23:I[768050,["/_next/static/chunks/0kio5sc0sj2oh.js","/_next/static/chunks/1oaiab5js2ffr.js","/_next/static/chunks/253atym4pffpy.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_-l8epaol19d.js","/_next/static/chunks/07koh431bij2x.js","/_next/static/chunks/2qlkss0jfxw92.js","/_next/static/chunks/3f51dtfqg2ppu.js","/_next/static/chunks/0018hduy69oa0.js","/_next/static/chunks/3wrhe-la7uv11.js","/_next/static/chunks/2-hdm7-w0l4ww.js","/_next/static/chunks/0k82hvfrf8cs2.js","/_next/static/chunks/2mkcvkqg-yawb.js","/_next/static/chunks/0rehzesnbl_av.js","/_next/static/chunks/0udbevd16g6ix.js","/_next/static/chunks/3g1698ku69s2j.js","/_next/static/chunks/2h5jxdhegc4re.js","/_next/static/chunks/30lid7eq6y7oz.js","/_next/static/chunks/0-3t5fzt10ckw.js","/_next/static/chunks/10if8ioxfj17o.js","/_next/static/chunks/44cbuwitvfzoh.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eh86kp6qbf8b.js","/_next/static/chunks/3a2sws5_tsf3p.js","/_next/static/chunks/0cc9asozgwxd9.js","/_next/static/chunks/1j2568tca3zyf.js","/_next/static/chunks/1f0yzqpb74u1n.js","/_next/static/chunks/0uj-ot7il-3ia.js","/_next/static/chunks/32dm90fslng58.js","/_next/static/chunks/1ddigcuagpd7k.js","/_next/static/chunks/2rewp79cce0yi.js","/_next/static/chunks/2aitdtjk6s8o8.js","/_next/static/chunks/0p39f5bgthn6x.js","/_next/static/chunks/3p3l0__il7u2b.js","/_next/static/chunks/3wyut2vdlqxhf.js","/_next/static/chunks/27hgw3nhws1xz.js","/_next/static/chunks/332jvrgl3ia6z.js","/_next/static/chunks/1vuip103l-qvm.js","/_next/static/chunks/1sws_omw6dldt.js","/_next/static/chunks/3qgo9nuep6hhe.js","/_next/static/chunks/3tlhs7rb6z2x3.js","/_next/static/chunks/3x0hxnadkspk9.js","/_next/static/chunks/39xp05v-aq4b-.js","/_next/static/chunks/2tsaa4it8rjmb.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_te24b23umo3.js","/_next/static/chunks/1zgcdvq57xbc3.js","/_next/static/chunks/25vni5qklp59l.js","/_next/static/chunks/1l-dx0j6w-839.js","/_next/static/chunks/0ci6eia210zz0.js","/_next/static/chunks/3flulwd8spvdd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0unjfv-sbf0d-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0-wgr71am8eby.js","/_next/static/chunks/05znuxcb85ze1.js","/_next/static/chunks/1xi0ttvf5moed.js","/_next/static/chunks/37w72-4r8pg0v.js","/_next/static/chunks/443erezj2c4iw.js"],"default"] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents p..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communiti..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2025,M/J - 9239/13,Energy,practice questions,exam preparation"}],["$","meta","3",{"property":"og:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents p..."}],["$","meta","4",{"property":"og:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communiti..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63563/questions/3"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"SudoStudy"}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","8",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary"}],["$","meta","9",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents p..."}],["$","meta","10",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communiti..."}]] 22:Tba8,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communities.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is more convincing than the other. [25]","description":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communities.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is more convincing than the other. [25]","learningResourceType":"Practice Question","interactivityType":"active","educationalUse":"assessment","timeRequired":"PT3M","dateCreated":"2026-11-06T14:47:44.468267+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Energy"],"assesses":"Understanding of Energy","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2025 - CIE - M/J - 9239/13","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"M/J - 9239/13","description":"Complete A Levels Global Perspectives & Research course with practice questions, detailed explanations, and performance tracking.","provider":{"@type":"Organization","name":"SudoStudy","url":"https://sudostudy.com"},"hasCourseInstance":{"@type":"CourseInstance","courseMode":"online","courseWorkload":"PT10H"},"offers":{"@type":"Offer","category":"Premium Access","price":"4.99","priceCurrency":"USD","availability":"http://schema.org/InStock"}},"hasPart":{"@type":"Question","text":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communities.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is more convincing than the other. [25]"},"provider":{"@type":"Organization","name":"SudoStudy","url":"https://sudostudy.com","logo":"https://sudostudy.com/logo.png","description":"An online learning platform providing practice questions and detailed explanations for A-Level / GCSE subjects"},"associatedMedia":[{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Question Paper","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T6fbf,{ "questionId": "332133", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "Instructions for Question 3\nThe question assesses AO1 (Research, analysis and evaluation) and AO3 (Communication).