Skills revision

geog skillsrevision/ drills

• Maximise skills for Geog

• Get use to time pressure

objectives

To maximise this session for maximum results

• Keep to the time limit

• Don't just click through the slides. Learn from it

• Copy key points from demo for revision ref.

• Self mark and learn from your mistakes

note

WARNINGIt's not the quantitybut the QUALITYthat determines theeffective of each practice.

Last reminder

Last reminder

It starts from here:Having the right thoughts

Last reminder

It starts from here:Having the right thoughts

So that you can have the right destiny

1) Describing Features (20 mins)

When you describe features...

a) Be clear where you are describing > Top? Bottom? Sides? > If it is photograph taken from ground, use terms like (background, middle ground, foreground)b) Use appropriate terms: - Shape (flat? sharp?) - Size (if you are shown a satellite / aerial image) - Gradient (Steep gradient? Gentle Gradient?) - Surface (rough? smooth?) - What kind of materials? (Rocks? Sediments?)

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]

- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?

features = special characteristics

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]

- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?

features = special characteristics

Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort

Can”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]

- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?

features = special characteristics

Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]

- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?

features = special characteristics

Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort

Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]

- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?

features = special characteristics

Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort

Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

covers a large area [1]

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

covers a large area [1]

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

covers a large area [1]

Anything else special? : Contain many small lakes [1]

phrase it properly

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]

The delta is triangular in shape.

Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]

The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot

of small islands.

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

Contain many small lakes [1]

The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot

of small islands.

It covers over a large area.

Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)

(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics

The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot

of small islands.

It covers over a large area.

It contains many small lakes in the delta.

Finish it in 5-7 minutes

practiceDo (2)2 - qns (c)(i)

Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/

practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)

(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]

practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)

(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]

natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph

practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)

(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]

natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph

background

middle-ground

fore-ground

practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)

(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]

natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph

background

middle-ground

fore-ground

• Background - cliffs. [1]• Cliff at left background has a gentler

gradient than cliff at centre background. [1]

• Sea cave in cliff at centre background. [1]

• Top of cliff at centre background has a gentle gradient. [1]

• Middle-ground and foreground - gentle-sloping beaches. [1]

• Larger materials on beach are closer to sea than smaller materials on beach. [1]

Any 4 points = 4 marks

End of Describing Features

2) Describing Trends (30 mins)

When you describe trends...

a) You are describing changes over time.- Generally, increase, decrease, no change?- Give eg. to support your general trend- Anomalies? (However, there are...)- Give eg. to support your anomalies

b) Tips- Don't forget to give the date and dataeg: Increase by 50 people from 1990 to 2000eg: Increase from 1990 ($100) to 2000 ($300)- Use adj to describe the changeseg: increase rapidly? slowly? fluctuating around / between?

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]

DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]

DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]

LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]

DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]

LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]

LDC - Increase was not constant - faster between 1975 to 1995 (increase by 500kcal/person/day) and slower between 1965 to 1975 and 1995 to 2005 (increase by about 100kcal/person/day) [1]

Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)

(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005

beyond2005(notwhatqns

asked)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]

DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]

LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]

LDC - Increase was not constant - faster between 1975 to 1995 (increase by 500kcal/person/day) and slower between 1965 to 1975 and 1995 to 2005 (increase by about 100kcal/person/day) [1]LDC - reach recommended daily calorie intake level only in 2005. [1]

Finish it in 10 minutes

practiceDo (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/

Do (3)13 - qns (e)(i)

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]LDC - Generally, increase from 2300kcal/person/day in 2005 to 2900 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]

(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025

practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)

1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]LDC - Generally, increase from 2300kcal/person/day in 2005 to 2900 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]

(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]

India - slow increase from 0.5 million hectares in 2000 to 4 million hectares in 2006. [1]Slight dip by 0.5million between 2004 to 2005. [1]

practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)

US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]

Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]

Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]

Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]

India - slow increase from 0.5 million hectares in 2000 to 4 million hectares in 2006. [1]Slight dip by 0.5million between 2004 to 2005. [1]

China - Increasing at an increasing rate from 2002 to 2006, from 0 to 4 million hectares. [1]

3) Comparing (30 mins)

When you compare...a) Be clear about what you are comparing.Eg: Are you suppose to compare changes? A specific year?

b) Tips- Use comparative adjective as far as possible. (Higher, faster)- If unable to, use conjunctions (Also, similarly, however)- Unlike SS, there is no need for comparative criteria here.- one comparison = 1 mark. - Try to compare EXTREMES and things that contradict the general pattern- As far as possible, provide at least 1 similarity and 1 difference- ALWAYS CITE EVIDENCE

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC

Similar- Compare within DCs

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC

Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC

Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)

(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.

Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)

Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.

DCs

LDCs

Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)

Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,

Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)

Finish it in 10 minutes

practiceDo (4)23 qns (e)(i)Add in question (f):

Compare the population structure of Japan and Uganda. [3]

Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/

Demo (4)23 Qns (e)(i)

Japan

(e)(i) Complete the table below Using Fig. 8C.

Uganda

% 0-14 years of age

% 15-64 years of age

% over 65 years of age

14

48

Demo (4)23 Qns (e)(i)

Japan

(e)(i) Complete the table below Using Fig. 8C.

Uganda

% 0-14 years of age

% 15-64 years of age

% over 65 years of age

14

4850 2

44 22

Demo (4)23 Qns (f)*added in

Japan

(e)(i) Compare the population structure of Japan and Uganda. [3]

Uganda

% 0-14 years of age

% 15-64 years of age

% over 65 years of age

144850 2

44 22

0-14 years old - Uganda has a higher percentage of its population that is between 0-14 years old of age (50%) as compared to Japan (14%) [1]

15-64 years old - Uganda has a slightly higher/ almost the same percentage of its population that is between 15-64 years old of age (48%) as compared to Japan (44%) [1]

over 65 years old - Uganda has a lower percentage of its population that is over 65 years old of age (2%) as compared to Japan (22%) [1]

Skills doneDescribing FeaturesDescribing TrendsComparison

More Practice

Pg (3)16, Qns (d) Development 2012 - refer to previous describing distribution qns for hintsPg (2012)7-8, Qns (b) Coast 2012Pg (4)16-17, Qns (c) Development 2010Pg (3)13-14, Qns (a) Food 2010Pg (3)10, Qns (b) Food 2009Pg (4)19, Qns (e) Development 2010Pg (2012)3-4, Qns (c) Rivers 2012Pg (2012)12-13, Qns (d) Food 2012Pg (2012)16, Qns (b) Food 2012Pg (2012)17, Qns (e), Food 2012

Spend not more than 5 mins in each qnsDo in this order