Cambridge Ordinary Level

5090 Biology November 2020

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/11
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 D 21 A
2 C 22 A
3 B 23 B
4 C 24 D
5 D 25 A

6 B 26 A
7 B 27 C
8 C 28 D
9 C 29 B
10 D 30 D

11 D 31 A
12 C 32 A
13 B 33 A
14 A 34 A
15 B 35 B

16 B 36 C
17 A 37 A
18 D 38 B
19 B 39 C
20 A 40 B

General comments

This paper was clearly accessible to candidates and produced a wide distribution of marks.

Comments on specific questions

Questions 1 and 29

These questions were very well answered with Question 1 providing an easy start to the paper for almost all
candidates.

Question 7

In the level portion of the graphs, P and R, light intensity continues to increase without any corresponding
increase in the rate of photosynthesis, so factors other than light must be limiting. However, many candidates
of all abilities selected Option A rather than Option B.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 9

This question discriminated well, with more able candidates opting for the correct Option C, while the less
able generally opted for B, believing that the hepatic portal vein carries blood from the small intestine to the
kidneys.

Question 13

Almost all candidates understood the role of platelets, so selecting Options A or B, but many then chose
Option A, getting confused between fibrin and fibrinogen.

Question 16

Almost all candidates selected Options A or B, but A proved popular showing a lack of understanding of the
much lower energy yield from anaerobic respiration.

Question 26

All options other than the correct one, A, were popular. Perhaps candidates lacked the confidence to select
an option with three negatives.

Question 34

Many candidates selected Option B, perhaps thinking that seeds growing under the soil would not have
access to, and therefore would not need, oxygen.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/12
Multiple Choice

Question Question
Key Key
Number Number
1 C 21 A
2 A 22 D
3 B 23 B
4 C 24 A
5 B 25 D

6 B 26 A
7 B 27 A
8 C 28 D
9 A 29 C
10 D 30 B

11 A 31 A
12 C 32 A
13 D 33 C
14 B 34 C
15 D 35 A

16 D 36 B
17 C 37 A
18 D 38 B
19 C 39 D
20 B 40 C

General comments

This paper was clearly accessible to candidates and produced a wide distribution of marks.

Comments on specific questions

Question 2

Option C was the least popular with candidates of all abilities, but the other three (including the correct
answer, A) were selected by many, perhaps showing a level of confusion with this topic.

Question 7

In the level portion of the graphs, P and R, light intensity continues to increase without any corresponding
increase in the rate of photosynthesis, so factors other than light must be limiting. However, many candidates
of all abilities selected Option A rather than Option B.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 13

Most candidates were divided between Options B and D (the correct response), probably showing some
confusion about the roles of the pulmonary artery and vein.

Question 15

Option C proved to be a strong distractor for candidates of all abilities. However, if pressure in the vein was
higher than in the capillary, blood would not drain out of the capillary into the vein.

Question 20

Many less-able candidates selected Option D, seeming to show a lack of understanding of the meaning of
the term ‘insulation.

Question 25

Option C was a strong distractor, perhaps suggesting that many candidates believe that malaria is caused by
bacteria and can be treated with antibiotics.

Question 26

Options B and C were popular choices. Perhaps candidates lacked the confidence to select the correct
Option A with three negatives.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/21
Theory

Key messages

Straightforward, recall of knowledge questions tended to be the highest scoring on this question paper,
suggesting that, in general, candidates have a good grasp of biological facts. Many candidates seemed less
confident with questions where they were expected to apply their knowledge. It is likely that some would
benefit from class discussions on how to approach these questions, as detailed later in the report.

General comments

Candidates appeared to use their time wisely with the vast majority following the rubric by attempting all the
compulsory questions and choosing just one of the optional questions to answer. There was no evidence
that candidates experienced any time pressure. In general, candidates answered questions concisely but
sometimes their focus was too narrow and they would be advised, when answering an open-ended question,
to take time to collate their ideas before summarising them in their answer. When providing an answer it is
not necessary to repeat the question itself; time can be more usefully spent focussing on including all the
relevant facts and explanations.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

This question tested the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of the structure and function of the
alimentary canal. Candidates were asked to interpret two unfamiliar diagrams, a straightened out version of
the alimentary canal and a diagram illustrating stomach by-pass surgery.

(a) (i) Identifying the parts of the alimentary canal proved straightforward for many with the majority of
candidates scoring well. Candidates found identifying D the most difficult. Quite a few named it as
the anus rather than the rectum. Some candidates thought that B and C were both parts of the
small intestine labelling B as the duodenum and C as the ileum. A number thought that B was the
large intestine and C the small intestine perhaps because they were thinking about the relative
lengths of the two parts rather than the relative diameters. It is a point worth emphasising that the
small intestine is named for its diameter relative to the large intestine, not its length which is
considerably longer.

(ii) Many candidates gave the correct answer, Part C, the colon, to gain the mark. A significant
number, however, suggested B as the answer. Perhaps candidates were remembering that more
water is absorbed in B than C but this is just one of many functions in part B whereas absorbing
much of the remaining water before egestion is the main function of part C.

(b) (i) Those candidates who correctly identified protein as the food substance were generally able to
explain that the stomach releases pepsin, a protease, to digest the protein. Many other candidates
seemed to be focused on the idea of weight reduction so suggested fat as the substance, forgetting
that the stomach only digests proteins.

(ii) It was rare to see answers that scored three marks. Candidates could often gain one of the marks
available by identifying that there would be less digestion or less absorption. Very few studied the
diagram carefully and made use of the information in their answers. If they had, they would have

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

noticed that this surgery reduces the size of the stomach rather than removes it completely and
they would have been able to think about the consequences. Some suggested that the reduction in
stomach size meant less fat could be stored in it so weight would be lost. This is a misconception
that needs to be addressed and possibly arises from the abdomen of humans (where fat is stored
under the skin and around organs) being referred to in general conversation as the stomach.

Question 2

The symbiotic relationship that exists between corals and algae was explored in this question. Candidates
needed to apply their understanding of photosynthesis and respiration when answering. Many candidates,
helped by the introductory part (a), were able to think about and explain the mutual benefits of the coral and
algae association.

