Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Water, food and agriculture — 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 “Water, food and agriculture” from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025). The topic list in section 3 is for all components. Questions 1-8 practise the source-based skills of Component 1 Written Exam (section 4), and Questions 9-10 practise planning for Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Topic knowledge is not assessed: every answer works from the sources. All people, places, products and data are fictional.

Read the study guide for this topic and the revision notes first. Hub: Global Perspectives · 0457 checklist.

All sources concern water for farming in Sorvana Plain, in the fictional country of Merrovia.

Questions

Source A – original text written for Marlbridge. A post on the website of Save Sorvana Water, a fictional campaign group.

“Sorvana’s wells are running dry because greedy export farms pump water day and night to grow rice for foreign supermarkets. The government counted 4,200 farm wells in Sorvana Plain in 2024, twice as many as in 2010. Every family in the district now worries about its next bucket of water. Unless big farms are stopped, Sorvana will be a desert by 2040. Water belongs to everyone, not to whoever can afford the deepest well.”

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

2. Identify the value expressed in the last sentence of Source A and explain how it shapes the writer’s argument. [2]

3. Analyse how the writer uses language in Source A to persuade the reader. [4]

4. Source B – original data written for Marlbridge. Results of a trial of HardyGrow 7, a drought-tolerant maize seed sold by Agrena, a fictional seed company. Yields are in tonnes per hectare.

Farm	Last season (ordinary seed)	This season (HardyGrow 7)
Farm 1	2.0	2.9
Farm 2	1.8	2.6
Farm 3	2.4	3.2
Farm 4	1.6	1.7
Farm 5	2.2	3.2
Farm 6	2.0	2.9
Mean	2.0	2.75

Rainfall in Sorvana Plain: last season 310 mm; this season 420 mm.

Agrena’s advert says: “HardyGrow 7 raises maize yields by over 40% in dry years.”

(a) Describe what Source B shows about yields on the six farms. [2] (b) Explain two ways the data in Source B do not fully support Agrena’s claim. [4]

5. Source C – original text written for Marlbridge. How Agrena carried out the trial.

“Agrena chose six farmers who had bought its products before. Each was given free HardyGrow 7 seed and free fertiliser. At harvest, farmers weighed their own maize and phoned the figures to Agrena’s sales team. Each result was compared with what the farmer remembered harvesting last season. No farm grew ordinary seed this season. The results appeared in an Agrena advert in a farming magazine.”

(a) Evaluate the research described in Source C. [8] (b) Suggest how the claim that HardyGrow 7 “raises maize yields by over 40% in dry years” could be tested more reliably. [6]

Source D – original text written for Marlbridge. Two views on a plan to charge farmers for groundwater in Sorvana Plain.

View 1, a fictional Minister for Water: “Our monitoring wells show the water table fell from 18 metres below the surface in 2015 to 28 metres in 2025. Pumping is free for farmers, so nobody has a reason to save water. From next year each farm will get a free allowance; water above it will cost 2 crowns per cubic metre. Countries that put a price on water use it more carefully.”

View 2, the fictional Sorvana Smallholders’ Union: “Most of our 9,000 members farm less than two hectares. In dry years we already lose money. Large export farms can pass a water charge on to foreign buyers; we cannot. We do not trust officials to read meters fairly. Instead, the government should stop new wells on large farms and pay for village ponds that store rainwater.”

6. Using Sources A and D, explain one cause and one consequence of the falling water table, each at a different level (local, national or global). [4]

7. Evaluate the two views in Source D. Which view is better supported? [12]

8. The fictional Merrovian government is considering three courses of action for Sorvana Plain:

• Action 1: charge farmers for groundwater above a free allowance (View 1).
• Action 2: stop new wells on large farms and fund village rainwater ponds (View 2).
• Action 3: pay farmers to move part of their land from rice to drought-tolerant crops such as HardyGrow 7 maize.

