The 10-mark extended response

What the 10-mark question asks for

The final question of Paper 1 and of Paper 2 is a 10-mark extended response. In each paper Section B offers a choice, and you answer one 10-mark question. It is the single largest question on either paper, a third of Paper 1’s marks and a quarter of Paper 2’s at SL, and the only place on those papers where the higher assessment objective, AO3 (synthesis and evaluation), is rewarded in full.

The question always uses an AO3 command term: discuss, evaluate, examine, recommend, justify or to what extent. It is set in the context of the case study (Paper 1) or the stimulus material (Paper 2), and in Paper 1 it often asks you to use two or more concepts, tools or theories or to answer with reference to a key concept. Some examples of the form, all invented:

• Discuss whether Lumen Footwear should outsource the production of its mid-price range, with reference to ethics. [10]

• To what extent should Nimbus Audio use penetration pricing for its new wireless earbuds? [10]

• Using two business management tools, recommend whether Kahu Kayaks should grow by acquiring a rival or by opening new outlets. [10]

• Evaluate the decision of Pasar Fresh to adopt a more democratic leadership style. [10]

Every one of these questions has the same demands: accurate business knowledge, applied to the organisation in the case, arguments weighed on more than one side, and a clear answer to the question at the end. What differs is the type of judgment. A “to what extent” question wants a degree; a “recommend” question wants an option and the conditions under which it works; “discuss” and “evaluate” want a balanced verdict.

The markbands in plain words

Short questions are marked point by point. The 10-mark question is marked differently: the examiner reads the whole answer and places it in the markband whose description fits it best, then chooses a mark inside that band. There is no tick for each correct sentence, so an answer that lists many points without weighing them can still sit in a low band.

Reading the bands from bottom to top shows four things that move an answer up. Each one is a separate skill with its own place in the structure of an answer.

The markscheme for each question also lists points an answer might make, but these are suggestions, not a checklist. Answers that make different, relevant points with good evidence are rewarded just as well. The markband descriptors are what decide the mark.

Choosing between the two questions

Section B gives a choice of two questions. Spend a minute of the reading time on the choice and then commit to it, because changing question halfway through loses more time than any other mistake. A good choice depends less on which topic you like and more on which question you can answer with balance and with evidence from the case.

• Can you see both sides? If you can only think of arguments for one side, the answer will be capped at 5–6.

• Can you name two tools or theories that fit the decision (for example a stakeholder map and break-even analysis; SWOT and the Ansoff matrix)?

• Is there evidence in the case for each side: figures, quotations, facts about the business and its market?

• Do you know the key concept if the question names one?

Planning in two minutes

Two minutes spent sorting points into sides, choosing tools and deciding the conclusion before writing saves far more time later. It turns a list of points into an argument, and it means the conclusion follows from the analysis rather than being invented in the final minute.

1. Underline the command term and the question’s exact wording (“should”, “to what extent”, “with reference to ethics”). Write the judgment the question wants at the top of the plan: “Yes / no / partly, because…”.

2. List the key terms to define in the introduction (usually one or two).

3. Choose two tools or theories that fit the decision and note where each will be used.

4. Draw two columns (for and against, or option A and option B) and put three or four points in each, with a piece of case evidence next to every point.

5. Decide the conclusion now: the answer, the main reason and what it depends on.

6. Note one or two limitations of the case (missing figures, unreliable forecasts, one stakeholder’s view only).

The plan is for you, not the examiner, so write it in key words. A plan for a 10-mark question fits on a quarter of a page.

The structure of a top-band answer

There is no fixed structure, but most strong answers follow the same shape, because it gives a place to each thing the markbands reward. Paragraphs are short and each makes one point, so the examiner can follow the argument and see the balance.

An introduction that earns its place

The introduction defines the one or two key terms of the question and states the decision facing the business. Definitions show accurate knowledge (AO1) at the start, and stating the issue shows that the answer is focused on the question. Two or three sentences are enough; background copied from the case, or a general opening about how important the topic is, earns nothing.

A good introduction to the Kahu Kayaks question reads: “An acquisition is the purchase of a controlling interest in another business; internal growth is expansion using the business’s own resources, such as new outlets or more capacity. Kahu Kayaks must decide whether buying Riverline’s larger factory for NZ$3.2 million is a better way to overcome its full capacity than slower growth funded from its own profit.”

Analysis applied to the case, with two or more tools

Each analysis paragraph makes one argument and follows the same chain: the point, the evidence from the case, the business reasoning, and the effect on the business’s objectives. A tool or theory is useful when it organises that reasoning, not when it is described for its own sake. “The Ansoff matrix has four boxes” earns nothing; “buying Riverline gives Kahu access to an older customer base it does not reach now, which is market development on the Ansoff matrix and carries more risk than selling more to its existing customers” uses the tool to say something about the decision.

Many tools fit many questions. The table gives some common pairings; choose the ones the data in the case supports.

Balance: the other side, argued properly

Balance means arguing the other side as seriously as the first. A sentence of “however, there are also some disadvantages” at the end of a one-sided answer does not count. Each side should have developed points with evidence, so the conclusion is a real choice between real arguments.

Balance can take several forms, and the best answers often combine them: arguments for and against a decision; one option compared with another; short-term effects compared with long-term effects; one stakeholder group’s gains compared with another’s losses; the financial case compared with the non-financial one.

