘credibility of evidence’ question. Attempts to
explain weaknesses in the use of statistics by reference to e.g. vested interest miss the point of the question.
What was looked for in this question was for candidates to identify in part (a) flaws in the statistics
themselves, or the way they were presented, and in part (b) how the validity of the inference drawn from the
statistics given may be doubted. In this way the tasks were distinct, and an answer to (b) along the lines of
“the inference is not valid because of my answer to (a)”, which was fairly common, does not properly address
this distinction.
Many candidates lost time by needlessly writing up lengthy or elaborate responses which earned them no
extra credit. In part (a), only brief responses, just sufficient to pinpoint distinct weaknesses, were required.
Part (b) required candidates to supply brief but clear explanations as to whether the evidence alluded to
supported the claim made. Some candidates lost focus on the statistics and went on to offer post hoc
explanations such as “we need to worry because the world would be in a worse position if human resources
in medicine were to decline...”. Many candidates merely restated their responses from (a) in (b), which
amounted to no more than repetition and so could not be credited. A significant number pointed to the low
return rates, without then expressing why it affected the credibility. For example, “less than half returned the
questionnaires” on its own could gain no mark, but an explanation such as “less than half of 27 000
questionnaires sent out is not sufficiently representative” or “the conclusions drawn from only 12 000 returned
of 27 000 are insufficient to generalise to all practising doctors” could achieve credit.
22
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Several candidates did not read Question 1 (b) carefully, and used information from the first paragraph to
answer, thereby losing credit as the question specifically required them to evaluate the evidence in the
second paragraph.
Question 2
The majority of candidates were able to achieve at least 2 marks by identifying the main conclusion correctly.
Some candidates were able to neatly identify the main reasoning and gain credit. Many wrote far more than
was necessary, not realising that they were only required to identify correctly the main conclusion,
intermediate conclusions and counter-argument in order to earn full credit. Candidates should write out the
identified feature in full, not use ellipsis. Again this session, several candidates commented on the literary
structure of the argument rather than the reasoning structure, and could not be credited e.g. “HGA writes
persuasively and adopts a balanced approach, sometimes using rhetorical ploys. He therefore succeeds in
affirming the importance of women...” – such responses belong to literary criticism not critical thinking. Some
candidates lost marks by not keeping to the exact wording or giving close paraphrase of the main conclusion,
or by misconstruing the question e.g. “gender equality in science and technology consists mainly of mutual
respect for each other rather than equal rights”. This is describing gender equality and is not the conclusion
of an argument about gender equality.
Question 3
This question is a real test of skills that lie at the heart of critical thinking activity. Candidates have to be able
to demonstrate their critical thinking skills of identifying and evaluating assumptions, flaws, strengths (if any)
and weaknesses of a given argument, in order to gain credit. The best answers accurately identified
assumptions, flaws and/or weaknesses, and offered well-developed explanations of why these were
weaknesses within the argument. If a strength is identified, this should point to a critical element of how the
reasoning strengthens the argument; it should not be a mere comment commending the argument.
It was good that several candidates were able to identify and explain the obvious flaws that stuck out, such
as ‘stereotyping’, ‘ad hominem’ and ‘generalisation’. On the whole, though, there is much scope for
improvement in candidates’ responses to this key question. A substantial number of candidates offered
counter-assertions, merely disagreeing with a line of reasoning without doing any critical thinking e.g. “the
argument assumes that women do not usually want a career in science, whereas many may want to join this
field” is a mere counter-assertion; this assumption is explicit in the argument and is not an implicit
assumption upon which the reasoning depends. The aim is not merely to disagree with the premises of the
argument, but to criticise the validity of the reasoning. Similarly, many candidates attempted to evaluate a
given claim by simply stating “there is no evidence” to support it. To counter-assert that there is no evidence
for a claim is merely to pose a vague or weak challenge and cannot earn credit.
Question 4
This question, which is the ultimate test of the candidates’ aptitude for applied reasoning, carries the most
marks (30). The assessment objective targets the following higher-order skills of critical reasoning:
•
ability to judiciously use some or all the documents;
•
ability to refer critically to the documents while building one’s case;
•
ability to draw significant inferences and construct critical reasoning by juxtaposing multiple
documents;
•
ability to develop the more subtle aspects of complexities that are apparent;
•
ability to creatively and coherently build one’s own argument, using perspectives and inferences
drawn from the stimulus sources, as well as one’s own ideas;
•
ability to acknowledge or foresee and respond to counter-positions that challenge or could possibly
challenge one’s own arguments.