Using all the sources, evaluate which course of action is most likely to be effective. [16]

9. You are planning a Component 2 Individual Report on this topic. A classmate suggests the title “Should our school save water?”

(a) Explain why this title is unsuitable for the Individual Report and write a better global research question on the same topic. [3] (b) Identify one national perspective and one global perspective you would research for your question. [2]

10. A team of three students plans a Component 3 Team Project on food waste in their school canteen, which serves 400 lunches a day. Over five school days in week 1, they weigh the food left on plates: 38 kg in total.

(a) Work out the average plate waste per lunch in week 1, in grams, and explain why the team needs this figure before it acts. [3] (b) Suggest a course of action the team could take and one form its Evidence of Action could take. [3] (c) After a four-week campaign, the team weighs plate waste for five days again: 26 kg, with 400 lunches a day. Explain whether this shows the campaign worked, and give one reason to be cautious. [3]

Answers

In the real exam, extended answers are marked with levels of response, not point by point. The [1] points below show the kind of content that earns credit.

1. Fact: “The government counted 4,200 farm wells in Sorvana Plain in 2024” (it can be checked against records) [1]. Prediction: “Sorvana will be a desert by 2040” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: Quote the exact words; “the number of wells” without the figure and date does not pin down which statement is the fact.

2. The value is that water is a shared right that should not depend on wealth (“Water belongs to everyone”) [1]. It leads the writer to blame wealthy farms and demand they be stopped, rather than look at other causes [1]. [2] Examiner insight: The second mark needs what the value does to the argument, not a restatement of the value.

3. Emotive words such as “greedy” and “running dry” [1] present export farms as selfish and the danger as immediate, so the reader feels anger before weighing any evidence [1]. The generalisation “every family … worries” [1] makes the problem seem universal, although no survey is given [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each language point needs a quotation and its effect on the reader; quotations alone earn half marks at most.

4. (a) The mean yield rose from 2.0 to 2.75 tonnes per hectare, a rise of 37.5% [1]. Five farms rose by a third or more, but Farm 4 rose only from 1.6 to 1.7, about 6% [1]. [2] (b) The mean rise of 37.5% is below the “over 40%” claimed, and only four of six farms passed 40% [1]; Farm 4 gained about 6%, so the gain is not consistent [1]. The claim is about “dry years”, but this season had about a third more rain (420 mm against 310 mm) [1], so the rain, not the seed, may explain much of the rise [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Use the figures in the table and the rainfall line; “the data are weak” without numbers stays in the lower marks.

5. (a) Strengths: real farms in the district [1]; harvests were weighed, not guessed [1]. Limitations: Agrena sells the seed, so it has a vested interest in good results [1]; Agrena chose existing customers, not a random sample, so they may be more skilled or loyal [1]; six farms is too few to support a general claim [1]; free fertiliser came with the seed, so it may explain the higher yields [1]; last season’s figures came from memory and this season’s were self-reported by phone, so both may be inaccurate [1]. Judgement: with no ordinary-seed farms this season, the seed’s effect cannot be separated from rain or fertiliser, so support is weak [1]. [8] (b) Run the trial in dry seasons, or over several seasons including dry ones, since the claim is about dry years [1]. Grow HardyGrow 7 and ordinary seed side by side in the same season [1], with the same fertiliser on both [1]. Use a larger, random sample of farms [1]. Have harvests weighed by an independent body [1]. Publish the method and full results so others can check them [1]. [6] Examiner insight: In (a) tie each limitation to a detail in Source C; in (b) each suggestion should fix a named weakness.

6. Cause (global): foreign supermarkets’ demand for rice (Source A) [1] makes it profitable to pump groundwater for a thirsty crop [1]. Consequence (local): the water table fell from 18 to 28 metres (Source D), so shallow wells may fail [1], hitting smallholders who already lose money in dry years [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Name the level and link each point to the falling water table.

