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:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument p..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2022,F/M - 9239/12,Sustainable futures,practice questions,exam preparation"}],["$","meta","3",{"property":"og:title","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument p..."}],["$","meta","4",{"property":"og:description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63568/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 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument p..."}],["$","meta","10",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document..."}]] 22:Ta33,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1? You should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document. [14]","description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1? You should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document. [14]","learningResourceType":"Practice Question","interactivityType":"active","educationalUse":"assessment","timeRequired":"PT3M","dateCreated":"2026-11-06T15:03:13.589286+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Sustainable futures"],"assesses":"Understanding of Sustainable futures","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2022 - CIE - F/M - 9239/12","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"F/M - 9239/12","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 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1? You should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document. [14]"},"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_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T4b65,{ "questionId": "332158", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "Question 3\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1?\nYou should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document.\n\nUse the levels-based marking grid below to credit marks.\nNo set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach.\nCandidates may include some of the following:\n\nRelative strength of Doc 2\n\nClearer argument\nR&P (Doc 2) present a logically structured argument that is easy to follow: There is a clear introduction, showing how ubiquitous palm oil is, followed by the historical context so that the reader is clear what the argument is about. Then explains why this is an issue, outlining EU attitudes. Looks at the impact of any EU ban, explains why this may not help and presents a clear approach to the issues. Whereas Silva (Doc 1) presents a range of different points, back and forth, between pros and cons and is much less easy to follow as an argument.\n\nAccessible examples:\nR&P (Doc 2) give examples to show us how palm oil is used in people's everyday lives, this makes the argument easy to get into. Silva (Doc 1) is less easy to get into as it opens with some opinions giving more technical information about profits and environmental impacts without explaining what palm oil is and how it is used.\n\nProvenance of authors\nThe argument in Document 2 seems stronger to the reader as it is written by specialists in the field, giving us confidence that they know what they are writing about and have access to information that they understand. This contrasts with Document 1 which is written by a journalist with no clear knowledge or expertise presented to us.\n\nMore global scope Doc. 2 is strengthened by having a more global view, providing information and perspectives from around the world whereas Doc 1 focusses mainly on Sri Lanka\n\nNeutral/ measured tone (May also be considered a relative weakness)\nR&P present a more neutral argument, the examples and views presented are measured – strengthening the argument, whereas those presented by Silva in Doc 1 are more dramatic.\n\nRelative Weakness of Doc 2\n\nLess explanation of important details:\nDoc 2 makes several unexplained or partially explained assertions that weaken the argument as this makes it difficult to follow what is being argued: the link between palm oil and deforestation is only vaguely explained, whereas in Doc 1, we get 2 explained views on how and whether palm oil cultivation leads to deforestation.\n\nLess detail of counter arguments:\nBoth documents include counter arguments, however Doc 2 tends to present these in less detail whereas Doc 1 presents detailed arguments on both sides. In Doc 2 the EU ban is explained in one sentence without any detail, whereas in Doc 1 the WWF view is fully detailed.\n\nLess convincing tone:\nDocument 2 is less interesting than Doc 1 as Doc 1 includes views and emotions which strengthen the argument.\n\nNeither stronger nor weaker\n\nSources of information:\nThe authors of both documents use information and opinions from reputable sources.\n\nEvidence\nThe authors of both documents support their arguments with relevant facts and figures.