Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Conflict and peace – 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 use the topic Conflict and peace from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). They practise the skills in sections 2 and 4: source-based analysis and evaluation in the style described for Component 1 Written Exam, plus planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Topic knowledge is not assessed in 0457, so answer from the sources, not from what you know about real conflicts. Dravia and every place, person, organisation and number in the sources are fictional.

Revise with the study guide and revision notes first. See also the Global Perspectives hub and 0457 checklist.

The sources

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge

Dravia’s long civil conflict ended when both sides signed the peace agreement in the capital, Ostrel. Since then I have argued that trials would only reopen old wounds. A truth commission, where people describe what happened in exchange for protection from prosecution, is the only sensible path. Former fighters always lie in court anyway. If we hold trials, the north will take up arms again within five years.

Opinion column by Mira Haldane, a former minister who served in the government during the conflict.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge

The Dravia Peace Network, a charity, ran six community dialogue sessions. Afterwards it surveyed 240 of the 900 residents who attended at least one session, asking them to recall how far they trusted the other community before the programme and how far they trust it now. Its report states: “Our programme has raised trust by more than half.”

District	Respondents	Trusted the other community before (%)	Trust it now (%)
Northgate	120	35	55
Kessa	80	40	45
Lowmarsh	40	20	60
All districts	240	34.2	52.5

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge

Head teacher, Linwood Academy: “Since we trained 20 students as peer mediators last year, recorded fights have fallen from 31 to 18. Students tell me they would rather talk to a classmate than a teacher. Every school in Dravia should do this.”

Parent, Linwood Academy: “My son was pushed around for months. He was sent to ‘mediation’ with the boy who did it, as if they were equals. Peer mediation lets schools look busy without dealing with bullying. Real discipline is what works.”

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge

In dry years, herders bring cattle into Dravia’s Tavra Valley to find grass and water. Farmers say cattle destroy their crops. Herders say new fences block routes their families have used for generations. Last season the valley council recorded 14 disputes, 3 of which became fights. Herders now avoid the weekly market that both groups once shared.

A farmer: “I lost half my maize in one night. Who pays for that?” A herder: “Where else can my animals drink? The river is the only water left.”

The national government proposes fenced farmland with marked livestock corridors. Village elders from both groups propose a joint grazing council to agree seasonal routes and compensation.

Questions

1. Identify one fact and one opinion in Source A. [2]

2. Refer to Source A.

(a) Identify one prediction and one generalisation in Source A. [2] (b) Explain how the writer’s background may affect the reliability of Source A. [3]

3. Refer to Source B.

(a) Using Source B, describe two patterns in the data. [2] (b) Evaluate the evidence in Source B for the claim that the programme “has raised trust by more than half”. [6] (c) Suggest how the claim that community dialogue programmes increase trust could be tested more fairly. [6]

4. Refer to Source C. Evaluate the two arguments and judge which is better supported. [12]

5. Using Source D, explain two causes of the conflict in the Tavra Valley. [4]

6. Using Source D, explain two consequences of the conflict. [4]

7. Using Source D, explain why the farmer and the herder have different perspectives on the issue. [4]

8. Using all the sources, assess which one of these actions would do most to reduce conflict in Dravia: a truth commission (Source A), community dialogue programmes (Source B) or a joint grazing council (Source D). [16]

9. A student plans an Individual Report on the topic Conflict and peace. Their first title is “War and its effects”.

(a) Explain two weaknesses of this title as a global research question. [4] (b) Write an improved title and explain why it is better. [3]

10. A team chooses the local issue “arguments between year groups over the use of the school sports field”.

(a) Identify two things the syllabus says the team’s Explanation of Research and Planning should include as the project progresses. [2] (b) Suggest how the team could measure the success of an action on this issue. [4]

11. A student writes in their Reflective Paper: “Our action went well and we worked well as a team.” Explain how they could develop this into a stronger evaluation. [4]

Answers

1. Fact: both sides signed the peace agreement in the capital, Ostrel (this can be checked) [1]. Opinion: a truth commission “is the only sensible path”, or trials “would only reopen old wounds” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Quote the words from the source exactly; a paraphrase can drift into a different kind of statement.

2. (a) Prediction: “the north will take up arms again within five years” [1]. Generalisation: “Former fighters always lie in court” [1]. (b) She served in the government during the conflict, so trials could examine decisions she or her colleagues made [1]. This gives her a possible vested interest in avoiding prosecutions [1], so her argument should be checked against independent sources, such as victims’ groups, before it is trusted [1]. Examiner insight: Saying “she is biased” gains little; explain what she could gain and what that means for the reliability of the source.

3. (a) Trust rose in all three districts [1]. The largest rise was in Lowmarsh (20% to 60%) and the smallest in Kessa (40% to 45%) [1]. (b) Overall trust rose from 34.2% to 52.5%, a rise of just over half in relative terms, so the figures do support the claim as worded [1]. But the rise is only about 18 percentage points, and the wording makes the change sound larger [1]. Only people who attended were asked, so the sample may lean towards those already open to trust [1]. Answers were recalled and self-reported, so people may misremember or tell the organisers what they want to hear [1]. The charity ran the programme and the survey, so it has a vested interest in good results [1]. Lowmarsh had only 40 respondents yet showed the largest rise, so the most striking result rests on the smallest sample [1]. (c) Ask an independent organisation to run the survey, not the charity [1]. Measure trust before the programme starts, not from memory afterwards [1]. Include a comparison group of residents in similar districts who do not take part [1]. Use a random sample of residents, not only attendees [1]. Repeat the survey months later to see if the change lasts [1]. Add evidence that is not self-reported, such as recorded disputes [1]. Examiner insight: Evaluation marks come from the specific weaknesses of this method, such as recall, sample and who ran it, not from general comments that “more research is needed”.

