Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Health and wellbeing — 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 Health and wellbeing from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), section 3 topic list. Questions 1 to 8 practise the source-based skills of the Component 1 Written Exam (section 4); questions 9 and 10 practise planning for the Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Knowledge of this topic is not assessed: answer from the sources, not from what you know about health. Every place, organisation and number in the sources is fictional.

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

Questions

1. Read Source A.

Source A — original text written for Marlbridge. A blog post by a parent in Kestleigh, a fictional town in the fictional country of Valdora.

“Last term my daughter’s school removed its fizzy drinks machine. Since then she has been far more focused in class, and she says she sleeps better. Children today drink far too much sugar, and every school in Valdora should follow our example. I know the machine earned the school 2,000 crowns a year, which paid for the chess club, but our children’s health matters more than a club.”

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

2. Describe the writer’s perspective in Source A and explain why the writer holds it. [4]

3. Read Source B.

Source B — original text written for Marlbridge. A press release from AquaPure Kestleigh, a fictional company that sells and installs drinking-water fountains.

“AquaPure installed free water fountains in two of Kestleigh’s six secondary schools in February. We asked students in January and again in March whether they drank a sugary drink on every school day. The results prove that fountains cut sugary drink consumption by over a third. Every school in Valdora should install them.”

School	Students surveyed	Answered “yes” in January	Answered “yes” in March
School 1	300	120	75
School 2	200	90	60

(a) Identify the percentage of all surveyed students in the two schools who answered “yes” in January, and the percentage in March. [2] (b) Evaluate how far the evidence in Source B supports the claim that “fountains cut sugary drink consumption by over a third”. [6]

4. Suggest how you could research whether installing water fountains reduces the number of students who drink sugary drinks at school. [6]

5. Read Source C.

Source C — original text written for Marlbridge. A summary of a survey by the Youth Movement Alliance, a fictional charity in Valdora that runs sports clubs.

“We surveyed 2,400 teenagers across Valdora, half girls and half boys. Only 22% of girls and 38% of boys meet the national target of 60 minutes of activity a day. When asked what stops them being active (they could choose more than one reason), 48% said schoolwork, 41% said there is no safe place to exercise near home and 33% said clubs cost too much. If nothing changes, we predict that weight-related illness among young adults will double by 2040. Our clubs are the answer.”

(a) Using Source C, explain two causes of low activity among teenagers in Valdora. [4] (b) Explain two possible consequences of low activity among teenagers, one for individuals and one for the country. [4]

6. Source C contains a prediction. Identify the prediction and explain two reasons to treat it with caution. [3]

7. Read Source D.

Source D — original text written for Marlbridge. Two speakers at a public debate in Valdora on a proposed tax of 20 crowns per litre on drinks containing more than 5 g of sugar per 100 ml.

Health minister: “Hospital tooth extractions in children have risen from 8,000 to 11,000 a year over five years. Sugary drinks are a major source of sugar in children’s diets. A tax will make these drinks more expensive, so families will buy fewer, and producers will have a reason to use less sugar. We will spend the money raised on school sports.”

Chair, Valdora Small Shops Association: “This tax punishes poorer families, who spend more of their income on food and drink. Customers will simply buy sweets instead. A shop owner I know in a neighbouring country says he lost half his customers after a similar tax. Parents, not the government, should decide what children drink.”

Evaluate the arguments of the two speakers in Source D. Which argument is better supported? [12]

8. Using all four sources, evaluate these three courses of action to improve young people’s health in Valdora, and decide which would be most effective:

• the sugary drinks tax proposed in Source D
• water fountains in every school, as in Source B
• free after-school activity sessions in a safe place in every town.

[16]

9. You are planning an Individual Report on the topic Health and wellbeing.

(a) Suggest a global research question for your report and explain why it is suitable. [3] (b) For your question, identify one national and one global perspective, and explain the reasoning behind each. [4]

10. A team of four students at a school in Kestleigh finds that many students skip breakfast before school. Suggest an action the team could carry out, how they could produce Evidence of Action, and how they could measure the success of their action. [6]

Answers

1. Fact: the school removed its fizzy drinks machine last term, or the machine earned 2,000 crowns a year [1]. Opinion: “children today drink far too much sugar”, or every school should follow their example [1]. [2] Examiner insight: quote the exact words; a fact must be checkable, not just something the writer feels sure about.

2. The writer believes sugary drinks machines should be removed from all schools in Valdora [1]. The view rests on personal observation of one child, who seems more focused and sleeps better [1]. It is based on a value: children’s health matters more than money for school activities [1]. The writer accepts a cost, losing 2,000 crowns and the chess club, but judges it worth paying [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “explain why” needs the reason or value behind the view; naming the view alone caps you at half marks.

3. (a) January: 210 of 500 students, 42% [1]. March: 135 of 500 students, 27% [1]. [2] (b) The figures do show a fall of 15 percentage points, a relative fall of about 36%, so “over a third” is accurate for those who answered [1]. But the answers are self-reported; students may have given the answer they thought was wanted [1]. There is no comparison group: the four schools without fountains were not surveyed, so the fall might have happened anyway [1]. March is a different season and only about a month after installation, so the evidence cannot show a lasting change [1]. The survey asked whether students drank a sugary drink every school day, not how much, so it does not directly measure “consumption” [1]. The source is a company that sells fountains and chose the schools and questions, so it has a vested interest; overall the evidence gives only weak support [1]. [6] Examiner insight: accept what the data does show before explaining what it cannot show, and tie each weakness to the exact claim.

