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"] 22:Ta22,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [12]","description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [12]","learningResourceType":"Practice Question","interactivityType":"active","educationalUse":"assessment","timeRequired":"PT3M","dateCreated":"2026-11-06T15:03:10.464215+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Quality of life"],"assesses":"Understanding of Quality of life","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2021 - CIE - M/J - 9239/11","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"M/J - 9239/11","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.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [12]"},"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_2021_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2021_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T424,

Study Documents 1 and 2.

The authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.

How far is the author’s argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1?

25:T6360,{ "questionId": "332157", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "Question 3\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1?\nUse the levels-based marking grid below to credit marks.\nNo set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some of the following:\n\nMore convincing\nbecause provides:\n• more practical stronger/clearer solution – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives the reader a specific solution …argues for 10 years of compulsory, high quality education (to prevent school drop outs to work); whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply states we can and should protect children in work without giving a clear action.\n• more forceful structure, call to action throughout – Bhagatin (Doc 2) This must change, The Act must be scrapped, responsibility must be taken away from, now time to recognise, we must now take charge; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply presents the evidence leading to action at the very end we can and should.\n• more passionate language- Bhagatin (Doc 2) uses forceful language to convince the reader:, statistics unquestionably show, the need for that is self-evident, the poorest Indian has the clear-sightedness; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply presents evidence towards the conclusion, so being realistic.\n• greater statistical basis – Bhagatin (Doc 2) argues from firm statistical evidence throughout, some sourced, Pratham and MHRD; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) relies on the personal views of Chipani, Gutiérrez, Mamani and Duran.\n• wider geographical evidence – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives a fuller context with statistics from the US and China to indicate the significance of education for India; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) confines her argument to Latin America with one reference to global figures, more than 215 million child workers worldwide.\n• more authorial expertise to assess the problem of child labour – Bhagatin (Doc 2) was formerly in charge of child labour elimination in the government of India so can draw on personal experience of the problem, so her solution is likely to carry more authority/weight than Friedman-Rudovsky's (Doc1) argument, whose experience as a journalist is in social justice, so likely to be less specialised.\n\nLess convincing\nbecause:\n• weaker supporting evidence for the conclusion – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives no firm evidence to support her key claim there is no country…high quality mass education…elimination of child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives examples from Ecuador and Venezuela of how we can… protect children in work.\n• less balanced argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) dismisses the ability of law to help combat the problems of child labour as least effective pieces of legislation, concentrating on her own views; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives the claims of the ILO and the head of the OCLE as counterargument to balance those of the union UNATSBO that has opposing views.\n• narrower perspective/solution – Bhagatin (Doc 2) advocates education as the sole answer 10 years of compulsory, high quality education, not recognising financial needs; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) presents both the need for education and work, unions…require their members to stay in school and a realistic solution.\n• fewer sources with first-hand experience – Bhagatin (Doc 2) who has some personal experience in child labour elimination presents only her own opinion we must now; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses the first-hand experience of Chipani, the president and a leader of UNATSBO and the head of OCLE who inform the reader more widely.\n• smaller range of independent authorities – Bhagatin (Doc 2) relies mainly on statistics from MHRD; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses sourced evidence from the ILO, UNATSBO and OCLE, which gives more authority to the evidence.\n• fewer examples to support the claims – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives no examples to illustrate her claim that education leads to the elimination of child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives examples of unions' achievements in Venezuela and Ecuador to directly support her conclusion that we can protect children in work.\n• more negative emotional language – Bhagatin (Doc 2) uses more emotionally charged language backward looking, laughably low, rotten classrooms, which gives a less neutral argument than Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) who simply presents the claims and information for the reader to decide.\n• possible greater motive/bias – Bhagatin (Doc 2) was formerly in charge of child labour elimination in the government of India so may still have a vested interest to select information in favour of that cause; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) as an independent journalist may be more open to discussing both sides and leaving the reader to form a judgement.\n\nNeither more nor less convincing\nbecause different:\n• provide different perspectives geographically – Bhagatin (Doc 2) the situation in India; Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) the situation in Latin America …these could require different solutions, so both conclusions could be appropriate to their areas.\n• look at different solutions to the problem – Bhagatin (Doc 2) at the solution to improve education provision to eliminate child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) looks at the solution to protect children in work.\n\nbecause similar:\n• Both have clear conclusions and a supporting structured argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives opinion and evidence to support 10 years of compulsory, high quality education; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives first-hand testimony and evidence to support we can and should protect children in work.\n• Both point out the negative side of child labour laws – Bhagatin (Doc 2) that they are not able to be enforced; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) that it means Hundreds of millions of children worldwide are working without legal protection. This makes them the world's most vulnerable labor force.\n• Both present some balance of argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) presents government initiatives in education REA and programme for universal elementary education as well as the need for 10 years of compulsory high quality education; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) presents both the views of the union UNATSBO and the government OCLE.\n• Both provide some sourced evidence/statistics – Bhagatin (Doc 2) relies mainly on statistics from MHRD; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses sourced evidence from the ILO, UNATSBO and OCLE, both therefore providing an element of authority.\n\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\nJudgement\nCandidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence in order to reach a judgement. In doing this they might conclude:\n• that Dr Bhagatin (Doc 2) is more convincing because more authorial expertise, a greater use of statistics and a clear practical solution.\n• or that overall, despite Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) lack of specific expertise, her argument is stronger because it is more balanced, includes first hand personal testimony and a solution that is 'realistic' recognising both the need to work and the need to regulate this.\n\nCredit should be given to any alternative judgement on the basis of the assessment and reasoning e.g. that both arguments are equally strong.\n\nMarking and annotation guidance – Question 3 – 12 marks\nAnnotate in the left-hand margin as below:\n(a) ND (needs developing) when a point has been mentioned but not developed,\n(b) ND EVAL when a point of evaluation has been partially developed (e.g. may make a valid point but without appropriately referencing the documents)\n(c) 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 explained, point illustrated with clear example (s) from the document as explicit reference.)\n(d) C for a direct descriptive comparison of the documents that contains no evaluation. (e.g. X said 'this' and Y said 'that')\n(e) ? for an unclear or confused answer\n(f) J for where judgement is recognised.\n\nLevel | Marks | Descriptor\nL3 | 9–12 | • 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.\nL2 | 5–8 | • 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.\nL1 | 1–4 | • 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.\nX | 0 | • 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 particular 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 –i.e. 9.\n• Other examples:\n– e.g. L2 L2 L2 L2 L2 Overall Level 2 – mark 8\nHaving 5 L2 marks gives the top of L2 (8 marks) as all level 2 criteria have been met.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L1 L1 L2 Overall Level 2 – mark 6/7\nHaving 5 L2 marks would give the top of L2 (9 marks) but this has two L1 grades (ignoring the communication level) bringing it to a mid L2 – 6 or 7 marks. [The L2 for communication might inform your judgement to give the higher mark]\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 all levels 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": 12, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "Levels-based", "point": "\n \n

