June 2025: Paper 2

Answer

B

Mark scheme

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Morocco's HDI 0.683 is above Pakistan's 0.544, so development as measured by HDI is higher in Morocco (B)
• A is wrong as Morocco's incomes are higher
• C: life expectancy is only one part of HDI, 0.683 is not 68.3 years
• D: the data are per capita, not total output

Quantitative skills: QS 11 (understand composite indicators); QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question asked candidates to explain one limitation. Candidates who wrote about more than one generally didn’t achieve full marks as they then hadn’t explained or analysed any of their reasons. The question also specifically said 'with reference to the data provided', so candidates needed to make use of the data in the table to gain the application mark. This answer scores full marks. 1 mark for identifying a reason - that 'it doesn’t reflect who holds the wealth'. 1 mark for accurate application from the data. And then the final 2 marks for explaining how this is a limitation of using GDP to compare living standards between countries. Remember to read the question carefully. Here you are asked specifically to refer to the data and also for only one limitation. This answer achieves 3/4. It has explained what GDP is and identified and explained about how GDP data does not show regional divisions. However, there is NO application in this answer, so it can’t get any more than 3/4.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• explain ONE limitation (narrow measure ignoring health and education, inequality, informal economy, environment) and use the table (e.g. HDI or GNI per capita PPP figures)
• report: answers listing several limitations did not develop any, and no data use caps the mark at 3/4

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Answer

B

Mark scheme

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• the deficit was smallest (-1.5% of GDP) in 2021 (B)
• the current account was in deficit throughout, so A and D are wrong
• C confuses the current account with the fiscal deficit

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question is marked in a similar way to the previous one, Question 1(b). Candidates should remember that in 4-mark questions such as this that they needed to offer a mixture of knowledge, application, and analysis. Again, there needed to be reference to the chart provided in the exam paper and candidates were asked for just ONE reason. The majority of answers explained how a depreciation in the pound would lead to an improvement in the UK’s current account, but there were some answers that explained other possible answers. The UK’s departure from the EU was used in several answers as well, sometimes to better effect than others. This answer scored 3/4. There is a mark for saying that marginal propensity to import fell and that the UK therefore exported more in comparison to imports. There is also an application mark for saying that the current account had improved. However, there isn’t any explanation of how/why marginal propensity to import has fallen. In a question like this, make sure you give a clear reason as to how/why there has been a change in consumer/business behaviour. This candidate achieves the full 4 marks. They state a reason being a depreciation of the pound. They explain the impact on imports and exports. They also say that there has been a reduction in the current account deficit. Look at how concise this answer to the question is, yet it achieves full marks. You do not need to write lots on questions such as this; you just need to accurately answer the question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• one reason the deficit narrowed from about -5.5% to -1.5%: depreciation of the pound after 2016 (cheaper exports, dearer imports), lower relative inflation, falling demand for imports
• report: most used depreciation
• explain how or why behaviour changes

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Answer

C

Mark scheme

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• growth was positive in Q2 and Q4 2022, so real GDP in Q4 2022 was larger than in Q1 2022 (C)
• fastest growth was Q1 2022, one negative quarter is not a recession, and equal growth rates do not mean equal GDP levels

Quantitative skills: QS 10 (distinguish between changes in the level of a variable, and the rate of change); QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This is only a 2-mark question so candidates are not expected to write an extended answer. Examiners were simply looking for one disadvantage identified along with some brief explanation of why it is a disadvantage that comes about from a decline in GDP. This answer achieves 2/2. The disadvantage has been identified in the form of increasing unemployment. This has also been explained where the candidate says there is decreased derived demand for labour. This is only one sentence, but it answers the question and gets full marks. This answer achieves 1/2. They have correctly identified that unemployment may occur, but that is it. There is no attempt to explain how a decline in GDP could lead to unemployment. The structure of this question is the same as the previous one, except this time were looking for a disadvantage for the government. One mark was for stating a disadvantage, and the second mark was for explaining how this occurs as a result of a decline in GDP. This answer scores the full 2 marks. The disadvantage is a worse budget deficit, and there is a clear explanation of how that would occur. This answer scores 1/2. The mark is for 'reduction in tax revenue'. The candidate has not explained how a decline in GDP would lead to a reduction in tax revenue, so they don’t get the second mark.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• one disadvantage of falling GDP for workers with a linked development: higher unemployment as derived demand for labour falls, lower wage growth, job insecurity

