23:I[768050,["/_next/static/chunks/0kio5sc0sj2oh.js","/_next/static/chunks/1oaiab5js2ffr.js","/_next/static/chunks/253atym4pffpy.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_-l8epaol19d.js","/_next/static/chunks/07koh431bij2x.js","/_next/static/chunks/2qlkss0jfxw92.js","/_next/static/chunks/3f51dtfqg2ppu.js","/_next/static/chunks/0018hduy69oa0.js","/_next/static/chunks/3wrhe-la7uv11.js","/_next/static/chunks/2-hdm7-w0l4ww.js","/_next/static/chunks/0k82hvfrf8cs2.js","/_next/static/chunks/2mkcvkqg-yawb.js","/_next/static/chunks/0rehzesnbl_av.js","/_next/static/chunks/0udbevd16g6ix.js","/_next/static/chunks/3g1698ku69s2j.js","/_next/static/chunks/2h5jxdhegc4re.js","/_next/static/chunks/30lid7eq6y7oz.js","/_next/static/chunks/0-3t5fzt10ckw.js","/_next/static/chunks/10if8ioxfj17o.js","/_next/static/chunks/44cbuwitvfzoh.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eh86kp6qbf8b.js","/_next/static/chunks/3a2sws5_tsf3p.js","/_next/static/chunks/0cc9asozgwxd9.js","/_next/static/chunks/1j2568tca3zyf.js","/_next/static/chunks/1f0yzqpb74u1n.js","/_next/static/chunks/0uj-ot7il-3ia.js","/_next/static/chunks/32dm90fslng58.js","/_next/static/chunks/1ddigcuagpd7k.js","/_next/static/chunks/2rewp79cce0yi.js","/_next/static/chunks/2aitdtjk6s8o8.js","/_next/static/chunks/0p39f5bgthn6x.js","/_next/static/chunks/3p3l0__il7u2b.js","/_next/static/chunks/3wyut2vdlqxhf.js","/_next/static/chunks/27hgw3nhws1xz.js","/_next/static/chunks/332jvrgl3ia6z.js","/_next/static/chunks/1vuip103l-qvm.js","/_next/static/chunks/1sws_omw6dldt.js","/_next/static/chunks/3qgo9nuep6hhe.js","/_next/static/chunks/3tlhs7rb6z2x3.js","/_next/static/chunks/3x0hxnadkspk9.js","/_next/static/chunks/39xp05v-aq4b-.js","/_next/static/chunks/2tsaa4it8rjmb.js","/_next/static/chunks/2_te24b23umo3.js","/_next/static/chunks/1zgcdvq57xbc3.js","/_next/static/chunks/25vni5qklp59l.js","/_next/static/chunks/1l-dx0j6w-839.js","/_next/static/chunks/0ci6eia210zz0.js","/_next/static/chunks/3flulwd8spvdd.js","/_next/static/chunks/0unjfv-sbf0d-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0-wgr71am8eby.js","/_next/static/chunks/05znuxcb85ze1.js","/_next/static/chunks/1xi0ttvf5moed.js","/_next/static/chunks/37w72-4r8pg0v.js","/_next/static/chunks/443erezj2c4iw.js"],"default"] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two document..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of bot..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2023,M/J - 9239/11,Crime,practice questions,exam preparation"}],["$","meta","3",{"property":"og:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two document..."}],["$","meta","4",{"property":"og:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of bot..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63575/questions/3"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"SudoStudy"}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","8",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary"}],["$","meta","9",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two document..."}],["$","meta","10",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of bot..."}]] 22:Taf8,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","description":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","learningResourceType":"Practice Question","interactivityType":"active","educationalUse":"assessment","timeRequired":"PT3M","dateCreated":"2026-11-06T15:06:23.647652+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Crime"],"assesses":"Understanding of Crime","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2023 - 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 A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]"},"provider":{"@type":"Organization","name":"SudoStudy","url":"https://sudostudy.com","logo":"https://sudostudy.com/logo.png","description":"An online learning platform providing practice questions and detailed explanations for A-Level / GCSE subjects"},"associatedMedia":[{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Question Paper","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T411,

Study Documents A and B.

The authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.

