Global Perspectives: The Written Exam — 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 available free from your board.

The real paper, for reference, is 1 hour 25 minutes, 70 marks, and sets FOUR compulsory questions (18, 16, 16 and 20 marks) based on a source insert provided with the paper — quite a different shape from the six shorter questions below, which are organised by skill for focused practice rather than as a full-paper simulation.

Questions 3, 4 and 5 are source-based, matching the real paper, where every question is based on the source insert: 0457’s syllabus states that candidates are not assessed on prior knowledge of the topic or issue presented, and that knowledge of content is not assessed in this syllabus at all. Answer those questions only from the source material given, not from what you already know about the topic. Questions 1, 2 and 6 are short skills checks on concepts and techniques the paper uses (fact and opinion, the three perspectives, writing a conclusion); they use no source, whereas the real paper always asks you to apply these skills to its sources.

Related: Global Perspectives revision notes

---

Section A

1. Explain the difference between a fact, an opinion and a reasoned argument. [3]

2. State the three perspectives you are expected to consider and explain what each means. [3]

Section B

3. A source states: “A recent survey by an airline industry association found that 78% of travellers believe aviation is unfairly blamed for climate change.”

(a) Evaluate the reliability of this source, giving three points. [6] (b) Explain what further information you would need to assess it properly. [3]

4. Read Source B below.

Source B: A coastal town’s local newspaper reports: “Beach clean-up volunteers collected over two tonnes of plastic waste last month alone, most of it packaging from imported consumer goods. The local council says it cannot afford further clean-ups without national government support, while a national government spokesperson stated that manufacturers, not local councils, should bear the cost of collection.”

(a) Using Source B, explain two causes of the plastic pollution problem it describes. [4] (b) Using Source B, explain two consequences of the issue, one environmental and one economic. [4] (c) Using Source B, suggest one course of action to address the issue, and evaluate its likely effectiveness. [6]

5. Read Source C below.

Source C: In a river basin shared by two countries, a farmer upstream said: “This water lets my family grow enough food to eat and sell – without it we’d have nothing.” Downstream, a city resident said: “Our taps run dry for days at a time while upstream users take as much as they like. Our national government must negotiate a fairer share.” An international water agency reported: “Basin-wide agreements between the two countries have never been ratified, leaving allocation entirely informal.”

Using Source C, explain the difference between a personal, a local and/or national, and a global perspective on this water-scarcity issue. [6]

6. Explain three features of a strong conclusion in an extended written response to a Global Perspectives written-exam question (the Written Exam sets extended-response questions, not a full essay). [6]

---

Answers

1. A fact is a statement that can be verified as true or false against evidence [1]. An opinion is a personal belief or judgement that cannot be verified in the same way [1]. A reasoned argument is an opinion supported by evidence and logical reasoning, leading to a stated conclusion [1].

2. The personal perspective — how the issue affects individuals and their own experience [1]. The local and/or national perspective — how it affects a particular community or country, and how local or national government responds [1]. The global perspective — how it affects the world as a whole and requires international cooperation [1].

3. (a) Any three, 2 marks each: the source is produced by an airline industry association, which has a clear vested interest in defending aviation, so the framing of the question and the choice to publish are likely to be self-serving [1] [1]. The statistic reports what travellers believe, not whether the blame is in fact unfair — public opinion is not evidence about emissions [1] [1]. The sample is travellers, who are self-selecting and more likely to defend flying than the general population [1] [1]. The phrase “unfairly blamed” is a leading formulation that invites agreement [1] [1]. (b) The exact wording of the question asked [1]; the sample size, method and where respondents were surveyed [1]; who funded the survey and whether the full data has been published for independent scrutiny [1].

4. (a) Any two drawn from Source B, 2 marks each: the source shows imported packaging driving the waste stream (“most of it packaging from imported consumer goods”) [1] [1]. It also implies under-funded local waste collection, since the council “cannot afford further clean-ups” [1] [1]. (b) Environmental — the source shows large volumes of waste reaching the beach and sea (“over two tonnes… collected… last month alone”), which is consistent with harm to marine life and habitats even though the source itself does not detail this [1] [1]. Economic — the cost falls on the local council, which says it “cannot afford further clean-ups” without national support, showing a direct financial burden on local public funds [1] [1]. (c) A course of action such as national government funding for local council clean-up and collection costs, addressing the dispute in the source over who should pay [1]. Effective because it responds directly to the funding gap the source identifies, and central government has greater capacity to fund infrastructure than a single local council [1] [1]. Limited because the source suggests central government instead expects manufacturers to bear the cost, so this course of action may not be adopted without a change in national policy [1], and funding collection alone does not address the import of plastic packaging identified as a cause in (a) [1]. Overall judgement — a reasoned conclusion on how effective the action is likely to be, e.g. that it would ease the immediate funding problem but work fully only if combined with action on packaging at its source [1].

5. Personal — the upstream farmer’s own words show the personal, lived stake in the issue: water “lets my family grow enough food to eat and sell – without it we’d have nothing” [1] [1]. Local and/or national — the downstream city resident’s account, and their call for “our national government” to negotiate a fairer share, shows this level operating through everyday local experience (dry taps) and national political action together [1] [1]. Global — the international water agency’s observation that “basin-wide agreements between the two countries have never been ratified” shows the issue operating beyond either country alone, requiring cross-border cooperation [1] [1].

6. Any three, 2 marks each: it gives a clear personal judgement that directly answers the question, rather than restating both sides neutrally [1] [1]. It is supported by the evidence and reasoning already presented, and introduces no new material [1] [1]. It acknowledges the strongest opposing argument and explains why it is outweighed, which demonstrates that the judgement is informed rather than assumed [1] [1]. It explicitly weighs the sources’ evidence against each other rather than simply repeating it, which is what the Written Exam’s research, analysis and evaluation objective (AO1) actually rewards in a conclusion [1] [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Evaluating a source by saying only “it might be biased” without identifying the interest.
• Confusing a consequence with a cause.
• Proposing a course of action without evaluating it.
• Writing a conclusion that summarises rather than judges.