Rules for structuring answer

[Hanna Hohner]

Hi there,

I'm getting really confused about answer structures and would appreciate some help before the exams.
Are there any rules to follow when creating a structured answer to a highly marketd question? Mainly in discuss-style questions.

For example, September 2019 Paper 1, Q6 was about the introduction of a new legislation, which consists of several distinct proposals. The question was
Discuss the appropriateness of the new legislation from the perspective of the main stakeholders.

Based on the question I assumed that we have to come up with ideas why these new rules would be good or bad for each stakeholder, so my answer was like

Stakeholder 1
- ...
- ...

Stakeholder 2
- ...
- ...

The answer in the marking schedule took a different approach and evaluated each suggested change separately, resulting in totally different viewpoints:

Proposal 1
- ...

Proposal 2
- ...

The examiner's report said "A lot of candidates approached the question by listing and talking about stakeholders, this was not asked for in the question..."

How are we supposed to figure out what was asked for? From the question it seemed obvious that we need to talk about the stakeholders here.

 

[Aman Sehra]

Hi Hanna,

The approach to the answer is very much dependent on the question itself. The main consideration in this question is fact that there are several proposals, and this needs to be a major consideration when it comes to approaching the structure for the answer.

The best way to really get a feel for what's required, is to do lots of question practice!

I hope this helps.

Aman
ActEd Tutor

 

[cm16]

Hi there,

I'm getting really confused about answer structures and would appreciate some help before the exams.
Are there any rules to follow when creating a structured answer to a highly marketd question? Mainly in discuss-style questions.

For example, September 2019 Paper 1, Q6 was about the introduction of a new legislation, which consists of several distinct proposals. The question was
Discuss the appropriateness of the new legislation from the perspective of the main stakeholders.

Based on the question I assumed that we have to come up with ideas why these new rules would be good or bad for each stakeholder, so my answer was like

Stakeholder 1
- ...
- ...

Stakeholder 2
- ...
- ...

The answer in the marking schedule took a different approach and evaluated each suggested change separately, resulting in totally different viewpoints:

Proposal 1
- ...

Proposal 2
- ...

The examiner's report said "A lot of candidates approached the question by listing and talking about stakeholders, this was not asked for in the question..."

How are we supposed to figure out what was asked for? From the question it seemed obvious that we need to talk about the stakeholders here.

This happens me so frequently when doing past papers and is both maddeningly frustrating and extremely disheartening! Considering the examiner's report even detailed that many candidates went down that route, it would warrant a review of the question wording and perhaps more clarity in question wordings.

Let's hope for a nice, clear wordings later this week!