IGCSE Global Perspectives 答题模板

✅ 范例（Exam Guide hunger 例）

“The statement ‘Hunger always destroys health’ is an overgeneralisation. The word ‘always’ assumes hunger harms health in every case without exception, but the source gives no evidence covering all situations — for example, short-term hunger may not cause lasting harm. Hunger is usually harmful, but ‘usually’ does not prove ‘always’.”

拆解：命名 ✓ 引用 ✓ 触发词 always ✓ 反例 ✓ 结论与证据的差距 ✓。

✅ 范例（慈善机构视角，hunger 例）

“Overall, the charity believes hunger is getting worse but can be solved if people act together. It describes people who ‘must not be ignored’, showing it sees hunger as an urgent moral problem. It calls on readers to ‘join us’ and to ‘support our food programmes’, so its solution is collective action and donations. Its tone is urgent but hopeful: the problem is serious, yet presented as solvable.”

✅ 范例骨架（poverty & unemployment，hunger 例）

“The most important cause is poverty and unemployment. Without income, families cannot buy food even when food is available, so this factor affects everyday survival for large numbers of people. It is also a root cause: poverty leads to poor healthcare and low education, which then make hunger harder to escape. Other causes matter, but if people had stable incomes, many of those effects would be reduced. Therefore poverty should be tackled first.”

自查：Issue ✓ Values ✓ Cause（globalisation）✓ Consequence ✓ Action ✓，引用 5 处 → 这就是 wide range + frequent material。

✅ Q2a 范例（访谈本地 food project 经理的研究，hunger 例）

Strength 1 — Credibility：“One strength is credibility. The researcher interviewed the manager of a local food project, who works with hungry families every day. This is primary evidence from someone with first-hand experience, so the details about local needs are likely to be accurate.”

Weakness 1 — Representativeness：“However, the sample is a weakness. Only one local project was studied, so the findings reflect one area and cannot be generalised to world hunger, where causes and conditions differ widely.”

Weakness 2 — Reliability（细节型，特别加分）：“Reliability is also limited because the interviewee said they could not hear some questions clearly. This means the notes may record answers to questions that were misunderstood, so repeating the interview might not produce the same results.”

注意每个点都落到了研究里的具体细节，而不是空喊标准名——这正是 Guide 列的第一类常见错误（“naming a criterion without applying it”）的反面。

“One strength is the clear, focused research question, ‘Why do people use peaceful protest to create change?’, which keeps the research on track. The questionnaire is also appropriate because it collects primary, measurable data directly from protesters, and giving 100 questionnaires out at random reduces selection bias. However, only about 20 questionnaires were completed and returned by post, so the achieved sample is small and those who replied may be unrepresentative, making the data less accurate. The sample is also limited to one march in one city, Mumbai, on one issue, the environment, so the findings cannot be generalised to peaceful protest more widely.”

自查：wide range（4 个不同点）✓ both sides ✓ 每点都有事实 + 后果解释 ✓ → Level 4 的形状。

✅ Q2b 完整范例（Claim: “Most people grow their own food”）

“The aim is to test whether more than half of adults in [my city] grow food themselves regularly. First, I would use a questionnaire with a stratified random sample of about 200 adults across different age groups and districts, asking neutral questions such as how often they grew food in the past 12 months. A questionnaire is appropriate because the claim is about ‘most people’, so I need numbers from many people, not just opinions. Second, I would interview about 10 of the respondents in depth to understand why they do or do not grow food, which explains the patterns behind the numbers. Third, I would compare my results with existing government / gardening-association data; if my survey and the official data agree, the conclusion is more reliable (triangulation). I would not only share the questionnaire on my own social media, because that would reach mainly people like me — a self-selected sample. The claim would be supported only if over 50% report growing food regularly AND the secondary data shows a similar proportion. A limitation is self-report bias — people may exaggerate — which I would reduce by making the questionnaire anonymous and asking about a specific time period.”

检查：aim 可测量 ✓ 3 种方法 ✓ 样本人数+抽样 ✓ 中立问题 ✓ 分析标准（50%）✓ 三角验证 ✓ 局限+改进 ✓。

自查：定义 often ✓ 方法 ≥3 种且每种都说了为什么 ✓ 定量+定性 ✓ 判断标准先行 ✓ 三角验证 ✓。

✅ Q3 范例（Grace vs Seth，hunger / farming 例）

开头判断：“Overall, Seth’s argument is more convincing than Grace’s, because it stays focused and links its evidence to practical solutions, whereas Grace’s argument loses its main line.”

分析 Grace：“Grace supports new technology in farming, giving relevant examples such as self-driving tractors, computers that monitor soil and weather, and seeds bred to survive difficult conditions. These examples make her claim concrete. However, in the second half she moves away from technology to criticising big food companies and rich countries, so her argument becomes less consistent.”

分析 Seth：“Seth consistently opposes industrial farming and proposes native crops with composting, which addresses both hunger and the environment. He supports this with evidence from the UN World Food Programme, a credible international source, and ends with actions individuals can take, such as eating less meat.”

评价 + 结尾：“Grace may also be influenced by her father, who is a farmer, which could shape her positive view of farm technology. Seth’s reasoning is more balanced and his conclusion follows from his evidence. Therefore, although Grace gives some strong technological examples, Seth’s argument is stronger overall.”

拆解：判断先行 ✓ 两方各 ≥3 点 ✓ 引用/具体证据 ✓ 一致性、来源可信度、vested interest 三个评价维度 ✓ 让步（concession）后结论与开头一致 ✓。

✅ Level 4 形状示范（选 Aput 更有说服力；选 Panuk 也可满分，关键是支撑与一致）

开头判断：“Overall, Aput’s argument is more convincing than Panuk’s, because Aput supports his claims with historical examples and research data, while Panuk relies mainly on one personal anecdote.”

分析+评价 Aput：“Aput argues that large-scale change ‘needs a mass movement of people to persuade governments to change laws or invest more money’. His reasoning is clear and logical: individuals can change their own lifestyle, but only collective action changes laws. He supports this with historical evidence — Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Greta Thunberg — and with research from 2021 showing protest movements rose from 70 in 2006 to 240 in 2020. His language is measured and respectful. However, the research is not fully referenced, so it cannot be checked, and claims such as powerful people ‘look after their own vested interests’ are value judgements that not everyone would accept.”

分析+评价 Panuk（显性对比）：“Panuk is more balanced in one respect: he concedes ‘You have a point, Aput’ before disagreeing, which Aput does not do. But his evidence is weaker. His main support is his father, a local politician who ‘reads all the letters he receives’ — this is a single anecdote, and his father has a vested interest because he ‘wants their votes’. Panuk gives few examples and no expert evidence, and his language becomes disrespectful when he calls protest ‘selfish’ and says it ‘undermines democratic processes’, which is asserted rather than explained. Unlike Aput, he offers no evidence about impact at a national scale.”

结尾（与开头一致）：“Therefore, although Panuk’s personal-responsibility ideas are practical and his argument is partly balanced, Aput’s argument is stronger overall because its reasoning is clearer and it is supported by a wider range of relevant evidence.”

自查对照 Level 4：both arguments ✓ wide range（logic、历史例、数据、语言、vested interest、balance 六个面）✓ frequent 原文引用 ✓ explicit comparison（“Unlike Aput…”）✓ reasoning 与 evidence 都评了 ✓ judgement 前后一致 ✓。