Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Technology, industry and innovation – 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, 3 and 4. Questions 1-9 practise the source skills of Component 1 Written Exam; Questions 10-11 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. The syllabus states that knowledge of content is not assessed: these questions use the topic “Technology, industry and innovation” only as a context for the skills. All places, people, organisations and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. The 0457 course hub and 0457 checklist cover the whole course.

Sources for Questions 1-9

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. Press release from Voltaris, a fictional battery company.

Voltaris plans to build a battery factory on the edge of Arnholt. The factory will create 1,200 jobs. Our batteries power the electric future, and every modern country needs its own battery industry. The national government has offered a grant of 150 million crowns. The factory will use about 4 million litres of river water a day; with a water-recycling system, we could cut this by 60%. Arnholt’s skilled people deserve this chance.

Source B – original text written for Marlbridge. Blog post by the fictional Arnholt River Residents’ Group.

Last summer the river fell to its lowest level in 30 years, according to the council’s own gauge. Now a giant factory wants millions of litres a day. Nobody wants an industrial site next to the nature reserve. The council has still not published the full environmental assessment. Big companies always promise jobs and then bring in their own staff.

Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. Online survey run by the fictional Arnholt Council over two weeks. Anyone could take part; no check was made that respondents lived in Arnholt.

Age group	Respondents	Support	Oppose	Unsure
18-34	160	112	32	16
35-59	400	200	140	60
60+	240	96	108	36

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Extract from a report paid for by Voltaris.

Three years after our factory opened in the fictional town of Kessling, the average weekly wage there had risen from 500 to 590 crowns. The factory employs 900 people. This proves that a Voltaris factory raises local pay.

Official figures (fictional) show that national average weekly wages rose by 12% over the same three years. Of the factory’s 900 staff, 360 moved to Kessling from elsewhere.

Source E – original text written for Marlbridge. Two arguments on the question “Should governments pay grants to attract high-technology factories?”

Argument 1 (a fictional economist, Dr Lena Ostrova): Countries compete for new industries. If we do not offer grants, factories will be built elsewhere and our young people will leave. Grants also bring skills and suppliers that stay for decades. A neighbouring country that offered grants now has three battery plants.

Argument 2 (a fictional taxpayers’ campaigner, Tomas Brell): A grant of 150 million crowns for 1,200 jobs is far too much public money per job. Profitable companies should pay their own costs. Grants turn governments into gamblers, and every factory closure in history was once a “sure thing”. That money could train thousands of nurses instead.

Questions

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

2. Explain why Source A may contain a vested interest. [2]

3. Source B says the river “fell to its lowest level in 30 years”. Identify whether this is a fact or an opinion, and suggest how you could check it. [3]

4. Use Source C.

(a) Calculate the percentage of all respondents who support the factory. Show your working. [2] (b) Explain two limitations of Source C as evidence of what Arnholt residents think. [4]

5. Explain how the Arnholt factory raises issues at local, national and global level. [6]

6. Analyse why a young resident of Arnholt and a farmer who uses the river may hold different perspectives on the factory. [6]

7. Use Source D.

(a) Evaluate the evidence that a Voltaris factory raises local pay. [6] (b) Suggest how you could test the claim that the factory would raise pay in Arnholt. [4]

8. Calculate the grant per job in Source A, and explain whether this supports Argument 2 in Source E. [3]

9. Evaluate the two arguments in Source E. Which is better supported? [12]

10. Using all the sources, assess which course of action Arnholt Council should take on the factory proposal. [16]

11. Individual Report and Team Project planning.

(a) Suggest a global research question on technology, industry and innovation for an Individual Report, and explain why it meets the syllabus requirements. [5] (b) A team wants to reduce the number of broken electronic devices thrown away at their school. Suggest an action and explain how the team could measure its success. [5]

Answers

1. Prediction: “The factory will create 1,200 jobs” (or “we could cut this by 60%”) [1]. Opinion: “Arnholt’s skilled people deserve this chance” (or “every modern country needs its own battery industry”) [1]. [2] Examiner insight: quote the exact words from the source; a paraphrase may lose the mark if it changes the meaning.

2. Voltaris wrote the press release and gains if the factory is approved [1], so it has a reason to stress jobs and play down water use [1]. [2] Examiner insight: name who gains and what they gain; the word “biased” alone earns nothing.

3. It is a fact claim, because it can be checked and shown true or false [1]. Check the council’s river-gauge records [1] for the last 30 years, ideally confirmed by a second body such as a national water agency [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “fact” here means checkable, not proven true; say how it could be checked.

4. (a) Supporters: 112 + 200 + 96 = 408 out of 800 [1]; 408 / 800 × 100 = 51% [1]. (b) It was an online, self-selected survey [1], so people with strong views, for or against, were more likely to take part and the results may not represent the town [1]. There was no check on where respondents lived [1], so people from outside Arnholt, including Voltaris staff or campaigners, could have taken part [1]. [6] Examiner insight: each limitation needs a consequence for the evidence (“so the results may…”), not only a description.