(a) The majority of candidates were able to name the process as photosynthesis and then provide an
explanation. Most candidates then went on to explain that photosynthesis was indicated by the
green colour of the algae, which suggests the presence of chlorophyll, or they gave a good
explanation of the process of photosynthesis.

(b) It was rare to see all five marks scored on this question. Those that appreciated that the carbon
dioxide released by the respiration of corals could be used by algae for photosynthesis and that the
oxygen released by this process could then be used by the coral for respiration were often able to
score 4 marks. Another relatively straightforward mark could be obtained by mentioning the
protection the corals gave the algae. Some candidates were able to access the mark available for
explaining that algae manufactured food which could be used by corals. Some candidates had
missed the fact that the algae are inside the cells of the corals and incorrectly described the algae
being consumed by corals.

(c) Many could access two straightforward marks for recognising that the corals would be poisoned
and die and, as a consequence, the algae would also die. The third mark, for explaining why the
algae died, proved more difficult.

Question 3

This question, investigating candidates’ understanding of the link between gases in the air and the human
activity that produces them, proved to be challenging for candidates.

(a) The percentage of gases in the air was known by about two thirds of candidates and, perhaps
surprisingly, candidates who did not know all three gases were most likely to give the correct figure
for nitrogen.

(b) (i) It was expected that candidates were most likely to give the answer of sulfur dioxide but carbon
monoxide proved more popular. Any gas either produced in a manufacturing process or involved in
one was credited.

(ii) The best answers linked the manufacturing of products to the combustion of fossil fuels. A
significant number did not appreciate this link and as a result scored no marks or picked up a mark
for explaining that the gas was released because of manufacturing or vehicle emission.

(c) Candidates found this question difficult and as a result many answers were rather superficial and
vague in nature and therefore did not score many marks. Candidates need practice at analysing
problems and thinking about them in a logical step-by-step way. What is wildlife? What are the
differences between an industrial and countryside landscape? How would each difference impact
on different types of wildlife? Thinking about it carefully would have given candidates plenty of
ideas to write about. Instead, some spent valuable thinking time rewriting the stem of the question
and then focussing on the first idea that sprung to mind. For four marks candidates need to think
more broadly.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 4

This question was about the chemicals released from smoking, their effects and how they can reach a
foetus. It mainly assessed recall of facts.

(a) Those that knew the respiratory diseases associated with smoking such as emphysema, bronchitis
and lung cancer could score marks for naming them or accurately describing their effects. Lung
cancer was the most well-known problem associated with tar.

(b) (i) Most candidates could get at least two marks for naming two chemicals; nicotine and carbon
monoxide were the most commonly named. Stating the effects of these chemicals was more
challenging for candidates with many giving answers that related to the chemicals in tar.
Interestingly, some mentioned carbon dioxide and were then credited with a mark if they explained
a harmful effect in the environment since the question did not specify that the effect had to be in the
body.

(ii) This was the most accessible part of question four. It was the level of detail in the answers that
determined the mark awarded. As in every question, candidates are advised to check the number
of marks available to determine the number of points to include in their answers. Some very good
answers were so concise and detailed that four marks could be awarded for a well-constructed
single sentence.

Question 5

This question required candidates to interpret a model of osmosis. Careful reading and analysis of the
diagram was essential for candidates to access all the marks.

(a) The answer, water, was known by the majority of candidates although some incorrectly mentioned
mineral ions in addition to water.

(b) Approximately half the candidates correctly interpreted the diagram, naming molecule E sucrose
and G water. Some had not read the introduction that stated that the model represented two
sucrose solutions and so they guessed at the name of the solute. Others missed the fact that the
labels E and G were pointing at molecules and stated that E was concentrated sucrose solution
and G dilute sucrose solution. F was generally recognised as a membrane but to score credit
candidates needed to explain it was a selectively or partially permeable one. Candidates that did
not score this mark were often able to get a mark in part c for describing its role in osmosis; so,
although they know the significance of the partial permeability they were not applying this
knowledge fully in part b.

(c) Candidates who could recall the definition of osmosis and record it accurately were able to pick up
three of the five marks easily. Difficulties were most likely to arise when candidates were not
specific about the type of molecule moving or when they referred to concentration and did not
specify whether it was the concentration of the solute or solvent. Other marks were available for
relating the diagram to the process by describing the relative size of the molecules or by describing
the direction of movement. Additionally, candidates could score if they described equilibrium.
These marks were less frequently obtained than those available for a definition of osmosis.

Section B

Question 6

Candidates’ knowledge and understanding of the structure and function of the circulatory system was tested
by this question.

(a) Initially, candidates needed to appreciate that the aorta is an artery and the vena cava a vein to
successfully tackle this part of the question. A few candidates did not make the link correctly.
Others did make the link but mixed up the structures and functions of arteries and veins. Many
answered this question well, scoring full marks for detailed and accurate answers. The fact that
arteries carry oxygenated blood and veins deoxygenated was well known as was the fact that veins
have valves, a wide lumen and thin walls compared to arteries. Few candidates described the
relative amounts of elastic and muscle tissue in the two types of blood vessel. They may find this
easier to remember if they fully understand that arteries receive pulses of blood so the artery lumen

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

is variable in diameter to accommodate these pulses and has plenty of elastic tissue so it can
stretch and recoil with each pulse.

(b) This question proved challenging for candidates. Most could explain that the hole in the heart
meant that oxygenated and deoxygenated would mix. A smaller number gave a consequence of
this mixing as a reduced oxygen supply to the tissues. Only a very few went on to explain that this
could have an impact on respiration.

Question 7

This question covered two aspects of environmental biology; energy flow through a food chain and the
importance of recycling materials.

(a) The majority of candidates, when asked to explain how energy supplied by the Sun is used to
power the muscles of a lion when it runs, realised that energy must be transferred via a food chain
and went on to describe this process. Some candidates missed this idea and attempted to answer
in terms of the Sun’s energy being directly absorbed by the lion’s skin and suggesting that it helped
the lion make vitamin D. For those that understood that light energy from the Sun it transferred to
chemical energy in plants and then animals, most were able to provide sufficient detail to gain four
of five marks. The role of respiration in releasing energy for locomotion was not accurately
described, so it was rare to find all seven marks achieved on this question. Energy is neither
created nor destroyed; it flows or is transferred through the abiotic and biotic parts of the
environment. It is important to emphasise to candidates that, through respiration, chemical energy
from food is released for use in activities such as locomotion and then, ultimately the energy that
has flowed through the organism is transferred to the environment as thermal or heat energy.

