Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Political power and action – 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 Political power and action from 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 Component 1 (Written Exam) skills; questions 11 and 12 practise planning for Component 2 (Individual Report) and Component 3 (Team Project). Knowledge of content is not assessed: every answer comes from the sources and your reasoning. All places, people and data are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. More practice: Written Exam practice, Individual Report practice and Team Project practice. Course overview: hub and checklist.

Questions

1. Read Source A.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Blog post by Mira Osei, 17, a volunteer with Voice at Sixteen, a campaign group in the fictional country of Talmere.

“In Talmere you can leave school, work full time and pay income tax at 16, but you cannot vote until 18. Last year Fennick became the first district where 16- and 17-year-olds could vote in the local election. Nearly half of them turned out. Young people are clearly more responsible than politicians think. If the whole country follows Fennick, a new generation of lifelong voters will be created. Adults who oppose this simply fear losing their power.”

(a) Identify one fact in Source A. [1] (b) Identify one prediction in Source A. [1] (c) Identify one generalisation in Source A and explain why it weakens the argument. [2]

2. Explain how the author’s position might affect the reliability of Source A. [3]

3. Read Source B.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. Voice at Sixteen research leaflet. All data fictional.

Fennick local elections	2021 registered	2021 turnout	2025 registered	2025 turnout
Aged 16-17	not eligible	–	1,200	48%
Aged 18-24	3,000	31%	3,100	34%
Aged 25-64	21,000	52%	21,500	51%
Aged 65+	8,000	71%	8,200	70%
All voters	32,000	54.8%	34,000	53.9%

“We also asked 150 newly eligible voters at our youth-club open day. 123 of them (82%) said they will vote again. Votes at 16 raised turnout in Fennick.”

(a) Identify the age group whose turnout rose between 2021 and 2025. [1] (b) Explain whether the data support the claim that “votes at 16 raised turnout in Fennick”. [4]

4. Evaluate the research in Source B. [6]

5. Suggest how researchers could test the claim that “voting at 16 creates lifelong voters”. [6]

6. Read Source C.

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. Two letters to the Talmere Daily Post, a fictional newspaper.

Letter 1, from a retired head teacher: “Talmere should make voting compulsory. When only half of us vote, governments are chosen by the half that is older and better off. Countries that require voting have higher turnout, so their governments speak for more people. A small fine is a fair price for a democracy that includes everyone.”

Letter 2, from a shop owner: “Forcing people to vote is not freedom. Choosing not to vote is itself a message. People dragged to the polls will tick any box to avoid the fine, so the result will be no better. And a fine that is small for a lawyer is large for a cleaner. Spend the money on teaching people why their vote matters instead.”

Identify the main value behind each letter. [2]

7. Explain why the two writers in Source C may hold different perspectives. [4]

8. Evaluate the arguments in Source C. Which letter is better supported? [12]

9. Read Source D.

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Summary of a council report from Ostmere, a fictional town. All data fictional.

Last year the council let residents vote on how to spend 200,000 crowns. Of the town’s 40,000 adults, 2,400 voted, all at in-person meetings on weekday evenings. Winning projects: playground repair (90,000), bus-shelter lighting (60,000), community garden (50,000). Under-25s are 6,000 of the town’s adults but only 180 of the voters. For next year the council is considering: Option 1 – keep the meetings and advertise them more; Option 2 – add online voting and voting in schools and colleges; Option 3 – give an elected youth council 50,000 crowns of the budget to decide.

(a) Describe what the data show about who took part. [2] (b) Explain one possible cause and one possible consequence of the low participation of under-25s. [4]

10. Using all the sources, evaluate the three options in Source D. Which is most likely to increase young people’s participation in Ostmere? [14]

11. You are planning an Individual Report on the topic Political power and action.

(a) Devise a global research question on an issue that divides opinion. [1] (b) Explain why your question is suitable. [2] (c) Identify one local or national perspective and one global perspective you would research, and one type of source for the second. [3]

12. Your team is planning a Team Project on low turnout in your school’s student council elections. Describe a suitable action, how you would evidence it and how you would measure its success. [6]

Answers

1. (a) “You can … pay income tax at 16” or “Fennick became the first district where 16- and 17-year-olds could vote” (checkable) [1]. [1] (b) “If the whole country follows Fennick, a new generation of lifelong voters will be created” [1]. [1] (c) “Adults who oppose this simply fear losing their power” [1]; it applies one motive to every opponent without evidence and ignores other possible reasons, such as maturity [1]. [2] Examiner insight: For “identify”, quote the exact words; a paraphrase that blends two sentences can lose the mark.

2. Mira Osei is 17, so she personally gains the vote if the change is made [1]. She volunteers for a campaign group whose purpose is to win votes at 16, a vested interest [1]. This makes it likely she selects favourable points (such as “nearly half turned out”) and leaves out evidence that does not help, so the source needs checking against independent data [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Naming a vested interest earns little until you explain how it could shape what the source says or leaves out.

3. (a) Aged 18-24 (31% to 34%) [1]. [1] (b) Partly: 18-24 turnout rose by 3 percentage points [1], and nearly half of the new 16-17 voters took part [1]. However, overall turnout fell from 54.8% to 53.9%, partly because adding a group with below-average turnout pulls the total down and partly because older groups fell by a point [1]. A single election cannot show the rise was caused by votes at 16 rather than by local issues that year [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Use the figures in the table; “the data partly support it” with no numbers stays in the lower marks.