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This is only a 2-mark question so candidates are not expected to write an extended answer. Examiners were simply looking for one disadvantage identified along with some brief explanation of why it is a disadvantage that comes about from a decline in GDP. This answer achieves 2/2. The disadvantage has been identified in the form of increasing unemployment. This has also been explained where the candidate says there is decreased derived demand for labour. This is only one sentence, but it answers the question and gets full marks. This answer achieves 1/2. They have correctly identified that unemployment may occur, but that is it. There is no attempt to explain how a decline in GDP could lead to unemployment. The structure of this question is the same as the previous one, except this time were looking for a disadvantage for the government. One mark was for stating a disadvantage, and the second mark was for explaining how this occurs as a result of a decline in GDP. This answer scores the full 2 marks. The disadvantage is a worse budget deficit, and there is a clear explanation of how that would occur. This answer scores 1/2. The mark is for 'reduction in tax revenue'. The candidate has not explained how a decline in GDP would lead to a reduction in tax revenue, so they don’t get the second mark.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• one disadvantage for government: lower tax revenue (income tax, VAT, corporation tax) or higher welfare spending as unemployment rises, worsening the fiscal position

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question simply asked candidates 'what is meant by'. It did not ask for any application to the graph or any analysis of a point. The correct formula or written explanation of what 'terms of trade' are is all that was needed to get two marks. Candidates who knew what 'terms of trade' meant easily achieved two marks here, but it was clear that many candidates did not know what it meant. This is the correct formula for terms of trade and so gets full marks. This is all that candidates needed to do on this question. Being concise on questions like this can save candidates valuable time which they can then spend on the longer questions towards the end of the exam paper. This answer scores 1/2. The candidate clearly has some idea about what the terms of trade is, referring to 'price of exports minus price of imports', but does not fully understand what it is.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• terms of trade = index of average export prices / index of average import prices x 100
• no application needed
• report: "it was clear that many candidates did not know what it meant"

Quantitative skills: QS 5 (calculate and interpret index numbers)

Answer

C

Mark scheme

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• (92 - 80) / 80 x 100 = 15% (C)
• A is the 12-point change, B divides 12 by the 2020 value 92, D is the 2020 index

Quantitative skills: QS 2 (calculate, use and understand percentages, percentage changes and percentage point changes); QS 5 (calculate and interpret index numbers); QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

This question specifically asked for the impact of the change in terms of trade on China’s current account. Therefore, one mark was for interpreting the data and understanding that China’s terms of trade have improved (or an explanation of what this means in terms of changes in prices of imports/exports). The second mark was for what the impact of this will be on China’s current account, ie that it will have worsened. Probably because many candidates were not clear about what 'terms of trade' meant, there were a significant number of incorrect or confused answers to this question. This answer achieves full marks. 1 mark for 'China’s terms of trade have improved'. 1 mark for 'worsening of China’s current account'. This answer achieves 1 mark for understanding correctly what has happened to China’s terms of trade. However, they do not get the second mark as they incorrectly think this will improve China’s current account. It is important to remember that if prices of exports are rising, and demand is elastic, then demand is going to fall by more than the increase in price, therefore worsening the current account.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• terms of trade improved (export prices rose relative to import prices)
• with price elastic demand export revenue falls and import spending rises, so the current account worsens
• report: "a significant number of incorrect or confused answers", many thought it would improve

