9759 02 2007 Short Passage Mark Schemes

Markscheme for 2007 A Levels Paper 2 Question 2 2. Remember to always identify the Main Claim(s) before doing anything else. This will help you to identify what the Main Premises are. Main Claim: The practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century [Note how the main claim has been worded EXACTLY how it was phrased in the question itself. As far as possible, all the premises and claims should be worded as the passage puts it to ensure ACCURACY of reconstruction] Some identified a different MC: “Offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class is an outdated and objectionable practice that perpetuates social divisions.” This isn’t the MC because when you read the passage further, the author notes that this practice has “inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class” and “for that reason alone the practice should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century”. This thus shows that the MC is not the 1st sentence. And also that the Main Premise is… Main Premise: The practice has the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class Some identified another premise: that the offering of First or Business class options perpetuates social divisions. This isn’t a premise for his argument but rather a ‘throwaway’ comment that, at best, strives to persuade the reader by appealing to his/her sense of justice and class equality. However, strictly speaking, it isn’t a premise because to establish the MC, the author says “for that reason alone”, i.e. there is only one main premise.] Simplistic Argument Reconstruction MP1: The practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class has the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class MP2: If (the practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class has the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class), then (it should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century)

C: The practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century (MP1-2) Sample Intro In this passage, the author argues that the practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century. Although he begins by pointing out that such a practice is outdated and objectionable because it perpetuates social divisions, his main argument seems to be that this practice should be stopped simply because it has the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class. Such a line of argument might appear reasonable at first but upon further examination, the author’s argument is found to be suspect and thus, I do not accept its conclusion. More Detailed Argument Reconstruction Note: This argument has a lot of implicit premises. It is probably okay if you only reconstruct it without pulling out the implicit premises but then that also means that the tendency for you to too harshly criticize the argument is higher; the implicit premises make the argument seem more convincing. (2023 version) MC: “the practice of [offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class] should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century” P1: “if airlines want to attract First and Business class customers, and pocket the massively inflated fares that these passengers are willing and able to pay, they have got to maintain a certain level of discomfort in those parts of the plane where the rest of the passengers are herded” P2: “one of the main attractions of First or Business class” is “to provide adequate leg-room between seats” SC1: “if airlines want to attract First and Business class customers, and pocket the massively inflated fares that these passengers are willing and able to pay,” they will not provide adequate leg-room between seats for economy class passengers (implicit; P1-2) P3: airlines want to attract First and Business class customers, and pocket the massively inflated fares that these passengers are willing and able to pay” (implicit) SC2: airlines will not provide adequate leg-room between seats for economy class passengers (implicit; SC1, P3) P4: “More spacious and well-designed seating throughout the aircraft would significantly improve the comfort, health and safety of all passengers” P1 -diction: clearly trying to manipulate our views against such a practice; also, just because 1st and Biz class passengers are more comfortable doesn’t mean that airlines actively TRY to make the economy passengers LESS comfortable – it can be a matter of starting from a baseline and improving as you go up the different classes rather than starting from the top and making it less comfortable as we go down the classes) P3 - true BUT again, note the diction – the author is making the airlines out to be greedy when this might not be the case – it’s just pure economics) P4 - unclear what this is supposed to mean actually. Comfort, yes. But health and safety? Maybe?

SC3: airlines will lower the quality of provision for economy passengers such that their comfort, health and safety are significantly compromised to the point of suffering (implicit; P4, SC2) P5: If SC3, then MP1 (implicit) MP1: Such a practice has “the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class” (P5, SC3) MP2: If (the practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class has the inevitable consequence of driving down the standard of provision for the majority of passengers who must suffer in Economy class), then (it should no longer be tolerated in the twenty-first century) MC: The practice of offering wealthier airline passengers the expensive option of flying First or Business class should no longer be tolerated in the twenty- first century (MP1-2) More importantly though is to what level should comfort, health and safety be improved for all passengers? For surely there is at least a practical limit, beyond which the airline shouldn’t be in business at all. Lastly, this is almost a truism – sure, everything can be improved. But what’s the author’s point here? Reading it literally, it makes no point, unless it’s supposed to imply something bad for economy passengers like so…) Move to SC3 - clearly invalid, not even strong given how P4 doesn’t actually make a point about suffering.) Irrelevant stuff: such a practice is “outdated and objectionable” and “perpetuates social divisions” – meant to distract Seems like a bad argument for all the problems highlighted above BUT if we take out all the extreme language, then actually there is some not too bad points in here. For example, the idea that airlines have to compromise on the quality of provision for economy passengers (at least in terms of leg-room) is plausible. Suffering is overstating it, yes, but there is a plausible point here. Same too for “massively inflated” – it IS a lot higher than economy tickets, so, it’s true in being a lot higher though “inflated” is a problem given that actually, it might well be the case that economy class t