Cambridge A Level Global Perspectives and Research 9239 — 2017 May/June Paper 1 · Variant 3

This document consists of 2 printed pages, 2 blank pages and 2 Inserts. DC (KN) 132461/2 © UCLES 2017 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level * 2 0 1 8 6 4 5 8 2 3 * GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH 9239/13 Paper 1 Written Examination May/June 2017 1 hour 30 minutes No Additional Materials are required. READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST An answer booklet is provided inside this question paper. You should follow the instructions on the front cover of the answer booklet. If you need additional answer paper ask the invigilator for a continuation booklet. Answer all questions. You should spend approximately 10 minutes reading the documents in the Resource Booklet before attempting to answer the questions. This is allowed for within the time set for the examination. Answers should be written in continuous prose. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part question.

2 9239/13/M/J/17 © UCLES 2017 Read the documents in the accompanying Resource Booklet and answer all the questions. Arts in an international context 1 Study Document 1. (a) Sometimes, people in the same country have different views about graffiti. Identify two such countries, as given by the author of Document 1. [2] (b) Identify and explain the conflicting views about graffiti held by two individuals in Document 1. [4] 2 Study Document 1. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s arguments about graffiti in Document 1. [10] 3 Study Documents 1 and 2. To what extent is the author’s argument in Document 2 about graffiti more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? [14] [Total: 30]

3 9239/13/M/J/17 © UCLES 2017 BLANK PAGE

4 9239/13/M/J/17 © UCLES 2017 BLANK PAGE Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity. To avoid the issue of disclosure of answer-related information to candidates, all copyright acknowledgements are reproduced online in the Cambridge International Examinations Copyright Acknowledgements Booklet. This is produced for each series of examinations and is freely available to download at www.cie.org.uk after the live examination series. Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.

® IGCSE is a registered trademark. This document consists of 9 printed pages. © UCLES 2017 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH 9239/13 Paper 1 Written Examination May/June 2017 MARK SCHEME Maximum Mark: 30 Published This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers. Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for Teachers. Cambridge will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes. Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2017 series for most Cambridge IGCSE®, Cambridge International A and AS Level and Cambridge Pre-U components, and some Cambridge O Level components.

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 2 of 9 Question Answer Marks 1(a) Sometimes, a country has different views about graffiti within it. Identify two such countries, as given by the author of Document 1. Credit 1 mark each for the following up to a maximum of 2: • UK • Australia • Canada Credit 0 marks for an answer that refers to: • a city e.g. Melbourne (unless stated “Melbourne in Australia” credit 1 mark) • Brazil (as only one-sided view) • people within countries 2 × 1

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 3 of 9 Question Answer Marks 1(b) Identify and explain the conflicting views about graffiti held by two individuals in Document 1. Credit 1 mark for each correct identification and for each correct explanation, up to 4 marks. Accept correct versions of the following: Seen as vandalism – (Only credit one of these examples up to two marks.) Identify: Judge Hardy sees graffiti street art as vandalism [1] Explain: because it has defaced public property [1] OR Identify: The UK street artist sees graffiti art as vandalism where there is a clash of rights [1] Explain: because the rights of the owner take precedence over the rights of person painting on their property [1] Not seen as vandalism so conflicts with the above examples Identify: American artist Elura Emerald sees graffiti street art as self-expression that should not be punished. [1] Explain: because it does not hurt anyone and can be appreciated and celebrated. [1] 2×1+1

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 4 of 9 Question Answer Marks 2 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s arguments about graffiti in Document 1. Use the levels based marking grid below and the indicative content to credit marks. Level Marks Descriptor L3 8–10 • Both strengths and weaknesses are assessed. • Assessment of argument and evidence is sustained and a judgement is reached. • Assessment explicitly includes the impact of specific evidence upon the claims made. • Communication is highly effective - explanation and reasoning accurate and clearly expressed. L2 4–7 • Answers focus more on either the strengths or weaknesses, although both are present/identified. • Assessment identifies strength or weakness of evidence with little explanation. • Assessment of argument is relevant but generalised, not always linked to specific evidence or specific claims. • Communication is accurate - explanation and reasoning is limited, but clearly expressed. L1 1–3 • Answers show little or no assessment of argument/s. • Assessment if any is simplistic. • Evidence may be identified and weakness may be named. • Communication is limited – response may be cursory or descriptive. 0 • no creditable material. There is no requirement to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessments made. 10

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 5 of 9 Question Answer Marks 2 Indicative content: No set answer is expected and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some of the following: Strengths • Strong structure – 2 clear conclusions ‘as a society, we seem to be a little mixed-up when it comes to graffiti.’ and ‘whilst graffiti can be an art form, it becomes also a crime if the owner whose property has been used for this artistic expression. Considers it to be vandalism’. Both conclusions have relevant views quoted to support them. • Measured conclusion – The conclusion is balanced and specific, recognising the possibility both of artistic merit and of being a crime in the specific circumstance of the property owner feeling their rights violated. • Includes counter argument throughout – The argument constantly counter-poses the views which see graffiti street art either as a crime or an act of artistic expression. This gives balance to the argument leading to a measured judgement. • Range of strong relevant, clear examples of different perspectives - The argument includes a number of international examples of attitudes and the laws e.g. from Canada, Brazil, Australia, UK, and US. • Credible & relevant sources of perspectives – The argument includes relevant views of important professionals and individuals such as Judge Hardy, the artist Elura Emerald, the curator and street artist, who have experience in the area. • Perspectives are directly quoted – This limits the potential for exaggeration and increases accuracy of the views given. • Author’s relevant expertise – Paul Vallely as a professor in public ethics has the relevant expertise to come to a judgement about graffiti street art which involves social ethics. • Author’s lack of motive – As a professor of public ethics, Vallely doesn’t appear to have a motive to exaggerate or be selective with the views given. • Author’s professionalism – As a professor of public ethics he would have a vested interest to be accurate and representative in his claims, to present a credible case and to maintain public confidence in his academic standing.

