0457_w19_ms_13

Cambridge Assessment International Education
Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES 0457/13

Paper 1 Written Examination October/November 2019
MARK SCHEME
Maximum Mark: 70
Published
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.
Cambridge International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.
Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2019 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level
components.
This document consists of 14 printed pages.
© UCLES 2019 [Turn over

0457/13 Cambridge IGCSE – Mark Scheme October/November
PUBLISHED 2019
Generic Marking Principles
These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers.
They should be applied alongside the specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptors
for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these marking principles.
GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1:
Marks must be awarded in line with:
• the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
• the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
• the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.
Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).
Marks must be awarded positively:
• marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit
is given for valid answers which go beyond the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme,
referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
• marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
• marks are not deducted for errors
• marks are not deducted for omissions
• answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these
features are specifically assessed by the question as indicated by the mark scheme. The
meaning, however, should be unambiguous.
Rules must be applied consistently e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed
instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.
Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question
(however; the use of the full mark range may be limited according to the quality of the candidate
responses seen).
Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should
not be awarded with grade thresholds or grade descriptors in mind.
© UCLES 2019 Page 2 of 14

PUBLISHED 2019
Question Answer Marks
1(a) Candidates should identify the following from Source 1: 1

• South-east Asia
1 mark should be awarded for the identification of the above.
Further guidance:
The only acceptable answer is listed above. However, candidates may use
their own words.
1(b) Candidates may identify the following benefits from Source 2. 2

• personal development opportunities
• protection from dangers at work
• improve social relations
• improve self-esteem
• improve health
• improve well-being
1 mark should be awarded for each correctly identified benefit.
Further guidance:
The only acceptable answers are listed above. However, candidates may use
their own words.

PUBLISHED 2019
1(c) Candidates may identify one of the following benefits: 3

• personal development opportunities
• protection from dangers at work
• improve social relations
• improve self-esteem
• improve health
• improve well-being
Candidates may give the following reasons, any of which could be used, to
justify their choice:
• degree of impact of any improvement
• number of people likely to be affected
• further effects of the benefit
Further guidance:
Candidates are most likely to discuss effects from Source 2 as listed above.
However, the assessment is focused mainly upon their reasoning/justification
and therefore additional effects should be credited.
The following levels of response should be used to award marks.
Level 3 (3 marks) Good response

Clearly reasoned explanation explicitly linked to a benefit of good working
conditions.
Level 2 (2 marks) Reasonable response

Some explanation. The link between the explanation and a benefit of good
working conditions may be implicit or unclear at times.
Level 1 (1 mark) Limited response

Limited explanation.
Level 0 (0 marks)
No relevant response or creditworthy material.

PUBLISHED 2019
1(d) Candidates are likely to discuss the following reasons drawing upon the 6
information in Sources 1 and 2:
• people spend about a third of their time at work, therefore important to the
nation in terms of time
• workers should have access to health advice otherwise a country might
suffer if the workforce is not healthy
• access to training improves the job prospects and hence the economy
• working conditions are enforced through laws so national governments
are able to influence them
• productive workers with job satisfaction are likely to benefit the national
economy
Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response

Clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation of importance; usually
two (or more) developed arguments clearly linked to the issue; or three (or
more) undeveloped reasons. The national dimension is explicit.
Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response

Some reasoned explanation of importance; usually one (or more) developed
argument(s) with some link to the issue but may be implicit at times; or two (or
more) undeveloped reasons. The national dimension is explicit.
Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response

Limited reasoning and explanation; the response is likely to contain only
simple, undeveloped and asserted points. Arguments are partial, generalised
and lack clarity. The national dimension is not apparent.
Level 0 (0 marks)

PUBLISHED 2019
2(a) Candidates are likely to discuss the following evaluative points relating to 6
Source 3:
Strengths:
• works with older people so has an understanding
• quotes facts
• talks about experience
• reassures younger people
Weaknesses:
• does not give source of evidence
• no specific examples
• does not quote different types of experience
• does not back up suggestions

Clearly reasoned, credible and structured evaluation; two (or more) developed
points clearly linked to the issue, with some other undeveloped points; or a
wide range (four or more) of undeveloped points.
Evaluation is clearly focused on the strengths and/or weaknesses of the

argument and/or the way evidence is used to support the claim.
A convincing overall assessment or conclusion is reached.

Reasonable evaluation mainly focused on the evidence, its strengths and/or
weaknesses, and the way it is used to support the claim. The response may
contain one (or more) developed point(s), with some other undeveloped
points. Some (two or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient.
An overall assessment or conclusion is attempted.