4. Compare schools with fountains against similar schools without them [1]. Measure behaviour directly, for example canteen sales records, not only what students say [1]. Collect data for both groups on the same dates so season affects both equally [1]. Use a larger sample, such as all six schools, with students chosen at random [1]. Measure over a full school year to see whether any change lasts [1]. Use an independent researcher and anonymous questionnaires [1]. [6] Examiner insight: each suggestion should fix a specific weakness in the original research; general methods with no link to the claim score less.

5. (a) Schoolwork: 48% said it stops them being active [1], because time spent studying leaves less time for exercise [1]. No safe place: 41% said there is nowhere safe near home [1], so even teenagers who want to exercise may not be allowed or feel able to go out [1]. Cost of clubs (33%) with an explanation is also creditable. [4] (b) Individuals: a higher risk of weight-related illness [1], affecting health and quality of life into adulthood [1]. The country: more people needing treatment puts pressure on the health system [1], raising costs that could otherwise fund other services [1]. [4] Examiner insight: use the source’s figure to show a cause matters, then add the “because” step linking it to the problem.

6. The prediction: weight-related illness among young adults “will double by 2040” [1]. It comes from a charity that runs clubs and says “Our clubs are the answer”, a vested interest in making the problem seem large [1]. No data or method is given for the figure, and trends may change [1]. [3] Examiner insight: a prediction cannot be checked yet, so the marks are for asking who made it and what it rests on.

7. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these indicative points show what earns credit.

Health minister: uses specific data, extractions rising from 8,000 to 11,000 a year, an increase of 37.5% [1]. But this shows tooth decay rising, not that sugary drinks caused it; diet or access to dentists are not ruled out [1]. “A major source of sugar” is a claim with no evidence given [1]. The reasoning that a higher price cuts buying and pushes producers to use less sugar is logical, with two routes to the outcome [1]. Spending the money on school sports partly answers the fairness concern [1]. A minister proposing the policy has an interest in presenting it as a success [1].

Shops Association: poorer families spending more of their income on food is a reasonable fairness point, but no figures are given [1]. “Customers will simply buy sweets instead” is an unsupported prediction [1]. The neighbouring-country shop owner is one second-hand story, a weak generalisation [1]. Shops whose sales could fall give the speaker a vested interest [1]. “Parents, not the government, should decide” is a value about choice, a legitimate perspective but not evidence [1].

Judgement: the minister’s argument is better supported, using data and a clear chain of reasoning, though it overstates the drinks link; the Association raises a fair concern but backs other points only with assertion and anecdote [1]. [12] Examiner insight: judge the quality of each argument, not whether you agree with the tax; the judgement must follow from your evaluation.

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

Tax: targets a cause through price, and producers may cut sugar (Source D) [1]. Revenue could fund school sports, linking to the low activity in Source C [1]. Poorer families pay a bigger share of income [1]. People may switch to sweets, though neither side gives strong evidence [1].

Fountains: low cost, a free alternative that punishes no one [1]. Source B’s evidence is weak, so their effect is uncertain [1]. They work only in school, not at home [1].

Activity sessions: target two barriers in Source C, no safe place (41%) and cost (33%) [1]. Girls trail boys by 16 percentage points, so sessions designed for girls could narrow the gap [1]. The biggest barrier, schoolwork (48%), is not addressed [1]. Source C’s author runs clubs, so its case needs caution [1]. Staff and venues must be paid for every year [1].

Weighing up: states criteria such as effectiveness, fairness and cost [1]. Sees that actions can combine, for example tax revenue funding sessions and fountains [1]. Reaches a clear judgement with a reason, for example sessions because they remove most barriers and address the gender gap [1]. Notes no source proves an outcome, so the action should be trialled and measured [1]. [16] Examiner insight: use every source and compare the actions directly; three separate mini-essays with no comparison miss the top level.

9. (a) For example: “Should governments ban the advertising of unhealthy food to children?” [1]. It divides opinion between health campaigners and food companies [1]. It allows national and global perspectives, since countries set different rules while food companies advertise across borders [1]. [3] (b) National: a national food producers’ association [1], arguing a ban would cut sales and jobs and that parents should control children’s choices [1]. Global: an international health body [1], arguing that advertising shapes children’s diets worldwide and common rules protect children everywhere [1]. [4] Examiner insight: a suitable question needs more than one defensible answer; “Is unhealthy food bad for children?” has only one.

10. Action: a free breakfast stall before school twice a week for four weeks, with the school’s permission [1], linked to the team’s research, for example if students said they skip breakfast through lack of time [1]. Evidence of Action: photographs of the stall and its posters [1], produced during the action, since the syllabus says it should not include research or initial meetings [1]. Success: a before-and-after survey of how many days students eat breakfast [1], plus a daily count of breakfasts served [1]. [6] Examiner insight: collect your “before” data before the action starts, or the Reflective Paper has nothing to evaluate against.

Where marks are usually lost

• Using outside knowledge about health instead of the sources provided.
• Saying a source is “biased” without naming who gains and how.
• Missing that survey answers are self-reported, or that there is no comparison group.
• Treating a single second-hand story as evidence of a pattern.
• Evaluating only one course of action when the question asks you to compare several.
• Agreeing or disagreeing with a speaker instead of judging the quality of their argument.
• Writing an Individual Report question with only one possible answer.
• Planning a Team Project action with no “before” data to measure against.

Next steps

• Work through the Written Exam practice questions, the Individual Report practice questions and the Team Project practice questions.
• Check your strengths and gaps with a diagnostic.
• Want help 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), published by Cambridge International. The topic list is in section 3, the assessment objectives in section 2, and the components and command words in section 4.