Cambridge International Examinations

Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH 9239/11

Paper 1 Written Examination October/November 2016
MARK SCHEME
Maximum Mark: 30

Published

This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.

Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.

Cambridge will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.

Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2016 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE®, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level
components.

® IGCSE is the registered trademark of Cambridge International Examinations.

This document consists of 6 printed pages.

© UCLES 2016 [Turn over

 Page 2 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper
Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2016 9239 11

1 Study Document 1.

(a) Identify two objections to hosting the World Cup referred to by the author in
Document 1. [2]

Examiners should be aware that candidates are asked only to identify objections and not
explain or evaluate them. Therefore, they should not expect lengthy responses. Candidates
are not expected to put the objections into their own words and may simply copy them from
the Document; however, examiners should ensure that each objection is taken from
Document 1.

Credit 1 mark for a correct version of the following, up to two marks:

• The event increasing (government) corruption

• The amount of money spent

• Will the benefits be felt beyond the 12 host cities?

• Rising prices in the run up to the World Cup

The question asks for two objections so if a candidate develops just one benefit they can
score a maximum of one mark.

(b) Explain two ways in which hosting the World Cup will benefit Brazil’s tourist industry
according to the author of Document 1. [4]

Examiners should be aware that this question carries only 4 marks and should not expect a
lengthy answer.

Credit up to 2 marks for a correct version of two of the following:

Simply giving a direct quote without development would be worth 1 mark only. For the
second mark, appropriate development or explanation in the candidates’ own words is
required.

Some examples are:

• Foreign delegations/visitors will no doubt advertise in their own countries the services
they used in Brazil (1) thus creating a new tourism demand from abroad (2)

• Tourists will benefit from expanded airports (1) that will make their entry to the country
easier and more enjoyable (2)

• Tourists will benefit from improved transport systems (1) that will allow them to travel
around the country, especially between the 12 host cities, more efficiently. (2)

• Tourists will benefit from better telecommunication services (1) that will allow them to
use their mobile devices to access the internet and contact people at home (2)

• More international languages will be spoken so workers will be better able to meet
tourists’ needs (1) by being able to communicate with them better to provide an
improved service (2)

Candidates can put these explanations into their own words.

© UCLES 2016
 Page 3 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper
Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2016 9239 11

2 Study Document 1.

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s argument in Document 1 about the
benefits of hosting the World Cup. [12]

Use the levels based marking grid below and the indicative content to credit marks.

Level 3 • Both strengths and weaknesses are assessed.

9–12 marks • Assessment of the argument/s is sustained.
• Assessment explicitly includes the impact of specific evidence upon the
claims made.
• Communication is highly effective – explanation and reasoning accurate
and clearly expressed.

Level 2 • Answers focus more on either strengths or weaknesses, although both

5–8 marks are present.
• Assessment identifies strength or weakness with little explanation.
• Assessment of argument/s is relevant but generalised, not always linked
to specific evidence or specific claims.
• Communication is accurate – explanation and reasoning is limited, but
clearly expressed.

Level 1 • Answers show little or no assessment of the argument/s.

1–4 marks • Assessment if any is simplistic.
• Evidence may be identified and weakness may be named.
• Communication is limited – response may be cursory or descriptive.

Credit 0 where there is no creditable material.

Indicative content:

No set answer is expected and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates are
likely to include some of the following:

Strengths

• The conclusion is drawn from the reasoning. ‘The benefits to the economic future of Brazil
are indisputable and will be permanent.’ This ensures the reader is in no doubt as to the
writer’s point of view.

• The author quotes statistics and evidence to back up his claim that there are economic
benefits to hosting the World Cup. ‘The 12 host cities will benefit from expanded airports,
improved transport systems and better telecommunication services.’ ‘Long-term development
could emerge in several key industries and markets…This is particularly important in Brazil,
where under 1% of exports come from small and medium-sized businesses.’

• The argument is written in a compelling and logical style.

• The argument is written with some expertise – the author is an economist with the largest
investment bank in Latin America.

© UCLES 2016
Page 4 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper
Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2016 9239 11

• The counter argument is given at the outset. ‘Much has been said about the economic and
social situation of the country, especially after the recent protests against government
corruption and rising prices in the run up to the World Cup. … there were criticisms about the
amount of money spent on hosting the event.’