(b) Some very good answers were seen but often candidates tended to focus on providing just one
reason for the importance of recycling and frequently struggled to express their ideas clearly.
Problems with non-biodegradable materials in the environment and the need to conserve non-
renewable resources were most likely to be recognised and explained by candidates.

Section C

Question 8

Most candidates decided to answer this optional question on commercial asexual reproduction of plants.

(a) This proved to be a challenging question for many candidates. Very few provided relevant details of
asexual reproduction, i.e. it involves mitosis, only one parent and results in genetically identical
offspring. The most likely mark for candidates to score was for mentioning that this allows growers
to produce plants with desirable features. This is an area where practical work may help candidates
to understand and learn the significance of asexual reproduction.

(b) This part of the question proved to be more easily accessible to candidates than the first part. It
was pleasing to see that many recognised the vital role of bees as pollinators and were able to
explain, at least partially, the implications of this for plants and animals. Some also mentioned there
would be a reduction in honey produced and others that consumers of bees or their products might
decline because of reduced food availability.

Question 9

It is unusual for a question on plants to be more popular than one which focuses mainly on animals but
relatively few candidates opted for this question on mutation and animal breeding.

(a) Most candidates performed better on this part of the question than on part b. Quite a few had a
good recall of mutation and were able to provide relevant examples and name a mutagen. Others
struggled to differentiate between gene and chromosome mutation. It was important that
candidates showed their understanding by linking the type of mutation to their examples. Those
giving examples were most likely to give those mentioned on the syllabus, Down’s syndrome and
sickle cell anaemia.

(b) The context in this question seemed to cause difficulties for candidates but, as with Question 3c, a
step-by-step approach would be helpful to candidates when analysing the question they have been

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

asked to think about and answer. What animals do farmers breed? Why do they breed them? What
is the difference between artificial and natural insemination? The most accessible mark here was
for mentioning that artificial insemination is quicker or more efficient. Many candidates mentioned
that the selected male could have desirable characteristics to introduce to the herd of animals.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/22
Theory

Key messages

Examiners noted that some candidates were able to respond well to information presented in unfamiliar
contexts. There is evidence this session that candidates sometimes gave a general account of a topic rather
than relate their knowledge to the specific question set. The length of candidate responses was largely
appropriate. Centres are reminded that candidates should be guided in the length of each of their responses
by the number of lines provided and by the number of marks available. The use of specific vocabulary by
candidates is important when expressing scientific content clearly and correctly. Centres are reminded that
credit will not be awarded for information re-stated by the candidate that was made available in the wording
of the question.

General comments

Some very competent work was seen from the more highly attaining candidates. Only a small number of
candidates this session confused the processes of ‘pollination’ and ‘seed dispersal’ in Question 1. Detail
relating to the process of molecular movement in dialysis was less well known in Question 7. Questions
requiring tailoring and application of knowledge continued to provide more challenge for even some highly
attaining candidates. Centres are advised to instruct candidates to answer either Question 8 or Question 9
as stated in the rubric.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

(a) (i) This was well answered by most candidates.

(ii) A significant proportion of candidates answered in terms of a general definition of enzymes and
their mode of action. The question required this knowledge to be related to the specific role of
enzymes during the germination stage of the plant’s life cycle. Relatively few candidates stated that
the conversion reaction undertaken by the enzyme was a ‘breakdown’ reaction.

(b) Candidates were often able to correctly identify both stages and many went on to explain both well.
There was less confusion between the processes of ‘pollination’ and of ‘seed dispersal’ than in
previous sessions. A proportion of candidates did not make specific reference to the movement of
pollen ‘from the anther to the stigma’ in stage 1. In stage 4, a proportion of candidates incorrectly
referred to ‘excretion’ rather than to ‘egestion’ when outlining the removal of an undigested seed
from an animal.

Question 2

(a) This proved challenging for many candidates. Many wrote in general terms about the reflex arc
without reference to the specific example described in the question. Reference to ‘impulse’ is
required rather than to ‘message’ or ‘signal’. Candidates able to sequence the ideas in their
response correctly, without reference to ‘motor neurones’ which would not be involved in this
particular sensation pathway, were rewarded. Many candidates made incorrect reference to either
‘motor neurones’ and/or to an involvement of the ‘spinal cord’.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(b) (i) This was moderately well answered. The most common incorrect responses were ‘homozygous’
and ‘heterozygous’.

(ii) This was moderately well answered. The most common incorrect response was ‘discontinuous’.

(c) (i) This was well answered.

(ii) This was well answered, although incorrect reference to ‘primary consumer’ was quite common.

(iii) This discriminated between candidates well. Those who were able to understand the context
recognised that the herbivores would be unable to taste the bitter nature of the food and would
therefore have access to more food. Some candidates correctly deduced that this may result from
a ‘gene mutation’ or via ‘natural selection’. Candidates who did not fully understand the context of
the question often repeated information provided as their response and therefore did not gain
credit.

Question 3

(a) (i) This was well answered by most candidates. A proportion of candidates stated that an enzyme will
‘change the rate’ of the reaction without indicating that the rate would ‘increase’.

(ii) This was well answered by candidates who recognised the need to adapt their knowledge to the
information provided. Many candidates began by unnecessarily stating the lock and key hypothesis
of enzyme action. Full credit was often awarded though, as a large proportion of candidates went
on to clearly explain the effect of the boiling water on this model of enzyme action. Specific
reference to a lack of ‘fit’ or ‘complementarity’ for the ‘substrate’ was required instead of simple
reference to an inability for ‘binding’ to occur.

(b) This was well answered and required candidates to suggest advantages based on the information
provided. Many candidates were able to do this well and it was encouraging to see so many
candidates successfully demonstrating this skill.

Question 4

(a) A significant proportion of candidates did not attain full credit. Common errors were the inclusion of
‘water’ on both sides of the equation and symbol equations that were either unbalanced or
incorrectly balanced. Some candidates mistakenly stated the equation for aerobic respiration rather
than that for photosynthesis.

