Augment’s own questions for Geography, written in the style of IB exams, each with its markscheme. They are not past papers. One from each topic is below to try.
Every question has a markscheme.
The paper each question is written for, so you can practice one paper at a time.
Each topic in syllabus order, with its subtopics. Lines with notes link to them. Under each topic is one question to try, its markscheme folded until you open it.
Examine the relative importance of inputs and stores in determining how much precipitation reaches a river channel in different drainage basins.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
The drainage basin is an open system. Inputs are precipitation of varying type (rain, snow, hail), intensity and duration. Stores include interception by vegetation, surface (depression) storage, soil moisture, groundwater in aquifers, channel storage and the cryosphere (snow and ice). The question asks how far the amount of water reaching the channel (as overland flow, throughflow and base flow) is controlled by the input compared with the capacity and condition of the stores. Accept answers that treat outputs (evaporation and transpiration) as part of the store argument, for example vegetation returning water to the atmosphere.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Precipitation intensity: when intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, Hortonian overland flow delivers water rapidly to the channel, so the input can override the stores (eg convectional storms on semi-arid slopes producing flash floods in wadis).
Precipitation type and duration: snow is held in the cryosphere and released later as meltwater; prolonged frontal rain gradually fills soil stores until saturation-excess overland flow occurs.
Interception stores: a dense forest canopy may intercept a significant share of light rain, much of which evaporates, but the store fills quickly and matters little in a long or intense event.
Soil moisture stores: deep, permeable soils absorb large volumes and release them slowly as throughflow; thin or already saturated soils (eg upland peat moorland in northern England) pass most rainfall on rapidly.
Groundwater stores: permeable rock such as chalk or sandstone holds water in aquifers and sustains base flow; chalk streams in southern England have very high base flow and a muted response to rain.
Antecedent conditions link the two: the same input produces very different channel flows depending on how full the stores already are.
Cryosphere stores in glacier-fed basins (eg the upper Indus or Ganges) delay the arrival of winter precipitation in the channel by months or longer.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that inputs and stores interact, so their relative importance depends on the event and the place. In a short, intense storm the input may dominate; over a season or a year the size of the stores (soil depth, aquifer storage, snowpack) may matter more. Another approach might be to contrast basins in different climates or geologies (eg an arid basin with little vegetation and a humid basin with deep soils and permeable rock), or to argue that human changes to stores (deforestation, urbanization) can change their importance over time. Diagrams of the drainage basin system may be credited.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of how inputs and/or stores affect the amount of water reaching the channel.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of the role of both inputs and stores
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as how relative importance varies with places or timescales.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [6] if only inputs or only stores are considered.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Examine the causes and consequences of the increasing exploitation of offshore oil and gas.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Offshore oil and gas are abiotic (non-living) ocean resources extracted from beneath the seabed, from shallow continental shelves to ultra-deepwater fields more than 1,500 m below the surface. Causes may be economic, technological, political or demographic; consequences may be environmental, economic, social or geopolitical, and may be positive as well as negative. Credit answers that examine causes and consequences at different scales (local, national, global). Do not expect perfect balance between causes and consequences.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Rising global energy demand, driven by population growth and economic growth in emerging economies (eg China and India), together with the depletion of many onshore fields, pushes companies offshore; offshore fields supply roughly a quarter to a third of world oil production.
Technological change: floating production platforms, horizontal drilling and seismic imaging have opened deepwater frontiers such as Brazil's pre-salt fields in the Santos Basin (discovered 2006–2007) and the Gulf of Mexico.
High oil prices make costly deepwater projects profitable; energy security motivates states to develop resources within their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs), eg Norway's North Sea and Arctic fields.
Economic consequences: rapid growth in national income and government revenue, eg Guyana, where production from ExxonMobil's Stabroek block began in December 2019 and transformed GDP growth; jobs and the multiplier effect in ports such as Aberdeen (UK).
Environmental consequences: risk of major spills, eg Deepwater Horizon (20 April 2010, Gulf of Mexico), when 11 workers died and about 4.9 million barrels of oil were released over 87 days, damaging fisheries, wetlands and tourism; routine discharges, noise from seismic surveys affecting cetaceans; greenhouse gas emissions when the fuels are burned.
Social consequences: impacts on fishing communities and coastal tourism; risk of the “resource curse”, corruption and inequality in states with weak governance.
Geopolitical consequences: offshore hydrocarbons raise the value of disputed areas and islands, eg the South China Sea, the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus, Türkiye) and the Arctic, increasing the risk of international conflict.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which examines whether causes such as technology or price are the more important, recognizing that they interact (higher prices fund new technology). Another approach might be to weigh short-term economic benefits against long-term environmental costs and climate change (possibilities), or to contrast consequences for different places and stakeholders, such as national governments, transnational corporations (TNCs), local fishers and future generations (perspectives, power). Some responses may consider how the energy transition could reduce future demand.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of causes and/or consequences of offshore oil and gas exploitation.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of both causes and consequences, supported by located examples
or a discursive conclusion (or on-going evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [4] if the answer focuses on biotic resources (eg fish) rather than oil and gas.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Examine the relative importance of plucking and abrasion in the formation of erosional landforms in one or more named glaciated upland areas.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Plucking (quarrying) occurs where meltwater at the base of the glacier freezes onto jointed or fractured bedrock and blocks are pulled away as the ice moves. Abrasion is the scouring of the bed by rock debris carried in the base of the ice, which acts like sandpaper. Both depend on the ice being warm-based (at the pressure melting point), so that it slides over its bed. Erosional landforms include cirques/corries, arêtes, pyramidal peaks/horns, glacial troughs (with truncated spurs and hanging valleys) and ribbon lakes, as well as smaller features such as roches moutonnées, striations and glacial polish. Credit references to other processes (eg freeze-thaw weathering of back walls, rotational flow) where they are linked to the effectiveness of plucking or abrasion.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Plucking is most effective where rock is well jointed and where meltwater is available to refreeze; it is concentrated on the steep back walls of cirques and on the lee (downstream) side of bedrock obstacles, producing the jagged downstream face of a roche moutonnée.