\nAnswers should be written in continuous prose. There is no requirement for candidates to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessment made.\n\nA perspective is made up of argument, evidence and assumptions and may be influenced by a particular context.\nAnnotate clearly in the left-hand margin according to the instructions provided below.\nThere are five aspects to consider when marking the answer:\n\n- Identify and compare key components of arguments (AO1a). Candidates should identify a range of key components of arguments from both documents. Annotate with K if key component is identified for one document and C if key component is compared for both documents.\n\n| K | Identification of key component of argument for one document |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| C | Comparison of key components from both documents. |\n- Analyse and compare perspectives (AO1b). Candidates should analyse by identifying, describing and explaining the perspectives given in both documents. Identification only (P ^), identification with limited description (P), comparing and describing in both documents (PD) and comparing and explaining in both documents (PE).\n\n| P ^ | Identification of perspectives with no description. |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| P | Identification of perspectives with limited description. |\n| PD | Analyses by comparing and describing perspectives in both documents. |\n| PE | Analyses by comparing and explaining perspectives in both documents. |\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| - Evaluate arguments (AO1c). Candidates should aim to evaluate key components of arguments with clearly illustrated and balanced reference to both documents. Evaluation may be unsupported (asserted) (ND). Evaluation includes illustration with reference to both documents. (EVAL)ND Unsupported evaluation of argument.
EVAL Evaluation of argument in both documents. | | |\n\n- Judgement about argument and perspective (AO1d). Candidates should aim to give a reasoned and supported answer which includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion. The judgement may be unsupported (U ^ or U), partly supported (J ^) or clearly reasoned and supported (J)\n\n| U ^ | Unsupported judgement - stated only |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| U | Unsupported judgement - with reasoning |\n| J ^ | Partly supported judgement - with reasoning |\n| J | Supported judgement - with reasoning |\n- Communication (AO3) A candidate should aim to produce a clearly expressed, well-structured and logical argument that is focused throughout on the question.\nStructure should include introduction, clear paragraphs and conclusion, should flow and answer the question. Each paragraph should follow on logically and contain a separate point. Each new idea should be clearly indicated - preferably in a new paragraph.\n\"Logical\" means that it is easy to follow the argument as there are no sudden changes of direction leading to confusion in the reader.\nNo annotation is required except NAQ to show not linking to the question. The mark should be selected by using the guidance that follows the mark tables. Choose the most appropriate descriptor in the marking grid.\n\n| NAQ | Not answering the question |\n| :--- | :--- |\n\nMarking grid for Question 3 - AO1 Research, analysis and evaluation\n| AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Compares a wide range of key components of arguments from both documents | 5 | 3 C or more |\n| Compares a range of key components of arguments from both documents | 4 | 2 C |\n| Compares a limited range of key components of arguments from both documents | 3 | 1 C |\n| Identifies key components of arguments with no comparison | 2 | 2 K or more |\n| Limited identification of key components of arguments with no comparison | 1 | 1 K |\n| No identification of arguments. No creditable material | 0 | No K, C |\n\n\n| AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Analyses by comparing and explaining the perspectives given in both documents | 5 | 1 PE or more |\n| Analyses by comparing and describing the perspectives given in both documents | 4 | 1 PD or more |\n| Identifies and compares both perspectives but with limited description | 3 | 2 P (one for each Doc) |\n| Identifies one perspective but with limited description | 2 | P |\n| Identifies one perspective with no description | 1 | P ^ |\n| No identification of perspectives. No creditable material | 0 | No $\\mathrm{P}^{\\wedge}, \\mathrm{P}, \\mathrm{PD}$ or PE |\n\n\n| AO1c