FUCHUN 4N SS Prelim 2019 LORMS

1 Suggested Answer Key/LORMS Secondary 4 Normal Academic Social Studies Preliminary Examination 2019 Source-Based Case Study: Is Waste Management Effectively Managed by Governments? 1(a) Study Source A. What is the message of the source? 5m L1 Answers based on lifting/ paraphrasing/ misinterpretation/ NATQ. The message of the source is Canada is passing the waste problem to other countries. 1m L2 Valid inference(s), unsupported. The message of the source is to criticise the Canadian government for not managing the waste problem as they have not taken the responsibility to remove waste generated by Canadians. OR The message of the source is to criticise the Canadian government for not managing the problem as too much waste is generated in Canada. 2-3m L3 Valid inference(s), supported. Answer the question (A) Issue response (I) Reason (R) The message of the source is to criticise the Canadian government for not effectively managing the waste problem as they have not taken the responsibility to remove waste generated by Canadians. The source states, “Not much of that junk stays at home. It’s shipped elsewhere”, which suggests that the Canadian government did not take any action for disposing their own waste and just transfer the problem to other countries. AND/OR The message of the source is to criticise the Canadian government for not managing the problem that too much waste is generated in Canada. The source states, “This amount is less garbage than what Vancouver and its surrounding suburbs make in a day,” and “Canada “is absolutely in a waste crisis”. This suggests that the Canadian government is not doing anything to reduce the amount of waste produced by its citizens. 4-5m

2 1(b) Study Source B. Why was the cartoon published? Explain your answer. 6m L1 Answers based on description of the source/ Misinterpretation/ NATQ. The cartoon shows earth being thrown into a rubbish bin. 1m L2 Valid inference(s), unsupported. Answers at this level uses weak action words such as show/highlight/inform/tell E.g. The cartoon was published to criticise/ mock governments for not managing the waste problem effectively as they do not focus on recycling. E.g. The cartoon was published to criticise / mock the American government for not being responsible in managing waste. 2m L3 Valid inference(s), supported. Award 4m for two valid inferences, supported, OR one valid inference, supported and well-explained. E.g. The cartoon was published to criticise / mock governments for not managing the waste problem effectively as they do not focus on recycling. The source shows Earth bouncing into the bin that says waste, which suggests that globally the problem of waste management is not handled properly as people are not carrying out recycling. AND/ OR E.g. The cartoon was published to criticise / mock the American government for not being responsible in managing waste. The source shows the Earth filled with trash is bouncing in and out of the bins which suggests that waste problem is being passed on globally, and no one is handling it. 3-4m L4 L3 + Purpose L3 + This source was published in the same month when USA exported their waste to Indonesia, it was drawn as a response to how USA manages waste. Its purpose is to criticise the American government for taking the easy way out to dispose waste and not encouraging alternative like recycling waste or solving their own problem. In doing so, it hopes that the government will take more responsibility and find solutions rather than passing the problem or continue to generate high amount of trash. 5-6m

3 1(c) Study Sources C and D. How far do these two sources agree with each other ? Explain your answer. 7m L1 Similar/ Different based on provenance, topic, or NATQ. Sources C and D agree in that both talks about waste management in Sweden. 1m L2 False matching OR Agree/ Disagree in content, unsupported 2m L3 Agree/ Disagree in content, supported Award 3m for Disagree in content, suppo rted, without a valid common criterion/ matching statement. Award 4m for Disagree in content, with valid common criterion, supported, and explained. Award 4m for Agree in content, supported, and explained. E.g. Sources C and D agree in saying that Sweden’s waste management system is effective to help them to clear /recycle waste. Source C states “Sweden has become so good at waste management that it imports nearly 800,000 tons of waste to feed its 32 W aste To Energy plants”. Similarly, Source D states “Sweden has come so far in recycling and environmental policy that the country has actually runout of trash.” Both sources suggest that incineration in Swede n helps them to clear out waste, and it is for a good cause to generate electricity. (4m) OR Sources C and D disagree in terms of how environmentally friendly Sweden’s waste management really is. Source C shows that Sweden’ s waste management is effective and useful , while Source D shows that incineration has its limitations. Source C states, “ half of the household waste produced are recycled into energy by a process called waste -to- energy (WTE) ” while Source D states “ the practice of burning trash to generate energy is a more convenient way for the government than encouraging its citizens to reduce the waste problem. ”. Source C suggests that Sweden is recycling waste effectively, while Source D suggests that incineration does not encourage people to reduce or recycle waste, but simply burn them as an easy way out. (4m) 3-4m L4 Agree/ Disagree in Content, supported Both answers in L3. Award the higher mark for a more comprehensive and well explained answer 4-5m L5 L3 or L4 + Disagree in Purpose Award the higher mark for a comprehensive and well -explained purpose statement. E.g. Both sources disagree in their purpose. Source C wants to encourage governments that Sweden’s waste management is successful, so that they will look to Sweden’s example and learn to manage their waste from them. While Source D wants to warn Swedish government that incineration is not a long term solution as it is not truly recycling so that they will spend more 6-7m

4 1(d) Study Source E. How useful is this source in showing waste reduction is an effective method to waste management? Explain your answer. 7m L1 Answers based on lifting/ description of the source/ NATQ/ analysis of Source E 1m L2 Useful/ Less useful analysis based on content of Source E, without reference of reliability OR Useful/Not useful analysis based on provenance of Source E only. E.g. Source E is useful to show that recycling is an effective method. 2m L3 Useful/ Less useful analysis based on content of Source E, with no cross-reference. 3-4m L4 Useful/Not Useful analysis based on content of E, with reference to reliability and cross-reference to other sources. Award 4m for useful/not useful with cross-reference to other sources Award 5m for useful and not useful with cross-reference to other sources E.g. Source E is useful and reliable in showing that governments have manage waste effectively through recycling waste . Source E Source E states, “paper, cans, bottles, plastic and iron are also recycled, contributing to a recycling of more than 80% nation-wide.” This suggests that the policy of charging people for their waste encourages them to recycle and reduce wastage. This is supported by Source C, which shows that the government has addressed the problem of excessive waste by recycling them. Source C states “half of the household waste produced are recycled into energy by a process called waste -to-energy (WTE)”. This suggest that the government has impl emented ways to remove waste, and it has been successful. OR E.g. Source E is less useful and less reliable in showing the difficulty of waste management,