(b) (i) The majority of candidates were not able to give a full or fluent response to this question. There
was common incorrect reference to the air stone providing ‘carbon dioxide’ for ‘photosynthesis’
rather than ‘oxygen’ for ‘aerobic respiration’. Correct reference to ‘growth’ was more common,
however this was often attributed to the absorption of ‘nutrients’ by the plant rather than more
specifically of the ‘ions’ or ‘magnesium’ provided in the nutrient solution.

(ii) This was well answered, although incorrect reference to ‘xylem’ was sometimes seen.

(iii) This was well answered. Infrequent incorrect reference to ‘osmosis’ or ‘diffusion’ was seen.

(c) (i) The majority of candidates were able to identify the best concentration as 125 parts per million.

(ii) In contrast to (c)(i) this explanation was only moderately well stated by most candidates. Many
candidates did not correctly link the data in the table to their explanation. Most candidates were
able to link ‘magnesium’ and ‘chlorophyll’, however a proportion stated incorrectly that ‘magnesium
contains chlorophyll’. Few candidates related the increased production of chlorophyll to an
increased rate of photosynthesis or to the production of the carbohydrate product. Reference to the
production of ‘food’ by photosynthesis was not sufficiently specific to gain credit.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 5

(a) (i) This was well answered.

(ii) This was well answered. Most candidates were able to manipulate a significant amount of data to
derive the correct numerical response.

(iii) This was moderately well answered. There was evidence that some candidates incorrectly thought
the movement of water was into, rather than from, the ileum. Many candidates did not gain credit
for their reference to a ‘gradient’ as this was often not sufficiently well defined as being a ‘water
potential gradient’ or from a ‘higher water concentration’ to a ‘lower water concentration’. Simple
reference to ‘from high to low concentration’ was insufficient to gain credit.

(b) The related theory appeared to be known by only a small proportion of candidates. Many
candidates gained credit for reference to the ‘kidney’. Only few went on to outline the ‘filtration of’ or
‘removal of water from’ the ‘blood’ to gain the second mark. A significant proportion of candidates
made incorrect reference to ‘egestion’ rather than to ‘excretion’.

Section B

Question 6

(a) This was well answered by the most candidates. P was correctly identified by almost all candidates
as a ‘sweat gland’. Incorrect identification as either a ‘sweat duct’ or as a ‘sebaceous gland’ was
sometimes seen. Q was correctly identified less often as a ‘capillary’. Incorrect identification as an
‘arteriole’ was sometimes seen. Incorrect reference to ‘movement’ of capillary blood vessels within
the skin was sometimes seen. Few candidates made specific reference to blood flow being
increased to the skin ‘surface’. Reference to ‘cooling’ was insufficient to gain credit as reference to
‘heat loss’ was required.

(b) A lack of precision in some responses resulted in some candidates not gaining full credit here. With
reference to negative feedback, a proportion of candidates incorrectly referred to the homeostatic
control of factors other than temperature.

Question 7

(a) The majority of candidates gained credit here for a good definition of the term. Reference to ‘toxic’
substances was less commonly seen. Reference to ‘waste’ rather than to ‘metabolic waste’ or to a
correct waste substance was also commonly seen and did not gain credit. A significant proportion
of candidates made incorrect reference to ‘faeces’ or ‘egestion’, which did not allow them to gain
full credit.

(b) (i) Candidates were better able to explain the function of the dialysis membrane than they were able
to describe its structure. Reference to the increased ‘length’ and ‘surface area’ of the membrane
was infrequent. Errors were often made when candidates attempted to outline the movement of
specific molecules through the dialysis membrane in either direction.

(ii) This was less well answered, with a significant number of candidates not gaining credit. The most
common misconception seen was that the concentration of molecules removed from the blood can
become higher in the dialysis fluid than in the blood. Many candidates went on to incorrectly
suggest that these molecules would then move back into the blood. Some candidates made
correct reference to the need for a continued concentration gradient. Examiners were pleased to
see some go on to make correct reference to the continued removal of urea from the blood into the
replaced fluid.

Section C

Question 8

This question was the less frequently answered of the two questions in Section C.

(a) This was well answered. Many candidates made correct reference to ‘memory’, ‘learning’ and
‘intelligence’ which were alternatives for the same marking point. Candidates often did not then go

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

on to describe other roles of the cerebrum such as ‘thought’, ‘speech’ or the control of ‘senses’.
Reference to control of ‘voluntary actions’ was also less frequently seen.

(b) The most common response here related to the control of body ‘balance’. Few candidates went on
to describe the role of the cerebellum in the control of ‘involuntary actions’.

(c) Most candidates made correct reference to the process of ‘homeostasis’. Many went on to refer to
a factor controlled by this process without specific reference to control of the factor in the ‘blood’.
Few candidates explained the principles of control in the detail required for full credit.

Question 9

This question was the more frequently answered of the two questions in Section C.

(a) This was well answered. Many candidates were able to refer to specific structures that are cut
during the surgery. Some candidates were able to correctly explain the consequence of this. A
significant proportion of candidates incorrectly stated that cutting the sperm duct would prevent
sperm ‘production’. Specific reference to ‘fertilisation’ or to ‘fusion of gametes’ was required rather
than simple reference to gametes ‘meeting’. Reference to ‘ovary duct’ rather than to ‘oviduct’ was
common, however credit was awarded by Examiners in this instance.

(b) This was very well answered. Many candidates were able to list at least five points and therefore
gained full credit. Commonly seen points included correct reference to sexual behaviour and to
avoidance of sharing needles etc. Direct reference to ‘sexual’ behaviour was required to gain
credit, with reference to a ‘partner’ alone being insufficient.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/31
Practical Test

Key messages

Candidates should read and follow the instructions thoroughly: if a question states for example, that a line
should be drawn, then full marks are unlikely to be awarded if no line is evident.

Candidates should also read the questions carefully and be aware of the difference in command words such
as describing an effect and suggesting a reason for that effect.

General comments

There were few instances of questions that were not attempted. The number of marks awarded overall
covered the whole range of those available and it appeared that candidates had sufficient time to complete
the paper.

There has been further improvement in the drawing of graphs. Most candidates are following instructions and
drawing the type of graph indicated as well as using linear scales with values at the origin. However,
candidates should be aware that, unless requested, graphs should not be extrapolated beyond the plotted
data.