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

There was a limited amount of confusion on this question when it came to what is meant by the labour force inactivity rate. As such, different answers were allowed to this question as you can see in the mark scheme. Having said that, the overwhelming majority of candidates calculated it as the question was originally intended, with an answer of 7.42m The candidate has correctly calculated a value of 7.4 million and so they achieved full marks. There is no need to write any words in a 'calculate' question so don’t waste time doing so. Just do the calculation as this candidate has. This answer achieves 1 mark as the candidate has not expressed their answer in millions. It is important to remember to check for units when you are doing calculation questions. The question says the total UK labour force was 34.5 million.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 34.5m x 0.215 = 7.42 million
• leaving out "million" loses a mark
• alternative interpretations accepted by the mark scheme (0, as the labour force excludes the inactive)

Quantitative skills: QS 2 (calculate, use and understand percentages, percentage changes and percentage point changes)

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

In terms of how to answer this question, it is the same as with Questions 3(b)(i) and 3(b)(ii). Candidates needed to identify a reason and explain how it causes high levels of inactivity. Where candidates struggled on this question was when they didn’t appreciate the distinction between inactivity and unemployment. If there has been a decline in GDP/firms closing then that will increase unemployment, but that does not make those people inactive. Similarly, people who are claiming benefit support from the government due to being unemployed, are not inactive - by the very nature of those words, they are unemployed, not inactive. This candidate achieves the full 2 marks. They give a valid reason in the form of high childcare costs and then link it to inactivity by saying parents must leave the workforce to care for their children. This answer does not achieve any marks because retired people are not part of the workforce and therefore do not count as inactive. It is important to remember that the labour force of a country is very different to the size of the country’s population. For example, it does not include students in school.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• reason for inactivity (long-term sickness, NHS waiting lists, caring, early retirement, childcare costs) linked to leaving the labour force
• report: candidates struggled when they confused inactivity with unemployment

Answer

B

Mark scheme

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• more employment raises incomes and living standards (B)
• it is more likely to cause inflation not deflation, reduce absolute poverty and raise growth rather than cause recession

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

In this question, examiners were looking for candidates to show they understood the difference between direct and indirect taxation for the knowledge & analysis marks and to refer to Figure 1 for the two application marks. It is worth candidates remembering that on a question such as this, they need to demonstrate their knowledge, application, and analysis. This answer achieves 4/5. They are correct that indirect taxes are on spending and they then get an application mark for referring to VAT as an indirect tax. They then go on to explain about direct taxes and reference income tax from Figure 1. They are missing a final knowledge/analysis mark. It is worth remembering that in a question like this there will be 3 marks for knowledge/analysis and 2 marks for application. This answer achieves full marks. They start by stating that direct taxes are on income then give the example of income tax. Secondly, they say that indirect taxes are on expenditure and give the example of VAT. Finally, they say that direct taxes are often progressive for the final K/An mark. Look at how short and concise this answer is, yet it answers the question very clearly and so gets full marks.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• direct taxes on income and profit paid straight to government (income tax 41%, corporation tax 6%), indirect taxes on spending passed on via sellers (VAT 36%, petrol and tobacco duty)
• must cover both types
• 3 marks K/An and 2 application

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This 8-mark question is the last points-based marking question before we move onto Levels- based questions. Marks were awarded as two for knowledge, two for application, two for analysis, and two for evaluation. As in most 8-mark questions candidates were asked to examine TWO factors influencing short-run aggregate supply. Generally candidates were able to score well on this question, identifying relevant points with application from Extract A. This is a good example of where the extract is very helpful and that candidates need to ensure they make effective use of it to help them in answering the question. This answer scores 3/8 as it doesn’t fully answer the question. The first paragraph isn’t answering the question and so doesn’t get any marks. Labour shortages is the first point the candidate has made which earns a knowledge mark. They quote Germany being short up to 7 million workers and the ageing population, both of these are application points. There is a further piece of application referencing lack of skilled workers, but they have already achieved the 2 marks available for application. There is no analysis present to explain how labour shortages affect short-run aggregate supply so therefore no analysis mark. There are no further points so it is only the 1 mark for knowledge. Overall, therefore, this answer gets 1 knowledge mark and 2 application marks. Remember the structure of questions like this: 2 points are needed, and you need to have 2 pieces of knowledge, 2 application, 2 analysis, and there are 2 marks for evaluation. This answer is significantly better than the first script for this question, scoring 7/8 in total. In the first paragraph, the candidate mentions lack of suitable labour as a knowledge mark. They also have 2 pieces of application about shortage of 7 million workers and lack of skilled workers and an analysis mark for their diagram. This point is then evaluated in the second paragraph. Their third paragraph talks about delayed infrastructure for the second knowledge mark and the impact on capital and labour mobility for analysis. They also have a quotation from the extract which could have earnt them another application mark. The only thing missing is another piece of evaluation for the last mark. If you look at this answer it is roughly the same length as the other example except this answer gets 7/8 and the other only 3/8. It is not about how much you write, but whether you write an answer to the question that matters.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• two SRAS factors from Extract A: energy costs and reliance on imported gas, labour shortages raising wages, regulation, exchange rate (weaker euro)
• evaluate e.g. LNG terminals securing supply, short run vs long run
• report: the first paragraph often did not answer the question

