Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Poverty and inequality — 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 8 practise the AO1 skills tested in Component 1 Written Exam. Questions 9 and 10 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Topic knowledge is not assessed in 0457, so answer from the sources and your reasoning. All places, people, organisations and data are fictional.

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

Questions

1. Read Source A.

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. The council leader of the fictional town of Tamsworth: “Last year, 1 in 4 children in Tamsworth lived in households below the national relative poverty line. That is a disgrace in a town as wealthy as ours. If nothing changes, the figure will reach 1 in 3 within five years. Everyone on a low income here wants to work more hours but cannot find them.”

(a) Identify one statement in Source A that is presented as a fact. [1] (b) Identify one prediction in Source A. [1] (c) Identify one generalisation in Source A. [1]

2. Read Source B.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. From the fictional Tamsworth Landlords’ Association: “A rent cap would be a disaster for tenants. Landlords would sell up and there would be fewer homes to rent. Our members know the housing market far better than the council does.”

Explain how the vested interest of the author might affect the reliability of Source B. [4]

3. Study Source C.

Source C – original data written for Marlbridge. Household income in the fictional country of Marenland. “Share” is the percentage of all household income received by each group.

Year	Average monthly household income (crowns)	Share received by poorest 20%	Share received by richest 20%
2015	1,000	7.0%	44.0%
2020	1,150	6.0%	47.0%
2025	1,300	5.5%	49.0%

(a) Describe what Source C shows about the share of income received by the poorest 20% of households from 2015 to 2025. [2] (b) A politician says: “Source C proves that the poorest households in Marenland are getting poorer.” Using Source C, explain why this claim is not fully supported. [4]

4. Read Source D, two views on a proposed higher tax on top earners in Marenland.

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. A retired nurse: “It is simply wrong that some people own three houses while others queue for food.” A small-business owner: “If taxes go up, our most talented people will leave the country and we will all be poorer.”

(a) Identify the view based mainly on a value, and explain your choice. [2] (b) Identify the prediction in Source D, and suggest one question you would ask to test it. [2]

5. Read Source E.

Source E – original text written for Marlbridge. The fictional charity Brightway Trust runs a food centre in Tamsworth. In March, staff asked 120 families at the centre whether their children skipped a meal at least once a week; 84 (70%) said yes. Three years ago, staff asked 90 families there the same question; 45 (50%) said yes. The Trust’s fundraising appeal says: “Child hunger in Tamsworth has risen by 20% in three years. Please give generously.”

(a) Evaluate the Brightway Trust’s research as evidence for its claim. [6] (b) Suggest how you could research whether child hunger across Tamsworth has really increased. [4]

6. Read Source F.

Source F – original text written for Marlbridge. The fictional coastal village of Sanvik once depended on fishing. Over twenty years, catches fell and the fish-processing plant closed. Many young adults moved to the city to find work. The village school lost pupils and shops closed.

Using Source F, explain how one consequence of poverty in Sanvik could become a cause of further poverty. [4]

7. Read Source G.

Source G – original text written for Marlbridge. Argument 1, Dr Lena Hart, a fictional economist: “Marenland should give every adult 300 crowns a month, with no conditions. In our pilot in the fictional district of Orvel, 500 adults received the payment for a year. 62% said they felt less stressed, and the number in work did not change. Poverty is, above all, a lack of money.” Argument 2, Tomas Vey, a fictional business owner: “Paying 300 crowns a month to all 4 million adults would cost 14.4 billion crowns a year. People will stop working if money is free: my cousin stopped looking for a job as soon as he got benefits. Spend the money on training instead.”