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

25:T763c,{ "questionId": "332192", "parts": [ { "partId": "3", "markschemeText": "Instructions for Question 3\nThe question assesses AO1 (Research, analysis and evaluation) and AO3 (Communication).\nAnswers should be written in continuous prose. There is no requirement for candidates to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessment made.\n\nA perspective is made up of argument, evidence and assumptions and may be influenced by a particular context.\nAnnotate clearly in the left-hand margin according to the instructions provided below.\nThere are five aspects to consider when marking the answer. Annotations for each aspect are listed in increasing order of significance. For example, in AO1a C reflects a higher skill than K. This is reflected in the mark tables.\n\n- Identify and compare key components of arguments (AO1a). Candidates should identify a range of key components of arguments from both documents. Annotate with K if key component is identified for one document and C if key component is compared for both documents.\n\n| K | Identification of key component of argument for one document |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| C | Comparison of key components from both documents. |\n- Analyse and compare perspectives (AO1b). Candidates should analyse by identifying, describing and explaining the perspectives given in both documents. Identification only (P ^), identification with limited description (P), comparing and describing in both documents (PD) and comparing and explaining in both documents (PE).\n\n| P ^ | Identification of perspectives with no description. |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| P | Identification of perspectives with limited description. |\n| PD | Analyses by comparing and describing perspectives in both documents. |\n| PE | Analyses by comparing and explaining perspectives in both documents. |\n\n- Evaluate arguments (AO1c). Candidates should aim to evaluate key components of arguments with clearly illustrated and balanced reference to both documents. Evaluation may be unsupported (asserted) (ND). Evaluation includes illustration with reference to both documents. (EVAL)\n\n| ND | Unsupported or undeveloped evaluation of a key component of argument. |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| EVAL | Evaluation of key components of argument. |\n\n- Judgement about argument and perspective (AO1d). Candidates should aim to give a reasoned and supported answer which includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion. The judgement may be unsupported (U ^ or U), partly supported (J ^) or clearly reasoned and supported (J)\n\n| U ^ | Unsupported judgement - stated only |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| U | Unsupported judgement - with reasoning |\n| J^ | Partly supported judgement - with reasoning |\n| J | Supported judgement - with reasoning |\n\n- Communication (AO3) A candidate should aim to produce a clearly expressed, well-structured and logical argument that is focused throughout on the question.\nStructure should include introduction, clear paragraphs and conclusion, should flow and answer the question. Each paragraph should follow on logically and contain a separate point. Each new idea should be clearly indicated - preferably in a new paragraph.\n'Logical' means that it is easy to follow the argument as there are no sudden changes of direction leading to confusion in the reader.\nNo annotation is required except NAQ to show not linking to the question. The mark should be selected by using the guidance that follows the mark tables. Choose the most appropriate descriptor in the marking grid.\n\n| NAQ | Not answering the question |\n| :--- | :--- |\n\n\nMarking grid for Question 3 - AO1 Research, analysis and evaluation\n| AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Compares a wide range of key components of arguments from both documents | 5 | 4 C or more |\n| Compares a range of key components of arguments from both documents | 4 | 3 C |\n| Compares a limited range of key components of arguments from both documents | 3 | 2 C or (1 C and 2 K or more) |\n| Identifies key components of arguments with no comparison | 2 | 2 K or 1 C or 1 C and 1 K |\n| Limited identification of key components of arguments with no comparison | 1 | 1 K |\n| No identification of arguments. No creditable material | 0 | No K |\n\n\n| AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Analyses by comparing and explaining the perspectives given in both documents | 5 | 1 PE or more |\n| Analyses by comparing and describing the perspectives given in both documents | 4 | 1 PD or more |\n| Identifies and compares both perspectives but with limited description | 3 | 2 P (one for each doc) |\n| Identifies one perspective but with limited description | 2 | P |\n| Identifies one perspective with no description | 1 | P ^ |\n| No identification of perspectives. No creditable material | 0 | No $\\mathbf{P}^{\\boldsymbol{\\wedge}} \\boldsymbol{,} \\mathbf{P}$, PD or PE |\n\n\n| AO1c Evaluate arguments | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear, balanced reference to both documents | 5 | 4 or more EVAL (2 or more for each Doc) |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear reference to both documents but lacks balance | 4 | 3 or more EVAL (2 or more for one Doc and one for the other Doc) |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments with limited reference to both documents | 3 | 2 EVAL / 1 EVAL and 1 ND (both Docs) |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) but refers to both documents | 2 | ND but refers to Doc A and Doc B |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) and only refers to one document | 1 | ND and only refers to Doc A or Doc B |\n| No evaluation is present. No creditable material | 0 | No ND or EVAL |\n\n\n| AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion | 5 | J or J ^ intermediate and J in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion | 4 | J intermediate or in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is reasoned but is only partly supported. Includes either intermediate conclusion(s) or a main conclusion | 3 | J ^ intermediate or in the final conclusion |\n| Judgement is reasoned but not supported | 2 | U |\n| Judgement is stated without reasons or support | 1 | U ^ |\n| No judgement is made. No creditable material | 0 | No U^, U, J^ or J |\n\nAO3 Communication\n\n| Communication | Mark | Guidance |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Produces a clearly written, well-structured and logical argument that is focused throughout on the question | 5 | Meets the descriptor - and contains no NAQ |\n| Produces a clearly written, well-structured argument that links to the question | 4 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Produces a clearly written argument with uneven structure that links to the question | 3 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Produces an argument that lacks clarity and structure and does not always link to the question | 2 | Meets the descriptor |\n| Communication is cursory or descriptive and lacks structure | 1 | Meets the descriptor |\n| No creditable material | 0 | Meets the descriptor - NAQ throughout |\n\nExaminers should allocate a mark for each aspect (AO1a, AO1b, AO1c, AO1d and AO3), using the mark descriptors and required annotations.