There was evidence that most candidates saw the importance of making critical references to the given
source documents. There were several very good responses, where candidates demonstrated their ability to
judiciously select documents, evaluate the information or claims therein, cross-refer, and compare and
contrast competing claims within the documents to help them build a coherent argument. However, many
23
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
candidates were so absorbed in evaluating sources and weighing up which side of the argument they
supported that they neglected the task of constructing their own further arguments. Very good responses,
while sifting and evaluating the sources, also creatively constructed their own arguments; the best responses
were able to anticipate some counter-arguments that could arise against their own position.
Weaker responses tended to summarise the source documents, rather than critically interpret them and draw
inferences for the task of constructing an argument. On the other hand, those who concentrated solely on
constructing their own argument, with very little if any reference to documents, were, however good their
argument, limited to lower band 2 credit. Candidates who tended to agree or disagree with documents on
the basis of their own opinions, without critical reference to the arguments within those documents, did not
score higher than band 2. Candidates who constructed a good argument but did not give a clear or explicit
conclusion, or only implied a conclusion, were unable to access the higher bands.
24
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
THINKING SKILLS
Paper 9694/43
Applied Reasoning
Key message
Candidates need to effectively plan time allocation for each question according to the demands of, and
marks for, each question. A significant proportion of candidates wrote more in response to Question 3 (9
marks) than Question 4 (30 marks) – an unwise allocation of time and effort.
General comments
There were very few candidates who did not complete all questions. Candidates who had good grasp of
core skills CT1–12 were able to demonstrate their ability to explain flaws and assumptions in the passages
and gain credit. Those who demonstrated the skills of synthesis, by judicious selection and evaluation of
stimulus material in order to construct critical reasoning in a meticulous and rational manner, gained higher
marks.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1 (a) and (b)
There was evidence that many of the comments made in the report for June 2011 have been taken on
board, as many of the misconceptions and weaknesses identified there were improved upon in this session.
This question expects candidates to have understood how numbers and data may be subjected to
manipulation for use in arguments. It is aimed at assessing candidates’ ability to identify flaws in the use of
statistics in supporting a particular claim, understand what might reasonably be inferred from a given set of
statistics, and spot invalid use of statistics.
Question 1 (b) drew on the skills of evaluating evidence (CT11) and engaging in inference and deduction
(CT12), but in the context of statistical evidence. Candidates need to understand the difference between a
critical thinking ‘statistics’ question and a critical thinking ‘credibility of evidence’ question. Attempts to
explain weaknesses in the use of statistics by reference to e.g. vested interest miss the point of the question.
What was looked for in this question was for candidates to identify in part (a) flaws in the statistics
themselves, or the way they were presented, and in part (b) how the validity of the inference drawn from the
statistics given may be doubted. In this way the tasks were distinct, and an answer to (b) along the lines of
“the inference is not valid because of my answer to (a)”, which was fairly common, does not properly address
this distinction.
Many candidates lost time by needlessly writing up lengthy or elaborate responses which earned them no
extra credit. In part (a), only brief responses, just sufficient to pinpoint distinct weaknesses, were required.
Part (b) required candidates to supply brief but clear explanations as to whether the evidence alluded to
supported the claim made. Some candidates lost focus on the statistics and went on to offer post hoc
explanations such as “we need to worry because the world would be in a worse position if human resources
in medicine were to decline...”. Many candidates merely restated their responses from (a) in (b), which
amounted to no more than repetition and so could not be credited. A significant number pointed to the low
return rates, without then expressing why it affected the credibility. For example, “less than half returned the
questionnaires” on its own could gain no mark, but an explanation such as “less than half of 27 000
questionnaires sent out is not sufficiently representative” or “the conclusions drawn from only 12 000 returned
of 27 000 are insufficient to generalise to all practising doctors” could achieve credit.
25
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Several candidates did not read Question 1 (b) carefully, and used information from the first paragraph to
answer, thereby losing credit as the question specifically required them to evaluate the evidence in the
second paragraph.