Evaluate arguments | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear, balanced reference to both documents | 5 | 4 or more EVAL (2 or more for each Doc) |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear reference to both documents but lacks balance | 4 | 3 or more EVAL (2 or more for one Doc and one for the other Doc) |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments with limited reference to both documents | 3 | 2 EVAL / 1 EVAL and 1 ND (both Docs) |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) but refers to both documents | 2 | 2 ND refers to Doc A and Doc B |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) and only refers to one document | 1 | 1 ND |\n| No evaluation is present. No creditable material | 0 | No ND or EVAL |\n\n\n| AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion | 5 | J or J ^ intermediate and J in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion | 4 | J intermediate or in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is reasoned but is only partly supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion | 3 | J ^ intermediate or in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is reasoned but not supported | 2 | U |\n| Judgement is stated without reasons or support | 1 | U ^ |\n| No judgement is made. No creditable material | 0 | No U^, U, J^ or J |\n\nAO3 Communication\n\n| Communication | Mark | Guidance |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Produces a clearly written, well-structured and logical argument that is focused throughout on the question | 5 | Meets the descriptor - and contains no NAQ |\n| Produces a clearly written, well-structured argument that links to the question | 4 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Produces a clearly written argument with uneven structure that links to the question | 3 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Produces an argument that lacks clarity and structure and does not always link to the question | 2 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Communication is cursory or descriptive and lacks structure | 1 | Meets the descriptor |\n| No creditable material | 0 | Meets the descriptor - NAQ throughout |\n\nExaminers should allocate a mark for each aspect (AO1a, AO1b, AO1c, AO1d and AO3), using the mark descriptors and required annotations.\nGuidance for awarding marks for AO3 in Question 3.\nNote: 'clearly written' refers to the content and the ease of being able to follow the candidates' argument. It should be thought of as: \"clearly expressed\".\n\nThe quality of handwriting should not be considered as a factor when awarding marks. This is not what clearly written means in the descriptors.\n\nIf a candidate made little attempt to answer the question and had lots of NAQ (e.g. was very descriptive or wrote an essay on their own opinion of the subject matter) the maximum score is 2 marks.\n\nIf a candidate wrote very little/ wrote in bullet points/has limited content that addresses the question the maximum score is 2 marks.\nIf a candidate makes no attempt to develop an argument at all, the maximum score is 1 mark.\nIf a candidate wrote in continuous prose, expressed themselves clearly and addressed the question, start at 3 marks - then consider if it better fits the descriptions above or below 3 marks. If the answer was not clearly expressed or focused mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure and may only be worth 2 marks.\n\nIf the answer has an introduction, clear paragraphs, considers both documents in a balanced way, reaches a judgement and generally links to the question it could be worth 4 marks.\n\nIf the answer contains the criteria for 4 marks above, is logical and has no irrelevant content (No NAQ) it could be worth 5 marks.\n\nIndicative content - Perspectives\n- [Examples only]\n- Doc A is about lithium mining in Cornwall (P^). Doc B is about the problems of lithium mining in Chile(P^).\n- Doc A's perspective is that lithium mining may be good for Cornwall so long as locals are involved/there are negotiations (P). Doc B's perspective is that lithium mining is very negative for people in Chile so different methods/alternatives are needed (P).