Abrasion is most effective where basal debris is abundant and harder than the bedrock, and where ice is thick and moving fast; it smooths and polishes the stoss (upstream) side of obstacles and leaves striations aligned with ice flow.
In cirques, plucking steepens and lowers the back wall while abrasion under rotational flow deepens the floor, leaving a rock lip and often a tarn (eg Red Tarn below Helvellyn in the English Lake District; Llyn Idwal in Cwm Idwal, Snowdonia).
Arêtes (eg Striding Edge) and pyramidal peaks (eg the Matterhorn, 4478 m) form as plucking and freeze-thaw cut back the walls of adjacent cirques; abrasion plays a smaller part on these steep ridges.
Glacial troughs (eg Nant Ffrancon, Wales; Lauterbrunnen valley, Switzerland) are widened and deepened by abrasion along their floors and sides, while plucking removes jointed rock, truncating spurs; overdeepened rock basins hold ribbon lakes (eg Wastwater, about 79 m deep).
The balance between the processes varies with rock type: massive, poorly jointed granite (eg parts of Yosemite) resists plucking and shows abrasion surfaces, whereas jointed rocks are rapidly quarried.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that plucking and abrasion operate together: plucking supplies the debris that makes abrasion effective, and abrasion can open up joints that plucking then exploits. Another approach might be to argue that the relative importance varies by landform, by position on the landform (stoss versus lee, back wall versus floor) and by place (geology, ice thickness, basal thermal regime). Some answers may question whether either process dominates at all in cold-based glaciers, where erosion is minimal, or note that freeze-thaw on exposed rock above the ice is needed to explain the sharpness of arêtes and horns.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of how plucking and/or abrasion form one or more glacial erosional landforms.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of how both plucking and abrasion contribute to the formation of two or more landforms in named places
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) of their relative importance, grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Do not expect perfect balance between the two processes. Maximum [5] if only one process is discussed.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Examine the relationship between plate boundary processes and the global distribution of earthquake and volcanic hazards.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
The question asks how processes at constructive (divergent), destructive (convergent) and conservative (transform) plate boundaries explain where earthquakes and volcanoes occur. Distribution may be described at the global scale (belts, clusters and gaps) and explained through the processes operating at each boundary type. Hotspots (intraplate volcanism) and intraplate earthquakes should be credited as exceptions to the relationship. The focus is on the hazards, so answers should link the distribution of the physical events to where they pose a risk.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
The Pacific Ring of Fire contains roughly three-quarters of the world’s active volcanoes and is the setting for about 90% of earthquakes; this reflects subduction of oceanic plates around the Pacific (eg the Pacific Plate beneath Japan, the Nazca Plate beneath South America).
Subduction zones generate the largest (megathrust) earthquakes, eg Chile 1960 (M9.5), Indian Ocean 2004 (M9.1), Tōhoku 2011 (M9.0), and explosive andesitic or rhyolitic volcanoes because melting of the subducted slab produces viscous, gas-rich magma (eg Pinatubo 1991, Merapi).
Continental collision zones (Alpine–Himalayan belt) produce frequent shallow and intermediate earthquakes over wide areas but little volcanism, as no oceanic crust is subducted (eg Nepal 2015, Kashmir 2005, Türkiye 2023 lies at the junction of collision and transform movement).
Conservative boundaries produce shallow earthquakes but no volcanoes (eg the San Andreas Fault, California; the North Anatolian Fault, Türkiye; the Enriquillo–Plantain Garden fault zone, Haiti 2010).
Constructive boundaries produce frequent, low-magnitude, shallow earthquakes and effusive basaltic eruptions; most lie under the ocean, so the hazard to people is limited except where ridges rise above sea level (eg Iceland: Eyjafjallajökull 2010, the Reykjanes peninsula eruptions near Grindavík from 2023) or at continental rifts (eg East African Rift: Nyiragongo, Goma).
Hotspots produce volcanoes away from plate boundaries (eg Hawaiʻi, Kīlauea 2018); intraplate earthquakes can occur on old faults (eg New Madrid, USA, 1811–1812).
Depth and type of movement influence how hazardous the events are, eg shallow-focus earthquakes cause stronger ground shaking at the surface.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which examines the strength of the relationship, for example noting that plate boundary type explains the location of almost all earthquakes and volcanoes, but that hotspots and intraplate events show it is not complete. Another approach might be to distinguish between the distribution of hazard events and the distribution of hazard risk: many boundary zones are sparsely populated (mid-ocean ridges), while others are densely populated (Java, Japan, the Andes), so the physical relationship does not on its own explain where the hazard is greatest for people (places, processes).