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

In this question, candidates needed to discuss the effects of the German government’s budget deficit. The question is in plural so examiners were looking for more than one effect to be discussed. This question was marked using a Levels-based mark scheme, which is the same for any 10-mark question across the Economics A exams. The focus when examiners are marking is on the answer as a whole and what level the answer best fits into. In this particular question, some candidates focused more on the immediate term and the fact that the government is running a deficit means that there will be more injections than withdrawals into the circular flow of income, thus increasing aggregate demand. Others took the view that this budget deficit may need to be paid back in the future which could mean contractionary policies. Either approach is acceptable in answering this question. This answer is a fairly limited response. Overall, it is low Level 2 for KAA and low Level 1 for evaluation. In the first paragraph the candidate has simply said that it will create debt with nothing to explain why this is an issue or what the 'problems' they mention might be. There is some better development in the second paragraph about less spending on education and healthcare but it isn’t clearly explained why this might occur as a result of a budget deficit. There is a very brief piece of evaluation right at the end of the answer. Focus on developing fully each of the points you make. Start off a paragraph by identifying a specific point in answer to the question and then think how you can explain that point step- by-step in a way that clearly answers the question set. This is an excellent quality answer that achieves full marks. There are clear chains of argument that explain the candidate’s reasoning along with well- developed evaluation. There is also good evaluation to make it relevant to Germany and the information provided in the case study. Notice that this is a relatively short answer to this question, Candidates should remember to focus on the quality of their answers, not the quantity.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• deficit of 4.3% (2020) to 2.6% (2022): injection raises AD, growth and employment via the multiplier
• rising national debt, higher bond yields and debt interest, crowding out, future austerity
• evaluate with size of deficit, recession in 2023, Germany's earlier surpluses
• more than one effect needed

Quantitative skills: QS 9 (interpret, apply and analyse information in written, graphical tabular and numerical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question seemed to be highly accessible to candidates and one where there were many very good answers. Some candidates wrote much more than was needed, especially for the KAA side of the question. The question specifically asked for the impact on aggregate demand - that is all that needed to be discussed in terms of KAA. Candidates would not gain any marks by discussing how increased investment by firms may help to increase aggregate supply, as that was not what they had been asked to do. Good answers frequently made effective use of the case study to illustrate points, both for KAA and for evaluation. For example, referencing the number of jobs and how this will increase consumption in the economy but then, for evaluation, referencing the fact that many of these jobs are only for construction and so won’t have a long-term impact on Germany’s aggregate demand. Candidates also needed to draw a correctly labelled diagram showing an increase in aggregate demand for KAA Level 3. This is a high-quality answer that achieves full marks. For KAA, the diagram correctly shows AD increasing and everything is correctly labelled. Looking at the written explanation, it is clearly broken down with step-by-step explanation focused on injections into the circular flow of income as well as discussion of the multiplier effect. The evaluation on the second page is equally very well-explained and goes beyond what would be needed for 4/4 evaluation marks. This answer is a good example of what not to do when it comes to answering an exam question - and that is to not answer the specific question set. The first paragraph is simply descriptive and repeating information from the extract but not using it in any way to answer the question. There is some understanding that the increase in employment will increase aggregate demand, but it isn’t clearly explained how this would come about. The diagram shows an increase in aggregate supply, not aggregate demand. Overall, this achieves low Level 2 for KAA, mainly because there is good application and there is some idea of more jobs increasing AD, but no marks for evaluation. Make sure you read the question carefully. Here the focus is on aggregate demand, NOT aggregate supply.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• Intel's €30bn FDI is investment (I in AD = C + I + G + X - M): AD shifts right, multiplier from 7 000 construction and 3 000 permanent jobs
• Level 3 needs a correctly labelled AD/AS diagram
• evaluate: construction jobs are temporary, size relative to GDP, imports leak
• report: discussing AS earned nothing

