Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Law and criminality — 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 9 practise the AO1 skills tested in Component 1 Written Exam, using original sources; questions 10 and 11 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 crime. All people, places and data below are fictional.

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

Questions

Questions 1 to 9 use the three sources below. All are set in the fictional country of Varland.

Source A — original text written for Marlbridge. A local news report from the fictional town of Corrin Bay.

“Corrin Bay Council will vote next month on a 9pm curfew for under-16s in the town centre. Police figures show recorded vandalism in the town centre rose from 64 incidents in 2023 to 80 in 2024. Council leader Mira Holt said: ‘Families deserve to feel safe. The curfew will halve vandalism within a year.’ Shop owner Ben Asante, whose window has been broken twice, said: ‘Young people gather outside my shop every night. Something has to be done.’ Youth worker Priya Nair disagreed: ‘Most young people here have done nothing wrong. Since the youth centre closed in 2023, they have nowhere else to go.’ A police survey found that 27 of the 45 shop workers asked feel unsafe after 8pm.”

Source B — original text written for Marlbridge. A press release from the fictional charity Second Start Trust.

“Our mentoring scheme works. Last year 160 young people aged 14 to 17 who had been in trouble with the police joined the scheme, and 120 completed it. Of those 120, only 18 (15%) were convicted of another offence within 12 months. That is less than half the national rate of 38% for young people in Varland. Mentoring cuts reoffending by around 60%. Young people chose whether to join. Our funding for next year depends on showing results.”

Source C — original text written for Marlbridge. Two views from a radio debate.

Former magistrate Ada Kwan: “Short prison sentences fail. Government figures show 58% of adults released from sentences under 12 months reoffend within a year, compared with 34% of those given community sentences. A short sentence can cost someone their job and home, which makes more crime likely. Community sentences make offenders repay the community, and they cost far less.”

Victims’ group spokesperson Owen Pryce: “Victims need to see justice done. In our survey of 500 victims, 350 said community sentences feel like no punishment at all. Prison protects the public, because people cannot offend in the community while they are locked up. If we go soft on crime, crime will rise.”

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

2. Explain why Ben Asante in Source A may have a vested interest in the curfew. [2]

3. Identify the prediction in Source A and explain why it may be unreliable. [3]

4. Use the vandalism figures in Source A.

(a) Calculate the percentage rise in recorded vandalism from 2023 to 2024. [2] (b) Explain two reasons why this figure may not show the real change in vandalism. [4]

5. Analyse the different perspectives of Mira Holt and Priya Nair on the curfew, and explain why each may hold their view. [6]

6. Use Source B.

(a) Evaluate the evidence for the claim that “mentoring cuts reoffending by around 60%”. [8] (b) Suggest how the claim could be tested more reliably. [6]

7. A student writes: “Crime is out of control everywhere because young people today have no respect.” Identify and explain two weaknesses in this reasoning. [4]

8. Evaluate the arguments of Ada Kwan and Owen Pryce in Source C. Which argument is better supported? Give reasons for your judgement. [12]

9. Using all the sources, assess which course of action would be most effective in reducing vandalism in Corrin Bay. Explain your judgement with reasons and evidence. [16]

10. Individual Report planning.

(a) A student proposes the title “Prisons”. Write an improved global research question and explain why it is better. [3] (b) For your question, identify one national and one global perspective, and the type of source you would use for each. [4]

11. Plan a Team Project on a local issue within Law and criminality. State the issue, the action, how team members would divide the research, how you would evidence the action, how you would measure success, and one way you would keep the project safe and feasible. [6]

Answers

1. Fact: recorded vandalism rose from 64 incidents in 2023 to 80 in 2024 (or the youth centre closed in 2023, or 27 of 45 shop workers said they feel unsafe) [1]. Opinion: “Something has to be done” (or “Most young people here have done nothing wrong”) [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Quote the exact words; a paraphrase can turn an opinion into something that looks like a fact and lose the mark.

2. His shop window has been broken twice and young people gather outside his shop, so he would gain directly if they were kept away [1]. His support may therefore reflect his own losses rather than evidence that a curfew would work for the whole town [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Name what the person stands to gain; “he is biased” with no gain identified earns nothing.

3. The prediction is “The curfew will halve vandalism within a year”, that is, from 80 to 40 incidents [1]. No evidence is given that curfews reduce vandalism, and vandalism by people aged 16 or over, or before 9pm, would not be affected [1]. The speaker proposed the policy and has an interest in presenting it positively [1]. [3] Examiner insight: For a prediction, ask what evidence supports it and who is making it; the source rarely gives both.

4. (a) (80 − 64) ÷ 64 × 100 [1] = a 25% rise [1]. (b) Recorded crime includes only incidents reported to police [1]; shopkeepers may have reported more often in 2024, for example after media attention, so the figure may show more reporting rather than more vandalism [1]. Police recording or detection may have changed [1]; more patrols or cameras would find more incidents without more being committed [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Show the working for the percentage, then give reasons about how the data were collected, not about why young people vandalise.

5. Holt supports the curfew and frames the issue as families’ safety [1]. As council leader she is responsible for the whole town and is under pressure to take visible action [1]. Nair opposes it because it treats the innocent majority of young people as suspects [1]. As a youth worker she works with young people and sees the youth centre’s closure as the cause [1]. They disagree about the cause: Holt treats young people’s presence as the problem, while Nair treats the lack of facilities as the problem [1]. So they favour different actions, control versus provision [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Marks for analysis come from explaining why each view is held and how the views relate, not from repeating the quotations.