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of the distribution of earthquakes and/or volcanoes in relation to plate boundaries.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of the processes at two or more types of plate boundary and the hazards they generate
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, eg on exceptions to the relationship.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [6] if only earthquakes or only volcanoes are addressed. Well-drawn annotated diagrams of plate boundaries should be credited.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Examine reasons why the amount of leisure time has grown in some societies but not in others.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Leisure time is discretionary time: the time left after paid work, education, unpaid domestic work and physiological needs such as sleeping and eating. The question asks why leisure time has increased in some societies and why it has stayed the same (or fallen) in others, so it invites contrasts between places, groups and periods. Accept societies defined at any scale (national, regional, urban or rural, or social groups within a country).
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Shorter working weeks and legal limits on working hours in many high-income countries: in the UK the typical week fell from around 60 hours in the mid-19th century to under 40 hours by the late 20th century; France introduced a 35-hour week in 2000; the EU Working Time Directive set a 48-hour maximum and at least four weeks of paid annual leave.
Paid holidays and public holidays: the UK Bank Holidays Act (1871) and later statutory paid leave (now 28 days including bank holidays); China's "Golden Week" holidays from 1999 and the five-day working week from 1995 created blocks of free time for a growing urban workforce.
Labour-saving technology in the home (washing machines, microwaves) reduces unpaid domestic work, mainly in more affluent households.
Longer life expectancy and earlier or longer retirement give older people in high-income societies many years of leisure time.
Leisure time has not grown, or has fallen, for some: long-hours work cultures in Japan and South Korea (the term karoshi, death from overwork; South Korea cut the legal maximum week from 68 to 52 hours only in 2018); the gig economy and multiple jobs; the "double burden" of paid and unpaid work for many women.
In low-income rural societies, much time is spent on subsistence farming, collecting water and fuel, and household tasks, so free time is limited and often blended with work (eg children playing while herding livestock); seasonal agricultural calendars give more free time at some times of year.
Informal-sector workers in rapidly growing cities (eg street traders in Lagos or Dhaka) often have no paid holidays or legal limits on hours.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that growth in leisure time depends on the power of workers and governments (labour laws, trade unions) as well as on economic development. Another approach might be to argue that differences within societies (by gender, occupation, age or formality of employment) may be as large as those between societies, or that "more leisure time" does not always mean more time free of work, as smartphones blur the boundary between work and leisure. Answers may also consider change over time: leisure time may grow at one stage of development and then stall.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of reasons why leisure time has grown and/or not grown.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of reasons for both growth and lack of growth in leisure time, with located examples
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as places, power or change over time.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [6] if only societies where leisure time has grown are considered.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Evaluate the strengths and limitations of composite indices, such as the Global Hunger Index, for measuring disparities in food security between countries.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
A composite index combines several indicators into one score. The Global Hunger Index (GHI) combines four indicators: prevalence of undernourishment, child stunting, child wasting and under-5 mortality, and scores countries from 0 to 100, where a higher score is worse (below 10 is low; 35–49.9 is alarming). The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) combined dozens of indicators under the pillars of affordability, availability, quality and safety, and sustainability and adaptation. Food security itself (FAO, 1996) means that all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food. Accept other composite measures (eg the Food Insecurity Experience Scale when used to build national prevalence figures) if their composite nature is made clear.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Strength: one number allows countries to be ranked, mapped and compared over time, so disparities are easy to communicate (eg Somalia, Yemen and Chad recorded alarming GHI scores in 2024 while most of Europe is not scored because hunger is low).
Strength: combining undernourishment (a whole-population measure) with stunting, wasting and child mortality (child outcome measures) captures both food availability and its utilization in the body, which a single indicator such as calories per capita cannot.
Strength: the GFSI includes affordability and sustainability, so it reflects access and long-term stability as well as supply (Finland ranked first and Syria last in 2022).
Limitation: national averages hide disparities within countries, eg between regions, rural and urban areas, genders or castes (India's stunting rate varies widely between states).
Limitation: data gaps and time lags; conflict-affected countries are often given provisional scores or left out, which is where hunger is most severe, and scores may describe conditions several years old.
Limitation: the weighting of components is a value judgement; the GHI weights undernourishment and child mortality at one third each and stunting and wasting at one sixth each, so a different weighting could change rankings.
Limitation: the GHI ignores overnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies (hidden hunger), so it cannot show the double burden of malnutrition found in countries such as Mexico or Egypt.
Limitation: the GFSI was produced by a private organization with funding from an agribusiness, and was last published in 2022, raising questions of perspective and continuity.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which weighs up whether the simplicity of a composite index is worth the detail lost. Usefulness may depend on purpose and scale: a GHI score helps international organizations target aid between countries, but local planners need disaggregated data. Another approach might be to compare composite indices with single indicators, arguing that each answers a different question. Perspectives may differ on whose priorities a weighting reflects.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of what one or more composite indices measure, with at least one strength or limitation.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of both strengths and limitations of composite indices
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as scale or purpose.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [4] if the answer only discusses single indicators (eg calories per capita) and no composite index.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Examine the relative importance of site and situation in explaining the growth of one or more named cities.
