Cambridge A-Level Global Perspectives & Research: The Essay — Practice Questions

These are original practice questions written in the style of Cambridge AS & A Level Global Perspectives & Research (9239) assessment objectives. They are not taken from any past paper and are not endorsed by Cambridge International.

Coverage note: this resource covers Components 1-3 (the AS Level). Component 4, the Cambridge Research Report (85 marks, A Level only), has its own pages: study guide, revision notes and practice questions.

Use these questions alongside the Component 2 – Essay study guide and revision notes.

Section A

1. State the word range for the essay, and what happens to content written beyond the upper limit. [2]

2. State what form the essay title must take, and name one type of question that is unlikely to be appropriate. [2]

3. Name the three assessment objectives tested on this component. [3]

4. State one thing a teacher may do to support a candidate on this component, and one thing they must not do. [2]

Section B

5. A candidate proposes the essay title: “Climate change is a serious global problem.”

(a) Explain why this title is not suitable as it stands. [2] (b) Rewrite it as a single question that would allow at least two globally contrasting perspectives to be developed. [2]

6. A candidate develops one perspective on their essay question in depth, then adds a second “perspective” that argues the same underlying position in softer language.

(a) Explain why this does not satisfy the requirement for “globally contrasting perspectives.” [2] (b) Explain what would need to change for the two perspectives to be genuinely contrasting. [2]

7. A candidate lists five sources in their bibliography but does not explain anywhere in the essay why any of them were chosen.

(a) Explain which assessment objective this affects, and why. [2] (b) Suggest what the candidate should have included instead. [2]

8. A candidate’s essay ends with a paragraph summarising the two perspectives already presented, without stating their own view.

(a) Explain why this ending is incomplete. [2] (b) Explain what AO2 specifically requires the conclusion to contain. [1]

9. A candidate plans to develop five different perspectives across their 1750–2000 word essay.

(a) Explain why this is likely to weaken the essay. [2] (b) Suggest a more effective approach within the word limit. [1]

10. A candidate asks their teacher to review a draft and suggest specific changes that would improve their mark under the mark scheme.

(a) Explain why the teacher cannot provide this kind of feedback. [2] (b) State one form of support a teacher can still legitimately provide. [1]

---

Answers

1. 1750–2000 words [1]; content written beyond 2000 words is not marked at all [1].

2. The title must be phrased as a single question [1]; a question focused on an exclusively local or national issue is unlikely to be appropriate [1].

3. AO1, AO2 and AO3 [3].

4. A teacher may support planning, source citation and word-count discipline [1]; a teacher must not give detailed advice on how a specific draft could be improved to meet the mark scheme, or correct or edit draft coursework directly [1].

5. (a) This title is a statement, not a question, and it does not open up the possibility of genuinely contrasting perspectives — it simply asserts a position [2]. (b) For example: “Should the countries most responsible for historical carbon emissions bear greater responsibility for funding global climate adaptation than those with lower historical emissions?” [2, allow any single question that clearly opens up at least two contrasting global standpoints].

6. (a) This does not satisfy the requirement because the two perspectives disagree only in tone or intensity, not in the underlying values or evidence being weighed — “globally contrasting” requires perspectives that differ on which considerations should matter most, not two versions of the same conclusion [2]. (b) The two perspectives would need to be drawn from genuinely different standpoints — for example, differing by economic interest, by cultural or religious position, or by which body of evidence and values is prioritised — rather than restating the same underlying view with softer or stronger language [2].

7. (a) This affects AO1, because AO1 specifically rewards selecting and justifying sources — explaining why a particular source was chosen and what makes it credible — not simply citing a source without explanation [2]. (b) The candidate should have briefly explained, for each key source, its authority, its standpoint, and what perspective it represents, so a reader can judge how much weight to give it [2].

8. (a) This ending is incomplete because it only restates the perspectives already presented rather than offering the candidate’s own reasoned judgement on the question, which is what the task requires [2]. (b) AO2 requires the candidate to reflect on how the alternative perspectives have affected their own viewpoint and to reach a personal, supported conclusion on the question [1].

9. (a) At 1750–2000 words, developing five different perspectives leaves too little space to develop any of them with real evidence, resulting in perspectives that are sketched briefly rather than argued in depth [2]. (b) Focus on two or three perspectives and develop each with real evidence and detailed evaluation, rather than covering more perspectives superficially [1].

10. (a) The syllabus requires the essay to be completed independently by the candidate; a teacher giving detailed advice on how a specific draft could be improved to meet the mark scheme, or correcting and editing draft coursework directly, would compromise the independence the component is designed to assess [2]. (b) For example, supporting the candidate with general planning, source citation conventions, or word-count discipline [1].

A note on exam technique for this topic

The single decision that shapes everything else in this component is the choice of question, so it deserves real time before research begins: a question that only really supports one side, or that disguises a local issue as a global one, makes every later stage harder no matter how strong the research is. Throughout drafting, keep returning to three checks — are the perspectives genuinely drawn from different standpoints rather than restatements of the same view, is each source’s selection explicitly justified rather than just cited, and does the conclusion offer a personal, reasoned judgement rather than a summary — since these three checks map directly onto where AO1 and AO2 marks are most often lost.