\n\nFurther guidance for AO3 is given below on page 21.\n\n## Guidance for awarding marks for AO3 in Question 3.\n\nNote: 'clearly written' refers to the content and the ease of being able to follow the candidates' argument. It should be thought of as: 'clearly expressed'.\nThe quality of handwriting should not be considered as a factor when awarding marks. This is not what clearly written means in the descriptors.\nIf a candidate made little attempt to answer the question and had lots of NAQ (e.g. was very descriptive or wrote an essay on their own opinion of the subject matter) the maximum score is 2 marks.\nIf a candidate wrote very little/ wrote in bullet points/has limited content that addresses the question the maximum score is 2 marks\nIf a candidate makes no attempt to develop an argument at all, the maximum score is 1 mark.\nIf a candidate wrote in continuous prose, expressed themselves clearly and addressed the question, start at 3 marks - then consider if it better fits the descriptions above or below 3 marks. If the answer was not clearly expressed or focused mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure and may only be worth 2 marks.\nIf the answer has an introduction, clear paragraphs, considers both documents in a balanced way, reaches a judgement and generally links to the question it could be worth 4 marks.\nIf the answer contains the criteria for 4 marks above, is logical and has no irrelevant content (No NAQ) it could be worth 5 marks.\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| 3 | The authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.
Evaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. | 25 |\n| | No set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some parts of the following indicative content. | |\n| | Indicative content - perspectives (AO1b)
A perspective is made up of argument, evidence and assumptions and may be influenced by a particular [global] context. The perspective is the overall point the author is making / what the author is writing about / what the overall argument the author is making. It gives an overview. The other AO1 aspects consider the key components of argument, evaluation and judgement. These consider the individual components of the candidate's argument. Document A writes about the youth justice system (P^). Document B writes about the adult prison system (P^) Document A is based on California's proposed raising of the age limit on the youth justice system from 18 to 20. (P) Document B's perspective is that the way prisoners are treated is due to a lack of sympathy and a right to rehabilitation. (P) PD requires analysis by comparing and describing perspectives for both documents. It requires active comparison, not just placing two separate points for each document next to each other.
Both authors start from a similar viewpoint, that prison is damaging to prisoners. However, Document A has a cooler, more pragmatic and slightly narrower perspective, as his perspective is focussed on the impact of prison on youth in the US. This perspective comes from his background as a commissioner working in NYC Department of Probation. On the other hand, Document B has a somewhat wider perspective on the damage done to prisoners in general with a broader social context including exploitation, class and racism. Her perspective seems to be focussed on Guyana (though this is not stated) as she is writing for a Guyanan audience. Her perspective comes from her interest in socio-political ills, making her more emotionally invested in the issue. (PE) | |\n\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| 3 | Indicative content - Arguments
No set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. At each point of comparison, candidates may argue that either Document is stronger, or they are equally strong. Candidates may include some of the following indicative content:
[Example only]: (all annotations are given to show progression. In practice K and ND would not be needed here) Structure: Akola Thompson (Doc B) structures her argument well, drawing in the reader by presenting a counter argument from the outset. (K) The argument flows logically to the conclusion (ND) appealing to the reader for a change of attitude. (EVAL) Whereas the counter argument in Doc A is little more than an aside (C), making Doc B stronger structurally. (J^)
Style: Vincent Schiraldi Doc A provides a more formal argument, with more statistics, dates and exact information to support it - this contrasts with the sweeping emotionalism of Doc B.
Appeal to audience: Doc B Shows empathy with the fears and concerns of those who disagree and appeals to the reader's sense of justice. Whereas Doc A shows less empathy being more concerned with facts and figures.
Provenance: VS (Doc A) has status and expertise in the area of crime and justice. This makes him more credible than the author of Doc B, AT, who is a young journalist.
Focus: Both authors have a similar opinion of the negative impacts of prison, though their focus is different: Doc A is focussed on young offenders while Doc B has a more general focus.
Logical arguments: Though they support their arguments differently, Doc A with specific sourced evidence and Doc B with more general factual information and discussion; both authors provide logical arguments and accessible explanations for their ideas. | |\n\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| 3 | Indicative content - Judgement
Candidate's may introduce their answer with an unsupported judgement as to which, if any argument is stronger. (U^)
Judgement will normally occur at the end of a point, especially as an intermediate judgement at the end of a paragraph.
Use U^ or U, for unsupported judgements and where the candidate refers to one document only.
J^ and J are used when an answer directly refers to both documents and answers the question by including a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other.
A candidate may conclude that Doc A has a stronger argument as it has more clear and sourced evidence than Doc B. (J^) Doc A uses research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whereas Doc B uses no sources and appears to rely on her own knowledge. (J)
A candidate may conclude that Doc B has a stronger argument than Doc A due to a clear emotional perspective that draws in and convinces the reader. (J^)
A candidate may conclude that, on balance, neither document is stronger as they both have a similar view of the justice system and prison, though from different perspectives and with different approaches to their arguments. (J) | |", "totalMarks": 25, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "AO1a", "point": "\n \n