7. View 1 strengths: measured data, a 10-metre fall in ten years [1]; logical reasoning that free water gives no reason to save it [1]; a free allowance that considers small users [1]. View 1 weaknesses: “countries that put a price on water use it more carefully” is a generalisation with no data [1]; the allowance size is not given, so we cannot tell who would pay [1]; it does not answer the fairness concern [1]. View 2 strengths: it identifies a real fairness gap, since export farms can pass costs on and smallholders cannot [1]; its alternative targets large farms [1]. View 2 weaknesses: no evidence that large farms use most water or that ponds would store enough [1]; distrust of officials is opinion [1]; the union has a vested interest in avoiding charges [1]. Judgement: View 1 is better supported because it rests on measured data, but View 2 raises a fairness problem View 1 must answer [1]. [12] Examiner insight: Judge the quality of each view’s evidence and reasoning; a summary of what each side says is not evaluation.

8. Criteria: how far the action slows the falling water table, fairness to smallholders, and cost [1]. Action 1: Source D shows free pumping gives no reason to save water, so a price could cut use [1]; but the allowance size is unknown, so smallholders may pay more than they can afford [1], and distrust of meters may weaken enforcement [1]. Action 2: it limits growth in pumping by the users Source A blames [1], and ponds add a new supply [1]; but no source shows large farms are the main users [1], and existing wells keep pumping, so the water table may keep falling [1]. Action 3: switching from rice cuts demand for water at source [1] and pays farmers rather than charging them, so it is fairer [1]; but the only evidence for HardyGrow 7 is Agrena’s weak trial (Sources B and C) [1], so yields may disappoint and farmers may switch back [1]. Comparison: Action 1 tackles Source D’s cause most directly; Action 3 is fairest but has the weakest evidence [1]. Judgement: Action 1 is likely to be most effective [1], provided the free allowance protects small farms [1], with Action 3 added if independent trials confirm the seed works [1]. [16] Examiner insight: Compare the actions against the same criteria using every source; description with no final judgement cannot reach the top level.

9. (a) It is about one school, so it is local, but the Individual Report needs a global issue with global perspectives [1]; few people would argue against saving water, so it does not divide opinion [1]. Better: “Should farmers pay for the groundwater they use, even if it raises food prices?” [1] [3] (b) National: a water ministry that wants to protect groundwater for the future [1]. Global: international food agencies concerned that water charges could raise food prices [1]. [2] Examiner insight: A research question earns credit when it has more than one reasonable answer and reaches beyond your own school.

10. (a) 400 lunches a day for five days is 2,000 lunches [1]; 38,000 g ÷ 2,000 = 19 g per lunch [1]. This baseline lets the team compare after the campaign and measure success [1]. [3] (b) A “clean plate” campaign with smaller portion options and a weekly display of weigh-in results [1], agreed with catering staff [1]. Evidence of Action: for example, photographs of the weigh-in event or the campaign posters [1]. [3] (c) Waste fell from 19 g to 13 g per lunch (26,000 g ÷ 2,000), about 32% less [1], so the campaign appears to have worked [1]. Caution: the menu may have differed, or students may have changed behaviour only because they knew food was weighed; a later repeat check would test this [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Success needs a measure taken the same way before and after; “students said they liked it” is not a measure.

Where marks are usually lost

• Adding outside facts instead of working from the sources.
• Naming a fact, prediction or value without quoting the exact words.
• Treating a vested interest, such as Agrena’s or the union’s, as proof a source is false rather than a reason to check it.
• Accepting that two rising trends prove cause, as Source A does with wells and export farms.
• Describing three courses of action with no comparison or final judgement.
• Ignoring fairness between smallholders and large farms.
• Planning a Team Project action with no measure taken before it starts.

Next steps

• Check your weaker skills with a free diagnostic.
• Revise the exam with the Written Exam study guide and Written Exam practice.
• Practise coursework planning with the Individual Report practice and the Team Project practice.
• Want feedback on your answers? 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). Topic list in section 3; Component 1 Written Exam, Component 2 Individual Report, Component 3 Team Project and command words in section 4.