\n- Doc A's perspective is that lithium mining may be worth pursuing in Cornwall so long as local people are actively involved in developing it. The author uses evidence from locals and industry experts to set out the pros and cons of lithium mining for the local community and ultimately concludes that the way to prevent exploitation is to ensure local people have a say in developing the mining proposals. In contrast, Doc B's perspective is that lithium mining is destroying life for people in Chile so lithium extraction either needs to be abandoned or clean methods of extraction need to be explored. It is supported by evidence from indigenous groups who have already seen the negative impacts of lithium extraction for their way of life. (PD)\n- Doc A's perspective is that lithium mining may be worth pursuing in Cornwall so long as local people are actively involved in developing it. The author uses evidence from locals and industry experts to set out the pros and cons of lithium mining for the local community and ultimately concludes that the way to prevent exploitation is to ensure local people have a say in developing the mining proposals. Her view appears to be formed by her own knowledge of Cornwall and by the information she has obtained from her many sources. In contrast, Doc B's perspective is that lithium mining is destroying life for people in Chile so lithium extraction either needs to be abandoned or clean methods of extraction need to be explored. It is supported by evidence from indigenous groups who have already seen the negative impacts of lithium extraction for their way of life. He believes this because of the detailed evidence he has found in Chile, from indigenous people, and from other areas of South America about how harmful the mining is (PE).\n\nIndicative content - Arguments\nNo set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. At each point of comparison, candidates may argue that either Document is more convincing, or they are equally convincing. Candidates may include some of the following indicative content.\n- [annotated example]: Balanced argument - although both documents acknowledge the opposing viewpoint Doc A provides a far more balanced argument, using historical evidence and quotations from local activists to support the anti-mining position and on the other hand using local politicians and industry experts to support the pro-mining position. Doc B is far more one-sided only offering a brief acknowledgement of the need for new technologies and forms of energy(C). Although one-sided arguments can be persuasive Doc A's willingness to present a wide variety of evidence and opinion allows the reader to make their own decision. This ultimately makes Doc A more convincing as the reader will see the merits of engaging with an objective and more informative argument rather than a biased one. (EVAL)\n- Realistic solution - Doc A's solution that locals and industry should come together to develop a strategic plan for lithium mining is realistic and supported by the local councillor whereas Doc B's solution to ban lithium extraction does not address the economic costs such an action would have.\n- Ability to observe - both documents make specific reference to areas of the world and use local voices as evidence. The author of Doc A interviews local activists and politicians and Doc B's author interviews local community leaders.\n- Language style - Doc A uses rhetorical questions to draw the reader \"Could lithium revive a deprived region? Or will it see the riches redistributed elsewhere, while the land itself is ruined? Whereas Doc B uses emotive language to attract the reader's attention \"exterminated\" \"ecological destruction\".\n- Proven evidence - Doc B's argument against developing the Maricunga salt flat is based on the real-world evidence of what happened at the nearby Atacama salt flat, whereas much of Doc A is arguing about what could happen when and if lithium mining comes to Cornwall.\n- Expertise - Doc B's author works for the NRDC, an international organisation that is well-informed about protecting natural resources, this is seen through the explanation of different ways to extract lithium, whereas the author of Doc A is a local journalist without any expert knowledge about the impacts of lithium mining.\n\nIndicative content - Judgement\n[annotated example] A candidate may conclude that Doc B is convincing because it is more persuasive, utilising emotive language in a very one-sided argument. The emotive language works with the voices of indigenous people to tell the reader clearly what the consequences of lithium extraction are whereas Doc A is more balanced and leaves the reader to make their own judgement. (J)\nA candidate may conclude that Doc A is convincing because author is more objective and doesn't have an obvious vested interest. This is shown through the balanced nature of the evidence presented and the space given to the voices of various stakeholders on either side of the debate. Doc B by comparison is one-sided only giving space to evidence that supports their position.\nNeither Doc A nor Doc B is convincing because both pertain to very specific geographic contexts. It may well be the case that lithium extraction could be beneficial to the people of Cornwall. This does not preclude the possibility that lithium extraction in Chile is detrimental for both locals and the environment in Chile.", "totalMarks": 25, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "AO1a", "point": "\n \n

AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments

AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments	Mark	Annotations
Compares a wide range of key components of arguments from both documents	5	3 C or more
Compares a range of key components of arguments from both documents	4	2 C
Compares a limited range of key components of arguments from both documents	3	1 C
Identifies key components of arguments with no comparison	2	2 K or more
Limited identification of key components of arguments with no comparison	1	1 K
No identification of arguments. No creditable material	0	No K, C

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Annotate with K if key component is identified for one document and C if key component is compared for both documents." }, { "type": "AO1b", "point": "\n \n

AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives

AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives	Mark	Annotations
Analyses by comparing and explaining the perspectives given in both documents	5	1 PE or more
Analyses by comparing and describing the perspectives given in both documents	4	1 PD or more
Identifies and compares both perspectives but with limited description	3	2 P (one for each Doc)
Identifies one perspective but with limited description	2	P
Identifies one perspective with no description	1	P ^
No identification of perspectives. No creditable material	0	No \$\\mathrm{P}^{\\wedge}\$, P, PD or PE

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Identification only (P ^), identification with limited description (P), comparing and describing in both documents (PD) and comparing and explaining in both documents (PE)." }, { "type": "AO1c", "point": "\n \n

AO1c Evaluate arguments

AO1c Evaluate arguments	Mark	Annotations
Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear, balanced reference to both documents	5	4 or more EVAL (2 or more for each Doc)
Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear reference to both documents but lacks balance	4	3 or more EVAL (2 or more for one Doc and one for the other Doc)
Evaluation of key components of arguments with limited reference to both documents	3	2 EVAL / 1 EVAL and 1 ND (both Docs)
Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) but refers to both documents	2	2 ND refers to Doc A and Doc B
Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) and only refers to one document	1	1 ND
No evaluation is present. No creditable material	0	No ND or EVAL

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Evaluation may be unsupported (asserted) (ND). Evaluation includes illustration with reference to both documents (EVAL)." }, { "type": "AO1d", "point": "\n \n

AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective

AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective	Mark	Annotations
Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion	5	J or J ^ intermediate and J in the final conclusion
Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion	4	J intermediate or in the final conclusion
Judgement is reasoned but is only partly supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion	3	J ^ intermediate or in the final conclusion
Judgement is reasoned but not supported	2	U
Judgement is stated without reasons or support	1	U ^
No judgement is made. No creditable material	0	No U^, U, J^ or J

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "The judgement may be unsupported (U ^ or U), partly supported (J ^) or clearly reasoned and supported (J)." }, { "type": "AO3", "point": "\n \n

AO3 Communication

Communication	Mark	Guidance
Produces a clearly written, well-structured and logical argument that is focused throughout on the question	5	Meets the descriptor – and contains no NAQ
Produces a clearly written, well-structured argument that links to the question	4	Meets the descriptor
Produces a clearly written argument with uneven structure that links to the question	3	Meets the descriptor
Produces an argument that lacks clarity and structure and does not always link to the question	2	Meets the descriptor
Communication is cursory or descriptive and lacks structure	1	Meets the descriptor
No creditable material	0	Meets the descriptor - NAQ throughout

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Guidance for awarding marks for AO3 in Question 3:\nNote: 'clearly written' refers to the content and the ease of being able to follow the candidates' argument. It should be thought of as: \"clearly expressed\". The quality of handwriting should not be considered as a factor when awarding marks. This is not what clearly written means in the descriptors.\nIf a candidate made little attempt to answer the question and had lots of NAQ (e.g. was very descriptive or wrote an essay on their own opinion of the subject matter) the maximum score is 2 marks.\nIf a candidate wrote very little/ wrote in bullet points/has limited content that addresses the question the maximum score is 2 marks.\nIf a candidate makes no attempt to develop an argument at all, the maximum score is 1 mark.\nIf a candidate wrote in continuous prose, expressed themselves clearly and addressed the question, start at 3 marks – then consider if it better fits the descriptions above or below 3 marks. If the answer was not clearly expressed or focused mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure and may only be worth 2 marks.\nIf the answer has an introduction, clear paragraphs, considers both documents in a balanced way, reaches a judgement and generally links to the question it could be worth 4 marks.\nIf the answer contains the criteria for 4 marks above, is logical and has no irrelevant content (No NAQ) it could be worth 5 marks." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 25 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":{"id":63563,"name":null,"show_result_immediately":false,"result_visibility":"AFTER_SUBMISSION","results_released_at":null,"hide_result_from_teacher":false,"type":"ORIGINAL","year":2025,"paper_code":"M/J - 9239/13","question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","total_questions":3,"duration_min":90,"owner_user_id":null,"school":null,"quiz_board":"CIE","subject":{"id":60,"name":"Global Perspectives & Research","code":"9239","curriculum":{"description":"A Levels","__typename":"curriculums"},"__typename":"subjects"},"__typename":"quizzes"},"question":{"id":332133,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T14:47:44.468267+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"75447322-cb99-4a48-a50a-2bbdb6461b0b","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communities.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is more convincing than the other. [25]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9322,"name":"Energy","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332133,"uuid":"75447322-cb99-4a48-a50a-2bbdb6461b0b","body":{"html":"\n

\n \n

Study Documents A and B.

The authors of both documents present different arguments and perspectives on the impacts of lithium extraction for local communities.

Evaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is more convincing than the other.

\n \n

\n\n\n

\n ","metadata":"$24"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9322,"name":"Energy","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63563,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2025_M_J_9239_13.pdf","paper_code":"M/J - 9239/13","year":2025,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]]

2025 - M/J - 9239/13 | Q3

Question (3/3)