Evaluate the two arguments in Source G. Which is better supported? Give reasons. [10]

8. Read Source H. You may also use Sources A to G.

Source H – original text written for Marlbridge. Tamsworth council has 1 million crowns a year to reduce child poverty. Option 1: free school meals for all 6,000 primary pupils. Cost: about 2.7 million crowns a year. No child is singled out. Option 2: free school meals for the 1,800 pupils from the lowest-income families. Cost: about 0.82 million crowns a year. In the past, some eligible families did not apply. Option 3: a course helping 300 parents gain qualifications for better-paid jobs. Cost: 0.75 million crowns a year. Results take two to three years to show.

Assess which option would be most effective in reducing child poverty in Tamsworth. Explain your judgement with reasons and evidence. [12]

9. This question is about planning a Component 2 Individual Report.

(a) Suggest a global research question on poverty and inequality that divides opinion. [1] (b) Explain two reasons why your question is suitable for an Individual Report. [4]

10. A Team Project group notices that some families at their school struggle to afford school uniform. Explain an action the team could take, how they could evidence it, and how they could measure its success. [6]

Answers

1. (a) “Last year, 1 in 4 children in Tamsworth lived in households below the national relative poverty line.” [1] [1] (b) “If nothing changes, the figure will reach 1 in 3 within five years.” [1] [1] (c) “Everyone on a low income here wants to work more hours but cannot find them.” [1] [1] Examiner insight: quote the exact words; a loose paraphrase can blur a fact into an opinion and lose the mark.

2. The association represents landlords, whose rental income a cap would limit [1]. So it gains if the cap is rejected, whatever the evidence [1]. This may explain the emotive word “disaster” and the unsupported prediction that “landlords would sell up” [1]. The source is not automatically wrong, but its claims need checking against independent evidence, such as official housing data, and against other perspectives, such as tenants’ groups [1]. [4] Examiner insight: naming the vested interest earns little alone; the marks come from explaining how it could shape what the source says.

3. (a) The share fell from 7.0% in 2015 to 5.5% in 2025 [1]. It fell in both periods, by 1.5 percentage points overall, while the richest 20%’s share rose [1]. [2] (b) Source C shows shares of income, not amounts [1]. Average household income rose by 30%, from 1,000 to 1,300 crowns [1]. So the poorest 20% averaged about 350 crowns in 2015 (7.0 ÷ 20 × 1,000) and about 358 crowns in 2025 (5.5 ÷ 20 × 1,300), roughly unchanged [1]. So the poorest are falling behind, not getting poorer in money terms, and with no price data we cannot judge living standards [1]. [4] Examiner insight: working with the source’s numbers to separate share from amount is the analysis this question rewards.

4. (a) The retired nurse’s view [1]. “Simply wrong” is a judgement about fairness that evidence cannot prove true or false [1]. [2] (b) “Our most talented people will leave the country” [1]. Question: “In countries that raised taxes on top earners, how many actually left?” [1] [2] Examiner insight: the second mark needs a reason tied to the words of the statement, not a textbook definition.

5. (a) The same question was asked at the same centre both times, so the results are comparable [1]. But the families are food-centre users, more likely to be in need, so the results cannot be applied to all of Tamsworth [1]. The rise from 50% to 70% is 20 percentage points, a 40% increase, so the “20%” claim is imprecise [1]. A change in who uses the centre could explain the rise [1]. Families answered the charity’s own staff, so some may have given the expected answer [1]. The claim is in a fundraising appeal, so the Trust has a vested interest in showing a rise [1]. [6] (b) Define child hunger clearly, for example “skipped at least one meal a week because there was not enough food” [1]. Survey a large random sample of households from every part of Tamsworth [1]. Make the questionnaire anonymous so families answer honestly [1]. Repeat it in later years with the same method, and check against other evidence such as teachers’ reports [1]. [4] Examiner insight: in part (a), weaknesses linked to the exact words of the claim (“Tamsworth”, “20%”) earn more than general survey criticisms.

6. Young adults moved to the city to find work [1]. So fewer working-age people live in Sanvik and less money is spent there [1]. As a result, shops close and the school shrinks, leaving fewer local jobs [1]. So newcomers stay away and more people leave, and poverty deepens in a cycle [1]. [4] Examiner insight: show each link with “so” or “because”; separate statements do not show a cycle.