Limited evaluation which is often unsupported and asserted. The response is
clear in part but is incomplete and generalised. It contains one undeveloped
point only. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little
understanding.
An overall assessment or conclusion is weak or not attempted.
Level 0 (0 marks)

PUBLISHED 2019
2(b) Candidates are likely to discuss the following ways to test the claim stated in 8
Source 3.
Possible types of information:

• compare statistics/information on use of technology by older people
• data from local training websites individual testimony or personal
experience
• material from libraries/work
• other relevant response
Possible sources of information:

• national and local governments and their departments
• international organisations, e.g. United Nations; UNESCO
• experts in technology
• research reports
• pressure groups and charities
• media and the internet
Possible methods:
• questionnaires
• surveys
• review of secondary sources/literature/research/documents
• interview relevant experts in technology courses and age groups
• internet search
Level 4 (7–8 marks) Very good response

Clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation of a range of ways to
test the claim. The response contains three (or more) developed points and
may contain some undeveloped points.
The response is clearly and explicitly related to testing the claim.

Reasoned and mainly credible explanation of ways to test the claim. The
response contains two (or more) developed points and may contain some
undeveloped points.
The response is explicitly related to testing the claim.

Some reasoning and explanation of ways to test the claim. The response
contains one (or more) developed point(s), and/or a range of undeveloped
points. The response may lack clarity.
The response is related to testing the claim.

PUBLISHED 2019
2(b) Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response

Limited explanation of ways to test the claim. The response contains one or
two simple, undeveloped and asserted points.
There is little relevance in the response to testing the claim or the methods,
sources and types of information are generally not appropriate for the claim
being tested.
Level 0 (0 marks)
Further Guidance:
If the response lists methods or sources without linking to the issue/context,
then it should not be placed above Level 2.

PUBLISHED 2019
3(a) Candidates may identify one of the following opinions from Source 4. 1
• That sounds dangerous
• I believe that young people like me should be given a chance
• Young people are able to work longer hours and adapt to changes
• Young people’s minds will be fresh and full of information
• Old people should retire and stay at home and be looked after by their
families
• I really disagree
• Old people who work do not do their job very well or they will be ill
• Helping the business did not seem important to the younger workers
1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of the above.
Further guidance:
their own words.
3(b) Candidates may identify one of the following predictions from Source 4. 1
• They will have accidents
• They will be away from work longer
• I will not be able to find work next year
1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of the above.
Further guidance:
their own words.

PUBLISHED 2019
3(c) Bias is a tendency or prejudice for or against something; an attitude of strong 3

like or dislike; an unbalanced approach not prepared to consider counter-
arguments or other points of view.
Candidates are likely to identify the following reasons for bias from Susanna’s
background/experience:
• Susanna may be biased against older people working as she feels that it
will make it harder for her to find work next year.
Candidates are likely to identify the following features of the statement that
suggest possible bias:
• Lack of balance – ‘We are able to work longer hours and adapt to
changes.’
• Emotive language – ‘That sounds dangerous’ and ‘They will have
accidents’
• Lack of evidence
The following levels of response should be used to award marks:
Level 3 (3 marks) Good response

A clear and full explanation of why the statement may be biased supported
with evidence from the statement. The response contains two (or more) points,
with one (or more) of these developed.
Level 2 (2 marks) Reasonable response

A basic or partial explanation of why the statement may be biased. The
response contains one developed point or two undeveloped points.
Level 1 (1 mark) Limited response

A Limited explanation of why the statement may be biased. The response
contains one undeveloped point.
Level 0 (0 marks)

PUBLISHED 2019
3(d) Candidates are expected to evaluate the arguments presented in Source 4 15

and compare their effectiveness. They should make a supported judgement
with some explanation about which person has the most convincing argument.
Candidates may support their judgement by considering:
Strength of reasoning:
• logic
• structure
• balance
• claims
Use of language:
• tone – emotive, exaggerated, precise
• clarity
Evidence:
• range of information and depth
• relevance
• sufficiency – sample
• source – media, internet
• date – how recent
• different types of information – fact, opinion, value, anecdote
• testimony – from experience and expert
Sources of bias
• local interest
• economic
• personal values
• experience
Likely consequences of the ideas presented
Acceptability of their values to others

• how likely other people are to agree with their perspective/view

Clear, credible and well supported points about which argument is more
convincing. Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear
comparison.
The response contains three (or more) developed evaluative points and may
include some undeveloped points.
A clear judgement is reached.

PUBLISHED 2019
3(d) Level 4 (10–12 marks) Good response

Clear, supported points about which argument is more convincing. Evaluation
of both arguments, with comparison.
The response contains two (or more) developed evaluative points and may
include some undeveloped points. A wide range (four or more) of undeveloped
but clearly appropriate points may be sufficient to enter this band at the lower
level.
A judgment is reached.

