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:T9fa,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [14]","description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [14]","learningResourceType":"Practice Question","interactivityType":"active","educationalUse":"assessment","timeRequired":"PT3M","dateCreated":"2026-11-06T15:07:01.535537+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Tourism"],"assesses":"Understanding of Tourism","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2022 - 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 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [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_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2022_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T6cb1,{ "questionId": "332198", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "Question 3\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' 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 (because provides):\n• a more confident positive conclusion – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are positive giving hope of improvement There are solutions, they just need to be implemented and monitored which may be more appealing; whereas Venables (Doc 1) doubts the solutions he puts forward However, none of this is likely to happen and concludes negatively sad to me… real adventurers…\n• stronger statistical evidence – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) give precise figures of present working measures – 8 kilos of waste brought down and Nepalese deposits of $4000 and Tibetan fines of $100 per kilo, also SPCC figures of 40 tonnes brought down; whereas Venables (Doc 1) uses vague statistics of the problem more than 500, more than 700; around a 100 people; climbing permits averaging about USD 10 000 each, and proposes reinstating restrictions without statistics or explaining why they were abandoned, which weakens support / less convincing.\n• more emotional language to convince of problem – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use ugly waste, disgusting, an eyesore, to convince of need for action; whereas Venables (Doc 1) gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation which may not be as compelling.\n• a strong visual image – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use the image of the equivalent of three double-decker buses to convince readers of the size of the problem of waste; whereas Venables (Doc 1) simply gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation, which may not be as compelling.\n• more up to date solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are looking for solutions suitable for problems in 2018; whereas Venables (Doc 1), writing in 2013, is trying to solve a situation in 2013 without knowledge of the later situation, so may be outdated.\n• greater use of local sources of expertise of continuing situation – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) speak directly to Pemba Dorje Sherpa …told AFP and use Ang Tsering Sherpa and the SPCC all of whom have continuing experience of the problem because of their jobs on the mountain; whereas Venables (Doc 1) uses historic views – Tilman going back to 1938 and the 2013 snap shot of Jenkins for National Geographic magazine.\n• more varied positive solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) suggest monitoring deposits and fines, more Sherpas and a dedicated rubbish collection team which together tackle the problems from different angles; whereas Venables (Doc 1) suggests more punitive changes in rules restricting numbers and banning the use of supplementary oxygen which are likely to be less popular, so less convincing as solutions.\n• more plausible/realistic solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) suggest additions to already partially working solutions monitoring deposits and fines which are already in place; adding to the number of Sherpas and having a dedicated rubbish collection team building on existing clean-ups; whereas Venables (Doc 1) suggests restrictions and banning which he recognises are unlikely to happen because Everest is a profitable seller's market so who wants to give that up?\n• more neutrality – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are reporting the situation as given by Sherpas and a mountaineer; whereas Venables (Doc 1) has more of his own opinion, possibly biased by his own experience of pioneering a new route on Everest with with just four climbers, no high-altitude porters, and no supplementary oxygen.\n\nLess convincing (because):\n• less balanced argument – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the solutions in a solely positive light more Sherpas would also help solve the problem, A dedicated rubbish collection team would be another solution; whereas Venables (Doc 1) points out the negatives of restricting numbers – the loss to the local economy – Everest is a profitable seller's market, so who wants to give that up? As well as the benefits Reinstate those rules and Everest would be peaceful again.\n• more emotive argument – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) rely on passionate language to persuade ugly waste, disgusting, an eyesore; whereas Venables (Doc 1) gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation which may be more convincing.\n• less fundamental solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) focus on minimising the level of waste with monitoring deposits and fines; whereas Venables (Doc 1) addresses the crux of the problem, by reducing the numbers which would reduce congestion and also the amount of waste.\n• more biased towards Himalayan economy – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the views of the Sherpas who have a possible vested interest to support the numbers and make them work and as authors they suggest more Sherpas possibly because they contribute to the local economy; whereas Venables (Doc 1) appears to be focused on an environmental solution despite the economic loss.\n• less authorial expertise to assess the problem and solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are a journalist and communication officer, so are likely to have less expertise in assessing the wider context of the problems; whereas Venables (Doc 1) draws on the historical context of the first expeditions Tilman 1938 and the personal experience his own in 1988 to be able to suggest more far reaching solutions of reducing numbers and banning supplementary oxygen.\n\nNeither more or less convincing because different:\n• focus on different aspects of the problem – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) focus on the problem of waste to suggest deposits and fines; whereas Venables (Doc 1) focuses on the problem of congestion to suggest reducing numbers. Both types of solution could be effective at the same time.\n\nNeither more or less convincing because similar:\n• Both have a structured argument – that supports the solution and their conclusion- Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the problem of numbers and waste, then suggest three solutions leading to a conclusion There are solutions, they just need to be implemented and monitored; Venables (Doc 1) presents the problem of congestion, suggests two solutions and points out However Everest is a profitable seller's market, so who wants to give that up? Concluding – I suspect that the real adventurers will seek their challenges, and experience of wild places elsewhere.\n• Both provide some evidence/statistics – to support the need for their type of solution- Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) give statistics about waste last year climbers in Nepal successfully brought down nearly 25 tonnes of rubbish and 15 tonnes of excrement; Venables (Doc 1) presents statistics about congestion Last year more than 500 people reached the summit, and this year more than 700 are expected.\n• Both use sources with first-hand experience – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use Sherpas Dorje and Tsering torether with climber Benegas with over 20 years of climbing Everest; Venables (Doc 1) uses his own experience of the 1988 expedition and the experience of Tilman who climbed Everest in 1938.\n• Both include some bias – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use the evidence of Sherpas who may have a vested interest to provide solutions that protect the numbers on Everest and so their jobs on the mountain; Venables (Doc 1) may be biased towards reducing numbers and banning supplementary oxygen because of his own experience with just four climbers, no high-altitude porters, and no supplementary oxygen.\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 overall Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) despite their lack of specific expertise present a more convincing argument because they use experienced local sources to support positive and more realistic solutions which build upon actions which already work in part.\n• or that Venables (Doc 1) with his own greater relevant expertise in summiting Everest presents a more convincing argument because it is more balanced, and deals with solving the fundamental problem of crowding, which if solved would also solve the problem of waste.\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 – 14 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 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": "Levels of response", "point": "\n \n

