Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Environment, pollution and conservation — 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 are for the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). They use “Environment, pollution and conservation”, a topic from the section 3 topic list, to practise skills assessed in Component 1 Written Exam, Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Knowledge of content is not assessed, so answer Questions 1 to 8 from the sources only. All places, groups and figures are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes; see the Written Exam guide for the real paper. Also see the hub and 0457 checklist.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Pellan is a fictional riverside town of about 15,000 people. Three dyeing factories on the River Ostra employ about 1,200 local people and supply cloth to clothing brands in other countries. On some mornings the river below the factories turns red. Members of the Pellan fishers’ cooperative say their catch has more than halved in ten years. The Pellan Textile Owners’ Association says: “Our factories meet the national limit for dye residue. Closing them would destroy this town.” The campaign group Clear Ostra says: “The national limit is far too weak, and everyone knows the factories are poisoning the river. Within five years there will be no fish left.”

Questions

1. Using Source A, identify one fact and one opinion. [2]

2. Analyse the language used by Clear Ostra in Source A. [3]

3. Using Source A, explain why the Textile Owners’ Association and the fishers’ cooperative have different perspectives on the factories. [4]

4. Using Source A:

(a) Identify two possible causes of the pollution in the River Ostra. [2] (b) Explain two consequences of the pollution for different groups or for the environment. [4]

5. Identify which of these terms best describes each statement: fact, prediction, value, generalisation. [4]

(i) “Fish catches in the Ostra will recover within three years if the factories close.” (ii) “Pellan has three dyeing factories.” (iii) “Clean rivers matter more than cheap clothes.” (iv) “Factory owners never care about nature.”

6. Read Source B.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge (all data fictional). Clear Ostra volunteers took one water sample at each of four points on a single afternoon in August, after three weeks without rain. They used a home testing kit. The national limit for dye residue is 2.0 mg/L.

Point	Location	Dye residue (mg/L)
P1	Upstream of all factories	0.4
P2	Below factory 1	2.6
P3	Below factory 2	3.1
P4	Town bridge	1.8

The fishers’ cooperative records show an average catch of 42 kg per boat per week in 2015 and 19 kg in 2025. Clear Ostra’s leaflet concludes: “The factories are the main cause of the collapse in fish catches.”

(a) State how many sampling points were above the national limit, and calculate the mean of the four readings. [2] (b) Evaluate the research described in Source B. [6] (c) Suggest how the claim “The factories are the main cause of the collapse in fish catches” could be tested more reliably. [6]

7. Read Source C.

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. The fictional national government plans a no-fishing zone covering 40% of Skerrin Bay.

Argument 1, spokesperson for the Skerrin fishing cooperative (60 boats): “This zone takes away almost half the water our families fish. Fish move about, so closing one part of the bay will not save them. The people who drew this map live in the capital and have never hauled a net. If the plan goes ahead, young people will leave and the village will die.”

Argument 2, marine scientist at a fictional university: “In nearby Tarrow Bay, a no-fishing zone covering a third of the bay was set up five years ago. Since then, the average catch just outside the zone has risen from 25 kg to 30 kg per boat per week, a rise of 20%. Protected areas let fish grow and breed, and some move out into fished waters. Skerrin Bay should follow Tarrow’s example.”

Evaluate the two arguments in Source C. Which argument is better supported? Give reasons for your judgement. [12]

8. Read Source D.

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge (all figures fictional). Three proposals have been made to reduce pollution in the River Ostra. Proposal 1: The national government lowers the limit for dye residue from 2.0 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L and fines factories that break it. Proposal 2: A shared treatment plant cleans wastewater from all three factories. It costs 9 million crowns. The factories pay 60% (5.4 million) and the regional government pays 40% (3.6 million). Proposal 3: A “Clean Ostra” label for cloth from factories that pass independent water tests, so that overseas clothing brands can choose them.