AO1a Identify and compare key components of arguments:

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "K: Identification of key component of argument for one document; C: Comparison of key components from both documents." }, { "type": "AO1b", "point": "\n \n

AO1b Analyse and compare perspectives:

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "P ^: Identification of perspectives with no description; P: Identification of perspectives with limited description; PD: Analyses by comparing and describing perspectives in both documents; PE: Analyses by comparing and explaining perspectives in both documents." }, { "type": "AO1c", "point": "\n \n

AO1c Evaluate arguments:

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "ND: Unsupported or undeveloped evaluation of a key component of argument; EVAL: Evaluation of key components of argument." }, { "type": "AO1d", "point": "\n \n

AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective:

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "U ^: Unsupported judgement - stated only; U: Unsupported judgement - with reasoning; J^: Partly supported judgement - with reasoning; J: Supported judgement - with reasoning." }, { "type": "AO3", "point": "\n \n

AO3 Communication:

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Note: 'clearly written' refers to the content and the ease of being able to follow the candidates' argument. It should be thought of as: 'clearly expressed'. The quality of handwriting should not be considered as a factor when awarding marks. This is not what clearly written means in the descriptors. If a candidate made little attempt to answer the question and had lots of NAQ (e.g. was very descriptive or wrote an essay on their own opinion of the subject matter) the maximum score is 2 marks. If a candidate wrote very little/ wrote in bullet points/has limited content that addresses the question the maximum score is 2 marks. If a candidate makes no attempt to develop an argument at all, the maximum score is 1 mark. If a candidate wrote in continuous prose, expressed themselves clearly and addressed the question, start at 3 marks – then consider if it better fits the descriptions above or below 3 marks. If the answer was not clearly expressed or focused mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure and may only be worth 2 marks. If the answer has an introduction, clear paragraphs, considers both documents in a balanced way, reaches a judgement and generally links to the question it could be worth 4 marks. If the answer contains the criteria for 4 marks above, is logical and has no irrelevant content (No NAQ) it could be worth 5 marks." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 25 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":{"id":63575,"name":null,"show_result_immediately":false,"result_visibility":"AFTER_SUBMISSION","results_released_at":null,"hide_result_from_teacher":false,"type":"ORIGINAL","year":2023,"paper_code":"M/J - 9239/11","question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","total_questions":3,"duration_min":90,"owner_user_id":null,"school":null,"quiz_board":"CIE","subject":{"id":60,"name":"Global Perspectives & Research","code":"9239","curriculum":{"description":"A Levels","__typename":"curriculums"},"__typename":"subjects"},"__typename":"quizzes"},"question":{"id":332192,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:06:23.647652+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"d0a9ffc1-5ab0-4be5-a6eb-40d02946bcb0","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents A and B.\n\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the justice system.\n\nEvaluate the arguments of both authors. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9316,"name":"Crime","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332192,"uuid":"d0a9ffc1-5ab0-4be5-a6eb-40d02946bcb0","body":{"html":"$24","metadata":"$25"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9316,"name":"Crime","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63575,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2023_M_J_9239_11.pdf","paper_code":"M/J - 9239/11","year":2023,"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"}]}}]]

2023 - M/J - 9239/11 | Q3

Question (3/3)