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:Tb34,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"LearningResource","name":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on global inequality.\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 global inequality.\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":"2026-11-06T15:14:36.497527+00:00","dateModified":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","educationalLevel":"A Levels","about":"Global Perspectives & Research","teaches":["Global inequality"],"assesses":"Understanding of Global inequality","credentialCategory":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","educationalAlignment":{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","targetName":"Global Perspectives & Research - 2025 - CIE - O/N - 9239/11","educationalFramework":"A Levels"},"isPartOf":{"@type":"Course","name":"A Levels Global Perspectives & Research","identifier":"O/N - 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.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on global inequality.\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_2025_O_N_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"},{"@type":"MediaObject","name":"Answer Key","contentUrl":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2025_O_N_9239_11.pdf","encodingFormat":"application/pdf"}]}24:T7b64,{ "questionId": "332278", "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 le vel 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\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 s hould 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\n| AO1a 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\n| AO1b 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\n| AO1c Evaluate arguments | Mark | Annotations |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear, balanced reference to both documents | 5 | 3 or more EVAL (at least one or more per Doc) |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear reference to both documents but lacks balance | 4 | 2 or more EVAL* |\n| Evaluation of key components of arguments with limited reference to both documents | 3 | 1 EVAL and/or 3 or more NDs* |\n| Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) but refers to both documents | 2 | 2 ND* |\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\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\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\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 global inequality.
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.
No set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some parts of the following indicative content.
Indicative content - Perspectives
- [Annotated example] Doc A is talking about COVID-19. (P^) Doc B is talking about migrants. (P^)
- [Annotated example] Doc A's view is that COVID-19 made inequality worse (especially for women). (P) Doc B's view global inequality is the main cause of (undocumented) migration. (P).
- [Annotated example] Doc A's perspective is that COVID-19 caused more global inequality than existed before it and describes the inequalities. On the other hand, Doc B's perspective is that the increase in undocumented migrants making dangerous journeys is a consequence of global inequality and Doc B describes those low wages and problems. So Doc A focuses on a cause of inequality, and Doc B focuses on the consequences. (PD)
- [Annotated example] Doc A's perspective is that COVID-19 caused more global inequality than existed before it. This is because the author is focusing on the impacts of COVID on areas such as poverty, health, and girls' education, all of which are indicators of inequality and have got worse since the pandemic. Doc A focuses on a cause of inequality, and Doc B focuses on the consequences. Doc B's perspective is that the increase in undocumented migrants making dangerous journeys is a consequence of global inequality. This is because he is keen to explain that these migrants should not be blamed for the situations they find themselves in; global inequality is the cause, and this is not their fault. (PE)
| 25 |\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.
- [Annotated example] Expertise of the author - The author of Document A, Priya Joi is an expert in healthcare having worked as a staff writer and editor at the World Health Organisation. This is one of the most globally respected institutions therefore they would only employ an expert to write about these issues (ND). In Document B, the author, Seb Rumsby, is an academic who has been researching Vietnamese migrant workers (C). The author will be an expert because the article topic is the focus of his research project where he has conducted interviews with people affected. Given he is an expert dedicated to working on this issue while belonging to a university, this suggests his work will be reliable, increasing the strength of the argument (EVAL).
| |\n\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| 3 | Indicative list of components of the argument. This list is not exhaustive, and candidates may make other useful and correct comments about components of the argument.
- Background of the author - Doc A is an expert who has worked for the WHO, Doc B is an academic who has conducted a relevant research project.
- Place of publication - Doc A is published by an organisation that focuses on health and vaccines which has more connection to health inequality, Doc B is published by a not-for-profit media outlet.
- Date of publication - Both Docs are published in 2022, so both quite recent.
- Recent or outdated evidence - A is mostly recent evidence. Doc B has some older evidence (2011, 2017), so may be slightly outdated.
- Reference to expert sources - Doc A uses official sources such as the World Bank and UN Women for most of its evidence whereas Doc B provides three expert sources, BBC, Amnesty International and Vietnam News to cite three pieces of evidence but the rest is unsourced or anecdotal, so Doc B is weaker.
- Some unsourced evidence: In Doc A there is reference to 'a study published last month'. In Doc B the report in 2017 and study from 2011 do not have a clear source.
- Use of data - Both Docs used a range of quantitative data to illustrate ideas.
- Some vague claims - In Doc A 'In 2020 low income countries were far less affected. In Doc B 'less agreement about those fleeing poverty to seek a better future'.
- Use of primary research - Doc B is stronger as the author has personally spoken to many of the individuals involved in undocumented migration whereas Doc A relies mainly on secondary research about the impact of COVID for information.
- Biased/emotional evidence. In Doc B reference to one interview with a participant who was clearly been affected by the issue may lead to biased views. In Doc A uses more objective information from surveys.
- Global focus - Doc A focuses on low-income/high-income countries in the context of a global pandemic. Doc B evidence focuses largely on the experiences of Vietnamese workers.
- Use of counterarguments and counter-claims - Doc B includes a counterargument that there is some truth in placing blame with smugglers, whereas Doc A only provides one, unsupported and unexplained counterclaim. 'In 2020, it seemed that lower income countries were far less affected by COVID-19.'
- Call to action - Doc A there is no clear action that should be taken. In Doc B it makes reference to moving beyond blaming smuggling gangs and irresponsible migrants to addressing the root cause of inequality, although no specific actions are suggested.
- Relevant examples - Both documents use relevant examples to support their reasoning. Doc A: married too early, have children too early, lifesaving vaccines. Doc B: Samsung factory, Apple factory, long, exhausting shifts, assembling electronics, earn 10 times more working in a UK nail shop.
| |\n\n\n| Question | Answer | Marks |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| 3 | - Structure of argument - Both have an organised structure. Doc A introduces its argument with the idea that COVID has made global inequality much worse, and all paragraphs that follow support that argument, with reasoning supported by a wide range of global examples and evidence that all lead to a reasoned conclusion; and Doc B's structure is different but also strong. It focuses on one country, Vietnam, and on personal interviews and stories to provide first-hand support for the conclusion that global inequality is causing the illegal migration crisis. It also includes a counter-argument to support its conclusion.
- Style of writing - both use emotive language. In Doc A 'a staggering two-thirds', 'women feel unsafe to speak up'. In Doc B 'So in an unequal world', 'tragic consequences'.