Drawings also continue to improve, with clearer outlines, less shading and more attention to detail.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) (i) The majority of candidates recorded the expected colours.

(ii) All candidates recorded something on the answer line – either a 0 if a timer was used or the actual
time if a clock or watch was used.

(iii) The majority of candidates gave good descriptions of what was seen although sometimes the
changes were quite small. Most correctly recorded very little change in A over the 20 minutes and it
was evident that C was darker than A. However, it was not always clear from the colour
descriptions that B was darker than C after 20 minutes.

(iv) Most pH values were correctly recorded in the table. In a few cases, one or more values were
outside the acceptable range. Some candidates wrote ‘pH’ next to the value in the cells which
should not be written when pH is given in the header of the table. A very small number of
candidates recorded the colour of the indicator rather than the pH value.

(b) (i) Candidates should understand what the command word at the beginning of a question is asking of
them. Here ‘describe’ asks ‘what was observed’, in this case the effect of the hydrochloric acid on
the banana – by comparing it with the banana with no treatment – using the observations recorded
in the table, i.e. the acid stopped the banana from turning brown. Many candidates suggested
reasons here rather than answering the question asked.

(ii) Candidates were asked to suggest a reason for the effect of the acid, i.e. why it stopped the
banana turning brown. In the introduction to Question 1, candidates were told that enzymes are

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

involved in this process and many realised that the acid was preventing the action of these
enzymes, probably by denaturing them.

(iii) Stating the effect of cutting up slice B involves only the observed difference between B and the
slice that was not cut up (C), i.e. the pieces turned brown more quickly. Some answers gave
explanations of why this happened without stating what had happened. This was not required in
this question.

(iv) Most candidates correctly suggested that the increased surface area of the banana allowed more
exposure to oxygen or to enzymes. A few incorrectly wrote that smaller pieces would give a smaller
surface area.

(c) This question was asking candidates to think about the method they had carried out in order to
identify difficulties in describing their observations. There were those who recognised that
describing the colours was not easy because it was very subjective. To improve on this,
suggestions about using some sort of standard colour chart or leaving the slices for a longer time
(so that any changes might be more noticeable) were given credit. Some candidates simply stated
general principles of carrying out investigations, e.g. that they should be repeated to make the
results more reliable. Whilst being true, this was not answering the question set.

(d) This question required candidates to design an experiment to determine the optimum pH for a
banana to turn brown. Some candidates simply repeated what they had already done and
calculated a mean, which would not have determined the optimum pH. Creditworthy answers
involved placing freshly cut banana slices in solutions of varying pH for a given time, then removing
them from those solutions and observing which of them turned brown in the least time. Some
candidates incorrectly thought that the slices would change colour while still immersed in the pH
solutions.

Question 2

(a) There were some very well constructed line graphs with fully labelled axes, good linear scales,
accurate plotting and plotted points joined with ruled lines as instructed. Common errors were
plotting the independent variable (time) on the y-axis, incompletely labelling the axes or labelling
them with the wrong variable. Some candidates used a non-linear scale – particularly on the x-axis,
and others were inaccurate when plotting the points. Despite the instruction to join the plotted
points with ruled lines, some drew a curved line and a few ruled one line of best fit instead of
joining their individually plotted points.

(b) Most candidates knew how to use the graph to find the rate of breathing at 5 minutes, but a few did
not show their working on the graph as asked for and a significant number did not include units with
the value obtained.

(c) Although the question asked about rate of breathing, many answers given described measuring
pulse rate which could not be credited. Measuring a rate must involve a time factor and many
responses noted that a timer could be used, although it was not always clear what was being
measured and for how long.

(d) Too many responses involved counting heart beats despite the question being about breathing. A
few correctly recognised that depth of breathing or the volume of air breathed in and out could be
measured to determine the full effect of exercise on breathing.

Question 3

(a) (i) There were some good drawings – large as asked for, with clear, clean outlines, good proportions
and the correct number of teeth on each side of the leaf. In some instances outlines were sketchy,
the stalk of the leaf was drawn with a single line, or the number and/or relative positions of the
teeth were inaccurate. These drawings did not gain full credit.

(ii) Some candidates did not draw lines as requested and occasionally units were not given. However,
most measurements of drawings were accurate and included correct units.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(iii) Many candidates understood that dividing the measurement of their drawing by the measurement
of the leaf in the photograph would give them the magnification of their drawing. It should be noted
that a magnification has no units so including mm or cm in the answer would not gain full credit.

(b) Reading all the information and following the instructions given was key to answering this question
and many candidates did this well. A few candidates indicated the correct answer by ticking the
correct boxes but then incorrectly went on to name a completely different tree – often not in the key
– on the answer line.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/32
Practical Test

Key messages

Any instructions should be read and carefully carried out.

Information provided in a question should be read and taken into consideration when giving an answer.

The demands of the different command words should be understood and responded to when answering
questions e.g. the difference between ‘Describe’ and ‘Explain’.

When not specified, relevant units should be given with measurements.

General comments

Scripts were legible and there was nothing that indicated that candidates did not have sufficient time to
complete all the questions

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) (i) The majority of candidates completed the table, recording that the seedlings grown in light had
greener and larger leaves and shorter stems compared to the yellow/paler, smaller leaves and
longer stems of those grown in the dark.

(ii) The majority of candidates recorded 10 measurements and calculated the two mean lengths, of
those grown in the light and those grown in the dark, correctly. In most cases, those in the dark had
longer stems.

There were a minority of candidates who were unable to calculate the means and simply entered a
total value for each set of 5 lengths without dividing by 5. These could not be credited.

Very occasionally there was evidence that a candidate was unable to read a measurement from a
ruler correctly with values such as 20.3, 20.5, 30.1 being recorded instead of 23, 25 and 31.

It should be noted that, in a table, information given in the headers should not be repeated within
the cells of the table. In this case ‘mm’ in the header should not appear with the values entered in
the cells of the table.

