Cambridge A Level Thinking Skills 9694 — 2017 Oct/Nov Paper 4 · Variant 1

* 7 1 8 6 7 6 7 5 1 7 * This document consists of 7 printed pages, 1 blank page and 1 insert. DC (AL/FC) 136176/1 © UCLES 2017 [Turn over Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/41 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning October/November 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 the questions. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question.

2 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 1 Make five criticisms of the use of the statistics and/or claims in this advertisement. [5] Great Prospects for LoKost Stores LoKost stores are taking over the High Street! This graph shows last year’s sales trends in just one town, where crowds of customers are deserting other stores, in order to benefit from the low prices, great product range and superlative customer service at our new LoKost store. Sales at three other stores fell, while LoKost increased its turnover by a whopping 28%! We will soon become the number 1 store in the country. Join the trend, and shop at your local LoKost store! 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% –5% –10% Store A Store B Store C LoKost Questions 2, 3 and 4 refer to Documents 1 to 5. 2 Briefly analyse Louisa’s argument in Document 1: No need for a hairy elephant, by identifying its main conclusion, intermediate conclusions and any counter-assertions. [6] 3 Give a critical evaluation of the strength of Louisa’s argument in Document 1: No need for a hairy elephant, by identifying and explaining any flaws, implicit assumptions and other weaknesses. [9] 4 ‘We should encourage scientists to pursue de-extinction projects.’ Construct a reasoned argument to support or challenge this claim, commenting critically on some or all of Documents 1 to 5 and introducing ideas of your own. [30]

3 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 [Turn over DOCUMENT 1 No need for a hairy elephant Molecular biology has made bringing extinct animals back to life more than just a dream. The extinction of mammoths and other species has been caused, sometimes deliberately, by the activity of humans. We might be able to use the new technology to bring these species back – perhaps we have a moral duty to do so, in order to make amends for our callous treatment of nature. However, destruction of the environment and loss of species as a result of human activity are continuing at an alarming rate. Climate change, deforestation, pollution and over-fishing are threatening the life- support system that is planet Earth. At the current rate of extinction we will lose three quarters of vertebrate species (the big, often fluffy, things we seem to care more about) in 300 years. Imagine your great (×8) granddaughter never having seen an elephant! It is much more sensible for conservation science to focus resources on tackling the causes of species demise. There are more important things to spend money on than de-extinction. Spending millions trying to bring back a couple of sabre-toothed tigers to look at in a zoo will not make up for losing what we already have. De-extinction is by no means guaranteed to work. The two main techniques are both problematic. The first – selective breeding using similar modern species – takes a long time. People have been trying to recreate a wild aurochs by breeding modern domestic cattle since the 1920s and have not succeeded yet. It takes between 3 and 6 years for a cow to grow to maturity and produce offspring. How long would it take to recreate mammoths by breeding Asian elephants, which don’t start reproducing until they are 20 years old? The other method is cloning. Dolly the sheep was the first cloned mammal. She was the only surviving lamb from 277 attempts. That’s 276 lost eggs and Dolly herself developed arthritis and died young. There are not many Asian elephants around as it is. Can we afford to ‘throw away’ 276 precious eggs? The problems do not end in the laboratory. Re-inserting a resurrected species into a habitat is a much bigger project than recreating a pair of dodos to waddle round a zoo. The habitats that sustained these species have largely vanished. Passenger pigeons once feasted on the American chestnut, which has now almost disappeared. What would resurrected passenger pigeons eat? Those habitats that remain are now populated by other species, some of which are themselves now endangered. Reintroduced species would compete with the current occupant and one species is going to lose out. Reintroductions of surviving endangered species can be very successful – wolves to parts of North America, for example. However, they are monumental undertakings in terms of both planning and expense. Zoos are already overwhelmed breeding endangered species for reintroduction. The factor limiting the rate of attempted reintroductions is not species availability but habitats into which they can be re-introduced. De-extinction is clearly a bad idea; the international scientific community should not be promoting it as the way forward. Who can tell what the consequences might be? The possibility of de-extinction could be used by governments as an excuse for diverting funds away from climate change and conservation projects. Louisa

