Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Globalisation — 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 follow the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), sections 2 to 4. Questions 1 to 10 practise the AO1 skills tested in Component 1 Written Exam using original sources; questions 11 and 12 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. The syllabus states that knowledge of content is not assessed, so answer from the sources, not from what you know about globalisation. All people, places and data below are fictional.

Before you start, read the globalisation study guide and revision notes. More skills practice: Written Exam practice. Course links: hub · checklist.

Questions

Questions 1 to 10 use the four sources below.

Source A — original text written for Marlbridge. A blog post by Dara Okafor, who runs a family bakery in the fictional town of Pellmoor.

“Last spring a global supermarket chain opened on Pellmoor’s ring road. Since then two bakeries on our high street have shut. Everyone knows these chains care only about profit. Their bread is shipped in frozen from abroad and baked on site. Within five years there will be no independent shops left in towns like ours. Shopping local keeps money in the community, and I believe that matters more than saving a few coins.”

Source B — original text written for Marlbridge. A press release from the fictional Brightwell Shoppers’ Forum.

“We asked our members to fill in an online poll. Of our 3,000 members, 240 replied, and 168 of them (70%) said they prefer cheaper imported goods to dearer local ones. This proves that the public backs open trade. The Forum’s work is funded by a group of national retailers.”

Source C — original text written for Marlbridge. Two views from a radio debate in the fictional country of Valdoria.

Minister Lena Arkwright: “Our clothing factories are closing because cheap imports are flooding in. A 20% tariff on imported clothing would give our factories time to recover and save thousands of jobs. Other countries protect their industries, so we should too.”

Economist Dr Tomas Reyes: “A tariff would raise clothing prices for every family, and the poorest spend the largest share of their income on basics. Our exporters could also face tariffs in return. Retraining support for factory workers would help them without making everyone pay more.”

Source D — original data written for Marlbridge. Fictional figures for Valdoria.

Year	Share of clothing sold that was imported (%)	Jobs in Valdorian clothing factories	Average clothing price index (2010 = 100)
2010	35	84,000	100
2015	48	66,000	92
2020	61	51,000	85
2025	72	40,000	81

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

2. Identify the prediction in Source A and explain why it is difficult to rely on. [3]

3. “Everyone knows these chains care only about profit.” Explain why this statement is a generalisation and how it weakens Dara’s argument. [3]

4. Using Source B, evaluate the evidence that “the public backs open trade”. [6]

5. Suggest how the Brightwell Shoppers’ Forum could carry out better research to test the claim that people prefer cheaper imported goods. [5]

6. Using Source D, describe two changes in Valdoria between 2010 and 2025. [4]

7. Explain why Source D alone cannot prove that imports caused the fall in factory jobs. [4]

8. Using Sources A and C, explain two different perspectives on how globalisation affects workers and businesses, and suggest why the people hold them. [6]

9. Evaluate the arguments of Minister Arkwright and Dr Reyes in Source C. Which argument is better supported? Give reasons for your judgement. [12]

10. Using all the sources, assess which course of action would best reduce the harm to Valdoria’s clothing workers: a 20% tariff, retraining support, or a “buy Valdorian” campaign. Explain your judgement with reasons and evidence. [16]

11. You are planning an Individual Report within the topic of globalisation.

(a) Write a global research question that divides opinion. [1] (b) Explain two reasons why your question is suitable for the Individual Report. [4] (c) Identify one local or national perspective and one global perspective you would research. [2]

12. Your team chooses this local issue: “Most students at our school do not know where their clothes are made.” Suggest a course of action for a Team Project and explain how you would measure its success. [6]

Answers

1. Fact: “two bakeries on our high street have shut” (or the chain “opened on Pellmoor’s ring road”) [1]. Opinion: “Everyone knows these chains care only about profit” (or “I believe that matters more than saving a few coins”) [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Quote the source’s exact words; a paraphrase can blur whether the statement is checkable.

2. The prediction is “Within five years there will be no independent shops left in towns like ours” [1]. It is about the future, so it cannot yet be checked against evidence [1]. It also rests on two closures in one town, which is too little evidence to forecast every town [1]. [3] Examiner insight: The second mark comes from the reason; naming the prediction alone earns only the first.

3. It turns the behaviour Dara has seen into a claim about all chains and “everyone” [1]. No evidence is given about the chains’ motives [1]. A reader who knows one chain that supports local suppliers can reject the claim, so it makes Dara’s whole argument look less reasoned [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Explain the effect on the argument, not just the label; “this is a generalisation” by itself is worth one mark at most.

4. Strength: 240 replies is a reasonable number for a simple poll [1], and the 70% figure is calculated correctly from 168 of 240 [1]. Weakness: only 8% of members replied, so those who answered may not be typical [1]. Members of a shoppers’ forum may care more about price than the wider public, so the sample cannot speak for “the public” [1]. The Forum is funded by national retailers, who have a vested interest in selling imported goods [1]. Preferring cheaper goods is not the same as backing open trade as a policy, so the conclusion goes beyond the evidence [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Strong answers weigh at least one strength against the weaknesses instead of listing faults only.