\n\nBalance\nThe authors of both documents provide a balanced view, with arguments on both sides\n\nReasonable and similar conclusion\nThough Document 2 presents a detailed possible approach to dealing with the issue and Document 1 does not; both conclude that co-operation is the way forward, in Document 1 between environmentalists and cultivators in Sri Lanka and in Document 2 global co-operation.\n\nJudgement\nCandidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence in order to reach a judgement. In doing this:\nThey may conclude that both are equally strong, that they have a similar balance of strengths and weaknesses.\nThey may conclude that Document 1 is stronger because it provides clear examples of the negative impacts of palm oil on the environment and the counterbalance of negative impacts of banning palm oil, making it clear that both have a valid point of view and so a compromise is required.\nThey may conclude that Document 2 is stronger because it takes a more measured view and has a clearer structure with a logical argument.\nThere is no requirement to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessments made.\n\nMarking and annotation guidance – Question 3 – 14 marks\nAnnotate in the left-hand margin as below:\na) ND (needs developing) when a point has been mentioned but not developed,\nb) ND EVAL when a point of evaluation has been partially developed (e.g. may make a valid point but without appropriately referencing the documents)\nc) EVAL for a fully developed point that looks at documents and perspectives and uses illustration (perhaps with a quote) from the authors (Evaluation point made, point illustrated with clear example (s) from the document as explicit reference, point explained.)\nd) C for a direct descriptive comparison of the documents that contains no evaluation. (e.g. X said 'this' and Y said 'that')\ne) ? for an unclear or confused answer\nf) J for where judgement is recognised.\n\nLevel Marks Descriptor\nL3 10–14\n• The judgement is sustained and reasoned.\n• Alternative perspectives have sustained assessment.\n• Critical evaluation is of key issues raised in the passages and has explicit reference.\n• Explanation and reasoning are highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed.\n• Communication is highly effective – clear evidence of a structured cogent argument with conclusions explicitly stated and directly linked to the assessment.\n\nL2 5–9\n• Judgement is reasoned.\n• One perspective may be focused upon for assessment.\n• Evaluation is present but may not relate to key issues.\n• Explanation and reasoning are generally accurate.\n• Communication is accurate – some evidence of a structured discussion although conclusions may not be explicitly stated, nor link directly to the assessment.\n\nL1 1–4\n• Judgement, if present, is unsupported or superficial.\n• Alternative perspectives have little or no assessment\n• Evaluation, if any, is simplistic/undeveloped. Answers may describe a few points comparing the two documents.\n• Relevant evidence or reasons may be identified.\n• Communication is limited. Response may be cursory.\n\nX 0\n• no creditable material.\n\n• In Question 3 there are 5 bullet points on the levels grid. They reflect:\n– The level of judgement (i.e. how convincing is one document over the other, if at all)\n– Level of perspective (i.e. different viewpoints based on argument, evidence and assumptions within a context)\n– Evaluation\n– Explanation and reasoning\n– Communication\n• In simple terms the levels are:\n– Level 3 – Sustained, explicit, highly effective\n– Level 2 – Generalised, generally accurate, less focussed on perspectives and evaluation than L3\n– Level 1 – Superficial, simplistic/undeveloped, descriptive\n– Level 0 – No creditable material. Use X as the annotation for this.\n• Judgement can be covered throughout the answer with direct evaluation between the documents but can also be achieved by evaluation of the documents separately with a thorough judgement paragraph at the end.\n• As in Question 2, put the levels for the 5 bullet points at the end of the answer:\n– e.g. L2 L3 L2 L2 L2\nThis would be a L3 answer as it fulfils all the criteria for L2 and has one L3. This puts it at the bottom of the L3 range of marks – 10.\n• Other examples:\n– e.g. L2 L2 L2 L2 L2 Overall Level 2 – mark 9\nHaving 5 L2 marks gives the top of L2 (9 marks) as all level 2 criteria have been met. It must be given 9 marks. There should be no subjective judgement.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L1 L1 L2 Overall Level 2 – mark 7\nHaving 5 L2 marks would give the top of L2 (9 marks) but this has two L1 grades bringing it to a mid L2 i.e. 7\n• Split grades are allowed e.g. L2/L1 or L1/X when the answer does not exactly fit the level descriptors. Treat them as low level, so L2/L1 would be a low level 2 when deciding on the overall level and mark.\n• In level 2 and level 3 there is a range of 5 marks so use all 5 criteria to make your judgement.\n• In level 1 there is a range of 4 marks so make your judgement mainly on the first 4 criteria, saving the communication mark as final guidance.", "totalMarks": 14, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "", "point": "\n \n