Weaknesses

• The article makes assumptions and judgements about issues where supporting evidence is
neither presented nor cited e.g. ‘Weaknesses in infrastructure and productivity have been
holding back the progress of the economy’; ‘The 12 host cities will benefit from expanded
airports, improved transport systems and better telecommunication services. Although these
upgrades were necessary, they hardly would have taken place simultaneously if it wasn't for
the World Cup.’ ‘The impact on the productivity of these workers could be substantial and
lead to significantly higher wages.’

• The conclusion is a sweeping statement with no statistical evidence to back up its claims.
‘The benefits to the economic future of Brazil are indisputable and will be permanent.’

• Statistics are given in only one instance but they are not substantiated or cited. ‘This is
particularly important in Brazil, where under 1% of exports come from small and medium-
sized businesses.’

© UCLES 2016
 Page 5 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper
Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2016 9239 11

3 Study Documents 1 and 2.

To what extent is the author’s argument in Document 2 stronger than the author’s
argument in Document 1? [12]

Use the levels based marking grid below and the indicative content to credit marks.

Level 3 • The judgement is sustained and reasoned.

9–12 marks • Alternative perspectives have sustained assessment.
• Critical evaluation is of key issues raised in the passages and has explicit
reference.
• Explanation and reasoning is highly effective, accurate and clearly
expressed.
• Communication is highly effective – clear evidence of a structured
cogent argument with conclusions explicitly stated and directly linked to
the assessment.

Level 2 • Judgement is reasoned.

5–8 marks • One perspective may be focused upon for assessment.
• Evaluation is present but may not relate to key issues.
• Explanation and reasoning is generally accurate.
• Communication is accurate – some evidence of a structured discussion
although conclusions may not be explicitly stated, nor link directly to the
assessment.

Level 1 • Judgement, if present, is unsupported or superficial.

1–4 marks • Alternative perspectives have little or no assessment.
• Evaluation, if any, is simplistic. Answers may describe a few points
comparing the two documents.
• Relevant evidence or reasons may be identified.
• Communication is limited. Response may be cursory.

Credit 0 where there is no creditable material.

Indicative Content:

No set answer is expected and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Answers should
go beyond a simple comparison of the content of the two Documents and look to evaluate a
range of issues if they want to access the higher levels. In order to assess which author’s
argument is the stronger candidates should consider not only the content of the Documents, but
critically assess the views put forward through a consideration of issues such as the nature of the
passages, purpose and language. Responses are likely to cover issues such as the reliability of
the Documents, by looking at their origin/source.

Candidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence in order
to reach a judgement. In doing this they might conclude that the author’s argument in Document
2 show a little more balance and wider perspective than in Document 1. Alternatively, they might
conclude that overall, although from slightly different perspectives their arguments have different
strengths and weaknesses. However, credit should be given to an alternative judgement on the
basis of the assessment and reasoning.

Use the levels based marking table to credit marks.

© UCLES 2016
Page 6 Mark Scheme Syllabus Paper
Cambridge International AS Level – October/November 2016 9239 11

No set answer is expected and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates
may include some of the following:

• Document 2 argues that hosting major sports events does not bring about community and
economic benefits.

• Document 1 argues that it does.

Stronger

• more authoritative perspective

Document 2 uses statistical evidence that is also substantiated in one case.

Document 2 uses an appeal to pity with the forced relocation of people and businesses.

The author of Document 2 has a more authoritative voice as a building designer.

Document 2 gives four different points whereas Document 1 only gives three.

Weaker

• less authoritative perspective

Document 2 presents an argument with quotes and economic statistics with only one set from a
substantiated source. Document 1 is based solely on personal opinion but from an economist.

Whilst the argument in Document 2 does briefly mention a counter argument, it is based mainly
on the negative aspects of hosting events. Document 1 presents a slightly more balanced
perspective by including more counter arguments.

Neither stronger or weaker

• relevant expertise
Both authors are experts in their fields.

• authoritative perspective
Both authors hold positions of authority.

• both give reasoned arguments.

Both arguments are set out in a similar sectioned and logical way.

• both use emotive language

Both documents use persuasive language.

• bias
Both documents are very biased, Document 1 for and Document 2 against.

• equal conclusions
The conclusions in both Documents are given as personal opinions.

© UCLES 2016