4 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 DOCUMENT 2 Woolly mammoth inches to de-extinction: cloning potential sparks debate In May 2013, Russian fossil scientists found a woolly mammoth, nearly perfectly preserved in the ice, on an island off the coast of Siberia. These animals became extinct at the end of the last ice age, but the blood still present in its veins could provide biologists with the ability to clone the animals. De-extinction, as the process is called, could be carried out on many species that no longer roam the Earth. The iconic woolly mammoth is one of the species researchers have considered bringing back to life, along with the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the thylacine, an extinct Australian carnivore that looked like a dog but had a pouch like a kangaroo. “The most important and difficult step in the cloning process is the search for living cells. Mammoths are particularly promising, as good frozen specimens are relatively common,” said Dr Petrova from the University of Northern Siberia. “If successful, then the cloning procedure itself will be carried out in South Korea, where they have extensive experience in cloning mainly dogs but other animals also.” The ice-bound animal was revealed to be a female, approximately 60 years old. She was the oldest, flesh intact, specimen of a woolly mammoth unearthed to date. Scientists believe she roamed the Earth around 12 000 years ago. The prehistoric beast probably perished in water, which quickly froze over, preserving the lower half of the body including the stomach. Parts of the animal’s back had been picked at by predators before the freezing was complete. “When we broke the ice underneath her belly, the blood flowed out from there; it was very dark. This is the most astonishing case in my whole life. How was it possible for it [the blood] to be in liquid form? And the muscle tissue is red also, the colour of fresh meat,” the leader of the mammoth-finding expedition told reporters. Woolly mammoths were one of several mammoth species, relatives of today’s elephants, particularly the Asian elephant. They stood around 3 metres (10 feet) tall at the shoulder, similar in size to a modern African elephant. Strangely, global warming has been good for mammoth scientists. As the ice in Siberia has melted, more specimens have been uncovered.

5 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 [Turn over DOCUMENT 3 De-extinction – let’s at least try There are real benefits to de-extinction, for both conservation and our sense of the natural world. The objections to it are trivial. Mammoths are prime candidates because frozen specimens are available, but museum specimens could provide a rich source of workable DNA from other species. Using this, it might be possible to bring some extinct species back to life. The tools of synthetic biology are advancing. Things quickly go from impossible, to expensive, to routine. The process is getting ever cheaper and ever more sophisticated. Scientists interested in trying to resurrect extinct species must be free to pursue their interests if they can get the needed support. As with any science, there are inevitable benefits that could not be imagined when the original funding was secured. De-extinction science could actually help to prevent extinction in many endangered species. A limited gene pool and hence inbreeding with its risk of genetic diseases is a major problem within endangered populations. Gene manipulation technology could restore genetic variety within endangered species. Some might say, “What’s the point of bringing back hairy elephants that couldn’t hack the climate change of 5000 years ago?” The obvious extension of that argument is, “What’s the point of saving the polar bear today, or the panda, or the Asian elephant for that matter?” We protect endangered species in order to preserve the richest biodiversity possible, for a variety of ecological, aesthetic and economic reasons. We also protect them because humans have caused their decline, so we have a moral duty to do so. Each one of these reasons can also be applied to bringing back extinct species. Furthermore, imagine the thrill of seeing the flightless moa, twice the height of an ostrich, once again roaming free in New Zealand for the first time in a millennium. A generation of potential scientists could be inspired for a fraction of the cost of the moon landings. Passenger pigeons once darkened the sun in the American skies. They were slaughtered from billions to zero in the 19th century. The new telegraph system was used to let hunters know where the last remaining flocks were. How great would it be to reverse such a crime? The deciduous forest in which they once lived has been largely restored – only now awaiting the comeback of the passenger pigeon and the American chestnut, which is on the way back thanks to new genetic techniques. Worries about what will happen when formerly extinct animals are reintroduced to the wild are unfounded. Successful reintroductions are common, either from other regions or from captive breeding programmes. Wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone Park and the whole ecosystem has been improved. It turns out what was missing was a top predator. In the UK they are considering the reintroduction of the lynx to control the large roe deer population. The American bison currently has no predator – perhaps it is time for the sabre-toothed cat to make a comeback!