Indicative content - Judgement
No set answer is expected, and examiners should be flexible in their approach as candidates may argue that A or B is stronger or that they are equally strong.
[Annotated example] Doc B is stronger than Doc A because its use of personal, first-hand interviews gives strong support to the conclusion that global inequality is the cause of undocumented migration. The author has spoken to so many of these migrants who are willing to make these perilous journeys and they say that the reason they do it is so they can earn enough money, which they can't in Vietnam. Their lived experience is trustworthy and adds reliability to the conclusion as compared to Doc A which just has second-hand data based on international surveys which cover a range of countries, but lack the detail about what this means for people's lives. (J) A candidate may conclude that Doc A is stronger than Doc B because of its organised structure, with a clear conclusion supported by reasoning, examples and evidence in each paragraph, compared to all the anecdotes in Doc B. In addition, the use of expert and trusted sources for most evidence, especially the World Bank, further strengthens the conclusion that COVID made global inequality even worse.
A candidate may conclude that both documents have their strengths and weaknesses. Doc A has expert sources and organised structure but it lacks balance with a counterargument. Doc B has great primary data but it lacks consistent, trusted sources for the evidence. | |", "totalMarks": 25, "answerPoints": [ { "type": "AO1a", "point": "\n \n

Identify and compare key components of arguments (AO1a)

AO1a 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": "AO1b", "point": "\n \n

Analyse and compare perspectives (AO1b)

AO1b 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": "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	3 or more EVAL (at least one or more per Doc)
Evaluation of key components of arguments is illustrated by clear reference to both documents but lacks balance	4	2 or more EVAL*
Evaluation of key components of arguments with limited reference to both documents	3	1 EVAL and/or 3 or more NDs*
Evaluation of arguments is unsupported (asserted) but refers to both documents	2	2 ND*
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": "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 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

Communication (AO3)

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": "NAQ: Not answering the question. Refer to guidance for awarding marks for AO3." } ] } ], "totalMarks": 25 }15:[["$","script",null,{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"$22"}}],["$","$L23",null,{"quiz":"$13:1:props:quiz","question":{"id":332278,"question_type":"LONG_ANSWER_QUESTION","quiz_board":"CIE","difficulty_level":4,"created_at":"2026-11-06T15:14:36.497527+00:00","updated_at":"2026-11-06T18:05:23.520674+00:00","uuid":"1f04246f-68c9-4d8b-a8c5-a6102ff2adab","supported_files":[],"lexical_content":null,"width":null,"height":null,"description":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on global inequality.\nEvaluate the arguments of the authors of both documents. In your answer, consider their perspectives and include a reasoned judgement about whether one argument is stronger than the other. [25]","answer_id":null,"has_numbered_choices":false,"choices_in_body":null,"choices":[],"question_explanations":[],"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9327,"name":"Global inequality","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"parent_question":null,"__typename":"questions"},"questionNumber":3,"questionHtml":"$undefined","isLatestExam":false,"examBoard":"CIE","excludedParts":[],"longQuestionData":{"questions":[{"id":332278,"uuid":"1f04246f-68c9-4d8b-a8c5-a6102ff2adab","body":{"html":"\n

\n \n

Study Documents A and B.

The authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on global inequality.

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.

\n \n

\n\n\n

\n ","metadata":"$24"},"quiz_board":"CIE","subject_id":60,"difficulty_level":4,"topic_questions":[{"topic":{"id":9327,"name":"Global inequality","__typename":"topics"},"__typename":"topic_questions"}],"quiz_questions":[{"question_number":3,"quiz":{"id":63586,"question_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/question_2025_O_N_9239_11.pdf","answer_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/answer_2025_O_N_9239_11.pdf","insert_paper_pdf":"https://files.sudostudy.com/insert_2025_O_N_9239_11.pdf","paper_code":"O/N - 9239/11","year":2025,"data_files":null,"pre_release_materials":null,"__typename":"quizzes"},"__typename":"quiz_questions"}],"board":{"student_data_booklets":[{"subject_id":1,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/976939779380c57b67f0192f17e8ae0d.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"},{"subject_id":2,"public_pdf_url":"https://files.sudostudy.com/1a9e5bbd80542eb4b315c57ed1efd765.pdf","__typename":"student_data_booklets"}],"__typename":"quiz_boards"},"__typename":"questions"}]}}]] 18:null 1c:[["$","title","0",{"children":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents..."}],["$","meta","1",{"name":"description","content":"Study Documents A and B.\nThe authors of the two documents present different arguments and perspectives on global inequality.\nEvaluate the arguments of the au..."}],["$","meta","2",{"name":"keywords","content":"A Levels,Global Perspectives & Research,CIE,2025,O/N - 9239/11,Global inequality,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 global inequality.\nEvaluate the arguments of the au..."}],["$","meta","5",{"property":"og:url","content":"https://sudostudy.com/quiz/63586/questions/3"}],["$","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 global inequality.\nEvaluate the arguments of the au..."}]]

2025 - O/N - 9239/11 | Q3

Question (3/3)