5. Use a random sample of the general public, not only Forum members [1], large enough and spread across regions and income groups [1]. Ask a neutral question, for example offering two products with prices and origins, rather than a leading one [1]. Have the research run or checked by an independent body with no retail funding [1]. Compare what people say with what they actually buy, such as till data [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Each suggestion should fix a named weakness in the original research, otherwise it reads as a generic list.

6. The share of clothing that was imported rose from 35% to 72%, an increase of 37 percentage points [1] [1]. Jobs in clothing factories fell from 84,000 to 40,000, a loss of 44,000 jobs (about 52%) [1] [1]. (Also creditworthy: the price index fell from 100 to 81, a fall of 19%.) [4] Examiner insight: Give the direction and the figures with units; “percentage points” is the correct unit for a change in a share.

7. The data show that the two trends happened at the same time, which is a correlation [1], but a correlation does not show cause [1]. Other factors could explain the job losses, such as factories using more machines [1]. We would need more evidence, for example surveys of closed factories giving their reasons for closing [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Name a specific alternative cause; “other factors” with no example usually caps the answer.

8. Dara (Source A) sees globalisation as a threat to small local firms [1], because she runs a family bakery and has watched nearby bakeries close [1]. Her values matter too: she rates community over low prices [1]. Dr Reyes (Source C) sees cheaper imports as a benefit to families, especially the poorest [1], because as an economist he looks at the effect on the whole country rather than one industry [1]. He still accepts workers are harmed and suggests retraining, so his view is less one-sided than it first seems [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Marks for “why” come from linking each view to the person’s role, interests or values given in the source.

9. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points. Arkwright’s claim that imports cause closures fits Source D, where imports rose as jobs fell [1]. But “save thousands of jobs” is a prediction with no evidence of how many jobs a tariff would keep [1]. “Flooding in” is emotive language that exaggerates [1]. “Other countries protect their industries” is an appeal to what others do, not a reason a tariff will work [1]. She does not consider costs to consumers [1]. Reyes gives a reason linked to evidence: Source D shows prices fell by 19%, so a tariff would likely reverse some of that saving [1]. His point that the poorest spend most on basics is relevant to fairness [1], but he gives no figure to support it [1]. The risk of tariffs in return is a reasonable prediction but is not supported by any source [1]. He offers an alternative, retraining, but does not say who pays or whether jobs exist to retrain for [1]. Judgement: Reyes’s argument is better supported because it uses more of the evidence and weighs costs and benefits [1], although both speakers rely on unsupported predictions [1]. [12] Examiner insight: The judgement must be about the quality of reasoning and evidence, not about which policy you personally prefer.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points. Tariff: it could slow the rise in imports shown in Source D [1] and may keep some factory jobs in the short term [1]. But prices would rise for every family (Source C) [1], and other countries could respond with tariffs, hurting exporters [1]. Retraining: it helps the people actually harmed, the workers behind the fall of 44,000 factory jobs in Source D [1], without raising prices [1]. However, Source C gives no evidence that other jobs exist [1], and retraining takes time and money [1]. “Buy Valdorian” campaign: it fits Dara’s view that shopping local keeps money in the community (Source A) [1] and costs the government little [1]. But Source B suggests many shoppers choose on price [1], and that evidence is itself weak, so the campaign’s effect is uncertain [1]. Comparison: only retraining targets the workers directly; the other two try to change the market [1]. The tariff carries the widest side effects [1]. Judgement: retraining is the best single action because it helps those harmed without passing costs to the poorest [1], and it would work better if linked to local employers who say which skills they need [1]. [16] Examiner insight: Use evidence from every source and end with a clear choice; weighing actions against each other is what separates the top level.

11. (a) For example: “Should governments limit cheap clothing imports to protect local factory jobs?” [1] (b) It divides opinion: consumers, workers, factory owners and governments disagree [1] [1]. It has a global impact because clothing is traded between many countries, while still affecting local and national communities [1] [1]. (c) Local or national: factory workers in a clothing-making region, or a national government considering tariffs [1]. Global: an international labour organisation or a trade body taking a worldwide view [1]. [7] Examiner insight: A question that can be answered “yes” or “no” by fact-finding alone gives no room for the perspectives the report needs.

12. Action: the team traces where five common items of student clothing are made, using labels and brand information [1], then runs a lunchtime display with a map and short talks [1]. Each team member researches a different perspective, such as factory workers, brands and shoppers [1]. Measure success with the same short quiz before and after the display [1], for example the share of students who can name where one item was made [1], and record attendance numbers at the display [1]. [6] Examiner insight: A measure of success needs a baseline; without a “before” figure you cannot show the action made a difference.

Where marks are usually lost

• Answering from general knowledge about globalisation instead of the sources.
• Labelling a statement a “generalisation” or “prediction” without explaining what that does to the argument.
• Copying figures from a table without units or without saying whether they rose or fell.
• Treating a correlation in data as proof of cause.
• Evaluating only weaknesses in a source and never a strength.
• Choosing a course of action without comparing it to the alternatives.
• Writing a judgement about which policy you like rather than which argument is better reasoned.
• Proposing a Team Project action with no way of measuring success.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with the free diagnostics.
• Plan your coursework with Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Want feedback from a teacher? 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). See sections 2 to 4 for the assessment objectives, component details and command words.