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:T9f7,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\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 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\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":"2026-11-06T15:06:37.512819+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 - 2021 - CIE - M/J - 9239/12","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"M/J - 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.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\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_12.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2021_M_J_9239_12.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T4d4,

Study Documents 1 and 2.

The authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.

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

25:T5453,{ "questionId": "332194", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "The authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\n\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1?\n\nUse the levels-based marking tables and guidance on Pages 14 and 15 to credit marks.\n\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 balanced realistic conclusion – Hares (Doc 2) provides a balanced conclusion recognising bioplastic technology progressing but at the same time identifying major hurdles; whereas Sedayu's conclusion (Doc 1) only points to the major role of seaweed in Indonesia should play a key role without mention of possible problems.\n• more balanced argument/less selective – Hares (Doc 2) looks at the negatives as well as positives of bioplastics getting people to change is really hard, not as environmentally friendly, main obstacle is the cost; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) does not mention the problems of seaweed production, only the positives of using seaweed being cheaper and avoiding a food crisis.\n• stronger supporting evidence for the conclusion – Hares (Doc 2) provides evidence from Ford, Columbia University, BIOFACE and Ecoshell both to support the progress and highlight the problems; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) provides claims from ACPIR about seaweed exports and UNFOA about suitable place to support Indonesia's key role without supporting evidence about disposal problems.\n• more sources with first-hand experience – Hares (Doc 2) uses Ford, Ecoshell, CBB and BIOFACE to provide personal experience in the field; whereas Sedayu's argument (Doc 1) relies more on his own views based on statistical evidence and self-evident reasoning about land and cost hurdles overcome, which may carry less authority.\n• less possible motive/bias – Hares (Doc 2) is an independent journalist without an apparent motive to commend or criticise the production of bioplastics; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) worked in research institutes for 13 years linked to the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, so may have a vested interest to present Indonesia as a key global player in bioplastics from seaweed.\n\nLess convincing\nbecause:\n• less authority of sources – Hares (Doc 2) uses mainly the personal views of industry founders/workers; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) uses prestigious research bodies directly related to the issue – Sea Education Association, and Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research and Environment Research Letters, and (global trusted authority – UN FAO which may be more convincing because of their wider authority.\n• less positive/practical – Hares (Doc 2) presents the progress and major hurdles without coming to a solution; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) discusses the problems and argues how Indonesia's seaweed offers a solution to both problems of land and cost.\n• less authorial expertise Hares (Doc 2) is an independent journalist with no known specialist knowledge in the issue of bioplastics; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) has relevant experience both of the geographical area and the specifics of seaweed and bioplastics – PhD candidate in Australia researching in biodegradable plastic from seaweed. This gives insight to select relevant material and make informed judgements and be more convincing.\n\nNeither more nor less convincing\nbecause similar:\n• Both have clear conclusions and a structured argument – Hares (Doc 2) that bioplastics is progressing and major hurdles remain; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) concludes Indonesia should play a key role to prevent an even worse plastic crisis.\n• Both point out the negative side of plastics – Hares (Doc 2) uses statistics from the UN; and Sedayu (Doc 1) uses statistics US university research and Sea Education Association.\n• Both present some balance of argument – Hares (Doc 2) the progression of bioplastics and the major hurdles; and Sedayu (Doc 1) the problems of bioplastics and how seaweed overcomes the challenges of land and cost.\n• Both provide the wider context – Hares (Doc 2) uses evidence of Bioplastic use from the US and Mexico setting the issues in a wider context for the reader to judge significance; and Sedayu (Doc 1) mentions global figures relating to the problems of plastic, and big brands using bioplastics e.g. Coca-Cola, Heinz…, again showing significance of the issues.\n• Both provide some sourced evidence/statistics – Hares (Doc 2) from industry Ford, BIOFACE, Ecoshell; and Sedayu (Doc 1) Sea Education Association, Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research, Environment Research Letters and UN FAO, providing authority.\n\nNeither more nor less convincing\nbecause different:\n• They provide different perspectives geographically. – Hares (Doc 2) focuses on land-based bioplastics in the west (US and Mexico); whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) focuses on seaweed-based bioplastics in the east (Indonesia) which as Sedayu says overcomes the problems of land-based solutions in terms of land and cost. So both conclusions are appropriate to their areas.\n\nJudgement\nCandidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence to reach a judgement.\n• In doing this they might conclude that Hares' (Doc 2) argument (Doc 2) is more convincing because of the number of first-hand sources and a more balanced conclusion, reasoning and evidence\n• Alternatively, they might conclude that overall, despite the lack of balance, Sedayu's argument (Doc 1) is stronger because it has more authorial expertise and more in-depth information about the geographical area in question.\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\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 – 12 marks\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\nLevel Marks Descriptor\nL3 9–12\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 5–8\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 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 of response", "point": "\n \n

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.