Candidates' answers are assessed holistically using the levels-based marking grid:

Level	Marks	Descriptor
L3	9–12	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	5–8	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:

More convincing
because provides:

more practical stronger/clearer solution – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives the reader a specific solution …argues for 10 years of compulsory, high quality education (to prevent school drop outs to work); whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply states we can and should protect children in work without giving a clear action.
more forceful structure, call to action throughout – Bhagatin (Doc 2) This must change, The Act must be scrapped, responsibility must be taken away from, now time to recognise, we must now take charge; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply presents the evidence leading to action at the very end we can and should.
more passionate language- Bhagatin (Doc 2) uses forceful language to convince the reader:, statistics unquestionably show, the need for that is self-evident, the poorest Indian has the clear-sightedness; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) simply presents evidence towards the conclusion, so being realistic.
greater statistical basis – Bhagatin (Doc 2) argues from firm statistical evidence throughout, some sourced, Pratham and MHRD; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) relies on the personal views of Chipani, Gutiérrez, Mamani and Duran.
wider geographical evidence – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives a fuller context with statistics from the US and China to indicate the significance of education for India; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) confines her argument to Latin America with one reference to global figures, more than 215 million child workers worldwide.
more authorial expertise to assess the problem of child labour – Bhagatin (Doc 2) was formerly in charge of child labour elimination in the government of India so can draw on personal experience of the problem, so her solution is likely to carry more authority/weight than Friedman-Rudovsky's (Doc1) argument, whose experience as a journalist is in social justice, so likely to be less specialised.

Less convincing
because:

weaker supporting evidence for the conclusion – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives no firm evidence to support her key claim there is no country…high quality mass education…elimination of child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives examples from Ecuador and Venezuela of how we can… protect children in work.
less balanced argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) dismisses the ability of law to help combat the problems of child labour as least effective pieces of legislation, concentrating on her own views; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives the claims of the ILO and the head of the OCLE as counterargument to balance those of the union UNATSBO that has opposing views.
narrower perspective/solution – Bhagatin (Doc 2) advocates education as the sole answer 10 years of compulsory, high quality education, not recognising financial needs; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) presents both the need for education and work, unions…require their members to stay in school and a realistic solution.
fewer sources with first-hand experience – Bhagatin (Doc 2) who has some personal experience in child labour elimination presents only her own opinion we must now; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses the first-hand experience of Chipani, the president and a leader of UNATSBO and the head of OCLE who inform the reader more widely.
smaller range of independent authorities – Bhagatin (Doc 2) relies mainly on statistics from MHRD; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses sourced evidence from the ILO, UNATSBO and OCLE, which gives more authority to the evidence.
fewer examples to support the claims – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives no examples to illustrate her claim that education leads to the elimination of child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives examples of unions' achievements in Venezuela and Ecuador to directly support her conclusion that we can protect children in work.
more negative emotional language – Bhagatin (Doc 2) uses more emotionally charged language backward looking, laughably low, rotten classrooms, which gives a less neutral argument than Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) who simply presents the claims and information for the reader to decide.
possible greater motive/bias – Bhagatin (Doc 2) was formerly in charge of child labour elimination in the government of India so may still have a vested interest to select information in favour of that cause; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) as an independent journalist may be more open to discussing both sides and leaving the reader to form a judgement.

Neither more nor less convincing
because different:

provide different perspectives geographically – Bhagatin (Doc 2) the situation in India; Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) the situation in Latin America …these could require different solutions, so both conclusions could be appropriate to their areas.
look at different solutions to the problem – Bhagatin (Doc 2) at the solution to improve education provision to eliminate child labour; whereas Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) looks at the solution to protect children in work.

because similar:

Both have clear conclusions and a supporting structured argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) gives opinion and evidence to support 10 years of compulsory, high quality education; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) gives first-hand testimony and evidence to support we can and should protect children in work.
Both point out the negative side of child labour laws – Bhagatin (Doc 2) that they are not able to be enforced; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) that it means Hundreds of millions of children worldwide are working without legal protection. This makes them the world's most vulnerable labor force.
Both present some balance of argument – Bhagatin (Doc 2) presents government initiatives in education REA and programme for universal elementary education as well as the need for 10 years of compulsory high quality education; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) presents both the views of the union UNATSBO and the government OCLE.
Both provide some sourced evidence/statistics – Bhagatin (Doc 2) relies mainly on statistics from MHRD; and Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) uses sourced evidence from the ILO, UNATSBO and OCLE, both therefore providing an element of authority.

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

that Dr Bhagatin (Doc 2) is more convincing because more authorial expertise, a greater use of statistics and a clear practical solution.
or that overall, despite Friedman-Rudovsky (Doc1) lack of specific expertise, her argument is stronger because it is more balanced, includes first hand personal testimony and a solution that is 'realistic' recognising both the need to work and the need to regulate this.

Credit should be given to any alternative judgement on the basis of the assessment and reasoning e.g. that both arguments are equally strong.

\n ", "marks": 12, "guideline": "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\nAnnotate in the left-hand margin as below:\n(a) ND (needs developing) when a point has been mentioned but not developed,\n(b) ND EVAL when a point of evaluation has been partially developed (e.g. may make a valid point but without appropriately referencing the documents)\n(c) 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 explained, point illustrated with clear example (s) from the document as explicit reference.)\n(d) C for a direct descriptive comparison of the documents that contains no evaluation. (e.g. X said 'this' and Y said 'that')\n(e) ? for an unclear or confused answer\n(f) 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 particular 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\nPut 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 – i.e. 9.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L2 L2 L2. Overall Level 2 – mark 8. Having 5 L2 marks gives the top of L2 (8 marks) as all level 2 criteria have been met.\n– e.g. L2 L2 L1 L1 L2. Overall Level 2 – mark 6/7. Having 5 L2 marks would give the top of L2 (9 marks) but this has two L1 grades (ignoring the communication level) bringing it to a mid L2 – 6 or 7 marks. [The L2 for communication might inform your judgement to give the higher mark]\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 all levels 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": 12 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332157,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:03:10.464215+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"25d9b8e6-cc14-45a6-b92e-e12823cc5290","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [12]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9338,"name":"Quality of life","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332157,"uuid":"25d9b8e6-cc14-45a6-b92e-e12823cc5290","body":{"html":"$24","metadata":"$25"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9338,"name":"Quality of life","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63569,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2021_M_J_9239_11.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2021_M_J_9239_11.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2021_M_J_9239_11.pdf","paper_code":"M/J - 9239/11","year":2021,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2021,M/J - 9239/11,Quality of life,practice questions,exam preparation"}],["$","meta","3",{"property":"og:title","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2..."}],["$","meta","4",{"property":"og:description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63569/questions/3"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"SudoStudy"}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","8",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary"}],["$","meta","9",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2..."}],["$","meta","10",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 suggest different solutions to the problem of children in work.\nHow far is the author's argument in..."}]]

2021 - M/J - 9239/11 | Q3

Question (3/3)