Use the levels-based marking grid below to credit marks.

Level	Marks	Descriptor
L3	10–14	The judgement is sustained and reasoned. Alternative perspectives have sustained assessment. Critical evaluation is of key issues raised in the passages and has explicit reference. Explanation and reasoning are highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed. Communication is highly effective – clear evidence of a structured cogent argument with conclusions explicitly stated and directly linked to the assessment.
L2	5–9	Judgement is reasoned. One perspective may be focused upon for assessment. Evaluation is present but may not relate to key issues. Explanation and reasoning are generally accurate. Communication is accurate – some evidence of a structured discussion although conclusions may not be explicitly stated, nor link directly to the assessment.
L1	1–4	Judgement, if present, is unsupported or superficial. Alternative perspectives have little or no assessment. Evaluation, if any, is simplistic/undeveloped. Answers may describe a few points comparing the two documents. Relevant evidence or reasons may be identified. Communication is limited. Response may be cursory.
X	0	no creditable material.

Indicative content:
No set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach.
Candidates may include some of the following:

Relative strength of Doc 2

Clearer argument: R&P (Doc 2) present a logically structured argument that is easy to follow: There is a clear introduction, showing how ubiquitous palm oil is, followed by the historical context so that the reader is clear what the argument is about. Then explains why this is an issue, outlining EU attitudes. Looks at the impact of any EU ban, explains why this may not help and presents a clear approach to the issues. Whereas Silva (Doc 1) presents a range of different points, back and forth, between pros and cons and is much less easy to follow as an argument.
Accessible examples: R&P (Doc 2) give examples to show us how palm oil is used in people's everyday lives, this makes the argument easy to get into. Silva (Doc 1) is less easy to get into as it opens with some opinions giving more technical information about profits and environmental impacts without explaining what palm oil is and how it is used.
Provenance of authors: The argument in Document 2 seems stronger to the reader as it is written by specialists in the field, giving us confidence that they know what they are writing about and have access to information that they understand. This contrasts with Document 1 which is written by a journalist with no clear knowledge or expertise presented to us.
More global scope: Doc. 2 is strengthened by having a more global view, providing information and perspectives from around the world whereas Doc 1 focusses mainly on Sri Lanka.
Neutral/ measured tone (May also be considered a relative weakness): R&P present a more neutral argument, the examples and views presented are measured – strengthening the argument, whereas those presented by Silva in Doc 1 are more dramatic.

Relative Weakness of Doc 2

Less explanation of important details: Doc 2 makes several unexplained or partially explained assertions that weaken the argument as this makes it difficult to follow what is being argued: the link between palm oil and deforestation is only vaguely explained, whereas in Doc 1, we get 2 explained views on how and whether palm oil cultivation leads to deforestation.
Less detail of counter arguments: Both documents include counter arguments, however Doc 2 tends to present these in less detail whereas Doc 1 presents detailed arguments on both sides. In Doc 2 the EU ban is explained in one sentence without any detail, whereas in Doc 1 the WWF view is fully detailed.
Less convincing tone: Document 2 is less interesting than Doc 1 as Doc 1 includes views and emotions which strengthen the argument.

Neither stronger nor weaker

Sources of information: The authors of both documents use information and opinions from reputable sources.
Evidence: The authors of both documents support their arguments with relevant facts and figures.
Balance: The authors of both documents provide a balanced view, with arguments on both sides.
Reasonable and similar conclusion: Though Document 2 presents a detailed possible approach to dealing with the issue and Document 1 does not; both conclude that co-operation is the way forward, in Document 1 between environmentalists and cultivators in Sri Lanka and in Document 2 global co-operation.

Judgement
Candidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence in order to reach a judgement. In doing this:

They may conclude that both are equally strong, that they have a similar balance of strengths and weaknesses.
They may conclude that Document 1 is stronger because it provides clear examples of the negative impacts of palm oil on the environment and the counterbalance of negative impacts of banning palm oil, making it clear that both have a valid point of view and so a compromise is required.
They may conclude that Document 2 is stronger because it takes a more measured view and has a clearer structure with a logical argument.
There is no requirement to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessments made.