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 6 of 9 Question Answer Marks 2 Weaknesses • No sources of evidence – No sources are given for the events or views, which limits their credibility. • Narrow global range of examples. Mostly Western, developed countries attitudes addressed. • Some emotional language – The selection of the Judge’s words "a wholesale self-indulgent campaign to damage street property on an industrial scale" may be seen as a ploy by the author to sway judgement towards the criminal aspect of graffiti street art.

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 7 of 9 Question Answer Marks 3 To what extent is the author’s argument in Document 2 about graffiti more convincing than that of the author in Document 1? Use the levels based marking grid below and the indicative content to credit marks. Level Marks Descriptor L3 10– 14 • The judgement is sustained and reasoned. • Alternative perspectives have sustained assessment. • Critical evaluation is of key issues raised in the passages and has explicit reference. • Explanation and reasoning is highly effective, accurate and clearly expressed. • Communication is highly effective - clear evidence of a structured cogent argument with conclusions explicitly stated and directly linked to the assessment. L2 5–9 • Judgement is reasoned. • One perspective may be focused upon for assessment. • Evaluation is present but may not relate to key issues. • Explanation and reasoning is generally accurate. • Communication is accurate - some evidence of a structured discussion although conclusions may not be explicitly stated, nor link directly to the assessment. L1 1–4 • Judgement, if present, is unsupported or superficial. • Alternative perspectives have little or no assessment. • Evaluation, if any, is simplistic. Answers may describe a few points comparing the two documents. • Relevant evidence or reasons may be identified. • Communication is limited. Response may be cursory. 0 • no creditable material. There is no requirement to use technical terms to access any level and candidates will NOT be rewarded for their use unless they link them directly to the assessments made. 14

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 8 of 9 Question Answer Marks 3 Indicative content: No set answer is expected and examiners should be flexible in their approach. Candidates may include some of the following: Less convincing • Narrower perspective and evidence – Brodzinsky (Doc 2) narrates events in one particular country, Colombia, whereas Vallely (Doc 1) looks at views from around the world to determine his conclusion, making his argument broader and more convincing. • Generalises from one country – Brodzinsky draws a conclusion generalising from the situation in Colombia to graffiti street art in general, when the situation in Colombia may not be typical of other countries. This limits the significance of the argument in Doc 2. In comparison, Vallely’s conclusion (Doc 1) is drawn from an ethical discussion of a range of views and attitudes around the world, making it more convincing. • More documentary than reasoning – Brodzinsky’s (Doc 2) argument draws a conclusion from a series of events with comments on consistency and relevance, whereas Vallely (Doc 1) brings out the significance of a variety of views, which makes a stronger argument. • Less discussion of a counter argument – Brodzinsky (Doc 2) argues from a train of events and only mentions at the end the counter views of the street artist who highlights the drawbacks of legitimising graffiti street art. However, Brodzinsky does not respond to this. However, Vallely (Doc 1) cites views on both sides throughout, providing a more convincing balanced discussion. • Weaker support for the conclusion – Brodzinsky ignores the counter argument about the drawbacks of legitimising graffiti street art, which makes her argument less convincing that that of Vallely. His argument draws a conclusion that takes into account the aspect of vandalism. • Greater use of emotional persuasion – Brodzinsky (Doc 2) appeals to the plight of the Colombian graffiti street artists and their impassioned fight for legitimising their graffiti, rather than Vallely’s approach is of a neutral philosophical argument which relies upon the correctness of reason to persuade, which makes the latter more logically persuasive.

9239/13 Cambridge International AS Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 9 of 9 Question Answer Marks 3 • Greater possible vested interest – As an author documenting human rights crises, Brodzinsky (Doc 2) may have a vested interest to be selective with the events chosen to raise awareness about human rights. This may weaken the significance of her argument when compared with that of Vallely (Doc 1), who as a professor of public ethics, appears to have more vested interest to make an accurate representation of views, in order to maintain his professionalism. More convincing • Greater use of emotional persuasion – Brodzinsky (Doc 2) appeals to the plight of the Colombian graffiti street artists rather than Vallely’s approach in Doc 1 of a neutral philosophical argument, which relies upon the correctness of reason to persuade. Although this makes the latter more logically persuasive, readers may be more readily convinced by the passion of Brodzinsky’s argument. Different (neither more or less convincing) Different perspectives – The authors approach the same issue from different perspectives. Vallely uses a philosophical approach of opposing views to draw a conclusion, whereas Brodzinsky uses a train of events to justify her conclusion. Each has their merits.