(b) The investigation was about the effect of light and dark on plant growth. The candidates’ results
showed that the mean height of those seedlings grown in the dark was greater than those grown in
light and they were now asked to apply that to a given situation – a shady forest – so answers
should have been in terms of light/dark. Answers in terms of e.g. the plants were less likely to be
consumed if they were taller could not be credited. Neither could answers that suggested that the
plants could grow without light or that were theoretical rather than applied e.g. statements that less
photosynthesis can take place in shady areas. Creditworthy answers showed an understanding
that a plant growing in shade would be deprived of light and so growing taller could help it to reach
above any surrounding vegetation to receive more light.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(c) (i) There were many very well-constructed line graphs with fully labelled axes, good linear scales,
accurate plotting and plotted points joined with ruled lines as instructed. Common errors were
plotting the independent variable (time) on the y-axis, incompletely labelling the axes or labelling
them with the wrong variable, using a non-linear scale often shown by placing no 0 at the origin,
and careless plotting. There were those who, although instructed to join the plotted points with
ruled lines, drew a curved line, as well as those who ruled one line of best fit instead of joining their
individually plotted points.

(ii) Most candidates knew how to read this value from their graphs, but some failed to show their
working on the graph as asked for and others did not include units with the value obtained.

(iii) The question asked for a description of the rate of growth of the plants so answers relating only to
changes in actual height of the plants could not be credited. As the rate of growth changed during
the 110-day period, it was expected that the various stages would be identified by referring to the
days. Good answers described a slow rate between days 0 and 10 and then a rapid increase up to
day 60. The rate declined from then until day 90 after which growth stopped and the rate became
0.

It should be noted that ‘constant’ does not necessarily mean that the rate became 0; the rate could
continue at the same (constant) rate of increase.

There were a minority of candidates who either did not read the question carefully or who did not
understand what was required in the answer. They attempted to describe the beneficial effects of
fertilisers on the plant growth and could receive no credit.

(iv) Many candidates correctly described doing exactly the same investigation with the same controlled
variables except for no fertiliser being used. Those who simply described possible effects of using
fertiliser on the growth of plants could not be credited as that was not what the question asked.

(v) Suggestions of features other than height that could have been used to measure the increase in
growth were asked for but too many candidates simply repeated height, even if it was expressed as
the length of the stem. Such answers could not be credited. Answers in terms of
size/length/surface area of the leaves or the number (but not amount) of leaves could. Other
creditworthy answers related to the mass of the plants or the yield they produced.

Question 2

(a) (i) The vast majority of candidates recorded the volume of milk they added to the beaker to obscure
the cross marked on its base as asked. Very occasionally a candidate recorded a volume so small
that it could not have had the desired effect. On reading their answer to (a)(ii) it became apparent
that what had been recorded was not a volume but the depth of milk measured in centimetres –
and that could not be credited.

(ii) There were a range of creditworthy methods described. The most straightforward was to transfer
the milk into the measuring cylinder and carefully read the value on the scale. Others began with a
known volume of milk in the measuring cylinder and poured sufficient of that milk into the beaker to
obscure the cross. They then read the volume of milk left in the measuring cylinder and subtracted
the final volume from the initial volume to give the volume of milk used.

(iii) The command word in the question was ‘Describe’ and nearly all candidates correctly recorded
descriptions of what they had observed i.e. that the milk curdled or became colourless. As an
explanation of why this had occurred had not been asked for, answers in terms of the casein being
digested could not be credited.

(b) Some well thought out and clearly expressed investigations were designed. Credit was given for
preparing the fruit in some way so that it could be best used in the investigation. The criterion for
determining that a protease could digest casein was milk becoming clear so that a mark on the
base of its container, previously obscured, became visible. Credit was given for adding the fruit to
such a container of milk and then observing whether the milk became clear or not. If clear, then it
could be concluded that protease digests casein.

A number of candidates repeated what they had done in adding dilute hydrochloric acid to the milk
either with the fruit or without which made the investigation invalid.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Some, having described a method well, concluded that the fruit did contain a protease –
information that had already been given.

A few candidates used the correct method but added a protease enzyme, having not appreciated
that the fruit contained one. Some simply referred to casein as though it were something distinct
from milk.

A minority added prepared fruit to a marked beaker with no milk being mentioned. It was
erroneously anticipated that the fruit would become clear so that the mark could be seen.

Other candidates thought that, as protein had been mentioned, the biuret test should be carried out
on the milk – which would only have confirmed the presence or not of protein. A few Benedict’s
tests were described. Neither of these two methods could be credited.

Question 3

(a) This question asked the candidates to use their observational skills to discern differences between
the two bones in the photograph. Reasons for those differences were not asked for. The majority of
candidates correctly recorded differences in the lengths and in the curvature of the shaft of the
bones. Some correctly observed that the lower end of C was divided into two whereas D was
undivided.

(b) There were some excellent drawings – large, as asked for, and showing the good technique of
clear, clean outlines drawn with a sharp pencil with no shading.

(c) (i) The majority of candidates measured the correct bone, D, accurately and in millimetres as asked.
Answers which could not be credited were those that were too inaccurate, of the wrong bone, of
the drawing instead of the photograph and those given in centimetres.

(ii) Calculating the actual length of bone D was done well by many candidates, dividing their
measurement in (c)(i) by the magnification of the photograph, 0.17, and giving their answer with
the correct units.

It should be noted that care needs to be taken in applying correct rounding principles when
reducing the number of decimal places given in answers on calculators.

Too many candidates incorrectly multiplied the length in (c)(i) by 0.17, the magnification of the
photograph. Their error should have become apparent to them when the actual length of the adult
human upper leg bone was calculated as e.g. 136 mm which was far too small to be realistic.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/61
Alternative to Practical

Key messages

Candidates should read and follow the instructions thoroughly: if a question states for example, that a line
should be drawn, then full marks are unlikely to be awarded if no line is evident.

Candidates should also read the questions carefully and be aware of the difference in command words such
as describing an effect and suggesting a reason for that effect.

General comments

There were few instances of questions that were not attempted. The number of marks awarded overall
covered the whole range of those available and it appeared that the candidates had sufficient time to
complete the paper.

There has been further improvement in the drawing of graphs. Most candidates are following instructions and
drawing the type of graph indicated as well as using linear scales with values at the origin. However,
candidates should be aware that, unless requested, graphs should not be extrapolated beyond the plotted
data.