Using Sources A, B and D, which proposal would be most effective in reducing pollution in the River Ostra? Explain your judgement with reasons and evidence. [16]

9. A student plans an Individual Report with the title “Endangered animals”.

(a) Explain why this is not a suitable title. [2] (b) Write an improved global research question and explain how it allows local and/or national and global perspectives. [4]

10. For a report on whether communities should be allowed to hunt protected animals that damage their crops, a student finds two sources: a blog by a wildlife safari company, and a report by a United Nations environment body. Evaluate how reliable each source is likely to be for this report. [4]

11. A team at the fictional Hollin Park School chose the local issue of drivers leaving engines running outside the school gate at pick-up time. They ran a “switch off” campaign with leaflets for parents and an event at the gate. They counted a mean of 34 idling vehicles per afternoon before the campaign and 21 after it.

(a) Calculate the percentage fall in idling vehicles and explain two limitations of this way of measuring success. [3] (b) Identify two items the team could submit as Evidence of Action and one item they should not submit, with a reason. [3]

Answers

For the extended Questions 7 and 8, the real exam uses levels of response, not point-by-point marking; the points show creditworthy content.

1. Fact: “Three dyeing factories on the River Ostra employ about 1,200 local people” (it can be checked) [1]. Opinion: “The national limit is far too weak” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Everyone knows the factories are poisoning the river” sounds certain but cannot be checked, so it does not earn the fact mark.

2. “Poisoning” is emotive, chosen to alarm rather than report a measured level [1]. “Everyone knows” is a generalisation that replaces evidence with an appeal to popular belief [1]. “Within five years there will be no fish left” is a prediction stated as certain, with no evidence [1]. [3] Examiner insight: quote the exact words and say what effect they have; naming a technique without the quotation earns little.

3. The Owners’ Association wants the factories kept open and stresses the legal limit [1], because profits and about 1,200 jobs depend on them, a vested interest [1]. The fishers see the factories as harming them [1], because their income depends on fish and their catch has more than halved [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the second mark for each group comes from the reason behind the view, taken from the source, not from restating the view.

4. (a) Dye wastewater from the factories entering the river [1]. A national limit Clear Ostra calls too weak, or overseas demand keeping production high [1]. [2] (b) Fishers: their catch has more than halved [1], so income and way of life are at risk [1]. The environment: the river turns red below the factories [1], suggesting damage to river wildlife [1]. [4] Examiner insight: each consequence needs a named group or place plus a developed effect taken from the source.

5. (i) Prediction [1]. (ii) Fact [1]. (iii) Value [1]. (iv) Generalisation [1]. [4] Examiner insight: use the syllabus terms exactly; “a bit biased” is not one of the four options and earns nothing.

6. (a) Two points (P2 and P3) [1]. Mean = (0.4 + 2.6 + 3.1 + 1.8) / 4 = 7.9 / 4 = 1.975 mg/L, about 1.98 mg/L [1]. [2] (b) Strength: P1 upstream gives a comparison, and readings rise below the factories [1]. Strength: the method and figures are stated, so it could be repeated [1]. Weakness: one sample per point on one afternoon may not be typical [1]. Weakness: after three weeks without rain, low flow may concentrate dye [1]. Weakness: a home kit may be less accurate than a laboratory [1]. Weakness: Clear Ostra has a vested interest and chose the day and the points, so the results may be selective [1]. [6] (c) Test the same points weekly for a year, in wet and dry seasons [1]. Use an independent laboratory [1]. Record fish numbers above and below the factories [1]. Collect evidence on other causes, such as farm runoff, sewage or overfishing [1]. Check how many boats fished each year, since catch per boat changes with boat numbers [1]. Compare with a similar river without dye factories [1]. [6] Examiner insight: in (c), credit goes to specific, practical steps that rule out other causes; “do more research” earns nothing.