5. Local: residents disagree about water use near the nature reserve [1], because the river is shared by farms and households [1]. National: the government is offering a 150-million-crown grant [1], which raises the question of how public money should support industry [1]. Global: batteries are linked to worldwide demand for electric vehicles [1], so the decision connects to global efforts to change how energy is used [1]. [6] Examiner insight: use details from the sources for each level; a general definition of “global” earns little.

6. The young resident may support the factory because it offers skilled jobs nearby [1], so they would not need to move away to find work [1]; Source C suggests 70% of 18-34 respondents support it [1]. The farmer may oppose it because the river supplies irrigation [1], and Source B says the river was at a 30-year low last summer [1], so extra use risks lower harvests and income [1]. [6] Examiner insight: the marks come from explaining why each view is held, linked to evidence, not from stating that the groups disagree.

7. (a) Strength: the wage figures are specific [1] and show an 18% rise over three years [1]. Weakness: the report was paid for by Voltaris, a vested interest [1]. The report leaves out that national wages rose 12% in the same period, so only about 6 percentage points of the rise could be linked to the factory [1]. A rise after the factory opened does not prove the factory caused it [1]. One town may not be typical, so “proves” is an overstatement [1]. (b) Compare wages in Arnholt before and after opening with similar towns that have no factory [1], over the same years [1]. Use official wage data rather than company figures [1], and check how many jobs go to local people, since 360 of Kessling’s 900 staff came from elsewhere [1]. [10] Examiner insight: in “suggest how to test” questions, name a comparison group and an independent data source.

8. 150,000,000 / 1,200 = 125,000 crowns per job [1]. This gives some support to Argument 2, which says the cost per job is high [1], but Brell gives no benchmark for what a reasonable cost per job would be, so “far too much” is still an opinion [1]. [3] Examiner insight: show the calculation, then judge whether the number really proves the claim.

9. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points. Argument 1: its reasoning is clear: without grants, firms locate elsewhere [1]. It offers evidence: a neighbouring country has three plants [1]. But it does not show the grants caused those plants to be built [1]. “Our young people will leave” is a prediction without data [1]. The claim that skills “stay for decades” is not supported [1]. Argument 2: it uses a figure from Source A that can be checked [1] and makes a clear value-based point about fairness to taxpayers [1]. But “every factory closure in history was once a sure thing” is a sweeping generalisation [1]. The nurses comparison is an alternative use of money, but no cost is given [1], and “far too much” has no benchmark [1]. Judgement: Argument 2 is slightly better supported because its key number is checkable [1], although both rely on predictions, and Argument 1 would be stronger with evidence that grants caused investment [1]. [12] Examiner insight: judge the quality of each argument (evidence, reasoning, language), not whether you agree with it.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points. Criteria: effectiveness, feasibility, who gains and loses, and sustainability [1]. Approve without conditions: secures up to 1,200 jobs (Source A) [1] and slight majority support (51%, Source C) [1], but ignores the river risk in Source B [1] and the survey’s weaknesses mean support is uncertain [1]. Reject: protects the river and nature reserve [1], but loses jobs young people want [1] and demand for batteries continues, so the factory may simply be built elsewhere [1]. Approve only with water recycling: Voltaris itself says this cuts use by 60%, to about 1.6 million litres a day [1]. This tackles the main cause of opposition [1] while keeping the jobs [1]. Weakness: it is the company’s own estimate, so independent monitoring would be needed [1]. Delay for the full environmental assessment: answers Source B’s complaint [1] and gives better evidence [1], but the firm might go elsewhere [1]. Judgement: approve with a binding water-recycling condition, after publishing the environmental assessment, because it balances jobs and the river better than any other option [1]. [16] Examiner insight: top answers compare actions using source evidence and reach a clear, justified judgement; describing each option is not enough.

11. (a) Example: “Should manufacturers be required to make products repairable?” [1]. It is a global issue, because products and waste cross borders [1]. It divides opinion: consumer groups and some manufacturers disagree [1]. It allows local and/or national and global perspectives, such as a local repair shop and international firms [1]. It leads to courses of action, from which one can be proposed [1]. (b) Action: hold a termly repair session where volunteers fix students’ devices [1], publicised through assemblies [1]. Measure: count items brought and repaired [1], weigh items kept out of the bin [1], and survey participants before and after about whether they would repair rather than replace [1]. [10] Examiner insight: a measurable action names what will be counted or compared before and after; “raise awareness” alone cannot be measured.

Where marks are usually lost

• Copying a long quotation without saying what kind of statement it is.
• Writing “biased” without naming the vested interest.
• Treating a company’s job forecast or water estimate as a fact.
• Giving a survey limitation without explaining how it affects the results.
• Saying the factory caused the wage rise without a comparison group.
• Calculations with no working shown.
• In Question 9 style answers, agreeing with one argument instead of evaluating both.
• In Question 10 style answers, describing actions without a final judgement.
• Planning a Team Project action with no way to measure it.

Next steps

• Check your answers against the study guide and revision notes
• Try the Global Perspectives practice set, Individual Report practice and Team Project practice
• Take a diagnostic test to find your weaker skills
• 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). Use them with official past papers from your school.