AQA A-level Sociology (7192): Paper 2 – Stratification and differentiation – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover the Stratification and Differentiation topic (section 4.2.8) of the AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7191, 7192) specification, Version 1.2 (14 October 2021). The topic is assessed in Paper 2: Topics in Sociology, Section B, where you answer on “one from option 2: 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7 or 4.2.8”. All towns, firms, people and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. The AQA A-level Sociology hub and checklist show the rest of the course.

Questions

1. Define the term “life chances”. [2]

2. Outline two differences between Marxist and Weberian views of social class. [4]

3. Outline two problems of using occupation to measure social class. [4]

4. Read the fictional data below.

Lornbury mobility survey (fictional). A survey of 1,000 adults in the fictional town of Lornbury compared each person’s class with their parent’s class.

Class of origin (parent)	Now service class	Now intermediate class	Now working class	Total
Service	120	50	30	200
Intermediate	105	120	75	300
Working	100	175	225	500
Total	325	345	330	1,000

(a) Calculate the percentage of all respondents who were upwardly mobile. Show your working. [2] (b) Compare the chances of reaching the service class for people of service-class and working-class origin. [2] (c) Using the table, explain how absolute mobility can be high while relative mobility remains unequal. [4]

5. Amira is a hospital pharmacist. Her partner, Tom, works part-time on a supermarket checkout. Explain how the conventional approach and the individual approach would classify this household, and identify one problem with each approach. [6]

6. Read the fictional data below.

Calderway Logistics (fictional firm). The firm employs 200 men and 200 women.

Grade	Men	Women
Senior managers	18	6
Supervisors	40	30
Warehouse and office staff	142	164

Applying material from the data, analyse two sociological explanations of gender inequality in paid work. [6]

7. Explain two reasons why some sociologists argue that class identities have weakened in the UK. [6]

8. Distinguish between the medical model and the social model of disability, using an example. [4]

9. Outline the New Right view of the underclass and give one criticism of it. [4]

10. Evaluate functionalist explanations of social stratification. [10]

11. To what extent has globalisation changed structures of inequality in the UK? [16]

12. Assess the view that the UK is a meritocratic society, using evidence from studies of social mobility. [12]

Answers

1. Life chances are a person’s chances of gaining things valued in a society [1], such as good health, education, income or a long life, a term from Weber [1]. [2] Examiner insight: A definition earns the second mark only with a concrete example of what life chances include.

2. Marx defines class by ownership or non-ownership of the means of production [1], whereas Weber defines it by market situation, such as skills and qualifications [1]. Marx sees two main classes heading towards polarisation [1], whereas Weber sees many classes and separates class from status and party [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each difference needs both sides stated; describing Marx alone and then Weber alone without a contrast word loses marks.

3. Occupation misses people who do not work, such as the very wealthy who live on investments [1], so the upper class is hidden from the scale [1]. Occupation-based scales ignore cultural and social resources [1], which Savage’s Great British Class Survey added through cultural and social capital [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Outline” needs each problem developed with a reason or example, not just a two-word label.

4. (a) Upwardly mobile = 105 + 100 + 175 = 380 [1]. 380 out of 1,000 = 38% [1]. [2] (b) 60% of those of service-class origin (120 of 200) reached the service class [1], compared with 20% of those of working-class origin (100 of 500), so they were three times as likely [1]. [2] (c) Absolute mobility is high because over half the sample (535 of 1,000) changed class [1]. The service class grew from 200 origins to 325 destinations, creating room at the top [1]. But a service-class child still had three times the working-class child’s chance of a service-class job [1]. So structural change raised movement without equalising chances, as the Oxford Mobility Study found [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Data answers must quote figures from the table; a general definition of relative mobility gains little on its own.

5. The conventional approach classifies the household by one main earner [1], here Amira’s professional job, so the whole household counts as professional or managerial [1]. One problem: it ignores Tom’s own job and the inequality within the household, as Acker and Stanworth argued [1]. The individual approach classifies each adult by their own job [1], so Amira is professional and Tom is in a routine occupation [1]. One problem: a couple who share income and housing are placed in two classes, which Goldthorpe argued misrepresents shared life chances [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Application marks need Amira and Tom’s actual jobs; a scenario question answered in general terms stays in the lowest marks.

6. Walby’s idea of patriarchy in paid work explains the pattern as structural [1]. Women are 25% of senior managers (6 of 24) even though they are half the workforce [1], which suggests vertical segregation and barriers to promotion [1]. Hakim’s preference theory offers a different explanation [1]. More women than men are in the lowest grade (164 compared with 142), which Hakim might link to adaptive women choosing roles that fit with family life [1]. Critics reply that such “choices” are shaped by childcare costs and employer practices, so the data alone cannot settle the debate [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Each explanation should be tied to a specific figure from the data, and analysis means saying what the figure shows.

7. Deindustrialisation has reduced the manual jobs and workplace communities that supported working-class identity [1]. With fewer large factories and weaker trade unions, people are less likely to see themselves as part of a collective class [1]. Pakulski and Waters argue that class is dissolving in advanced societies [1], so many inequalities once read as class are better seen as differences of status [1]. Beck’s idea of individualisation adds that people increasingly have to construct their own lives as individuals [1], although critics reply that class still shapes life chances even when people do not identify with it [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Each reason needs a developed chain of explanation; two bare claims followed by names gain only knowledge marks.