Quantitative skills: QS 4 (construct and interpret a range of standard graphical forms)

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question is asking specifically about supply-side policies, and so that needs to be the focus of the answer. Any supply-side policies can count for example, improving education, healthcare, or infrastructure. Also, deregulation was discussed in many answers using the information in the extract. Marks would not be gained for discussion of policies that are not supply-side policies. The top-level answers for KAA generally did two things. Firstly, they made effective use of the case study to illustrate points: for example, the shortage of skilled workers or the bureaucracy delaying projects. Secondly, they explained clearly and in detail how the supply-side policy would work and what effect it would have on Germany’s economic performance. Many answers lacked sufficient detail of exactly how the policy would work to gain KAA Level 3: for example, when discussing education just writing in general terms about increased spending on education rather than giving specific examples like improved teacher training or more funding for apprenticeships in the areas where there are skills shortages as identified in the extract. Candidates who wrote about 'infrastructure' in general but never really got to saying exactly what aspect of infrastructure they were referring to similarly didn’t achieve top level. It is also worth candidates remembering that this question did not say anything about interventionist or market-based policies, so it did not matter which policies you choose to write about, and you were also not going to gain any marks for explaining the difference between the two or saying that investment in education is an interventionist policy. This is an excellent answer, achieving top level for both KAA and evaluation. The first point is focused on education and goes beyond a Level 2 answer to have both specific examples of how the investment in education could work in practice as well as having good application from the extract. This point is also effectively evaluated, not simply by saying there is an opportunity cost for the government, but by developing this line of evaluative argument with specific examples. The second point focuses on infrastructure and, again, offers good application and clear explanation of how this could work in the German economy. This is equally very well-evaluated, discussing the impact on interest rates in the wider economy of an increase in demand from the government for borrowing money. This answer has a very clear structure, with four paragraphs in total and each one laser- focused on a specific KAA or evaluation point. This is an excellent way to structure a 15-mark question. The first point this candidate makes is about education. This is reasonably well-explained but lacks specific examples of how the improvement in education might come about. The second point which is merged with this, about infrastructure, is of a similar standard. There is then some evaluation but only at low Level 2. The answer continues in a similar vein, with more supply-side policies discussed, again at KAA Level 2. Overall, there are several points here but all at Level 2 for KAA and only one limited piece of evaluation, which makes this answer Level 1 for evaluation overall. Do not try to write about lots of different supply-side policies. Focus on two specific ones and explain them in more depth. Remember the focus on all the levels-based questions is on depth, not breadth.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• supply-side policies only: planning reform and cutting bureaucracy, labour market flexibility, training and apprenticeships for skills shortages, migration, infrastructure, energy
• evaluate cost, time lags, government failure
• report: many lacked detail of exactly how the policy works for Level 3