7. The real exam marks this with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative points. Argument 1: it uses evidence from a pilot, not opinion alone [1]. It measured employment, which answers the worry about people stopping work [1]. But 500 adults in one district may not represent the whole country [1]. One year is too short to show long-term effects [1]. “Less stressed” is self-reported and measures stress, not poverty [1]. “Poverty is, above all, a lack of money” is an assertion with no evidence [1]. Dr Hart calls it “our pilot”, so she may want it judged a success [1]. Argument 2: the cost is correct from the figures given (4 million × 300 × 12 = 14.4 billion) and raises a real question of affordability [1]. But “people will stop working” is a generalisation backed by one anecdote, and it ignores the pilot’s evidence [1]. Judgement: Argument 1 is better supported because it rests on systematic evidence, though a larger, longer trial is needed [1]. [10] Examiner insight: compare the arguments directly on evidence and reasoning; a description of each with a judgement tacked on stays in the lower levels.

8. The real exam marks this with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative points. Criteria: effect on child poverty, cost within the 1 million crown budget, reach and how long the effect lasts [1]. Option 1: it reaches every child without stigma [1]. But at about 2.7 million crowns it is about 1.7 million over budget [1]. About 70% of the money would go to pupils not from the lowest-income families [1]. Option 2: at about 0.82 million crowns it fits the budget and targets the 30% of pupils most in need [1]. But some eligible families have not applied, so some children would miss out [1]. Source E suggests skipped meals are an urgent need, though that survey may overstate it [1]. Option 3: at 0.75 million crowns it fits the budget and targets a cause, low parental income, so its effect could last [1]. But it reaches only 300 parents and gives no help for two to three years [1]. Source F, where local jobs disappeared, suggests that new qualifications only raise incomes if better-paid jobs exist nearby [1]. Judgement: Option 2 is most effective within budget in the short term, especially if eligible families are enrolled automatically [1]. Evidence that training raised incomes quickly would favour Option 3 [1]. [12] Examiner insight: top-level answers use the source’s numbers (cost against budget, reach) to compare options, then reach one clear judgement.

9. (a) For example: “Should countries tax their richest citizens much more heavily to reduce inequality?” [1] [1] (b) It divides opinion because people hold different values, such as fairness against reward for effort [1]. This gives scope for a range of perspectives [1]. It has global impact but can be researched nationally too, through one country’s tax debate [1]. It leads to courses of action that can be compared [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “What is inequality?” cannot divide opinion, so it gives no scope for perspectives.

10. Action: run a uniform swap, where families donate outgrown uniform and others take it free [1]. Make it specific: a stall at each parents’ evening for a term, each task with a named lead [1]. Evidence: photographs of the stall and the posters the team made [1]. These must be produced during the action, not during research or planning [1]. Success: set a target beforehand, then count the items given out and families helped [1]. Add a short anonymous survey on whether the swap cut families’ costs [1]. [6] Examiner insight: an action that is carried out and measured against a target scores more highly than a good idea that is only planned.

Where marks are usually lost

• Using general knowledge about poverty instead of the words and numbers in the sources.
• Naming a vested interest without explaining how it might shape the source.
• Treating a falling share of income as proof that people have less money.
• Confusing percentage points with percentage change.
• Calling a survey “biased” without saying who was asked and why that matters.
• Describing each argument separately and never comparing them.
• Ignoring the cost and budget figures a source gives you.
• Ending with “it depends” and no clear judgement.
• In Team Project answers, giving no way to evidence or measure the action.

Next steps

• Re-read the section on judging sources in the study guide.
• Plan your coursework with the Individual Report practice and Team Project practice.
• Find your weaker skills with a free diagnostic.
• Want help from a teacher? 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.