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Site is the physical characteristics of the land on which a settlement was originally built (relief, water supply, drainage, defensibility, building materials, a sheltered harbour). Situation is the location of the settlement in relation to its surroundings: other settlements, routeways, resources and the wider region. Growth may refer to growth in population, area or economic importance, and may be considered over a long timescale. The question asks candidates to weigh one against the other, so answers should do more than describe the site and situation of a city.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Site factors that favoured early settlement: defensive sites (eg Edinburgh's castle rock; Durham within a tight river meander), wet-point and dry-point sites, bridging points (eg London at the lowest bridging point of the Thames in Roman times), and deep, sheltered natural harbours (eg Sydney, Hong Kong's Victoria Harbour, Rio de Janeiro's Guanabara Bay).
Site factors that later constrain growth: steep slopes, marshland or limited flat land, so that cities expand through land reclamation (eg Hong Kong, Singapore, Mumbai built on the reclaimed land joining seven islands) or high-rise building.
Situation factors that explain sustained growth: position on major trade routes (eg Singapore on the Strait of Malacca; Istanbul on the Bosphorus between Europe and Asia), at the centre of a fertile region, or at the meeting point of river valleys and transport routes (eg Chicago between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi basin, later a rail hub).
Situation can change in value over time as technology changes: canals, railways, air hubs and container ports (eg Dubai's growth as an air and shipping hub on an arid coastal site).
Political and economic decisions can override both: capital cities and planned cities such as Brasília or Abuja grew because of government decisions rather than an advantageous site or situation.
Site can become a hazard as cities grow, for example building on floodplains or deltas (eg Dhaka, Jakarta) where subsidence and flooding now threaten growth.
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that site usually explains why a settlement began in a particular place, while situation usually explains why it grew into a large city. Another approach might be to argue that the importance of each changes over time (the defensive value of a hilltop site is now irrelevant, while a coastal situation has become more important with globalization), or that neither is as important as human factors such as government investment, industrialization or connectivity. Annotated sketch maps of a city's site may be credited.
For 5–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of site and/or situation factors for at least one city.
For 7–8 marks, expect a structured account which includes:
either well-evidenced explanation of the role of both site and situation in the growth of one or more named cities
or a discursive conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) grounded in geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as how the importance of site and situation changes over time.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Maximum [5] if no named city is used. Maximum [6] if only site or only situation is addressed.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
“The global distribution of population is explained more by the history of farming and settlement than by present-day economic opportunities.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
The statement concerns the global scale: why the world's population is concentrated in some regions (East Asia, South Asia, Europe, the Nile valley, parts of West Africa) and sparse in others (hot deserts, polar regions, high mountains, dense equatorial forest). Historical factors include the early domestication of crops in fertile river valleys, long-established peasant farming systems that supported high rural densities, and colonial settlement and port development. Present-day economic opportunities include industrial and service employment, foreign direct investment and the pull of cities. Accept any reasonable interpretation of “history”, including inertia (people stay where their ancestors lived).
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
The great population concentrations of China and South Asia grew on fertile alluvial lowlands (eg the Ganges plain, the North China Plain, the Yangtze delta) where intensive rice and wheat farming supported dense rural populations for thousands of years [Unit 1.1].
Inertia: about 95% of Egypt's population still lives on roughly 5% of the land in the Nile valley and delta, the same area farmed since ancient times [Unit 1.1].
Colonial history created many coastal concentrations and primate ports (eg Lagos, Mumbai, Buenos Aires), linked to export economies rather than to interior resources [Unit 1.1].
Present-day economic opportunity is redistributing people: rapid urbanization means most of the world's people now live in urban areas, and growth is concentrated in cities linked to global markets (eg the Pearl River Delta in China) [Unit 1.1, 1.2].
Hundreds of millions of internal migrants in China have moved from interior provinces to eastern coastal cities in response to jobs, though they remain within the historic population core east of the Hu Line [Unit 1.1].
Differences in natural increase between regions (high fertility in sub-Saharan Africa, low fertility in Europe and East Asia) are shifting the global distribution regardless of economic opportunity [Unit 1.2].
Physical factors (climate, relief, water) underlie both historical farming and present-day economies, so neither explanation is independent of them [Unit 1.1, 2.2].
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that the influences operate at different timescales: history explains the broad pattern of world population, while present-day economic opportunities explain the movement of people within those regions (scale). Another approach might be to argue that the two are linked, since the regions that farmed intensively in the past are often those that have attracted manufacturing because of their large labour pools (eg coastal China). Answers may also consider possibilities: future change in the global distribution is likely to be driven by demographic momentum in Africa and South Asia more than by either factor.
For 5–6 marks, expect weakly-evidenced outlining of historical and/or economic influences on global population distribution.
For 7–8 marks, expect a well-structured account which includes:
either a well-evidenced synthesis which links together several themes from the guide, such as historical settlement, urbanization and natural increase
or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as how the relative importance of the factors varies with scale or over time.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Answers that discuss only one country's internal distribution without linking it to the global pattern should not be credited beyond [6].
