Cambridge O Level Global Perspectives 2069

Component 1 Written Exam Crash Course Guide

1. Exam Overview
● Duration: 1 hour 25 minutes

● Total Marks: 70

● Number of Questions: 4 compulsory questions, each based on a set of source

materials provided in the insert.

● Assessment Objectives:

○ AO1: Research, analysis and evaluation of evidence

○ AO2: Constructing reasoned arguments

○ AO3: Reflective thinking and problem-solving

2. Glossary of Key Terms: Definitions and Identification

Understanding the terminology is crucial for identifying elements in the source documents and
analyzing arguments effectively. Below are explanations and how to spot them:

Term Definition How to Identify in Example

Text

Fact A statement that can Supported with “70% of people in

be proven true or data/statistics or urban areas lack
false comes from a reliable clean water.”
source

Opinion A personal belief or Includes phrases like “I think schools

feeling "I believe", "In my should teach more
view" about global issues.”

Value Judgement An opinion based on Uses words like “It’s wrong to exploit
moral or ethical right/wrong, workers in developing
beliefs fair/unfair, good/bad countries.”

Prediction A forecast about Often includes modal “Plastic waste will

 future events verbs like will, might, increase over the
or likely next decade.”

Generalisation A sweeping Words like always, “All teenagers are

statement that everyone, all, never addicted to social
applies to all cases media.”

Vested Interest A reason someone Look for who benefits A company promoting
may benefit financially or socially its own product in
personally from their research
opinion or research

Definition Clarifies or explains Phrases like "is “Climate change is

the meaning of a defined as", "means defined as long-term
term that" shifts in
temperatures.”

Example Illustrates a claim Introduced with "for “For example,

using a specific case example", "such as" Sweden recycles
or story nearly all its waste.”

3. Question Types and How to Approach Them

Each question in the exam targets a different skill.

Question 1: Understanding and Interpreting Information (18 marks)

This question usually includes:

● Extracting relevant information from two or more sources

● Identifying causes and consequences

● Evaluating which cause/consequence is more significant

● Identifying perspectives (personal, local, global)

Structure & Strategy:

1. Read All Sources First — Highlight key causes, effects, and perspectives.

2. Understand the Question — Identify command words: “Explain”, “Compare”, “Identify”.

3. Structure Your Answer:

 ○ Use short paragraphs.

○ Make direct references to the source (e.g. “As seen in Source 2…”).

○ Explain why a cause is more significant (impact, scale, long-term effect).

Sample Question:

“Which cause of climate migration mentioned in the sources is the most significant? Explain
your answer.”

Sample Answer (High Band):

“One cause of climate migration mentioned is the rising sea levels, especially in coastal regions
such as Bangladesh (Source 1). Another is drought and food shortages caused by erratic
rainfall patterns (Source 2). The more significant cause is the rising sea levels because it leads
to permanent loss of homes and communities, which makes it harder to rebuild or adapt. As
Source 1 states, ‘over 1 million people may be displaced permanently,’ showing the scale. This
is more severe than drought, which although serious, can be mitigated with aid or irrigation.
Rising sea levels force entire populations to leave permanently, making the impact long-term
and more devastating.”

Question 2: Evaluating Research and Testing Claims (16 marks)

This question has two parts:

● Part A: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of research or an argument

● Part B: Suggest a method to test a claim

Part A: Evaluating Research or an Argument

When evaluating research, consider:

● The method used (survey, interview, observation, etc.)

● The sample size and diversity

● Reliability and validity of data

● Researcher bias or vested interest

● Ethics of how the data was collected

When evaluating an argument, consider:

● Is the reasoning logical?

● Is there relevant and reliable evidence?

● Are there examples or statistics?

● Does the source show bias or vested interest?

● Is the tone neutral or emotive?

Sample Question (Research Evaluation):

“Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the research method used in Source 3.”

Sample Answer:
“The research in Source 3 uses a questionnaire to gather views on teenage social media
usage, completed by 20 participants aged 13–15. A strength of this method is its efficiency
questionnaires can collect responses quickly and affordably from many people. It also provides
standardised responses that are easier to analyse.

However, the sample is limited in both size and diversity. Twenty participants cannot represent
the views of all teenagers, especially as they are all from the same school, which introduces
sample bias. Another weakness is that self-reported answers may not always be accurate some
teenagers may exaggerate or underreport their usage, consciously or unconsciously.

Moreover, the lack of qualitative data (such as interviews) means we don’t know why they use
social media or how it affects them emotionally. The researcher’s vested interest is also a
concern the study was conducted by a parent group advocating for phone restrictions, which
may introduce bias. Overall, while efficient, the research lacks depth and a representative
sample, reducing its reliability.”

Part B: Testing a Claim

This part asks you how to verify a claim made in a source.

What to consider:

● Choose an ethical and realistic method

● Use a mix of qualitative (opinions) and quantitative (data) methods

● Suggest sample size and sampling method

Sample methods include:

 ● Surveys/questionnaires

● Interviews/focus groups

● Case studies

● Observational studies

Sample Question (Testing Focus):

“How could the claim ‘Online learning is more effective than traditional schooling’ be tested?”

Sample Answer:

“To test this claim, I would conduct a comparative study involving two groups of students: one
learning online and the other in traditional classrooms. Both groups would cover the same
syllabus over a fixed time period, for example, a term. Their performance could then be
assessed using standardised tests. Additionally, surveys could be distributed to gather feedback
on engagement, motivation, and satisfaction levels.

