OCR Year 10 Assessment Feedback - March 2022 PDF

Feedback document Question Multiple choice 2 markers Analyse 21 c) Evaluate 21 d iii) Year 10 assessment – March 2022 What went well Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 Even better if Feedback document Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. D B...

Feedback document Question Multiple choice 2 markers Analyse 21 c) Evaluate 21 d iii) Year 10 assessment – March 2022 What went well Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 Even better if Feedback document Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. D B B C B C A C C B 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. A C C A C C A D D B 2 MARK QUESTIONS Question 21a) Feedback: This question is looking for your ability to apply the information in Extract 1 to your answer. While some explicitly referred to the extract (eg referencing time periods where unemployment decreased), many dropped marks by not doing this even though the explanation was correct. Question 21b) Feedback: There were two common errors here. First, you need to state that seasonal unemployment is caused by demand for certain goods and services falling during certain times of the year. Saying that demand changes is too vague. Secondly, some descriptions of structural unemployment stated it is caused by a ‘change in the structure of the economy’. It is not clear what is meant by this, you need to refer to the idea that there is a permanent decline in certain industries to gain full credit. Feedback document Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 Question 21di) Feedback: A common answer was “The percentage of the population who are willing and able to work but are out of work.” This could be interpreted as the percentage of the population who are unemployed, so full credit was only given where workforce or labour force was explicitly referenced in your answer. Question 21dii) Feedback: The vast majority of you answered this correctly, though you should always remember to include units in all calculation answers. 6 MARK QUESTIONS Question 21c) Feedback document Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 Exemplar: The government’s budget is calculated as the difference between government spending and revenue from taxation. In extract 1, the rate of unemployment fell from around 7% to just over 4% between 19972017. With a lower rate of unemployment, it is likely that the claimant count measure of those claiming unemployment benefits will have decreased, reducing government spending in this area. In addition to this, more people in employment means that household incomes are likely to have increased, meaning that the government will receive more revenue from income tax (a direct tax), and also from VAT (an indirect tax) as consumer spending on goods and services increases with income. A reduction in government spending and an increase in tax revenue will therefore lead to a reduction in the government’s budget deficit, or an increase in the budget surplus. Between 2007-11, the unemployment rate increased, in contrast to the long-run trend. By reversing the logic stated above, this would likely lead to an increase in government spending on benefits and a reduction in income tax and VAT tax. Therefore, we would expect an increase in the budget deficit, or a reduction in the budget surplus between 200711. Feedback: AO1: Many did not explicitly define the government’s budget at the beginning of their answer. In this case, the mark was awarded only if your subsequent answer went on to show the role of both government expenditure and tax revenue in influencing the budget. AO2: 1 mark awarded here if a relevant time period from the extract was highlighted where unemployment decreased. 1 additional mark for highlighting a time period where unemployment increased. AO3a: Generally this was answer well. However, full credit was not given for the following reasons: - only considering the impact of unemployment on government spending or tax revenue, not both a limited chain of reasoning (ie not explaining why reduced unemployment leads to an increase in income tax) stating that reduced unemployment leads to a budget surplus. The correct answers stated that it would lead to an increased surplus or reduced deficit, or showed an Feedback document - Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 implicit understanding that other areas of spending and taxation would also influence the final budget balance for not (briefly) highlighting what would happen when the trend in unemployment is reversed Question 21diii) Exemplar: Extract 1 states that it is likely that unemployment will cause individual’s income to fall significantly. This would be expected to lead to a decrease in the standard of living for the individual and their household, as they will be unable to consume the same amount of goods and services. Furthermore, an individual could fall into poverty if they are no longer Feedback document Year 10 assessment – March 2022 Topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 able to buy the goods and services required to meet their basic needs. It is also possible that individuals who remain in employment may suffer a reduced standard of living, as the government may decide to increase income tax in order to cover increased spending on unemployment benefits. The extent of the costs incurred by individuals is highly dependent on the type of unemployment being observed. For example, an individual who is experiencing frictional unemployment is likely to only be unemployed for a short time between jobs, therefore reducing the extent of any costs. However, structural unemployment is likely to persist for a longer time due to a permanent decline in the industry in which they work. Structural unemployment may also have a wider impact on the region in which they live, so they may need to retrain or move to find work. Good levels of occupational and/ or geographical mobility would therefore reduce the costs associated with structural unemployment. Overall, being unemployment is likely to be costly for an individual due to the significant fall in income (as stated in extract 1), and the subsequent impact this has on their standard of living. This is why a low rate of unemployment is one of the government’s main macroeconomic objectives. Feedback The extract below is taken from the examiners report (June 2019), but is also relevant feedback to answers in this assessment. Most candidates used Extract 1 well to give context to their answer, which often led to an impact on an unemployed individual’s standard of living. Simple and clear chains of reasoning to explain this consequence were one of the most successful ways to start this answer. There were many other well-reasoned consequences that were credited. Some more complex or potentially subjective answers had more chance of missed or weaker links in their chains of reasoning. Many candidates finished with an unsupported judgement. This showed a good level of basic technique for these questions and is worth practising with candidates. It is important to make sure the judgement fits the exact question set. It is also worth noting there are no marks exclusively for knowledge on these evaluation questions. Candidates need to decide whether definitions, etc. help the strength of their argument and are worth the time taken to include them. Good evaluation at the top of Level 3 requires a fully supported judgement and there should be evidence of evaluation of the analysis used. Evidence of evaluation was positively rewarded in these answers with some of the following examples successfully employed. Some candidates used the type of unemployment to consider the significance of the consequences that had been analysed. For instance, use of frictional unemployment to show a negative consequence may only exist for a short period of time. Some candidates applied other factors that could have reduced consequences, such as other earners within a household reducing the likelihood of poverty. Other candidates compared different levels of earnings prior to unemployment to evaluate the significance of consequences, such as the extent of a fall in standard of living that had been analysed.