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
“Variations in solar radiation are no longer significant in explaining changes to the global climate.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Solar radiation (insolation) is the incoming shortwave radiation that drives the global energy balance. It varies over different timescales: the roughly 11-year sunspot cycle, longer periods of low or high activity (eg the Maunder Minimum, 1645–1715) and Milankovitch cycles in the Earth's orbit (eccentricity about 100 000 years, obliquity about 41 000 years, precession about 23 000 years). The statement suggests that, compared with other processes (especially the enhanced greenhouse effect), solar variation now explains little of the change in global climate. Accept a broad interpretation of “solar radiation” to include global dimming, which changes the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
The incoming shortwave/outgoing longwave energy balance and the natural greenhouse effect; any change in insolation alters the balance [Unit 2.1].
The sunspot cycle changes total solar irradiance by only about 0.1% (around 1 W/m²), which is small compared with the radiative forcing of human greenhouse gases (about +2.7 W/m² since 1750) [Unit 2.1].
Since about 1980 solar output has been flat or slightly falling while global temperatures have risen by about 1°C, which is strong evidence against a solar cause of recent warming [Unit 2.1].
In the past, solar variation was significant: low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum coincided with part of the “Little Ice Age” in Europe [Unit 2.1].
Milankovitch cycles pace the glacial–interglacial cycles of the last few hundred thousand years and remain the main control on climate over tens of thousands of years, but act far too slowly to explain change over decades [Unit 2.1].
Global dimming: volcanic sulphate aerosols (eg Pinatubo, 1991, cooling of about 0.5°C in 1992) and aerosol pollution reduce the solar radiation reaching the surface and have masked some warming [Unit 2.1].
Feedback loops (ice–albedo, water vapour) amplify any change in the energy balance, whatever its cause [Unit 2.1].
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that significance depends on the timescale considered (time and scale): solar variation is minor over recent decades but dominant over glacial cycles. Another approach might be to distinguish between variation in the Sun's output and variation in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface (dimming and brightening), which may still matter regionally and in the short term (processes). Some answers may conclude that solar variation remains significant as a natural background that human forcing is now superimposed on.
For 5–6 marks: Expect weakly-evidenced outlining of solar variation and/or other causes of climate change.
For 7–8 marks: Expect a well-structured account which includes:
EITHER a well-evidenced synthesis which links together several well-evidenced themes from the Guide (eg solar variation, dimming, the enhanced greenhouse effect, feedback loops) and addresses both sides of the statement
OR a critical conclusion (or on-going evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives (eg timescale).
For 9–10 marks: Expect both traits.
NB. Maximum [4] if the answer confuses the greenhouse effect with ozone depletion throughout.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
“Global progress in reducing extreme poverty owes more to economic growth in a few large countries than to international development efforts.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
10 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Extreme poverty is measured by the World Bank as living on less than an international poverty line (US$1.90 and then US$2.15 a day at purchasing power parity, revised to US$3.00 in 2025). The share of the world's population below the line fell from over a third in 1990 to under a tenth by the late 2010s. “Economic growth in a few large countries” refers mainly to China, and also to India, Indonesia and Vietnam. “International development efforts” may be interpreted broadly: aid, debt relief, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), MGO and NGO programmes, and trade agreements. Accept the argument that the two cannot be separated.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
China alone accounts for most of the global reduction: roughly 800 million people left extreme poverty there after the economic reforms that began in 1978, driven by export manufacturing, foreign direct investment and rural–urban migration [Unit 3.1, 1.1].
MDG 1 (halve the proportion in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015) was met about five years early, but critics note that the global target would have been met with China's progress largely regardless of the MDGs [Unit 3.1, 3.3].
India and Indonesia also reduced extreme poverty substantially as their economies grew, with the expansion of a new global middle class concentrated in Asia [Unit 3.1].
Sub-Saharan Africa received large aid flows yet now holds around two-thirds of the world's extreme poor, which suggests aid alone has not been decisive; however, aid-funded health and education programmes (eg vaccination, debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative) improved human development there [Unit 3.1, 1.1, 3.3].
Growth that reduced poverty was itself linked to global interactions: export markets in high-income countries, trade liberalization and transnational corporation (TNC) investment [Unit 1.1].
Population factors: falling fertility and a growing working-age population (a demographic dividend) helped East Asian growth translate into falling poverty [Unit 1.2, 1.3].
Progress stalled in 2020 when COVID-19 caused the first rise in extreme poverty for a generation, and climate hazards (eg drought in the Horn of Africa) push vulnerable households back below the line [Unit 2.2, 3.1].
Good answers may be well structured (AO4) and may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3) which recognizes that the answer depends on scale: at the global scale the trend is dominated by a few populous countries, while at a national or local scale in low-income countries development programmes can be decisive (places, scale). Another approach might be to question the measure itself: an income line says little about multidimensional poverty, so progress may look different using the Multidimensional Poverty Index (perspectives). Answers may also consider power: national governments in China and Vietnam directed growth and investment, so “growth” was not only a market outcome.
For 5–6 marks, expect weakly-evidenced outlining of economic growth and/or development efforts as influences on poverty reduction.