7. Argument 1, strengths: direct experience of people who fish the bay [1]; a relevant cost, lost fishing area, though “almost half” overstates 40% [1]. Weaknesses: “fish move about” is asserted with no evidence [1]; “never hauled a net” attacks the planners, not their reasoning [1]; “the village will die” is an unsupported emotive prediction [1]; the 60 boats give a vested interest [1]. Argument 2, strengths: specific figures (25 kg to 30 kg, a 20% rise) [1] and a reason, as fish grow, breed and move out [1]. Weaknesses: one comparison bay that may differ in size, species or boats [1]; Tarrow’s zone was a third, Skerrin’s would be 40%, so the result may not transfer [1]; nothing on income in the first years, Argument 1’s main concern [1]. Judgement: Argument 2 is better supported, using evidence and reasoning rather than assertion and emotive language, but it is not conclusive because it ignores the short-term cost to fishers [1]. [12] Examiner insight: top answers evaluate both arguments’ evidence and reasoning before judging; describing what each person says earns very little.

8. Proposal 1: it targets the cause by cutting how much dye may enter the river [1]. In Source B, P2 and P3 break the current limit and P4 would break 1.0 mg/L, so it fits the evidence [1]. But the factories say they already meet the limit (Source A), so the real gap may be monitoring; fines need regular testing [1]. Higher costs could threaten some of the 1,200 jobs, so owners would resist [1]. Fines punish but do not pay for clean-up [1]. Proposal 2: it removes dye at source from all three factories [1]. Each factory pays about 1.8 million crowns (5.4 million / 3), perhaps cheaper than separate plants [1]. The regional 3.6 million is public money paying for private pollution, which some would call unfair [1]. Building takes time, so fishers see no quick benefit [1]. Factories might not send all wastewater unless the law requires it [1]. Proposal 3: it uses pressure from overseas buyers, the factories’ customers in Source A [1]. It is voluntary, so some factories can ignore it [1]. Independent testing would fix the weak evidence seen in Source B [1]. Judgement: Proposal 2 is most effective because it stops dye before it reaches the river [1]; it works best with Proposal 1 making its use compulsory [1]. Uncertainty: the sources do not prove the factories are the only cause of falling catches [1]. [16] Examiner insight: the highest marks go to a clear judgement that compares the proposals using source evidence; assessing each one separately with no comparison limits the mark.

9. (a) “Endangered animals” is a topic, not a question [1]. It does not divide opinion, so it gives no focus for perspectives, causes, consequences or a course of action [1]. [2] (b) For example: “Should communities be allowed to kill protected animals that damage their crops and livestock?” [1]. It is open and divides opinion [1]. Local or national perspective: farmers who lose crops or animals, or governments balancing farming and wildlife [1]. Global perspective: international conservation agreements and organisations [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the question must name an issue people disagree about; a question with a factual answer limits the whole report.

10. Safari company blog: its profits depend on wildlife, a vested interest, so it may leave out farmers’ losses [1]. It may give no evidence or author expertise [1]. UN body report: likely written by experts using data from many countries, so more credible [1]. But a global overview may miss local farmers’ experiences; check its date and funding [1]. [4] Examiner insight: reliability marks come from explaining why a feature makes a source more or less trustworthy, not from labelling it “reliable” or “biased”.

11. (a) Fall = (34 - 21) / 34 = 13 / 34, about 38% [1]. Limitation: a count of idling cars does not measure air quality itself [1]. Limitation: counts can change with weather or the time of year, so a short before-and-after period may not show a lasting change [1]. [3] (b) Suitable: photographs of the “switch off” event at the gate [1]; a copy of the leaflet given to parents [1]. Not suitable: notes from the team’s first planning meeting, because Evidence of Action should not include evidence of research or initial meetings [1]. [3] Examiner insight: measuring success means comparing like with like before and after; a count with no baseline cannot show the action worked.

Where marks are usually lost

• Using outside knowledge instead of the sources.
• Quoting a statement as fact when it cannot be checked.
• Calling a source biased without showing what it leaves out.
• Describing arguments instead of judging their evidence and reasoning.
• Vague research suggestions (“ask more people”) with no method.
• Assessing actions separately, with no comparison or judgement.
• A broad Individual Report title that is a topic, not a question.
• Submitting planning notes as Evidence of Action.

Next steps

• Try the free diagnostics.
• More practice: Global Perspectives practice, Individual Report practice, Team Project practice.
• Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), sections 2, 3 and 4.