Assessment is holistic using the levels-based marking grid:

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.

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

More convincing (because provides):

a more confident positive conclusion – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are positive giving hope of improvement There are solutions, they just need to be implemented and monitored which may be more appealing; whereas Venables (Doc 1) doubts the solutions he puts forward However, none of this is likely to happen and concludes negatively sad to me… real adventurers…
stronger statistical evidence – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) give precise figures of present working measures – 8 kilos of waste brought down and Nepalese deposits of $4000 and Tibetan fines of $100 per kilo, also SPCC figures of 40 tonnes brought down; whereas Venables (Doc 1) uses vague statistics of the problem more than 500, more than 700; around a 100 people; climbing permits averaging about USD 10 000 each, and proposes reinstating restrictions without statistics or explaining why they were abandoned, which weakens support / less convincing.
more emotional language to convince of problem – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use ugly waste, disgusting, an eyesore, to convince of need for action; whereas Venables (Doc 1) gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation which may not be as compelling.
a strong visual image – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use the image of the equivalent of three double-decker buses to convince readers of the size of the problem of waste; whereas Venables (Doc 1) simply gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation, which may not be as compelling.
more up to date solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are looking for solutions suitable for problems in 2018; whereas Venables (Doc 1), writing in 2013, is trying to solve a situation in 2013 without knowledge of the later situation, so may be outdated.
greater use of local sources of expertise of continuing situation – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) speak directly to Pemba Dorje Sherpa …told AFP and use Ang Tsering Sherpa and the SPCC all of whom have continuing experience of the problem because of their jobs on the mountain; whereas Venables (Doc 1) uses historic views – Tilman going back to 1938 and the 2013 snap shot of Jenkins for National Geographic magazine.
more varied positive solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) suggest monitoring deposits and fines, more Sherpas and a dedicated rubbish collection team which together tackle the problems from different angles; whereas Venables (Doc 1) suggests more punitive changes in rules restricting numbers and banning the use of supplementary oxygen which are likely to be less popular, so less convincing as solutions.
more plausible/realistic solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) suggest additions to already partially working solutions monitoring deposits and fines which are already in place; adding to the number of Sherpas and having a dedicated rubbish collection team building on existing clean-ups; whereas Venables (Doc 1) suggests restrictions and banning which he recognises are unlikely to happen because Everest is a profitable seller’s market so who wants to give that up?
more neutrality – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are reporting the situation as given by Sherpas and a mountaineer; whereas Venables (Doc 1) has more of his own opinion, possibly biased by his own experience of pioneering a new route on Everest with with just four climbers, no high-altitude porters, and no supplementary oxygen.