Question 2
The majority of candidates were able to achieve at least 2 marks by identifying the main conclusion correctly.
Some candidates were able to neatly identify the main reasoning and gain credit. Many wrote far more than
was necessary, not realising that they were only required to identify correctly the main conclusion,
intermediate conclusions and counter-argument in order to earn full credit. Candidates should write out the
identified feature in full, not use ellipsis. Again this session, several candidates commented on the literary
structure of the argument rather than the reasoning structure, and could not be credited e.g. “HGA writes
persuasively and adopts a balanced approach, sometimes using rhetorical ploys. He therefore succeeds in
affirming the importance of women...” – such responses belong to literary criticism not critical thinking. Some
candidates lost marks by not keeping to the exact wording or giving close paraphrase of the main conclusion,
or by misconstruing the question e.g. “gender equality in science and technology consists mainly of mutual
respect for each other rather than equal rights”. This is describing gender equality and is not the conclusion
of an argument about gender equality.
Question 3
This question is a real test of skills that lie at the heart of critical thinking activity. Candidates have to be able
to demonstrate their critical thinking skills of identifying and evaluating assumptions, flaws, strengths (if any)
and weaknesses of a given argument, in order to gain credit. The best answers accurately identified
assumptions, flaws and/or weaknesses, and offered well-developed explanations of why these were
weaknesses within the argument. If a strength is identified, this should point to a critical element of how the
reasoning strengthens the argument; it should not be a mere comment commending the argument.
It was good that several candidates were able to identify and explain the obvious flaws that stuck out, such
as ‘stereotyping’, ‘ad hominem’ and ‘generalisation’. On the whole, though, there is much scope for
improvement in candidates’ responses to this key question. A substantial number of candidates offered
counter-assertions, merely disagreeing with a line of reasoning without doing any critical thinking e.g. “the
argument assumes that women do not usually want a career in science, whereas many may want to join this
field” is a mere counter-assertion; this assumption is explicit in the argument and is not an implicit
assumption upon which the reasoning depends. The aim is not merely to disagree with the premises of the
argument, but to criticise the validity of the reasoning. Similarly, many candidates attempted to evaluate a
given claim by simply stating “there is no evidence” to support it. To counter-assert that there is no evidence
for a claim is merely to pose a vague or weak challenge and cannot earn credit.
Question 4
This question, which is the ultimate test of the candidates’ aptitude for applied reasoning, carries the most
marks (30). The assessment objective targets the following higher-order skills of critical reasoning:
•
ability to judiciously use some or all the documents;
•
ability to refer critically to the documents while building one’s case;
•
ability to draw significant inferences and construct critical reasoning by juxtaposing multiple
documents;
•
ability to develop the more subtle aspects of complexities that are apparent;
•
ability to creatively and coherently build one’s own argument, using perspectives and inferences
drawn from the stimulus sources, as well as one’s own ideas;
•
ability to acknowledge or foresee and respond to counter-positions that challenge or could possibly
challenge one’s own arguments.
There was evidence that most candidates saw the importance of making critical references to the given
source documents. There were several very good responses, where candidates demonstrated their ability to
judiciously select documents, evaluate the information or claims therein, cross-refer, and compare and
contrast competing claims within the documents to help them build a coherent argument. However, many
26
© 2011
Cambridge International Advanced Level
9694 Thinking Skills November 2011
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
candidates were so absorbed in evaluating sources and weighing up which side of the argument they
supported that they neglected the task of constructing their own further arguments. Very good responses,
while sifting and evaluating the sources, also creatively constructed their own arguments; the best responses
were able to anticipate some counter-arguments that could arise against their own position.
Weaker responses tended to summarise the source documents, rather than critically interpret them and draw
inferences for the task of constructing an argument. On the other hand, those who concentrated solely on
constructing their own argument, with very little if any reference to documents, were, however good their
argument, limited to lower band 2 credit. Candidates who tended to agree or disagree with documents on
the basis of their own opinions, without critical reference to the arguments within those documents, did not
score higher than band 2. Candidates who constructed a good argument but did not give a clear or explicit
conclusion, or only implied a conclusion, were unable to access the higher bands.
27
© 2011