Limitations of the case or stimulus

A short paragraph on the limits of the information is what separates the top band from the band below. Every case leaves things out: figures that are forecasts rather than results, data for one year only, the view of one stakeholder, no information on competitors, costs or finance. The skill is to name the missing information that matters most for this decision and explain how it could change the conclusion.

A justified conclusion or recommendation

The conclusion answers the question in its own words, so the examiner can see the judgment immediately: “Kahu Kayaks should grow internally for now.” It then gives the main reason, drawn from the analysis, and states the conditions under which the judgment would change. A conclusion that only repeats the arguments, or that sits on the fence (“there are advantages and disadvantages”), does not show judgment.

A strong conclusion also weighs the arguments: it explains why one consideration matters more than another for this business. That is what “justified” means. Kahu’s full capacity matters, but the founder’s objective of keeping craftsmanship, and the risk of a large loan for a small business, matter more, so internal growth is the better choice unless Riverline’s accounts show a profitable, well-run business.

When the question names a key concept

Paper 1 Section B questions may name one of the four key concepts: change, creativity, ethics or sustainability. The concept then becomes part of what the question asks, and an answer that ignores it cannot be fully focused on the question. Use it in three places: define it briefly in the introduction, use it to frame arguments on both sides, and bring it back in the conclusion.

The concept works best as a lens on the whole decision, not as a separate paragraph added at the end. In an ethics question, for example, the ethical arguments should appear on both sides: outsourcing can be unethical for the workers who lose their jobs at home and ethical for the workers who gain them abroad, depending on how the supplier treats them.

Evaluation phrases that add judgment

Evaluation is weighing: saying which argument matters more, when, for whom and on what conditions. Certain phrases make that weighing visible, but a phrase only counts when it is followed by a real reason from the case. “It depends” on its own adds nothing, whereas “it depends on whether the new supplier passes an independent audit, because Lumen’s brand rests on fair work” names the condition and the reason it matters.

YouTube

Model answer 1: a discuss question with a key concept

The first model answer is written in the style of a Paper 1 Section B response. It shows a complete answer that reaches the top markband, followed by an examiner-style commentary.

Examiner-style commentary: 9–10 marks. The answer stays focused on the question, “should Lumen outsource, with reference to ethics”, and answers it directly in the conclusion. Key terms are defined accurately at the start. Ethics runs through the whole answer and appears on both sides: the supplier’s workers can gain from responsible outsourcing, while Lumen’s employees and the audit evidence point the other way.

The case is integrated into the argument. The cost figures are used in a calculation (€14 × 60,000 = €840,000), the audit, the brand slogans and the managing director’s quotation each drive an argument, and the managing director’s assumption is questioned. Two tools are applied (stakeholder mapping and CSR) and the short-term versus long-term weighing adds judgment. The limitations paragraph names specific missing information and explains why it matters, and the conclusion is conditional and justified. It meets every part of the top band.

Model answer 2: a to-what-extent question with data

The second model answer is in the style of Paper 2, where the stimulus contains figures and the 10-mark question usually follows calculations you have already made. This answer is good but not top-band: read it, then the commentary, to see what holds it at 7–8.

Examiner-style commentary: 7–8 marks. The answer is accurate and relevant. Both pricing methods are defined, and the break-even analysis is correct and well used: the figures from the stimulus support the argument that penetration pricing is more profitable, and the answer also sees that it needs far more sales to break even. The case is used beyond names (the unknown brand, the design award, competitors’ prices), and there is some balance, with risks of penetration pricing and arguments for the premium price.

Three things hold it below 9–10. First, the question asks “to what extent”, but the conclusion gives a yes, not a degree, and no conditions: it simply repeats the profit figure. Second, the answer never questions the data. Both forecasts are Nimbus’s own estimates for a brand with no sales history, so the $30,000 difference is uncertain, and the margins of safety (a third of forecast sales at $40, a quarter at $70) suggest how far each forecast could be wrong before a loss. No limitation of the stimulus is explained. Third, the evaluation is thin: there is no ranking of the arguments and no short-term versus long-term weighing.

The improved ending answers “to what extent” with a degree (“to a large extent”), weighs short-term and long-term effects, names the condition the judgment depends on, explains the limitation of the stimulus and suggests how to reduce it. With this ending, the same analysis would move into the 9–10 band.

Common mistakes in extended responses

The weaknesses that keep answers in the middle bands are well known, and most can be fixed with planning.

Practice question

Extended response checklist

• To do:

  I read both Section B questions in reading time and chose the one I can answer with balance and case evidence.

• To do:

  I planned for about two minutes: judgment, definitions, two tools, two columns with evidence, “depends on” and limitations.

• To do:

  My introduction defines the key terms and states the decision facing the business.

• To do:

  Every analysis paragraph uses a fact or figure from the case, not just the business’s name.

• To do:

  I applied at least two relevant tools or theories accurately.

• To do:

  Both sides are argued with developed, supported points.

• To do:

  If the question names a key concept, it appears in the introduction, on both sides and in the conclusion.

• To do:

  I explained the limitations of the case or stimulus and how they affect the decision.

• To do:

  My conclusion answers the exact question, gives the main reason and states what it depends on.