Drawings also continue to improve, with clearer outlines, less shading and more attention to detail.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) (i) Candidates were asked to enter the student’s data into the table provided. Almost all did this,
entering a value in every box of the first table and pHs correctly in the second table.
The majority identified the colours correctly in the first table but there was the occasional
carelessness on transferring the colours from the text to the table. It should be noted that when
what is being measured is given in the header of a table, it should not be repeated within the cells
of the table. In this case, pH should not appear against the values of 2, 6 and 6 entered in the
second table.

(ii) Although the word ‘control’ is familiar to many candidates, a significant number found it difficult to
explain why a control is included in an investigation, i.e. so that the effect of treatments can be
compared with the effect of no treatment being given. ‘To find the effect of no treatment’ was a
common incomplete answer.

(iii) If a volume of 50 cm3 is to be measured accurately, the piece of apparatus used must be graduated
i.e. have a scale on it. The most suitable in a school laboratory is a measuring cylinder although a
graduated pipette might be used. A beaker is not suitable in this instance.

(iv) Candidates should be familiar with using standard laboratory equipment and appreciate the need to
handle acids safely. Forceps or tweezers should be used to remove the banana slice from the acid.

(v) In many instances candidates described measuring the pH of the banana slices using litmus paper
which would not have produced the actual pH values recorded in (a)(i). Applying universal indicator
to the surfaces of the banana would result in a colour that could be compared to the standard pH

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

colour chart and thus lead to actual pH values. A pH meter or probe could be used but how it would
be used should also be described.

(b) (i) Candidates should understand what the command word at the beginning of a question is asking of
them. Here ‘describe’ asks ‘what was observed’, in this case the effect of the hydrochloric acid on
the banana – by comparing it with the banana with no treatment – using the observations recorded
in the table, i.e. the acid stopped the banana from turning brown. Many candidates suggested
reasons here rather than answering the question asked.

(ii) Candidates were asked to suggest a reason for the effect of the acid, i.e. why it stopped the
banana turning brown. In the introduction to Question 1, candidates were told that enzymes are
involved in this process and many realised that the acid was preventing the action of these
enzymes, probably by denaturing them.

(iii) Stating the effect of cutting up slice D involves only the observed difference between D and the
slice that was not cut up (E), i.e. the pieces turned brown more quickly. Some answers gave
explanations of why this happened without stating what had happened. This was not required in
this question.

(iv) Many candidates correctly suggested that the increased surface area of the banana allowed more
exposure to oxygen or to enzymes. A few incorrectly wrote that smaller pieces would give a smaller
surface area.

(c) This question was asking candidates to think through the method as though they had carried it out
themselves in order to identify possible difficulties in describing the observations. There were those
who, looking at the colour changes given in (a)(i), recognised that describing them was not easy
because it was very subjective. To improve on this, suggestions about using some sort of standard
colour chart or leaving the slices for a longer time (so that any changes might be more noticeable)
were given credit. Some candidates simply stated general principles of carrying out investigations
e.g. that they should be repeated to make the results more reliable. Whilst being true, this was not
answering the question as set.

(d) This question required candidates to design an experiment to determine the optimum pH for a
banana to turn brown. Some candidates simply repeated what had already been done and
calculated a mean, which would not have determined the optimum pH. Creditworthy answers
involved placing freshly cut banana slices in solutions of varying pH for a given time, then removing
them from those solutions and observing which of them turned brown in the least time. Some
candidates incorrectly thought that the slices would change colour while still immersed in the pH
solutions.

Question 2

(a) There were some very well-constructed line graphs with fully labelled axes, good linear scales,
accurate plotting and plotted points joined with ruled lines as instructed. Common errors were
plotting the independent variable (time) on the y-axis, incompletely labelling the axes or labelling
them with the wrong variable. Some candidates used a non-linear scale, particularly on the x-axis,
and others were careless when plotting the points. Despite the instruction to join the plotted points
with ruled lines, some drew a curved line and a few ruled one line of best fit instead of joining their
individually plotted points.

(b) Most candidates knew how to use the graph to find the rate of breathing at 5 minutes, but a few did
not show their working on the graph as asked for and a significant number did not include units with
the value obtained.

(c) Although the question asked about rate of breathing, many answers given described measuring
pulse rate which could not be credited. Measuring a rate must involve a time factor and many
responses noted that a timer could be used, although it was not always clear what was being
measured and for how long.

(d) Too many responses involved counting heart beats despite the question being about breathing. A
few correctly recognised that depth of breathing or the volume of air breathed in and out could be
measured to determine the full effect of exercise on breathing.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Question 3

(a) (i) There were some good drawings – large as asked for, with clear, clean outlines, good proportions
and the correct number of teeth on each side of the leaf. In some instances outlines were sketchy,
the stalk of the leaf was drawn with a single line, or the number and/or relative positions of the
teeth were inaccurate. These drawings did not gain full credit.

(ii) Some candidates did not draw lines as asked for and occasionally units were not given. However,
most measurements of drawings were accurate and included correct units.

(iii) Many candidates knew that dividing the measurement of their drawing by the measurement of the
leaf in the photograph would give them the magnification of their drawing. It should be noted that a
magnification has no units so including ‘mm’ or ‘cm’ in the answer would not gain full credit.

(b) Reading all the information and following the instructions given was key to answering this question
and many candidates did this well. A few candidates indicated the correct answer by ticking the
correct boxes but then incorrectly went on to name a completely different tree – often not in the key
– on the answer line.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

BIOLOGY

Paper 5090/62
Alternative to Practical

Key messages

Any instructions should be read and carefully carried out.

Information provided in a question should be read and taken into consideration when giving an answer.

When not specified, relevant units should be given with measurements.

General comments

Scripts were legible and there was nothing that indicated that candidates did not have sufficient time to
complete all the questions.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

(a) (i) Most candidates understood that factors in an investigation needed to be controlled and were able
to correctly state two such factors in this investigation. Although the question stated that these
factors should not include light and dark, there were those who gave light as one of them which
could not be credited.

(ii) The majority of candidates were able to measure the seedling accurately. A few recorded
measurements in centimetres although mm was written on the answer line and so these could not
be credited. An minority were unable to read a measurement from a ruler recording e.g. 20.3 mm
instead of 23.

(iii) The transferring of data into the table was completed well by most candidates and most knew how
to calculate the means correctly. The most frequent error was the failure to include their own
measurement from (a)(ii) in the light column as instructed.

