Global Perspectives: The Written Exam — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

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. For the global issue of plastic pollution:

(a) Explain two causes. [4] (b) Explain two consequences, one environmental and one economic. [4] (c) Explain one course of action and evaluate its likely effectiveness. [6]

5. Explain the difference between a national, an international and a personal perspective, using the example of water scarcity. [6]

6. Explain three features of a strong conclusion in a Global Perspectives 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 national/local perspective — how it affects a particular country or community, and how its 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, 2 marks each: the very low cost and durability of plastic has made single-use packaging the default for food, drink and consumer goods worldwide [1] [1]. Inadequate waste management infrastructure in many countries means waste is dumped or enters rivers rather than being collected and processed [1] [1]. Export of waste from high- to low-income countries, where it is often not actually recycled [1] [1]. (b) Environmental — plastic breaks down into microplastics that enter the food chain, and marine animals ingest or become entangled in debris, reducing biodiversity [1] [1]. Economic — fishing and tourism industries lose income from polluted beaches and reduced catches, and coastal authorities bear the cost of cleaning [1] [1]. (c) A course of action such as a ban or levy on single-use plastic bags, as adopted in many countries [1]. Effective because it targets a high-volume, easily substituted item, is cheap to enforce at the till, and evidence from countries that introduced it shows bag use falling by over 80% [1] [1]. Limited because bags are a small fraction of total plastic waste [1], the policy does not address packaging, fishing gear or microfibres [1], and it may simply shift consumption to thicker reusable plastic bags whose production has a higher footprint if they are not reused enough [1].

5. Personal — an individual in a water-scarce area experiences queuing at a standpipe, higher bills, or illness from contaminated water, and may change their own consumption [1] [1]. National — a government must decide how to allocate water between agriculture, industry and households, whether to build dams, and how to price it, balancing food security against urban demand [1] [1]. Global — water scarcity crosses borders through shared rivers and aquifers, so it raises questions of international law and cooperation, and is linked to climate change, migration and conflict, which no single country can address alone [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 reflects on the limitations of the evidence or on how the writer’s own perspective has changed, which is explicitly credited in this subject [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.