6 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 DOCUMENT 4 Points made during a school debate about de-extinction 1. Animal cloning is rarely successful. Dolly the sheep only lived for five years, whereas the normal lifespan of a domestic sheep is 10 years. The cell she was cloned from was from a 5-year-old sheep. It was as if she was born with cells that had already lived five years. The first “successful” de-extinction using cloning, the Pyrenean ibex (a large wild goat, extinct for less than 15 years), lived for a whole 12 minutes, and spent all that time in acute respiratory distress. 2. If so-called experts attempt to clone mammoths they will have to use elephants as surrogates. It is likely that the much smaller elephant mother would suffer carrying a baby mammoth to term. Elephants themselves are endangered and using them for this purpose could divert stock from repopulating their own species. Furthermore, the ethics of turning such intelligent social animals, which appear to grieve the death of their relatives, into ancestor-resurrection machines is questionable. 3. Once resurrected, organisms could become pests in the new environment in which they have been introduced. They might be vectors of disease or provide a habitat for such vectors. The genetic manipulation used to create them might harbour dangerous viruses or other harmful mutations in their genomes. 4. The revival of a single previously-dead individual in a lab does not mark the return of a species. Creating viable populations that can flourish in modern ecosystems is a much more difficult challenge. The IUCN Red List categorises more than 20 000 species as threatened with extinction. We cannot hope to save them all. So we face difficult choices about which species and ecosystems to try to save. 5. The Nile rhinoceros has only 7 members of the species left, all in captivity. It has not had a viable wild population for years. Three of the individuals are too old to breed. The others are too closely related to rebuild a viable population. The technology associated with de-extinction would be put to much better use saving species like the Nile rhinoceros from the brink of extinction. 6. Claims that de-extinction (or resurrection biology) will cost a lot of money are rarely supported by evidence. Such projects could easily attract philanthropic donations from wealthy benefactors, perhaps from people who have never thought about conservation before. This could open up a whole new funding stream to the field of conservation. They might even become interested in saving species the old-fashioned way, too. 7. Focussing public interest and money on a big de-extinction project could have wider benefits. Before a large, headline-grabbing, species is brought back the environment would need to be made ready for its arrival. This means spending money on conserving a wide variety of other, less camera-friendly but nevertheless biologically-important, plant and animal species. Putting Californian condors back in the wild has highlighted the problem of environmental lead poisoning, which affects dozens of other species. Efforts at lead reduction are now underway in more than one US state.

7 9694/41/O/N/17 © UCLES 2017 DOCUMENT 5 Spending by US government on endangered species conservation projects 0 2006 2008 2009 2011 Plants 200 400 600 800 US Govt. spending ($ millions) 1000 1200 1400 Animals California condor* population 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 2003 2001 1999 2005 2007 2009 Born in wild 20 60 40 80 100 140 120 180 160 200 Bred in captivity *The California condor is a very large vulture native to the western United States

8 9694/41/O/N/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 10 printed pages. © UCLES 2017 [Turn over Cambridge Assessment International Education Cambridge International Advanced Level THINKING SKILLS 9694/41 Paper 4 Applied Reasoning October/November 2017 MARK SCHEME Maximum Mark: 50 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 International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes. Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2017 series for most Cambridge IGCSE®, Cambridge International A and AS Level components and some Cambridge O Level components.

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 2 of 10 Question Answer Marks 1 Award 1 mark for any of the following: • The town used for the graph may have been chosen especially because of its success. • The three stores which lost sales may have been specially chosen for the comparison. • Because the statistics depicted in the graph are proportions of different base figures, the comparisons are meaningless. • The increase in sales was presumably from a very low base and therefore could in fact represent only a small number of customers. • Since the LoKost store was “new”, the rate of growth in the first year was presumably untypical. • There is no reason to suppose that the trend will continue. • “Crowds of customers are deserting other stores” is hardly consistent with the small drops of 5%, 2% and 4% seen at the three other (probably cherry-picked) stores. • The three stores which lost sales do not necessarily sell the same kinds of product as LoKost, and the loss of sales may therefore not be connected to the rise of LoKost. • The author may be exploiting the ambiguity of the word “sales”, which may mean either “transactions” or “turnover”. • It is quite unclear what “the number 1 store in the country” means. 5