6. (a) Only the 120 who completed are counted; the 40 who dropped out are left out [1]. If all 40 had reoffended, the rate would be 58 out of 160, about 36%, close to the national 38% [1]. Young people chose whether to join, so they may have been more motivated to change [1], which means the national rate is not a like-for-like comparison group [1]. The arithmetic is accurate: 15% is less than half of 38%, and the relative fall is about 60% [1], but the claim assumes the national rate is a fair comparison, which it is not [1]. The measure is reconviction within 12 months, so offences not caught are missed and 12 months is a short period [1]. The charity’s funding depends on showing results, and there is no independent check, so it has a vested interest [1]. (b) Compare the scheme with a control group of similar young people who did not take part [1], ideally by allocating places fairly, for example by lottery from a waiting list [1]. Count everyone who started, not just those who completed [1]. Follow participants for longer, such as two or three years [1]. Use independent researchers and official records rather than the charity’s own data [1]. Use a larger sample across several areas [1]. [14] Examiner insight: An evaluation mark needs the consequence of each weakness for the claim, such as “so the scheme may not have caused the fall”, not just the weakness named.

7. “Young people today have no respect” is a generalisation about a whole group [1], made without any evidence, so it cannot support the conclusion [1]. “Out of control everywhere” is an exaggerated claim with no data [1], and the reasoning assumes without evidence that young people are the cause of crime [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Name the weakness with a precise term (generalisation, unsupported claim, assumed cause), then explain how it damages the argument.

8. The real exam marks this with levels of response; the points below are indicative. Kwan uses specific figures (58% against 34%) that relate directly to her claim about reoffending [1]. However, people sent to prison may have committed more serious offences or have more previous convictions, so the two groups may not be comparable [1]. Her chain of reasoning, that losing a job and home makes more crime likely, is logical [1], but she gives no evidence for it [1]. “They cost far less” has no figures to support it [1]. Her experience as a magistrate gives her relevant expertise [1]. Pryce’s survey of 500 victims, of whom 350 (70%) felt community sentences are no punishment, shows victims’ feelings [1], but it measures opinion about punishment, not whether community sentences reduce crime [1]. A victims’ group running its own survey may have a vested interest in tougher sentences [1]. His point that prison stops offending in the community is valid [1], but only for the length of a short sentence [1]. “If we go soft on crime, crime will rise” is a prediction with no evidence [1]. Judgement: Kwan’s argument is better supported because her evidence measures the outcome in dispute, while Pryce’s measures attitudes, though her comparison would be stronger if the groups were matched. The opposite judgement can score equally well if supported. [12] Examiner insight: Judge the quality of each argument’s evidence and reasoning; agreeing with the side you prefer earns nothing on its own.

9. The real exam marks this with levels of response; the points below are indicative. Criteria: effectiveness against the cause, fairness, cost and speed [1]. Curfew: it could be introduced quickly [1], but it restricts the innocent majority, as Nair argues [1]; it does not cover people aged 16 or over, or vandalism before 9pm [1]; and Holt’s prediction of halving vandalism is unsupported [1]. Reopening the youth centre: the rise from 64 to 80 came after the closure in 2023 [1], so it may tackle a cause rather than a symptom [1]; but the timing alone does not prove the closure caused the rise [1]. Mentoring (Source B): it targets young people already in trouble [1], but its evidence is weak because of the excluded drop-outs and self-selection [1]. Extra patrols: they could reassure the 27 of 45 shop workers who feel unsafe [1], but the effect may last only while officers are present [1]. Source C: the community-sentence evidence concerns adults, so it is of limited relevance to under-16s [1]. Comparison: the curfew is fast but unfair and uncertain; the youth centre is slower but addresses a likely cause [1]. Judgement: reopen the youth centre, with short-term patrols, rather than a curfew [1]; confidence would increase if vandalism were compared with a similar town before and after [1]. Another well-supported choice can score equally well. [16] Examiner insight: Top answers compare actions against the same criteria and use evidence from every source, including saying when a source is less relevant.

10. (a) “Prisons” is a topic, not a question [1]. Improved: “Should countries use community sentences instead of short prison sentences to reduce reoffending?” [1]. It divides opinion and allows national and global perspectives to be compared [1]. (b) National: your country’s justice ministry, or a national victims’ organisation [1]; source: official reoffending statistics, checking how reoffending is defined [1]. Global: an international organisation or a country with a different approach [1]; source: an international report, checking its date and where its data come from [1]. [7] Examiner insight: A good research question asks “should”, “to what extent” or “how effective”, which gives the report room for different perspectives.

11. Issue: bicycles stolen from the school racks [1]. Action: a security-marking and lock-advice stall run by the team [1]. Research: each member takes a different perspective, such as students, school staff, parents or a local community police officer [1]. Evidence of Action: photographs of the stall and the leaflet handed out [1]. Measure: the number of bikes marked, plus a before-and-after survey of locking habits [1]. Safety and feasibility: get school permission and do not investigate thefts or approach suspects [1]. [6] Examiner insight: A Team Project action must be one the team can carry out and measure locally; “change the law” cannot be measured by a school team.

Where marks are usually lost

• Treating recorded crime figures as a full count of crime.
• Naming “bias” without saying what the source’s author stands to gain.
• Ignoring drop-outs and self-selection when judging a programme’s results.
• Accepting a comparison between groups that differ in important ways.
• Repeating quotations instead of explaining why each person holds their view.
• Writing a Question 3-style answer that argues the issue instead of judging the arguments.
• Assessing actions in isolation with no criteria and no comparison.
• Choosing Team Project actions that are unsafe, unmeasurable or national in scale.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with our diagnostics.
• Revise the method in the Law and criminality study guide and the Written Exam study guide.
• Plan coursework with the Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Want feedback on your answers? 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 how your school uses the Law and criminality topic.