For 7–8 marks, expect a well-structured account which includes:
either a well-evidenced synthesis which links together several themes from the guide, such as poverty reduction, the new global middle class, demographic change and the SDGs
or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives, such as how the balance of influences differs between Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
For 9–10 marks, expect both of these traits.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–2 | Too brief, lists unconnected information, not focused on the question and lacks structure. Knowledge is very general, with large gaps or errors; examples or case studies are missing or only listed. No analysis; terminology is missing or used incorrectly. |
3–4 | Too general, lacks detail, not focused on the question and largely unstructured. Outlines examples, statistics and facts, both relevant and irrelevant, with links to the question only listed. Basic terminology is used, with errors or inconsistently. No critical evaluation of evidence; any conclusion is irrelevant. |
5–6 | Partially addresses the question, with a narrow argument, an unsubstantiated conclusion and limited evaluation. Describes relevant supporting evidence (examples, case studies) and outlines links to the question. The argument repeats one point or covers only part of the question. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are listed. |
7–8 | Addresses the whole question; the analysis is evaluated and the conclusion is relevant but lacks balance. Relevant evidence is described correctly and covers all the main points. The argument is clear but one-sided or unbalanced. Complex terminology is used correctly but not consistently. Other perspectives, or strengths and weaknesses of evidence, are described. |
9–10 | In-depth and specific to the question (topic and command term). Correct, relevant examples, statistics and detail are integrated and their link to the question explained. The argument is balanced, explaining complexity, exceptions and comparisons. Evaluation of evidence and perspectives is well developed, and the conclusion is balanced and aligned with the evidence. Logically structured and easy to follow. |
Using examples, analyse what globalization indices reveal about the uneven ways in which countries participate in global interactions.
12 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Globalization indices are composite measures that combine data on a country's economic, social and political links with the rest of the world into a single score or ranking. The best-known is the KOF Globalisation Index (ETH Zürich, published annually with data back to 1970), which measures economic, social and political globalization, each split into de facto (actual flows, such as trade, migration, tourism and internet use) and de jure (policies and institutions that enable flows, such as tariff rates, visa rules and treaty membership) components. Other indices include the DHL Global Connectedness Index (flows of trade, capital, information and people). Credit any reasonable index, including older ones such as the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy index.
The focus of the question is on what the indices reveal about uneven participation: which countries are most and least involved, and in which kinds of interaction. Answers that only describe how an index is constructed, without analysing the patterns it shows, should stay in the lower bands.
Likely themes for analysis include:
Small, open, high-income European economies (eg Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark) consistently top the KOF rankings, revealing that participation is greatest where trade is a large share of GDP and where countries belong to many international organizations (eg the EU).
The least globalized countries are often fragile, conflict-affected or politically isolated states (eg Somalia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea where data exist), showing that conflict, sanctions and weak infrastructure limit participation.
Large economies such as the USA, China and India rank lower than their economic size suggests, because their large domestic markets mean trade is a smaller share of GDP; the indices therefore reveal intensity of participation rather than global power.
The sub-indices reveal different kinds of participation: Gulf states (eg the UAE, Qatar) score highly on economic and social (migration, tourism) flows; some countries score high on political globalization (embassies, UN peacekeeping, treaties) but lower on economic flows (eg some Latin American or African states); others are economically open but politically less integrated.
Changes over time: most countries' scores rose from the 1990s to the 2000s, with the fastest increases in emerging economies (eg China after WTO accession in 2001; former Soviet bloc states), showing participation spreading; scores have levelled off since the 2008 financial crisis in many places.
Gaps between de facto and de jure scores reveal whether a country's openness on paper is matched by actual flows (eg a country with liberal trade rules but low actual trade because of remoteness or poor infrastructure).
Indices reveal regional patterns at the global scale (Europe high; much of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia lower), linking to core–periphery ideas.
Good answers may apply (AO2) a wider range of knowledge and understanding (AO1) in a well-structured way (AO4). One approach might be to analyse the different dimensions of an index in turn, using contrasting countries to show what each dimension reveals. Another approach might be to analyse what the indices do not reveal (internal disparities between megacities and rural regions; the difference between participation and power; data gaps for fragile states), provided this is used to sharpen the analysis of what they do show.
For 4–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of one or two patterns shown by a globalization index, with limited reference to named countries.
For 7–9 marks, expect a structured, evidenced analysis of:
either two or more distinct patterns of uneven participation revealed by the indices, supported by named countries
or two or more different dimensions or types of global interaction (economic, social, political; de facto and de jure) and what they reveal.
For 10–12 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Answers that discuss globalization in general without reference to any index should not exceed [6].
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–3 | General, not focused on the question, and lacks detail and structure. Evidence (facts, statistics, examples, theories) is listed, lacks detail and is relevant to the topic rather than the question. Everyday language, with little geographical terminology. No synthesis or evaluation is expected. |
4–6 | Only partially addresses the question or the command term; key evidence is missing. A mix of relevant and irrelevant evidence is outlined, with links to the question only listed. The evidence supports only one element of the question. Key terms are defined briefly. Paragraphs do not group the information by element of the question. |
7–9 | Addresses most parts of the question and meets the command term. Relevant, mostly correct evidence is described, and links to the question are described. The analysis is mostly descriptive, using examples as explanation. Paragraphs each deal with one element but are not linked into a whole; the conclusion summarizes. |
10–12 | Addresses all aspects of the question and meets the command term. Detailed evidence is integrated into sentences and paragraphs and its link to the question is explained. Clear, correct geographical language throughout. Paragraphs are linked in a logical flow, and the conclusion summarizes the evidence and argument and links back to the question. |
Analyse the validity and reliability of the Human Development Index (HDI) as a measure of human development in different countries.
