BROADRICK SEC SCH Prelim LORMS 4NA 2019

Broadrick Secondary School 4NA Preliminary Examinations 2019 Suggested Answers SECTION A (Source Based Case Study) 1 (a) Study Source A. Do you think the cartoonist agrees that PMDs should be banned in Singapore? Explain your answer, using details from the source. [5] L1 Answers based on description of source details/ No valid interpretation of source content E.g. The cartoonist agrees that PMDs are bad. E.g. The cartoonist does not agree that PMDs are bad as they are an alternative mode of transportation. 1 L2 Agrees/ Disagrees based on sub-message (linking to general advantages OR disadvantages of the use of PMDs) Award 2 marks for agree answer, supported Award 2 marks for disagree sub-message, unsupported Award 3 marks for disagree sub-message, supported E.g. The cartoonist disagrees that PMDs should be banned as it highlights the ease of movement for PMD users as an alternative mode of commute. This is evident from the source, which shows a commuter using the PMD to move from one p lace to another. [L2/2] E.g. The cartoonist agrees that PMDs should be banned in Singapore as it highlights the potential dangers/ harm of PMDs. [2] This is evident from the source, which shows a PMD user ignoring the safety of pedestrians [3] 2-3 L3 Agrees based on valid message (linking to danger of PMDs and irresponsible usage) Award 4 marks for valid message, unsupported Award 5 marks for valid message, supported E.g. The cartoonist agrees that PMDs should be banned in Singapore it highlights the lack of benefits of PMDs and depicts how these devices bring more harm than benefit to road users, due to the irresponsible usage of PMD users. [4] This is evident from the source which shows a PMD speeding down the roads in the opposite direction of traffic, which could have resulted in a collision with unaware pedestrians. [5] This shows that the cartoonist feels that PMDs pose a greater/ bigger threat to the safety of other road users if PMD users are not careful and thus should be banned. 4-5

1(b) Study Sources B and C. Does Source B agree with Source C? Explain your answer. [6] L1 Answers based on provenance/ topic E.g. Sources B and C agree with each other as they provide information about PMDs in Singapore. E.g. Sources B and C disagree with each other as they are from different sources. E.g. Sources B and C disagree with each other as Source B is extracted from an article while Source C is extracted from an online post. Difference: False Matching Award 2m for false matching E.g. Source B highlights the advantages brought about by PMDs, while Source C does not. 1-2 L2 Agree OR Disagree based on valid matching of source content, supported Award 2 marks for agree / disagree, unsupported Award 3 marks for agree / disagree, supported E.g. Both sources agree in terms of the use of PMDs bring about great benefits for commuters as it results in convenience and allows commuters an ease of travel from one point to another. [2] This is evident from Source B, “ For some users, PMDs save time and money ” and from Source C, “I prefer to zip to nearby places instead of driving as it saves the hassle of looking for parking and I have never faced any problem on the footpath.” [3] OR E.g. Both sources agree in terms of how all road users should bear equal responsibility for the effective use of PMDs in Singapore for the safety of all road users. This is evident from Source B, “Both pedestrians and PMD users agreed that co-existence would require both sides to be more graciou s” and from Source C “for a car-lite society to thrive, pedestrians, cyclists and PMD users need to use more restraint.” [3] OR Both sources are disagree in terms of the support for PMD usage in Singapore. Source B highlights that Singaporeans are generally supportive of PMD s as an effective alternative mode of transport in Singapore as long as they are used with care . This is evident from Source B, “ She had said the growing popularity of PMDs was a positive development, as active mobility was a key pillar of Singapore's vision for transport here. However, Source C highlights the concerns Singaporean road users have for PMDs due to the accidents caused by irresponsible PMD users. This is evident from Source C, “ PMD users could practise more caution and there would 2-3

also be fewer accidents and people would not hate us and propose for PMDs to be banned.” L3 Agree AND Disagree based on valid matching of source content Award 4 marks for agree and disagree, unsupported Award 5 marks for agree and disagree, supported Both elements of L2 4-5 L4 Agree, based on purpose/ motive, supported. E.g. Sources B and C agree in terms of purpose. Both sources want to convince Singaporeans that in order for PMDs to be an alternative mode of transportation in Singapore, both pedestrians and PMD users need to play an active role and take responsibility for the safety of other road users in their daily commute. This is done so that Singaporeans would appreciate the advantages that PMDs can bring about and support the usage of PMDs on the roads in Singapore instead of insisting for it to be banned. 6 1(c) Study Source D. Does Source D prove that PMDs should be banned in Singapore ? Explain your answer. [7] L1 Useful/ Not useful– based on provenance E.g. Source D proves that PMDs should be banned because it is by a father whose daughter was injured by a PMD. E.g. Source D does not prove that PMDs should be banned as it is by a concerned parent whose child was injured by a PMD, thus he might be biased. 1 L2 Does not prove based on typicality E.g. Source D does not prove that PMDs should be banned in Singapore as it is the perspective of only one user. Thus, the perspective of the danger it may pose to society is not representative of the perspective of the whole community. 2 L3 Proves or/and Does not Prove– based on messages Award 3 marks for proves or does not prove, unsupported Award 4 marks for proves or does not prove, supported Award 4 marks for proves and does not prove, unsupported E.g. Source D proves that PMDs should be banned in Singapore because the source talks about how the danger that PMDs can pose to pedestrians and road users, due to the reckless usage of the devices. [3] This is evident from the source, “She had lost one of her front adult teeth and another one is going to be dead soon 3-4

due to the torn gums” and “We were so safe before this, why is there a need to introduce another form of PMD that is a safety hazard?” [4] E.g. Source D does not prove that PMDs should be banned in Singapore as it only brings about harm when users of PMDs are reckless and do not care for the safety of other road users, otherwise, it can benefit Singaporeans as it allows people to move from one place to another efficiently. [3] This is evident from the source, “We were so safe before this, why is there a need to introduce another mode of transportation that is a safety hazard?” [4] E.g. Source D does not prove that PMDs should be banned in Singapore because the source is by a concerned parent, whose child has been injured by a PMD. As such, he would be emotional and less objective as he has personal negative experiences with the safety of PMDs in Singapore. Thu s, he portrays a highly critical and negative image of PMDs, making the source opinionated and biased. [4] L4 Proves/ Does not prove, based on cross-referencing with other sources Award 5 marks for valid cross-referencing, unsupported Award 6 marks for well-developed cross-referencing, supported E.g. Source D proves that PMDs should be banned in Sing