4. Strengths: the turnout figures cover every registered voter in each group, not a sample [1], and two elections allow a before-and-after comparison [1]. Limitations: the survey sample of 150 is only 12.5% of the 1,200 newly eligible voters [1] and was taken at the group’s own open day, so it over-represents enthusiastic young people [1]. “Will vote again” measures intention, which is often higher than actual voting [1]. The research was published by Voice at Sixteen, which has a vested interest in a positive result, and it gives no comparison with a district that kept the voting age at 18 [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Balance strengths and limitations, and tie each point to a detail of this research rather than a generic list.

5. Follow a group who first voted at 16 or 17 through several later elections [1], using official records of who voted rather than what people say [1]. Compare them with a similar group in a district where the voting age stayed at 18 [1], matched for factors such as income and education [1]. Use a large sample from several districts so one local result does not dominate [1]. Limitation: this takes many years, and other changes over that time could affect turnout [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Marks come from method, sample, comparison and a limitation; “do a survey” on its own scores little.

6. Letter 1: equality or inclusion, so that everyone is represented [1]. Letter 2: freedom or personal choice [1]. [2] Examiner insight: A value is a principle, so name it in one word or phrase rather than summarising the whole letter.

7. The head teacher values inclusion, so sees non-voting as a gap that lets older, better-off people decide [1]; years in schools may lead to a focus on civic duty [1]. The shop owner values freedom, so sees compulsion as government overreach [1]; running a business may make this writer more aware of how a fine affects people on low incomes [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Explain why each perspective is held (values, experience, interests), not just what each writer thinks.

8. The real exam marks this with levels of response; these are indicative points. Letter 1 makes a reasonable claim that compulsory voting raises turnout [1], but offers no data or named example to support it [1]. “Governments are chosen by the half that is older and better off” is a generalisation with no evidence [1]. Its step from higher turnout to governments that “speak for more people” assumes extra voters are informed and their views are acted on [1]. “A small fine is a fair price” is an opinion based on the value of inclusion [1]. Letter 2 makes a logical fairness point: a fixed fine takes a bigger share of a low income [1]. “Choosing not to vote is itself a message” is a value claim that is hard to test [1]. “People will tick any box” is a prediction and a generalisation without evidence [1]. Letter 2 offers an alternative course of action, civic education, which strengthens its case [1], though it does not show that education would raise turnout [1]. Judgement: Letter 2 is slightly better supported because its fairness reasoning is logically sound and it proposes an alternative, while Letter 1 rests on an unsupported generalisation [1]; neither letter gives real evidence, so both would need data before a decision [1]. [12] Examiner insight: The judgement must be about the quality of reasoning and evidence, not about which side you agree with.

9. (a) Only 6% of adults took part (2,400 of 40,000) [1]. Under-25s are 15% of adults but only 7.5% of voters, so they were under-represented [1]. [2] (b) Cause: all voting was at weekday-evening meetings [1], which clash with college, work or caring duties [1]. Consequence: spending reflects older residents’ priorities [1], so young people may trust the council less and participate even less next time [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Link each cause and consequence to a detail in the source, not to young people in general.

10. The real exam marks this with levels of response; these are indicative points. Under-25s took part at about 3% (180 of 6,000), half the 6% overall rate, so the problem is access and interest [1]. Option 1 is cheap and simple [1], but it keeps the weekday-evening barrier, so more adverts may mainly reach those already likely to attend [1]. Option 2 removes the time-and-place barrier [1] and reaches young people where they already are [1]. Its risks are online security and duplicate votes [1], and schools may worry about political neutrality, though a vote on parks and lighting is not party-political [1]. Option 3 gives young people real, visible power over a quarter of the budget [1], which could build trust and habit [1], but only a few young people sit on the council [1] and others may see it as a token [1]. Source A and Source B suggest new young voters do take part when given direct access (48% in Fennick) [1], although that evidence comes from a group with a vested interest [1]. Judgement: Option 2 is most likely to raise participation because it removes the main barrier the data show; combining it with Option 3 could add influence as well as numbers, measured by comparing under-25 participation next year [1]. [14] Examiner insight: Top answers compare every option against the same criteria and use figures from the sources to justify the final choice.

11. (a) For example: “Should voting be compulsory in democratic countries?” [1]. [1] (b) It divides opinion between values of inclusion and freedom [1], and it can be explored at local or national and global levels with a final answer in 1500-2000 words [1]. [2] (c) Local or national: for example, a national electoral commission or young first-time voters in my country [1]. Global: for example, an international organisation that compares voting rules across countries [1], researched through its published reports [1]. [3] Examiner insight: A question that only one side can answer (“Why is voting important?”) limits marks for perspectives across the whole report.

12. Action: run a short, non-partisan “how and why to vote” assembly and poster campaign before the student council election [1], with candidates’ statements displayed in one place [1]. Evidence of Action: photographs of the assembly and posters, plus a copy of the leaflet [1]. Measure: compare the share of students voting with the previous election [1], and run a short before-and-after survey on whether students know how to vote [1], checking the change is not caused by something else, such as a more popular candidate [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Decide how you will measure success before you act; a team with no baseline cannot show any change.

Where marks are usually lost

• Calling a source “biased” without quoting the words or data that show it.
• Treating “82% said they will vote” as if 82% did vote.
• Ignoring how the sample was chosen and who ran the research.
• Missing that adding a low-turnout group can pull an overall figure down.
• Suggesting a test of a claim with no comparison group.
• Judging arguments by whether you agree with them rather than by evidence and reasoning.
• Assessing courses of action one by one without comparing them.
• Planning a Team Project action that promotes a party or candidate.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with a diagnostic.
• Book a free trial class.
• Return to the study guide, the hub or the checklist.

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).