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 balanced realistic conclusion – Hares (Doc 2) provides a balanced conclusion recognising bioplastic technology progressing but at the same time identifying major hurdles; whereas Sedayu's conclusion (Doc 1) only points to the major role of seaweed in Indonesia should play a key role without mention of possible problems.
more balanced argument/less selective – Hares (Doc 2) looks at the negatives as well as positives of bioplastics getting people to change is really hard, not as environmentally friendly, main obstacle is the cost; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) does not mention the problems of seaweed production, only the positives of using seaweed being cheaper and avoiding a food crisis.
stronger supporting evidence for the conclusion – Hares (Doc 2) provides evidence from Ford, Columbia University, BIOFACE and Ecoshell both to support the progress and highlight the problems; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) provides claims from ACPIR about seaweed exports and UNFOA about suitable place to support Indonesia's key role without supporting evidence about disposal problems.
more sources with first-hand experience – Hares (Doc 2) uses Ford, Ecoshell, CBB and BIOFACE to provide personal experience in the field; whereas Sedayu's argument (Doc 1) relies more on his own views based on statistical evidence and self-evident reasoning about land and cost hurdles overcome, which may carry less authority.
less possible motive/bias – Hares (Doc 2) is an independent journalist without an apparent motive to commend or criticise the production of bioplastics; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) worked in research institutes for 13 years linked to the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, so may have a vested interest to present Indonesia as a key global player in bioplastics from seaweed.

Less convincing because:

less authority of sources – Hares (Doc 2) uses mainly the personal views of industry founders/workers; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) uses prestigious research bodies directly related to the issue – Sea Education Association, and Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research and Environment Research Letters, and (global trusted authority – UN FAO which may be more convincing because of their wider authority.
less positive/practical – Hares (Doc 2) presents the progress and major hurdles without coming to a solution; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) discusses the problems and argues how Indonesia's seaweed offers a solution to both problems of land and cost.
less authorial expertise Hares (Doc 2) is an independent journalist with no known specialist knowledge in the issue of bioplastics; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) has relevant experience both of the geographical area and the specifics of seaweed and bioplastics – PhD candidate in Australia researching in biodegradable plastic from seaweed. This gives insight to select relevant material and make informed judgements and be more convincing.

Neither more nor less convincing because similar:

Both have clear conclusions and a structured argument – Hares (Doc 2) that bioplastics is progressing and major hurdles remain; whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) concludes Indonesia should play a key role to prevent an even worse plastic crisis.
Both point out the negative side of plastics – Hares (Doc 2) uses statistics from the UN; and Sedayu (Doc 1) uses statistics US university research and Sea Education Association.
Both present some balance of argument – Hares (Doc 2) the progression of bioplastics and the major hurdles; and Sedayu (Doc 1) the problems of bioplastics and how seaweed overcomes the challenges of land and cost.
Both provide the wider context – Hares (Doc 2) uses evidence of Bioplastic use from the US and Mexico setting the issues in a wider context for the reader to judge significance; and Sedayu (Doc 1) mentions global figures relating to the problems of plastic, and big brands using bioplastics e.g. Coca-Cola, Heinz…, again showing significance of the issues.
Both provide some sourced evidence/statistics – Hares (Doc 2) from industry Ford, BIOFACE, Ecoshell; and Sedayu (Doc 1) Sea Education Association, Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research, Environment Research Letters and UN FAO, providing authority.

Neither more nor less convincing because different:

They provide different perspectives geographically. – Hares (Doc 2) focuses on land-based bioplastics in the west (US and Mexico); whereas Sedayu (Doc 1) focuses on seaweed-based bioplastics in the east (Indonesia) which as Sedayu says overcomes the problems of land-based solutions in terms of land and cost. So both conclusions are appropriate to their areas.

Judgement
Candidates should critically assess perspectives and the use of examples and evidence to reach a judgement.

In doing this they might conclude that Hares' (Doc 2) argument (Doc 2) is more convincing because of the number of first-hand sources and a more balanced conclusion, reasoning and evidence
Alternatively, they might conclude that overall, despite the lack of balance, Sedayu's argument (Doc 1) is stronger because it has more authorial expertise and more in-depth information about the geographical area in question.

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

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": 12, "guideline": "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\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":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332194,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":2,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:06:37.512819+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"fc46ab0e-ced1-48cf-8255-e80269ac551a","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [12]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9343,"name":"Sustainable futures","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332194,"uuid":"fc46ab0e-ced1-48cf-8255-e80269ac551a","body":{"html":"$24","metadata":"$25"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":2,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9343,"name":"Sustainable futures","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63570,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2021_M_J_9239_12.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2021_M_J_9239_12.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2021_M_J_9239_12.pdf","paper_code":"M/J - 9239/12","year":2021,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more ..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2021,M/J - 9239/12,Sustainable futures,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 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more ..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63570/questions/3"}],["$","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 reach different conclusions about bioplastics.\nHow far is the author's argument in Document 2 more ..."}]]

2021 - M/J - 9239/12 | Q3

Question (3/3)