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

There are two things to consider when answering this question. Firstly, the starting point for an answer should be from a point of view of seeking to control inflation. So this could, for example, be contractional monetary policies of increasing interest rates in order to reduce inflation. Then, and this is the most important part of an answer, the focus needed to be on how these attempts by the Bank of England or the UK government to control inflation will lead to conflicts with other macroeconomic objectives such as economic growth or unemployment. The evaluation in an answer then needs to be focused on how there might not be a conflict between attempting to control inflation and the macroeconomic objective. Some candidates struggled to focus their answer on the conflict and clearly explaining, step-by-step, about how/why there is a conflict. Arguments using the Phillips curve in particular seemed often to struggle to clearly explain why low inflation would be likely to lead to higher unemployment (or vice versa). Looking at this answer, the first point takes a while to get to, but on the second page, the candidate does eventually get to the point that lowering inflation could lead to lower economic growth. Similarly, the second point is fairly well-explained, but needs more focus specifically on the conflict and why it exists. The answer continues with further KAA, and even more KAA on the last page. There is a limited amount of evaluation on the fourth page, but it lacks much in the way of development of points. Overall, this answer has far too many different points and lacks sufficient development of any of them to reach Level 4 for KAA or to reach beyond Level 1 for evaluation. Therefore, this answer is KAA Level 3 and evaluation Level 1. Candidates should not try to write about as many different conflicts as they can think of. Depth is much more important than breadth. The first point the candidate makes, which takes a while for them to get to across in the first two paragraphs, is that there is a conflict here between controlling inflation and economic growth. The candidate has made good use of the diagram here. The evaluation of it is not quite so well-explained with a slightly circular argument being made. The second point, about a conflict with the current account, is again well-explained, although it is lacking a bit in application. The evaluation makes good use of context although still isn’t quite well- enough explained for top level. Overall, therefore, this answer achieves Level 4 for KAA and top Level 2 for evaluation.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• start from contractionary policy to control inflation (higher interest rates) then explain step by step the conflict with growth, unemployment (short-run Phillips curve), current account
• evaluate when there is no conflict (supply-side causes, falling energy prices)
• report: some struggled to focus on the conflict and to explain the Phillips curve

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

This question focused on factors that affect the level of economic development in a developing country. This is a broad question, and there are a wide variety of factors that candidates could write about. The most popular points for candidates to discuss seemed to be primary product dependency and the Harrod-Domar model, although many others were also discussed and effectively explained. It was only an issue in a few cases, but candidates should ensure their answers are focused on developing countries and not developed ones. Some candidates perhaps got a little carried away with this question and answers became too descriptive and not sufficiently analytical to achieve the top levels. It was also noticeable that there were a number of very long answers that scored lower than answers that were less than half their length. The important thing here is not whether candidates can explain everything about a factor but whether they can argue a specific point clearly in answer to the question. Candidates should also make sure that each point they make is clearly focused on one factor. Some answers seemed to be merging together several factors into one point which then meant they probably had not fully explained any one of those factors. The first paragraph here is an introduction, so we can move on and look at the first point which is about over-reliance on trade with the USA for Mexico. There is particularly excellent application in this paragraph along with good chains of reasoning. The evaluation of this point is also effective and of top level quality. The second point is focused on corruption and again with clear step-by-step chains of reasoning and effective application to develop a strong line of argument. This is followed by some highly effective evaluation using the Lewis model. There is also an attempt at a bit of a judgement at the end of the answer. Overall, this is a strong top level answer for both KAA and evaluation. This answer is only 4 pages long (and about 3.5 if you ignore the introduction) yet it is an excellent, top-level answer. Candidates should think about how to effectively answer the question with points that offer developed chains of reasoning like in this answer without ending up being highly descriptive, as was often found in some of the longer answers that did not achieve as highly. The first point in this answer, focusing on a lack of public services, is well-written with clear chains of argument and is of KAA Level 4 quality. The second point isn’t quite so well-explained and the link between a lack of internet access and achieving a fair price for raw materials needs to be more clearly explained. The last paragraph is only offering a summary of what has already been said so doesn’t add anything to the answer. Overall, this answer achieves Level 4 for KAA but there is no evaluation, which significantly limits the mark it can achieve overall. Make sure you are evaluating the points you are making in these questions, otherwise you are placing a ceiling on the overall mark you are going to be able to achieve on a question no matter how well-written your answer is. Remember that you will not gain marks for summarising what you have already said in your answer at the end. You need to offer examiners a judgement in answer to the question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• factors: primary product dependency, savings gap (Harrod-Domar), infrastructure, conflict and corruption, health and education, debt, capital flight
• must be a developing country of choice
• report: some answers became descriptive and too long
• argue one factor clearly per paragraph