Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Paper 1 Level 5 exemplar 1 comments
- In Question 1, the candidate demonstrated comprehensive knowledge and understanding of field study. He/ she
described accurately and in detail the use of tools and instruments to collect data. He/ she suggested an
important drawback of the data collection method and explained logically how it might affect data reliability.
He/ she discussed the mean values and the extreme data at Beach P and came to a sound conclusion. Finally, he/
she suggested a field study topic with a hypothesis in part (d) and described and explained appropriately the data
collection method.
- In Question 2, the candidate named the two plates correctly. He/ she explained the occurrence of the three types
of tectonic hazards, showing his/ her good knowledge and understanding of the plate tectonics theory and tectonic
hazards. He/ she analysed and interpreted different information in the question and gave a comprehensive
account of the physical and human factors causing serious damage in city X. He/ she described and explained
appropriately the effectiveness of earthquake and tsunami warning systems in reducing the death toll. However,
he/ she should have provided a clear ‘whether or not’ judgement.
- In Question 3, the candidate described and explained concisely the climatic constraints encountered by farming in
area X. He/ she described and explained appropriately how people of area X carried out farming under such
climatic constraints. However, he/ she accounted for the insufficient food supply in area X simply by comparing
the increasing population and the number of livestock. He/ she should have further explained the inadequate
nutrients for the livestock with reference to the climatic constraints in the area. He/ she showed adequate
knowledge of precision farming and explained how it could help sustain farm production. He/ she referred to the
human and physical conditions of the area in the discussion. However, he/ she overlooked the inappropriateness
of precision farming for nomadic herding and his/ her discussion in this part was irrelevant.
- In Question 8, the candidate demonstrated good knowledge of the tropical rainforest ecosystem. However, he/
she gave a detailed but irrelevant description of the characteristics of vegetation and types of animals in the
tropical rainforest instead of explaining the characteristics of its nutrient compartments. He/ she gave a
comprehensive and detailed discussion in comparing the scale and farming practices of plantation and shifting
cultivation.
Paper 2 Level 5 exemplar 1 comments
- The candidate demonstrated good understanding of the curriculum and communicated his/ her knowledge and
understanding using accurate geographical terminology and concepts.
- In Question 1, the candidate demonstrated a good understanding of igneous rocks. He/ she compared rocks P and
Q accurately from detailed study of the photographs. He/ she also explained clearly the formation of feature R
although there was some misinterpretation of its underlying cause. Also, he/ she gave a good account of the type
of mass wasting at the site of feature R. He/ she also identified correctly the physical weathering process shown
in Photograph 1c and discussed systematically the importance of rock structure and water in the weathering
process.
- In Question 6, the candidate interpreted logically a range of geographical concepts regarding the planetary wind
system. He/ she demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the equatorial low pressure and subtropical high
pressure belts and the associated trade winds blowing from the latter to the former. He/ she also understood well
how the Coriolis force has caused deflection of the trade winds but he/ she did not mention the changing wind
directions. He/ she explained only briefly the rainfall characteristics of the equatorial region and did not take
note that the temperature characteristics in this region had little connection with the trade winds.