12 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
The Human Development Index (HDI), published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) since 1990, is a composite index of three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life (life expectancy at birth), knowledge (mean years of schooling for adults aged 25 and over, and expected years of schooling for children) and a decent standard of living (gross national income (GNI) per capita at purchasing power parity, logged). Since 2010 the dimension indices have been combined using a geometric mean. Validity is whether the index measures what it claims to measure (human development, understood as the expansion of people's choices and capabilities); reliability is whether the data are accurate and consistent enough to give the same result when compared over time and between places.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
Validity, strengths: the HDI captures more than income, so countries with similar GNI per capita can be ranked differently (eg Gulf states such as Qatar have a much higher GNI rank than HDI rank, whereas countries such as Cuba or Sri Lanka rank higher on HDI than on income), reflecting Amartya Sen's "development as freedom".
Validity, limitations: national averages hide inequalities between regions, ethnic groups, classes and genders (eg the gap between Kerala and Bihar in India; Indigenous Australians); the inequality-adjusted IHDI was introduced in 2010 partly for this reason.
Validity, missing dimensions: no measure of political freedom, human rights, gender equality, security, happiness or environmental sustainability; high-HDI countries such as Norway or Australia fall sharply on the Planetary pressures-adjusted HDI (PHDI, 2020).
Validity, weighting: equal weighting of three dimensions is a value judgement; logging income means extra income adds little in rich countries; the indicators are inputs (years of schooling) rather than outcomes (what people have learned).
Reliability, data quality: censuses and vital registration are irregular or absent in fragile and conflict-affected states (eg Somalia, South Sudan), so values are estimated or modelled; informal economies make GNI uncertain.
Reliability, comparability over time: the UNDP has changed the indicators and method (eg 2010), and recalculates past values, so ranks in old reports cannot simply be compared with new ones; data are typically two or more years out of date.
Reliability, slow-moving indicators: life expectancy and mean years of schooling change slowly, so the HDI may not reflect sudden shocks quickly (though the fall in global HDI in 2020–2021 during COVID-19 shows it can register major events).
Good answers may apply (AO2) knowledge and understanding (AO1) in a well-structured way (AO4). One approach might be to analyse validity and reliability separately, with named countries for each point. Another approach might be to analyse each dimension of the HDI in turn, considering both how well it represents human development and how dependable its data are in contrasting countries.
For 4–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of one or two strengths or weaknesses of the HDI, possibly with confusion between validity and reliability.
For 7–9 marks, expect a structured, evidenced analysis of:
either both validity and reliability (each clearly distinguished)
or the HDI's use in two or more contrasting named countries or contexts.
For 10–12 marks, expect both of these traits.
NB. Answers that only describe how the HDI is calculated should not exceed [6].
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–3 | General, not focused on the question, and lacks detail and structure. Evidence (facts, statistics, examples, theories) is listed, lacks detail and is relevant to the topic rather than the question. Everyday language, with little geographical terminology. No synthesis or evaluation is expected. |
4–6 | Only partially addresses the question or the command term; key evidence is missing. A mix of relevant and irrelevant evidence is outlined, with links to the question only listed. The evidence supports only one element of the question. Key terms are defined briefly. Paragraphs do not group the information by element of the question. |
7–9 | Addresses most parts of the question and meets the command term. Relevant, mostly correct evidence is described, and links to the question are described. The analysis is mostly descriptive, using examples as explanation. Paragraphs each deal with one element but are not linked into a whole; the conclusion summarizes. |
10–12 | Addresses all aspects of the question and meets the command term. Detailed evidence is integrated into sentences and paragraphs and its link to the question is explained. Clear, correct geographical language throughout. Paragraphs are linked in a logical flow, and the conclusion summarizes the evidence and argument and links back to the question. |
Answer both parts of this question.
Analyse how the growth of internet-connected devices and cloud computing has increased the threats of hacking faced by individuals and businesses.
12 marks
“The geopolitical and economic risks created by global interactions now fall more heavily on individuals than on states.” Discuss this statement.
16 marks
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands.
Internet-connected devices (the “Internet of Things”) include smart speakers, cameras, doorbells, home appliances, cars, medical devices and industrial sensors. Cloud computing is the storage and processing of data in remote data centres run by providers such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google, rather than on a user’s own computers. Hacking is gaining unauthorized access to systems or data. The analysis should explain how these developments increase threats, for both individuals and businesses.
Possible applied themes (AO2) demonstrating knowledge and understanding (AO1):
More entry points: every connected device is a possible way into a home or company network, and many cheap devices are sold with weak default passwords and are rarely updated.
Botnets: the Mirai malware (2016) took control of hundreds of thousands of poorly secured cameras and routers and used them in a denial-of-service attack that disrupted major websites such as Twitter and Netflix for many users in the USA and Europe.
Privacy threats in the home: hacked cameras, baby monitors and smart speakers can expose private life; data collected by devices may be shared or breached.
Concentration of data: cloud services store data for millions of customers in a few providers, so one misconfiguration or breach exposes large amounts of personal and business data; criminals stole data from many companies’ cloud accounts in 2024 after obtaining login details.