\n ", "marks": 14, "guideline": "Marking and annotation guidance – Question 3 – 14 marks:\nAnnotate in the left-hand margin as below:\na) ND (needs developing) when a point has been mentioned but not developed,\nb) ND EVAL when a point of evaluation has been partially developed (e.g. may make a valid point but without appropriately referencing the documents)\nc) EVAL for a fully developed point that looks at documents and perspectives and uses illustration (perhaps with a quote) from the authors (Evaluation point made, point illustrated with clear example (s) from the document as explicit reference, point explained.)\nd) C for a direct descriptive comparison of the documents that contains no evaluation. (e.g. X said 'this' and Y said 'that')\ne) ? for an unclear or confused answer\nf) J for where judgement is recognised.\n\nIn Question 3 there are 5 bullet points on the levels grid. They reflect:\n– The level of judgement (i.e. how convincing is one document over the other, if at all)\n– Level of perspective (i.e. different viewpoints based on argument, evidence and assumptions within a context)\n– Evaluation\n– Explanation and reasoning\n– Communication\n\nIn simple terms the levels are:\n– Level 3 – Sustained, explicit, highly effective\n– Level 2 – Generalised, generally accurate, less focussed on perspectives and evaluation than L3\n– Level 1 – Superficial, simplistic/undeveloped, descriptive\n– Level 0 – No creditable material. Use X as the annotation for this.\n\nJudgement can be covered throughout the answer with direct evaluation between the documents but can also be achieved by evaluation of the documents separately with a thorough judgement paragraph at the end.\n\nAs in Question 2, put the levels for the 5 bullet points at the end of the answer:\n– e.g. L2 L3 L2 L2 L2: This would be a L3 answer as it fulfils all the criteria for L2 and has one L3. This puts it at the bottom of the L3 range of marks – 10.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L2 L2 L2: Overall Level 2 – mark 9. Having 5 L2 marks gives the top of L2 (9 marks) as all level 2 criteria have been met. It must be given 9 marks. There should be no subjective judgement.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L1 L1 L2: Overall Level 2 – mark 7. Having 5 L2 marks would give the top of L2 (9 marks) but this has two L1 grades bringing it to a mid L2 i.e. 7.\n\nSplit grades are allowed e.g. L2/L1 or L1/X when the answer does not exactly fit the level descriptors. Treat them as low level, so L2/L1 would be a low level 2 when deciding on the overall level and mark.\n\nIn level 2 and level 3 there is a range of 5 marks so use all 5 criteria to make your judgement.\nIn level 1 there is a range of 4 marks so make your judgement mainly on the first 4 criteria, saving the communication mark as final guidance." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 14 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":{"id":63568,"name":null,"show_result_immediately":false,"result_visibility":"AFTER_SUBMISSION","results_released_at":null,"hide_result_from_teacher":false,"type":"ORIGINAL","year":2022,"paper_code":"F/M - 9239/12","question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","total_questions":3,"duration_min":90,"owner_user_id":null,"school":null,"quiz_board":"CIE","subject":{"id":60,"name":"Global Perspectives & Research","code":"9239","curriculum":{"description":"A Levels","__typename":"curriculums"},"__typename":"subjects"},"__typename":"quizzes"},"question":{"id":332158,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":2,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:03:13.589286+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"f591d8bd-2d9a-43f8-8d71-527d05a07233","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nTo what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1? You should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document. [14]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9343,"name":"Sustainable futures","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332158,"uuid":"f591d8bd-2d9a-43f8-8d71-527d05a07233","body":{"html":"\n

\n \n

Study Documents 1 and 2.

To what extent is the argument presented by the authors in Document 2 stronger than the argument presented by the author in Document 1? You should consider the strengths and weaknesses of each document.

\n \n

\n\n\n

\n ","metadata":"$24"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":2,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9343,"name":"Sustainable futures","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63568,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2022_F_M_9239_12.pdf","paper_code":"F/M - 9239/12","year":2022,"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"}]}}]]

2022 - F/M - 9239/12 | Q3

Question (3/3)