It is important to ensure both groups are matched in terms of age, academic ability, and
resources. I would use a sample size of at least 50 students per group from different schools to
ensure diversity. Ethical consent would be required from participants and parents. This
approach would provide both qualitative and quantitative data to help determine the claim’s
validity.”

Question 3: Argument Evaluation (16 marks)

You will be given a passage with two or more arguments. The question typically asks:

● “Which argument is more convincing and why?”

Breakdown:

● Step 1: Identify each argument’s conclusion and supporting reasons

● Step 2: Check for use of evidence, logic, bias, assumptions

● Step 3: Evaluate tone (emotive or neutral?), reliability of source

● Step 4: Make a judgement – say clearly which is stronger and why

Structure:

1. Discuss Argument A (strengths and weaknesses)

 2. Discuss Argument B

3. Make your judgement clearly and justify it

Sample Question:

“Which argument about using electric cars is more convincing – Argument A or Argument B?”

Sample Answer :

“Argument A states that electric cars help reduce pollution and fight climate change. It supports
this with data from the International Energy Agency, showing a 40% reduction in urban
emissions where EVs are common. It also acknowledges limitations like battery disposal but
explains how recycling technology is improving. The language is measured and evidence-
based.

Argument B claims electric cars are too expensive and rely on electricity from fossil fuels. It
uses anecdotal evidence, such as ‘my uncle couldn’t afford a Tesla,’ and assumes that EVs are
not practical for anyone without offering data. It also contains generalisations like ‘no one can
afford these vehicles,’ which weakens the argument’s reliability.

Argument A is more convincing because it is balanced, supported by credible sources, and

considers limitations while offering solutions. It appeals to reason rather than emotion. In
contrast, Argument B is one-sided and largely unsupported, relying on personal bias and
generalisation.

Furthermore, the source of Argument A is a UN-backed environmental study, increasing its

reliability. Argument B comes from an online opinion blog, which lacks authority. For these
reasons, Argument A is the more persuasive and trustworthy argument.”

Question 4: Action and Recommendation (20 marks)

This is the longest question and carries the most marks. You will:

● Choose one possible action from a list or based on the sources

● Recommend it clearly and justify why it’s best

● Consider multiple perspectives (personal, local, national, global)

What to Include:

1. Clear recommendation of one action

2. 2–3 strong reasons with evidence

 3. Briefly mention and dismiss alternative actions

4. Multiple perspectives

5. Clear conclusion

Sample Question:

“Recommend one action to reduce food waste in urban areas. Justify your recommendation.”

Sample Answer:

“I recommend implementing a city-wide policy requiring all households, restaurants, and

supermarkets to separate organic waste for composting and food redistribution. This action is
impactful, practical, and inclusive of multiple sectors.

Firstly, it directly addresses the volume of edible food wasted. According to Source 1, 30% of
food in urban households is discarded, much of which is still consumable. By mandating waste
separation, cities can reroute edible items to food banks and charities. This helps vulnerable
populations while reducing environmental burden.

Secondly, composting organic waste instead of sending it to landfills cuts down methane
emissions significantly, Source 2 notes that organic waste in landfills contributes to 20% of
methane gas emissions globally. Composting also enriches soil quality, supporting local
agriculture and urban gardens.

Thirdly, the policy raises awareness and instills responsibility in individuals and businesses. As
seen in Source 3, Tokyo's mandatory composting program led to a 40% reduction in household
food waste and improved public attitudes toward sustainability. Schools and local councils can
lead public education campaigns, creating a culture of environmental stewardship.

Alternative actions like awareness posters or voluntary campaigns are less effective, as they
depend on individual motivation and lack enforceability. Financial incentives for food donors are
beneficial but limited in scope, as they don’t address everyday waste from ordinary households.

From a personal perspective, such a program encourages people to think critically about their
consumption and waste. From a local perspective, cleaner waste management improves
sanitation, reduces rodent populations, and lightens the load on municipal services. At the
national level, reducing waste contributes to food security and aligns with environmental policy.
Globally, tackling food waste supports SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production),
making it part of a broader movement toward sustainability.

In conclusion, mandatory food waste separation and composting is a holistic and achievable
solution. It addresses the root causes of urban food waste, offers measurable outcomes, and
includes social, environmental, and economic benefits. With proper implementation and
education, this action can create lasting change on multiple levels.”

4. Time Management Strategy

 Question Marks Suggested Time

Q1 18 20 minutes

Q2 16 20 minutes

Q3 16 20 minutes

Q4 20 25 minutes

Total 70 1hr 25 min

Leave 5–10 minutes to review your answers.

5. Final Tips & Common Pitfalls

Tips:

● Underline command words

● Use Point-Evidence-Explain (PEE) in all answers

● Structure longer answers using paragraphs

● Always support claims with evidence from sources

● Plan briefly before writing Q3 and Q4

Avoid:

● Giving multiple actions in Q4 — pick ONE

● Listing facts without explanation

● Ignoring perspectives

● Writing too briefly or without examples

● Repeating the same point

Final Advice:
This exam is not about remembering content but thinking clearly, evaluating wisely, and
writing with purpose. Practice analyzing arguments and research every day leading up to the
paper.
You can do this — stay calm, read carefully, and answer confidently.

Good luck!