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:Tb59,{"@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 need for new tourism initiatives.\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 need for new tourism initiatives.\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":"2026-11-06T15:13:57.312839+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 - 2024 - 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 need for new tourism initiatives.\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_2024_O_N_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2024_O_N_9239_13.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T426,

Study Documents A and B.

The authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the need for new tourism initiatives.

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:T76bf,{ "questionId": "332270", "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 AO1(a) 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\n• Analyse and compare perspectives (AO1(b)). 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 (AO1(c)). 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 (AO1(d)). 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.\n\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\n| AO1(a) Identify and compare key components of arguments | Marks | 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| AO1(b) Analyse and compare perspectives | Marks | 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| AO1(c) Evaluate arguments | Marks | 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| AO1(d) Judgement about argument and perspective | Marks | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion | 5 | J intermediate and J in the final conclusion 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 or J |\n\nAO3 Communication\n\n| Communication | Marks | 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 (AO1(a), AO1(b), AO1(c), AO1(d) and AO3), using the mark descriptors and required annotations.\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 candidate’s 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 made 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 focussed mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure, it 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 need for new tourism initiatives.\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.\nIndicative content – Perspectives\n[annotated example] Doc A has a positive perspective about tourism in Cambodia which is that more tourists need to be encouraged to visit, but they need to do a wider variety of tourist activities (PD). This is because the author is focusing on the damage that a concentration of tourists in one place can cause but still sees tourism in Cambodia as a good thing (PE). In contrast, Doc B has a more cautious perspective about tourism in Venice, stressing that the number of visitors needs to be reduced as we ‘make compromises’ (PD). This is because he is keen to ensure that Venetians are not all pushed out of the city by tourists so he doesn’t see tourism as an entirely good thing (PE).\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 that they are equally strong. Candidates may include some of the following indicative content.\n[annotated example] The sourced evidence used in Doc A strengthens the argument, such as United Nations World Tourism Organisation and Cambodia Association of Travel Agents providing evidence about tourism’s impacts. This is strong, because readers will have more confidence in any numbers presented if they can see which official organisation provided them, therefore they are more likely to believe the argument (EVAL). In Doc B, all pieces of numerical evidence are without official sources (C). When Doc B says ‘1,000 Venetians per month…move away’ and ‘with the population at 52 000’, readers may feel unsure about the accuracy if they have no source for the statistics (EVAL). This makes the use of sourced evidence in Doc A stronger and therefore potentially more convincing for readers than Doc B (J).\n\nRelevant examples – Doc A uses more relevant examples to support their reasoning (hotels, casinos, and restaurants; tour guides, hospitality staff, tuk-tuk drivers, and street vendors; commercial cooking and catering, and foreign language tour-guiding) whereas Doc B uses fewer examples (Amsterdam and Barcelona; New Orleans to Dubrovnik).\nRelevant statistical evidence: Doc A supports its argument with more relevant and specific statistics, e.g. 5.31 billion, 112 544 people, whereas Doc B uses fewer statistics and they tend to be less specific, e.g. ‘1,000 Venetians’, ‘population of around 150 000’.\nUse of counterarguments and counterclaims: Doc B provides and responds to counterarguments/counterclaims (e.g. ‘Some have accepted the view that Venice is already ‘dead’ and ‘Critics blame the Venetians, saying they have cashed in on tourism’) whereas Doc A does not include any counterarguments at all.\nPrimary evidence: Doc B is stronger because it has a first-hand quote of a ‘Venetian friend’ to support its reasoning whereas Doc A has no eye-witness quotes to support its argument.\nHistorical context: both documents provide historical context to the tourism problem they wish to solve, e.g. Doc A: ‘In less than 25 years… But in April 2020..’ and Doc B: ‘Visitors have shaped Venice for a thousand years. But for the first time in living memory…’.\nStructure of argument: both documents are well structured. Doc A is organised, set out well (e.g. introduction to establish the problem, historical context to the problem, then solutions with examples and reasons to support, logical conclusion at the end). Doc B is also logical and organised (e.g. introduction with outline of the problem, then solutions supported by reasoning, leading to a logical conclusion), though Doc B’s structure further benefits from two counterarguments.\nIndicative content – Judgement\n[annotated example] A candidate may conclude that Document A has a stronger argument, as it has more relevant examples that the reader can visualise and relate to. It also provides cited evidence throughout. The use of official sources strengthens the evidence given and therefore provides a stronger argument that Cambodia must get tourists back to the country, but that they must do so in a new way that gets them to do a new range of activities (J).\nA candidate may conclude that Document B has a stronger argument as its structure is more balanced because it provides a counterargument and a counterclaim. It also provides relevant historical context to the tourism problems. It still provides evidence and examples (even if they are unsourced) to support its reasoning that we must all compromise to save tourist destinations like Venice.\nA candidate may conclude that both documents have their strengths and weaknesses. Doc A has more relevant examples that the reader can visualise and relate to. It also provides cited evidence throughout, but its historical context is limited to recent years. Doc B is strong as its structure is more balanced because it provides a counterargument and a counterclaim. It also provides relevant historical context to the tourism problems that goes further back than Doc A. So, on balance, both arguments are valid and neither is particularly stronger than the other.", "totalMarks": 25, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "AO1(a)", "point": "\n \n

AO1(a) Identify and compare key components of arguments

AO1(a) Identify and compare key components of arguments	Marks	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": "K = Identification of key component of argument for one document; C = Comparison of key components from both documents." }, { "type": "AO1(b)", "point": "\n \n

AO1(b) Analyse and compare perspectives

AO1(b) Analyse and compare perspectives	Marks	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": "AO1(c)", "point": "\n \n

AO1(c) Evaluate arguments

AO1(c) Evaluate arguments	Marks	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": "ND = Unsupported or undeveloped evaluation of a key component of argument; EVAL = Evaluation of key components of argument." }, { "type": "AO1(d)", "point": "\n \n

AO1(d) Judgement about argument and perspective

AO1(d) Judgement about argument and perspective	Marks	Annotations
Judgement is clearly reasoned and supported. Includes intermediate conclusions and a main conclusion	5	J intermediate and J in the final conclusion 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 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	Marks	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 candidate’s 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 made 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 focussed mainly on one document, it lacks clarity and has uneven structure, it 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." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 25 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332270,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:13:57.312839+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"3c9b62af-9e85-42a3-bb3e-6f0122ff893d","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the need for new tourism initiatives.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9344,"name":"Tourism","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332270,"uuid":"3c9b62af-9e85-42a3-bb3e-6f0122ff893d","body":{"html":"$24","metadata":"$25"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9344,"name":"Tourism","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63585,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2024_O_N_9239_13.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2024_O_N_9239_13.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2024_O_N_9239_13.pdf","paper_code":"O/N - 9239/13","year":2024,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on the need for new tourism initiatives.\nEvaluate the ..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2024,O/N - 9239/13,Tourism,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 need for new tourism initiatives.\nEvaluate the ..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63585/questions/3"}],["$","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 need for new tourism initiatives.\nEvaluate the ..."}]]

2024 - O/N - 9239/13 | Q3

Question (3/3)