It should be noted that, in a table, information given in the headers should not be repeated within
the cells of the table. In this case, mm in the header should not have appeared with the values
entered in the cells of the table.

(b) (i) There were few good answers suggesting that increasing the sample size would increase the
reliability of the investigation by helping to identify any anomalous results. Frequently, even when
reliability was suggested, improving accuracy also appeared which could not be credited. Accuracy
is involved in finding the true value; measuring more seedlings would not improve this.

(ii) The investigation was about the effect of light and dark on plant growth. The candidates had
worked out that the mean height of those seedlings grown without light was greater than those
grown with light and were now asked to apply that to a given situation – a shady forest – so
answers should have been in terms of light/dark. Answers in terms of e.g. the plants were less
likely to be consumed if they were taller could not be credited. Neither could answers that
suggested that the plants could grow without light or that were theoretical rather than applied e.g.
statements that less photosynthesis can take place in shady areas. Creditworthy answers showed
an understanding that a plant growing in shade would be deprived of light and so growing taller
could help it to reach above any surrounding vegetation to receive more light.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

(iii) The question asked for one other visible difference between the seedlings i.e. apart from the length
of the stems. Many candidates simply repeated that those in the dark were taller than those in the
light and so received no credit. Good answers pointed out differences in the colour or the size of
their leaves.

(c) (i) There were many well-constructed line graphs with fully labelled axes, good linear scales, accurate
plotting and plotted points joined with ruled lines as instructed. Common errors were plotting the
independent variable (time) on the y-axis, incompletely labelling the axes or labelling them with the
wrong variable, using a non-linear scale often shown by placing no 0 at the origin, and careless
plotting. There were those who, although instructed to join the plotted points with ruled lines, drew
a curved line, as well as those who ruled one line of best fit instead of joining their individually
plotted points.

(ii) Most candidates knew how to read this value from their graphs, but some failed to show their
working on the graph as asked for and others did not include units with the value obtained.

(iii) The question asked for a description of the rate of growth of the plants so answers relating only to
changes in actual height of the plants could not be credited. As the rate of growth changed during
the 110-day period, it was expected that the various stages would be identified by referring to the
days. Good answers described a slow rate between days 0 and 10 and then a rapid increase up to
day 60. The rate declined from then until day 90 after which growth stopped and the rate became
0.

It should be noted that ‘constant’ does not necessarily mean that the rate became 0; the rate could
continue at the same (constant) rate of increase.

There were a minority of candidates who either did not read the question carefully or who did not
understand what was required in the answer. They attempted to describe the beneficial effects of
fertilisers on plant growth and could receive no credit.

(iv) Many candidates correctly described doing exactly the same investigation with the same controlled
variables except for no fertiliser being used. Those who simply described possible effects of using
fertiliser on the growth of plants could not be credited as that was not what the question asked.

(v) Suggestions of features other than height that could have been used to measure the increase in
growth were asked for but too many candidates simply repeated height, even if it was expressed as
the length of the stem. Such answers could not be credited. Answers in terms of
size/length/surface area of the leaves or the number (but not ‘amount’) of leaves could. Other
creditworthy answers related to the mass of the plants or the yield they produced.

Question 2

(a) This question asked the candidates to use their observational skills to discern differences between
the two bones in the photograph. Reasons for those differences were not asked for. The majority of
candidates correctly recorded differences in the lengths and in the curvature of the shaft of the
bones. Some correctly observed that the lower end of C was divided into two whereas D was
undivided.

(b) There were some excellent drawings – large, as asked for, and showing the good technique of
clear, clean outlines drawn with a sharp pencil with no shading.

(c) (i) The majority of candidates measured the correct bone, D, accurately and in millimetres as asked.
Answers which could not be credited were those that were too inaccurate, of the wrong bone, of
the drawing instead of the photograph and those given in centimetres.

(ii) Calculating the actual length of bone D was done well by many candidates, dividing their
measurement in (c)(i) by the magnification of the photograph, 0.17, and giving their answer with
the correct units.

It should be noted that care needs to be taken in applying correct rounding principles when
reducing the number of decimal places given in answers on calculators.

© 2020
 Cambridge Ordinary Level
5090 Biology November 2020
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Too many candidates incorrectly multiplied the length in c)(i) by 0.17, the magnification of the
photograph. Their error should have become apparent to them when the actual length of the adult
human upper leg bone was calculated as e.g. 136 mm which was far too small to be realistic.

Question 3

(a) To answer this question well candidates needed to read the information provided carefully and to
think through the method described as though they had carried it out themselves. There were some
very good answers. For example, some realised that, once sufficient milk had been poured into the
beaker to render the cross on the bottom invisible, that milk should then be poured into a
measuring cylinder and a reading of the volume taken. Others began with a known volume of milk
in a graduated container, poured sufficient of that milk to obscure the cross into the beaker, read
the volume of milk left in the graduated container and subtracted the final volume from the initial
volume to give the volume used. Another creditworthy method was to draw the cross on the bottom
of a measuring cylinder rather than a beaker, pour the milk into that measuring cylinder until the
cross could no longer be seen and simply take the reading of that volume on that measuring
cylinder. In questions such as this, which relate specifically to measuring a volume, using the word
‘amount’ instead of ‘volume’ cannot be fully credited.

(b) Some well thought out and clearly expressed investigations were designed. Credit was given for
preparing the fruit in some way so that it could be best used in the investigation. The criterion for
determining that a protease could digest casein was milk becoming clear so that a mark on the
base of its container, previously obscured, became visible. Credit was given for adding the fruit to
such a container of milk and then observing whether the milk became clear or not. If clear, then it
could be concluded that protease digests casein.

A number of candidates, having described a method well, concluded that the fruit did contain a
protease – information that had already been given.

A few candidates used the correct method but added a protease enzyme, having not appreciated
that the fruit contained one.

A minority added prepared fruit to a marked beaker with no milk being mentioned. It was
erroneously anticipated that the fruit would become clear so that the mark could be seen.

A few candidates did not use the method described previously and could not be credited e.g. as a
protein had been mentioned, the biuret test was carried out on the milk – which would only have
confirmed the presence or not of protein.

© 2020