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

Head teacher’s argument. Uses specific data: fights fell from 31 to 18 [1]. Adds testimony that students prefer talking to classmates [1]. But the data come from the school’s own records, and the head has a vested interest in the scheme looking successful [1]. Other changes over the year could explain the fall, so the cause is not proven [1]. The conclusion that “every school in Dravia” should copy it is a generalisation from one school [1]. Fights are only one measure; bullying might not be recorded as fights [1].

Parent’s argument. Based on personal experience of one case, which gives it emotional force but a very small evidence base [1]. Makes a fair point that mediation treats sides as equals, which may not suit bullying where one side has more power [1]. Claims mediation lets schools “look busy”, which is an assertion with no evidence [1]. Offers “real discipline” as the alternative but gives no evidence that it works better [1].

Judgement. The head’s argument is better supported because it uses data from more than one case [1], but it is weakened by vested interest and an overgeneralised conclusion, while the parent’s argument raises a valid limit on where mediation should be used [1]. Examiner insight: Strong answers judge the quality of the reasoning and evidence in each argument, not whether the student agrees with the speaker.

5. Scarce water in dry years pushes herders into the valley [1], so both groups compete for the same land and river [1]. New fences block traditional routes [1], so herders’ cattle stray onto crops while searching for a way through [1]. Examiner insight: Each cause needs a link to the conflict; a cause on its own, such as “drought”, earns less than a cause explained.

6. Farmers lose crops, such as half a field of maize in one night [1], which reduces their food and income and increases anger towards herders [1]. Herders now avoid the shared market [1], which cuts trade and contact between the groups and makes trust harder to rebuild [1]. Examiner insight: Use the source’s evidence for each consequence and then say why it matters; unsupported consequences from general knowledge score poorly.

7. The farmer’s livelihood depends on crops in fixed fields [1], so he sees cattle as the cause of the loss and wants compensation [1]. The herder’s livelihood depends on moving animals to water [1], so he sees fences and the lack of water as the problem, not his cattle [1]. Examiner insight: Perspective marks need the reason behind each view, rooted in the person’s situation, not just a restatement of what each person said.

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

Criteria. State the criteria: effectiveness, feasibility, acceptance by all sides and how long the effect lasts [1].

Truth commission (Source A). Could let people be heard and create a shared record [1]. But the only support comes from a former minister with a possible vested interest [1]. Her claim that trials would cause renewed fighting is a prediction, not evidence [1]. Victims who want justice may not accept protection from prosecution, so acceptability is uncertain [1].

Community dialogue programmes (Source B). There is some data showing trust rising in all three districts [1]. The method is weak: self-reported recall, attendees only, run by the charity itself [1]. Feasible, since sessions already run with 900 attendees [1]. Reaches people willing to attend, perhaps not those most hostile [1].

Joint grazing council (Source D). Tackles a direct cause: competition for land, water and routes [1]. Proposed by elders from both groups, so more likely to be accepted than a plan imposed from the capital [1]. Compensation answers the farmer’s question “Who pays?” [1]. Limitation: no evidence yet that it works, and it covers one valley, not the whole country [1]. Unlike fenced corridors, it keeps herders’ routes open to negotiation [1].

Judgement. The joint grazing council would do most where conflict is current, because it addresses causes and has support from both sides [1], although stronger evidence, such as dispute numbers after one season, would be needed to be confident [1]. Examiner insight: High-level answers compare actions on shared criteria and judge the evidence behind each, rather than describing them in turn.

9. (a) It is a topic area, not a question, so it gives no clear issue to investigate [1]. It does not divide opinion: almost everyone agrees war has harmful effects [1]. It is far too broad to research in 1500-2000 words [1]. It does not set up different perspectives or a course of action to propose [1]. (b) For example: “Should countries stop selling weapons to states involved in armed conflict?” [1]. It is a question that divides opinion [1] and allows local and/or national perspectives (for example, workers in a country’s arms industry) and global perspectives (for example, international campaign groups) [1]. Examiner insight: A strong research question is answerable, contested and global; test your title against all three before you research.

10. (a) Any two of: clarify the topic, issue and action; outline the plan of action; identify roles and responsibilities; state how they will evidence the action; identify how they will measure success [1] [1]. (b) Count recorded arguments or complaints about the field before and after the action [1] over the same length of time [1]. Survey students in each year group before and after about whether access feels fair [1], and compare the results to judge whether the action made a difference [1]. Examiner insight: Measuring success needs a before-and-after comparison, not just asking whether people liked the action.

11. Give evidence for “went well”, such as survey results or the number of people reached [1]. Judge how far the action addressed the issue, not just whether it happened [1]. Give a specific example of teamwork, such as how a disagreement was resolved [1]. Suggest what could be done better next time and why [1]. Examiner insight: Undeveloped statements like “it went well” stay in the low levels; each point needs evidence and an explanation of how successful it was.

Where marks are usually lost

• Using knowledge of real conflicts instead of the details in the sources.
• Calling a source “biased” without saying who gains or what is missing.
• Not checking whether a percentage claim is a relative rise or a percentage-point change.
• Spotting a vested interest but not saying how it affects reliability.
• Describing actions one after another without comparing them on shared criteria.
• Treating a prediction in a source (“will take up arms again”) as evidence.
• Writing Individual Report titles that are topics, not contested questions.
• Measuring a Team Project’s success with feedback on enjoyment rather than change in the issue.

Next steps

• Practise more source work with the Written Exam practice questions and the Written Exam guide.
• Plan coursework with the Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Find your weakest skill with a free diagnostic.
• Want help from a teacher? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

These questions are based on the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), sections 2, 3 and 4. Your teacher will confirm the format of your own assessments.