Systemic failure: dependence on a few providers and software suppliers means one fault can affect many businesses at once, as the CrowdStrike software update failure in July 2024 showed when about 8.5 million Windows devices crashed, disrupting airlines, banks and hospitals (not a hack, but evidence of the same dependence).
Industrial and physical risks: connected industrial control systems, vehicles and medical devices mean hacking can cause physical harm, eg researchers have shown that some connected cars could be controlled remotely.
Remote working since COVID-19 has increased the use of home networks and cloud tools for business, extending company networks into homes.
Businesses gain resilience from cloud back-ups, but individuals and small firms often lack the skills to configure devices and accounts securely.
Good answers may distinguish between threats to individuals (privacy, fraud) and to businesses (data loss, disruption), although evaluation is not required for this part.
For 4–6 marks, expect some weakly-evidenced outlining of one or two threats.
For 7–9 marks, expect a structured, evidenced analysis of:
either threats to both individuals and businesses
or the effects of both connected devices and cloud computing.
For 10–12 marks, expect both of these traits.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–3 | General, not focused on the question, and lacks detail and structure. Evidence (facts, statistics, examples, theories) is listed, lacks detail and is relevant to the topic rather than the question. Everyday language, with little geographical terminology. No synthesis or evaluation is expected. |
4–6 | Only partially addresses the question or the command term; key evidence is missing. A mix of relevant and irrelevant evidence is outlined, with links to the question only listed. The evidence supports only one element of the question. Key terms are defined briefly. Paragraphs do not group the information by element of the question. |
7–9 | Addresses most parts of the question and meets the command term. Relevant, mostly correct evidence is described, and links to the question are described. The analysis is mostly descriptive, using examples as explanation. Paragraphs each deal with one element but are not linked into a whole; the conclusion summarizes. |
10–12 | Addresses all aspects of the question and meets the command term. Detailed evidence is integrated into sentences and paragraphs and its link to the question is explained. Clear, correct geographical language throughout. Paragraphs are linked in a logical flow, and the conclusion summarizes the evidence and argument and links back to the question. |
Marks should be allocated according to the markbands. Credit all content in line with the markbands and credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.
The statement compares the burden of risk on individuals (citizens, workers, consumers, households) with that on states (governments and their institutions). Geopolitical and economic risks include cybercrime and surveillance, supply chain disruption, price shocks, tax avoidance, disruptive technologies and conflict linked to renewed nationalism. Candidates may argue that the two cannot be separated, since risks to states are passed on to citizens and vice versa.
Possible applied themes (AO2) include knowledge and understanding (AO1) of:
hacking, ransomware and identity theft, which directly harm individuals, eg the 2017 Equifax breach (about 147 million people) and attacks on hospitals that delay treatment (6.1)
state and corporate surveillance and its implications for personal freedoms (6.1)
threats to the sovereignty of states from profit shifting, tax avoidance and disruptive technologies such as drones (6.1)
price shocks from supply chain disruption and conflict, eg rising food and energy prices after 2022, which fall hardest on low-income households (6.1, Unit 3)
the loss of jobs in places affected by the global shift of industry, and the nationalist reaction (6.1, 4.2)
state responses that protect individuals, eg GDPR, national cybersecurity agencies, energy price subsidies (6.3)
states as targets of geopolitical risk: sanctions, cyberattacks on government systems, conflict over territory (6.1, 4.1)
core units: forced migration as a consequence of conflict (Unit 1).
Expect themes from the core units (1–3) to be used also.
Good answers may synthesise (AO3a) three or more of these themes in a well-structured (AO4) way. Good answers may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3b) of the statement which recognizes that the burden on individuals depends on the capacity of their state to protect them: citizens of weak or poor states bear more risk directly (places, power). Another approach might be to argue that individuals differ greatly: wealthy and digitally skilled people can reduce their exposure, while the poor, the elderly and minorities cannot (equity, perspectives). A good evaluation may conclude with a substantiated final judgement on where the heavier burden falls and whether this is changing over time.
For 5–8 marks, expect weakly-evidenced outlining of two or three relevant themes.
For 9–12 marks, expect:
either a structured synthesis which links together several well-evidenced themes from the guide
or a critical conclusion (or ongoing evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives.
For 13–16 marks, expect both of these traits.
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
0 | The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
1–4 | General, not focused on the question, and lacks detail and structure. Evidence is listed and relevant to the topic rather than the question. No links are made between the response and topics in the guide, and no valid opinion or perspective is formed. |
5–8 | Partially addresses the question, with limited links to the guide (focused on one topic; other links only listed). A mix of relevant and irrelevant evidence is outlined. A valid but limited opinion or perspective is given. Largely unstructured. |
9–12 | Addresses most parts of the question, with developed links to several topics in the guide. An analysis supported by relevant evidence is outlined. Synthesis or evaluation is present. The opinion is aligned with the response, but its links to the evidence are general; other perspectives are listed without detail. Paragraphs may not be linked. |
13–16 | Addresses all aspects of the question; the analysis is explained and evaluated using integrated evidence. Synthesis and evaluation are both present, and links to topics across the guide are explained and supported by evidence. The opinion is explicitly linked to the range of evidence, weighs the relative certainty of that evidence and describes other perspectives. Well structured. |
A free account opens the whole question bank, keeps a record of what you have marked, and builds worksheets from the topics you pick.