Reasonable points about which argument is more convincing. Some
evaluation of both arguments, with an attempt at comparison. Judgements and
evaluative points are partially supported or asserted.
One (or more) developed evaluative points, possibly with some undeveloped
points; three (or more) undeveloped points may be sufficient to enter this band
at the lower level.
An attempt is made to give an overall judgement.
Level 2 (4–6 marks) Basic response

Basic points about which argument is more convincing. There may be only one
argument considered in any detail, with little attempt at comparison.
Judgements and evaluative points are partially supported and lack
clarity/relevance at times.
The response contains two (or more) undeveloped points.
A basic judgement may be reached.

Limited and unsupported points about which argument is more convincing.
The response considers the arguments briefly and/or tangentially. There is
little clarity. Answers at this level may repeat source material with little
understanding or simply agree/disagree with the arguments presented.
The response may not contain any clear evaluative points.
Level 0 (0 marks)

PUBLISHED 2019
4 Candidates are expected to make a judgement about the issue, i.e. that 24
people should be allowed to work at any age, using reasons and evidence to
justify their choice/opinion.
Candidates are likely to use and develop the material found in Sources 1 to 4
but should go beyond simply repeating or recycling without adaptation. Other
material may be introduced but is not necessary to gain full marks.
Candidates may consider some of the following:

• reference to scale of impact of the types of people to be employed
• reference to different consequences and implications for
individuals/groups/government
• how long it might take to make a difference
• barriers to change
• the power of collective action, e.g. cooperation between areas over the
types of people to be employed
• the influence of individuals and groups on decision making
• the role of vested interests and power differences
• potential conflicts of interest
• difficulties in planning and coordinating improvements
• cost and access to resources to implement change
• other reasonable response

Clear, well supported reasoning about the issue of people being allowed to
work at any age. Different arguments and perspectives are clearly considered.
The response contains a wide range of clearly reasoned points and/or

evidence to support the views expressed, with four (or more) developed
points, and some undeveloped points.
The response is very well-structured, and a clear judgement is reached.

Clear, supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and
perspectives are considered.
The response contains a range of reasoned points and/or evidence to support

the views expressed, with three (or more) developed points, and some
undeveloped points.
The response I generally well-structured and a judgement is reached.

PUBLISHED 2019
4 Level 3 (10–14 marks) Reasonable response

Some supported reasoning about the issue. Different arguments and
perspectives are included.
The response contains some points and/or evidence to support the views
expressed, with two (or more) developed points, and some undeveloped
points.
The response is structured but at times difficult to follow and an attempt is

made to give an overall judgement.
Level 2 (5–9 marks) Basic response

Basic reasoning about the issue. Different arguments are included;
perspectives, if present, are unclear.
The response relies on assertion rather than evidence but contains one (or
more) developed point(s) or a range of undeveloped points.
The response lacks structure and is difficult to follow though a basic judgement
may be attempted.

Limited and unsupported reasoning about the topic in general. Different
arguments may be included.
Level 0 (0 marks)

0457_w19_ms_13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0457_w19_ms_13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0457_w19_ms_13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Assessment International Education

Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES 0457/13

This document consists of 14 printed pages.

© UCLES 2019 [Turn over

Generic Marking Principles

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1:

Marks must be awarded in line with:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 2:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 3:

Marks must be awarded positively:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 4:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 5:

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 6:

© UCLES 2019 Page 2 of 14

Question Answer Marks

1(a) Candidates should identify the following from Source 1: 1

1 mark should be awarded for the identification of the above.

1(b) Candidates may identify the following benefits from Source 2. 2

1 mark should be awarded for each correctly identified benefit.

© UCLES 2019 Page 3 of 14

Question Answer Marks

1(c) Candidates may identify one of the following benefits: 3

The following levels of response should be used to award marks.

Level 3 (3 marks) Good response

Level 2 (2 marks) Reasonable response

Level 1 (1 mark) Limited response

© UCLES 2019 Page 4 of 14

Question Answer Marks

The following levels of response should be used to award marks.

Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response

Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response

Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response

© UCLES 2019 Page 5 of 14

Question Answer Marks

The following levels of response should be used to award marks.

Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response

Evaluation is clearly focused on the strengths and/or weaknesses of the

A convincing overall assessment or conclusion is reached.

Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response

An overall assessment or conclusion is attempted.

Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response

An overall assessment or conclusion is weak or not attempted.

© UCLES 2019 Page 6 of 14

Question Answer Marks

Possible types of information:

Possible sources of information:

The following levels of response should be used to award marks.

Level 4 (7–8 marks) Very good response

The response is clearly and explicitly related to testing the claim.

Level 3 (5–6 marks) Good response

The response is explicitly related to testing the claim.

Level 2 (3–4 marks) Reasonable response

The response is related to testing the claim.

© UCLES 2019 Page 7 of 14

Question Answer Marks

2(b) Level 1 (1–2 marks) Limited response

© UCLES 2019 Page 8 of 14

Question Answer Marks

1 mark should be awarded for the identification of one of the above.