8. The medical model sees disability as caused by a person’s impairment, which needs treatment [1]. The social model, set out by Oliver, sees people as disabled by barriers in society [1]. For example, a wheelchair user is unable to reach a first-floor office because there is no lift, not because of their legs [1]. So under the social model the solution is to remove the barrier, while the medical model looks to the individual [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The example must show the difference between the two models, not just describe a disability.

9. The New Right, notably Charles Murray, argued that an underclass exists below the working class [1]. He linked it to welfare dependency, which he said rewarded worklessness [1], and to distinct values such as weak commitment to work and family [1]. Criticism: research suggests poor people largely share mainstream values but lack opportunities such as secure work, so the cause is structural [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The criticism needs a reason; writing “this has been criticised” scores nothing.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Knowledge. Davis and Moore (1945) argued that stratification is functional and universal [1]. Some positions are functionally more important and need scarce talent and long training [1]. Higher rewards motivate the most able to fill them [1].

Application. In the UK, long medical training is followed by high pay, which seems to fit the theory [1].

Analysis and evaluation. Tumin (1953) argued that functional importance is hard to measure: a refuse collector may be as vital as a banker [1]. Stratification limits talent, because children from poor families have fewer chances to train [1]. Inherited wealth is a reward without any role, which suggests power not function sets rewards [1]. Marxists see stratification as exploitation that benefits the owning class [1]. Feminists note the theory ignores unpaid work, mostly done by women [1]. Judgement. Functionalism explains why some unequal rewards are accepted, but it struggles to explain inherited advantage or the low pay of vital jobs [1]. [10] Examiner insight: Evaluation should come from named alternative views or evidence, not just “it is a good theory” or “it is outdated”.

11. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Introduction. Define globalisation as growing links between societies in trade, culture and politics [1]. Define structures of inequality as lasting patterns of class, gender, ethnic and age inequality [1].

Changes. Sklair argues a transnational capitalist class has emerged [1], with corporate, state, technical and consumerist fractions [1]. Capital can move production abroad, weakening workers’ bargaining power in the UK [1]. Deindustrialisation has reduced manual work and grown service jobs [1]. Standing (2011) identifies a growing precariat in insecure work [1]. Savage’s survey found an elite and a precariat at the two ends of a seven-class model [1]. Global migration has changed the ethnic make-up of the workforce, and Modood’s survey showed large differences in position between minority groups [1]. Women’s employment has grown in a service economy, changing gender patterns [1].

Continuity and evaluation. The Marmot Review (2010) still found a social gradient in health, suggesting class inequality continues [1]. Goldthorpe found relative mobility stayed unequal over time [1]. Critics of Sklair argue national interests still divide business elites [1]. Pakulski and Waters claim class is dissolving, but critics reply that class still shapes life chances [1]. Globalisation may make inequality more global rather than replace class [1].

Judgement. One possible conclusion, which must follow from the evidence: globalisation has changed the shape of the class structure more than its existence [1]. [16] Examiner insight: “To what extent” requires a weighed judgement; listing changes without asking what has stayed the same keeps an answer out of the top level.

12. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Knowledge. A meritocracy rewards ability and effort, so positions are achieved, not ascribed [1]. Absolute mobility is total movement; relative mobility compares chances between origins [1].

For the view. The Oxford Mobility Study found large absolute upward mobility as professional jobs grew [1]. Saunders (1996) argued ability and effort explain much of who rises [1]. Wider access to education has opened routes into professional work [1].

Against the view. Glass (1954) found the strongest self-recruitment at the top of the class structure [1]. Goldthorpe found relative chances stayed unequal despite more upward movement [1]. Blanden, Gregg and Machin (2005) found income mobility fell between the 1958 and 1970 cohorts [1]. Breen and Goldthorpe (1999) re-analysed Saunders’ data and found class origins still matter [1]. Children from less advantaged origins needed substantially more merit to reach the same destinations [1].

Evaluation. Studies that compared only men with their fathers missed women’s mobility, so older evidence is incomplete [1]. Judgement. A possible line: the UK has more absolute mobility than in the past but is not fully meritocratic [1]. [12] Examiner insight: Strong answers keep absolute and relative mobility separate; blurring them leads to a judgement the evidence does not support.

Where marks are usually lost

• Not quoting figures from data or names from a scenario when the question asks you to apply them.
• Confusing absolute and relative mobility, or treating more movement as proof of meritocracy.
• Describing Marx and then Weber with no direct comparison.
• Writing “Weber had three classes” instead of class, status and party.
• Defining terms with no example, especially “life chances”.
• Discussing globalisation without the transnational capitalist class or any link to UK inequality.
• Giving a criticism with no reason (“this is outdated”).
• Essays that list studies but never weigh them, so analysis and evaluation marks are missed.

Next steps

• Check your weaker areas with the diagnostics.
• Revisit the study guide for any theorist you mixed up.
• For research design questions about mobility or life chances, use the Methods in Context practice.
• For class links in Paper 1, try the education practice questions.
• Want help with essay technique? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

These questions are based on the AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7191, 7192) specification, Version 1.2 (14 October 2021), section 4.2.8 Stratification and Differentiation. Check the latest version on the AQA website. Your teacher will confirm the real question format, which the specification does not print.