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:Tbc6,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. 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.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. 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":"2026-11-06T15:12:13.017134+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Sport in an international context"],"assesses":"Understanding of Sport in an international context","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2023 - CIE - O/N - 9239/13","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"O/N - 9239/13","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.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. 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_O_N_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2023_O_N_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T48d,

Study Documents A and B.

The authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.

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

25:T7055,{ "questionId": "332253", "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:\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\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 evaluation of argument. |\n| :--- | :--- |\n| EVAL | Evaluation of argument in both documents. |\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\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 | 3 C or more |\n| Compares a range of key components of arguments from both documents | 4 | 2 C |\n| Compares a limited range of key components of arguments from both documents | 3 | 1 C |\n| Identifies key components of arguments with no comparison | 2 | 2 K or more |\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, C |\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 P^, P, PD or PE |\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 | 2 ND refers to Doc A and Doc B |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) and only refers to one document | 1 | 1 ND |\n| No evaluation is present. No creditable material | 0 | No ND or EVAL |\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 intermediate and 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 or J |\n\nAO3 Communication\n| Communication | Mark | Annotations |\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.\n\nGuidance for awarding marks for AO3 in Question 3.\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\nQuestion 3 Answer Marks: 25\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other.\nNo set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some parts of the following indicative content.\n\nIndicative content – Perspectives\nDo not reward\n‘benefits and drawbacks of holding the Olympic Games’ (as it is in the stem of the question)\n‘bring back the Olympic Games to a permanent home in Greece’ on its own as it is part of the document A introduction.\n‘should think about economics’ on its own as it is part of the document B introduction.\nThere does not need to be adjacent comparison to award PD and PE. If answers meet the descriptor in the table in relation to both documents the rewardable content can appear in different parts of the answer.\n[Examples only]\nP^ Doc A is about the costs of hosting the Olympic Games\nP^ Doc B is about the benefits of hosting the Olympic Games.\nP Doc A is about the costs of hosting the Olympic Games and a possible solution to host permanently in Greece\nP Doc B is about the benefits of hosting the Olympic Games with the author considering longer term advantages to overcome the initial costs.\nDoc A has a negative perspective about the Olympics which is that no country could possibly want to host them because they are so costly. In contrast, Doc B has a much more positive and optimistic perspective about the Olympics, stressing that they can be great for countries like Canada. (PD)\nDoc A has a negative perspective about the Olympics which is that no country could possibly want to host them because they are so costly. This is because the author is focusing on the harsh realities of recent Olympics which have been expensive financially and in other ways too. In contrast, Doc B has a much more positive and optimistic perspective about the Olympics, because the authors look at the softer benefits that we sometimes can’t see like team spirit and national unity that can be great for countries like Canada. (PE)\n\nIndicative content – Arguments\nNo 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.\n[Example only]\nThe language used in Doc A is more formal and academic, using terms such as ‘economic stagnation’ and ‘displacement’ to explain the negative impact of the Olympics. The way language is used is strong because readers usually associate more complex words with knowledge and expertise so they will tend to believe the argument is being based on some level of factual knowledge. (EVAL) But in Doc B the language is much more informal and emotive. When Doc B uses phrases like ‘Just thinking about it gives us goose bumps’ (C) as a way of reminding readers of an emotion they felt at a previous Olympic Games, the language may be seen as just anecdotal and not factual enough to support their argument. (EVAL) So this makes the use of more formal, academic language in Doc A stronger and therefore potentially more convincing for readers than the language in Doc B. (J)\nBalance of argument – Doc B is stronger because it offers more than one benefit (economic, social, emotional, patriotic), and acknowledges the drawbacks, whereas Doc A only focuses on the negative aspects.\nUse of counterarguments – Doc B provides and responds to counterarguments (e.g. ‘like the potential for cost overruns’, ‘spending on ‘circuses, not bread,’) whereas Doc A does not include any counterarguments at all.\nExpertise of sources – Doc A uses official sources from Japan whereas Doc B provides no source for any of their evidence.\nRelevant examples – both documents use relevant examples to support their reasoning – Doc A: Sochi, Tokyo, the original Olympic Games. Doc B: an indoor sports complex and mid-sized arena, when Alexandre Bilodeau won the first gold medal\nStructure of argument – both documents are well structured – Doc B is organised, set out well (e.g. establishes the potential problems, provides a number of reasons to counter them, provides a clear, supported conclusion). Doc A uses argument indicators.\n\nIndicative content – Judgement\nA candidate may conclude that Document B has a stronger argument, as it has more persuasive and emotive language that really grips the reader. Its structure is more balanced because it provides both the negative and positive aspects of the Olympic Games but still manages to provide a compelling argument that the Olympic Games are a wonderful thing for host nations. (J)\nA candidate may conclude that Document A has a stronger argument as it is much more academic and provides cited evidence throughout. The use of official sources strengthens the evidence given and therefore provides a stronger argument that the Games are overwhelmingly negative for host nations and therefore must be moved to a permanent home in Greece. (J)\nA candidate may conclude that both documents have their strengths and weaknesses; Doc A is more academic and provides cited evidence throughout which makes it strong, but it only looks at the negative impact of hosting the Olympics. Doc B is much more accessible to readers but provides no citations at all. So, on balance, both arguments are valid and so neither is particularly stronger than the other. (J)", "totalMarks": 25, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "AO1a", "point": "\n \n

Identify and compare key components of arguments (AO1a)

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

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Annotate with K if key component is identified for one document and C if key component is compared for both documents." }, { "type": "AO1b", "point": "\n \n

Analyse and compare perspectives (AO1b)

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": "Identification only (P ^), identification with limited description (P), comparing and describing in both documents (PD) and comparing and explaining in both documents (PE)." }, { "type": "AO1c", "point": "\n \n

Evaluate arguments (AO1c)

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	2 ND refers to Doc A and Doc B
Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) and only refers to one document	1	1 ND
No evaluation is present. No creditable material	0	No ND or EVAL

\n ", "marks": 5, "guideline": "Unsupported evaluation of argument (ND). Evaluation includes illustration with reference to both documents (EVAL)." }, { "type": "AO1d", "point": "\n \n

Judgement about argument and perspective (AO1d)

AO1d Judgement about argument and perspective	Mark	Annotations
Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion	5	J intermediate and 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 or J

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

Communication (AO3)

Communication	Mark	Annotations
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": "Refer to additional guidance for awarding marks for AO3 in Question 3." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 25 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332253,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:12:13.017134+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"1fe91758-f0da-4906-9d2c-892701ac0d2d","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic Games.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9342,"name":"Sport in an international context","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332253,"uuid":"1fe91758-f0da-4906-9d2c-892701ac0d2d","body":{"html":"$24","metadata":"$25"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9342,"name":"Sport in an international context","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63582,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2023_O_N_9239_13.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2023_O_N_9239_13.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2023_O_N_9239_13.pdf","paper_code":"O/N - 9239/13","year":2023,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic G..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2023,O/N - 9239/13,Sport in an international context,practice questions,exam preparation"}],["$","meta","3",{"property":"og:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents..."}],["$","meta","4",{"property":"og:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic G..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63582/questions/3"}],["$","meta","6",{"property":"og:site_name","content":"SudoStudy"}],["$","meta","7",{"property":"og:type","content":"website"}],["$","meta","8",{"name":"twitter:card","content":"summary"}],["$","meta","9",{"name":"twitter:title","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents..."}],["$","meta","10",{"name":"twitter:description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of hosting the Olympic G..."}]]

2023 - O/N - 9239/13 | Q3

Question (3/3)