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.
Recommended
