A-level Past Paper 2
1. (a) The author of Document A mentions different types of robot.
Identify two robots that are already being used. [2]
-a humanoid 40 cm-tall robot and a baby seal robot
(b) The author of Document B refers to a range of ethical issues with using healthcare robots.
Identify three ethical issues mentioned by the author. [3]
-lack of trust, detrimental effect on the mental well-being of its user, and psychological
bonding.
2. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence used by the author of Document A to
support their claims about the development of robotic healthcare equipment.
In your answer include the impact of the evidence on the author’s argument. [15]
First of all, the author of document A makes use of evidence or data from credible sources or
relevant experts. This includes the Japanese government and the deputy director of METI
(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry), which makes the evidence more credible.
Second of all, the author also includes evidence from first-hand testimony, including those
from the head, caregiver, and residents from the Fuyouen senior citizens’ home in
Yokohama. All of them provided clear and relevant evidence as to what they think about
communication robots, including their effectiveness because they have had prior experiences
with the robots. This provides first-hand evidence, which can strengthen the claims made
because it proves to readers that they use evidence from sources who know what they’re
talking about. Thirdly, the author makes use of statistical data, such as “¥2.4 billion ($24
million) in the 2013 budget”, “around 2.5 million caregivers”, “7 million between 2010 and
2025”, and “30% of the overall population”, which strengthens the claims made. On the other
hand, however, the statistics are rather vague and ambiguous, because the author does not
provide a more exact data. Therefore, by mentioning “robots costing between ¥100,000 and
¥200,000”, the author uses a wide range of data and thus, does not provide much support to
the claims. Secondly, the author includes some data that serve as estimation, such as in the
statement “The Japanese government estimates that the number of people in Japan aged 65
years or above will rise by around 7 million between 2010 and 2025”. This may not provide
as much support compared to using data that is verifiable and already absolute. Thirdly, there
is a lack of balance in the evidence provided, in which most if not all evidence supports the
use of robots in care homes, whereas there is a lack of evidence for the disadvantages of
robots in care homes. Lastly, the evidence is all given in the context of Fuyouen senior
citizens’ home in Yokohama. However, this may not be a representative data for the situation
in other parts of Japan, as well as in other care homes around the world, which questions the
credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence provided.
3. The two authors present different arguments and perspectives about the development of
robotic healthcare equipment.
Evaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and
include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]
First of all, the author of document B is a UK university lecturer in Law and also has a
doctorate degree, whereas the author of document A is an independent journalist without any
specific academic credentials or background, thus making it weaker. In addition, document B
was published on the UK-based Society of Computers and Law website, while document A
was published on the Japan Times magazine, thus making doc A more trustworthy. Secondly,
document B focuses on a wider scope of discussion while referencing the United States. This
makes the evidence more representative, compared to document A which concentrates only
on one care home of the Fuyouen senior citizens’ home in Yokohama. This makes the
arguments of document B more reliable and accurate than document A. Moreover, document
B also mentions and makes reference to the International Standards Organisation, thus
proving that it has more focus on a more global scope. Thirdly, document B makes use of
sources of evidence from experts in the field, such as Professor Asaro and its research
presentation in an international conference on robotics and automation, as well as the
researchers from MIT. On the contrary, document A makes use of a difference type of
evidence, namely the use of first-hand testimony from the people in the care home who have
had experiences with robots, which may give off a more personal feeling to the readers.
Fourthly, document A may also be more emotionally appealing to readers because the author
includes direct quotation of the residents and caregivers. This might evoke some sense of
empathy from the readers. On the other hand, document B makes use of more serious and
formal academic language style, which might seem more professional to the readers. In
addition, document B considers counterarguments, which is seen from the first paragraphs
discussing the benefits of healthcare robots, followed by the following paragraphs discussing
the drawbacks of healthcare robots. On the contrary, document A has a lack of balance, in
which there is limited discussion on the drawbacks of robots in the healthcare industry or in
care homes. This shows that document B may be more credible because it is not one-sided,
but instead it considers different perspectives. However, document A includes more statistical
data or evidence such as “the 7 million estimation by the Japanese government”, “2.5 million
caregivers”, “The government has allocated ¥2.4 billion ($24 million) in the 2013 budget”,
etc., which may strengthen its arguments compared to document B. On the contrary, although
document B also includes few statistical evidence like in the statement “In Japan, over 23%
of the population is aged 65 and above”, it still focuses more on evidence that is qualitative,
than quantitative. To conclude, I believe although it lacks statistics, document B is still
stronger than document A because it has a more academic style, considers a more global
scope, and is more balanced. The author of document B is also more qualified in the field and
is thus more trustworthy and credible.