Less convincing (because):

less balanced argument – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the solutions in a solely positive light more Sherpas would also help solve the problem, A dedicated rubbish collection team would be another solution; whereas Venables (Doc 1) points out the negatives of restricting numbers – the loss to the local economy – Everest is a profitable seller’s market, so who wants to give that up? As well as the benefits Reinstate those rules and Everest would be peaceful again.
more emotive argument – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) rely on passionate language to persuade ugly waste, disgusting, an eyesore; whereas Venables (Doc 1) gives a reasoned account there is a logical explanation which may be more convincing.
less fundamental solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) focus on minimising the level of waste with monitoring deposits and fines; whereas Venables (Doc 1) addresses the crux of the problem, by reducing the numbers which would reduce congestion and also the amount of waste.
more biased towards Himalayan economy – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the views of the Sherpas who have a possible vested interest to support the numbers and make them work and as authors they suggest more Sherpas possibly because they contribute to the local economy; whereas Venables (Doc 1) appears to be focused on an environmental solution despite the economic loss.
less authorial expertise to assess the problem and solutions – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) are a journalist and communication officer, so are likely to have less expertise in assessing the wider context of the problems; whereas Venables (Doc 1) draws on the historical context of the first expeditions Tilman 1938 and the personal experience his own in 1988 to be able to suggest more far reaching solutions of reducing numbers and banning supplementary oxygen.

Neither more or less convincing because different:

focus on different aspects of the problem – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) focus on the problem of waste to suggest deposits and fines; whereas Venables (Doc 1) focuses on the problem of congestion to suggest reducing numbers. Both types of solution could be effective at the same time.

Neither more or less convincing because similar:

Both have a structured argument – that supports the solution and their conclusion- Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) present the problem of numbers and waste, then suggest three solutions leading to a conclusion There are solutions, they just need to be implemented and monitored; Venables (Doc 1) presents the problem of congestion, suggests two solutions and points out However Everest is a profitable seller’s market, so who wants to give that up? Concluding – I suspect that the real adventurers will seek their challenges, and experience of wild places elsewhere.
Both provide some evidence/statistics – to support the need for their type of solution- Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) give statistics about waste last year climbers in Nepal successfully brought down nearly 25 tonnes of rubbish and 15 tonnes of excrement; Venables (Doc 1) presents statistics about congestion Last year more than 500 people reached the summit, and this year more than 700 are expected.
Both use sources with first-hand experience – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use Sherpas Dorje and Tsering torether with climber Benegas with over 20 years of climbing Everest; Venables (Doc 1) uses his own experience of the 1988 expedition and the experience of Tilman who climbed Everest in 1938.
Both include some bias – Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) use the evidence of Sherpas who may have a vested interest to provide solutions that protect the numbers on Everest and so their jobs on the mountain; Venables (Doc 1) may be biased towards reducing numbers and banning supplementary oxygen because of his own experience with just four climbers, no high-altitude porters, and no supplementary oxygen.

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 overall Mathema and Symington (Doc 2) despite their lack of specific expertise present a more convincing argument because they use experienced local sources to support positive and more realistic solutions which build upon actions which already work in part.
or that Venables (Doc 1) with his own greater relevant expertise in summiting Everest presents a more convincing argument because it is more balanced, and deals with solving the fundamental problem of crowding, which if solved would also solve the problem of waste.

\n ", "marks": 14, "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\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: 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• Other examples:\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• 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 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332198,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:07:01.535537+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"493f14ef-e6b6-4b07-b394-9588e4299d7d","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Document 2 more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [14]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9344,"name":"Tourism","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332198,"uuid":"493f14ef-e6b6-4b07-b394-9588e4299d7d","body":{"html":"\n

\n \n

Study Documents 1 and 2.

The authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.

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

\n \n

\n\n\n

\n ","metadata":"$24"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9344,"name":"Tourism","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63574,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2022_M_J_9239_11.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2022_M_J_9239_11.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2022_M_J_9239_11.pdf","paper_code":"M/J - 9239/11","year":2022,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents 1 and 2.\nThe authors of Documents 1 and 2 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Documen..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2022,M/J - 9239/11,Tourism,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 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Documen..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63574/questions/3"}],["$","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 propose different solutions to the problems on Everest.\nHow far is the authors' argument in Documen..."}]]

2022 - M/J - 9239/11 | Q3

Question (3/3)