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 3 of 10 Question Answer Marks 2 1 mark for each element (maximum 4 if MC not identified) CA – perhaps we have a moral duty to do so [bring these species back] IC – It is much more sensible for conservation science to focus resources on tackling the causes of species demise. IC – There are more important things to spend money on than de-extinction. IC – De-extinction is by no means guaranteed to work. IC – The two main techniques for de-extinction are both problematic. IC – The problems do not end in the laboratory. CA – Re-introductions of surviving endangered species can be very successful. IC – De-extinction is clearly a bad idea; MC – the international scientific community should not be promoting it as the way forward. 6

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 4 of 10 Question Answer Marks 3 2 marks for a developed version of any of the following points. 1 mark for a weak or incomplete version of any of the following points. Paragraph 2 • Assumption: that environmental destruction and species loss could be reduced by spending money • Assumption: that the current rate of extinction will continue unless we intervene • Assumption: that elephants are likely to be among the three quarters of species to become extinct • Appeal to emotion: “Imagine your great (x8) granddaughter having never seen an elephant!” • Assumption: that the money for de-extinction projects would have to be diverted from conservation science • Straw man: “Spending millions trying to bring back a couple of sabre tooth tigers to look at in a zoo will not make up for losing what we already have.” trivialises and distorts the objectives of those in favour of de-extinction. Paragraph 3 • Assumption: that a scientific venture must be guaranteed to work to make it worth promoting as the way forward • Selective example: Mammoth de-extinction requiring elephants as surrogates may have been used as an example as they have a particularly long generation time. Other potential de-extinction candidate species are likely to have modern surrogates with much shorter generation times • Assumption: that selective breeding techniques have not developed to the extent that progress would now be quick enough / that cloning techniques have not achieved a higher success rate since the cloning of Dolly the sheep • Generalisation: from the success rate (1/277) in the Dolly example to cloned animals in general • Straw man: since Dolly was the pioneering example, it is likely that the process was at its least efficient • Assumption: that within the reproductive life-cycle and practices of a female elephant, significantly fewer than 276 eggs are “wasted” • Inconsistency: there is a strong implication that the techniques will not work, but then gives an example (Dolly) of it working. Paragraph 4 • Assumption: that passenger pigeons did not have sources of food other than the American chestnut • Assumption: that habitats cannot be generated • Contradiction: having claimed that re-introductions are not likely to be successful the author then cites a successful re-introduction. Paragraph 5 • Assumption: that governments are desirous of diverting funds away from climate change and conservation projects. 9

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 5 of 10 Question Answer Marks 4 ‘We should encourage scientists to pursue de-extinction projects.’ Specimen Level 4 Answers Support (786 words) The strongly anti-de-extinction Doc 1 acknowledges the inevitable sense of wonder associated with returning species from extinction. There are several reasons we should welcome de-extinction science; wonder is among the greatest of these and even Doc 1 does not attempt to counter this reason. Doc 2 mentions the thrill of seeing a flightless moa and the potential inspiration to a generation of scientists. This is supported by Doc 4 in both point 6 and point 7. Point 6 suggests a potential revenue stream for conservation coming from such projects and point 7 acknowledges the wider benefits of headline-grabbing science. Furthermore, Doc 4.7 is corroborated by the lower graph in Doc 5 which illustrates the apparent success of California condor conservation mentioned in Doc 4. There are many compelling reasons to pursue de-extinction projects. We have a duty to atone for our crimes. Doc 1 also acknowledges, but does not effectively counter, the idea of making amends for extinctions that have been caused by humanity. Doc 3 refers to our ‘moral duty’ to bring back species from extinction. The idea of morals is subjective but most people would agree that a society in which atonement for crimes or payment of debts is the moral expectation is better than the alternative. Reversing an extinction that was our fault would be a very public reinforcement of a desirable moral code and could, therefore, benefit wider human society. It seems something of a cliché to state that the unknown potential benefits of scientific research are justification enough to encourage such research. In the case of de-extinction, however, there is strong evidence that such benefits are known and could directly help with wider conservation efforts. Document 3 explains that the technology developed in the name of de- extinction can be applied directly to the prevention of extinction in existing endangered species. Since the main thrust of Doc 1’s anti-species-resurrection argument is that we should focus on modern endangered species, this strongly weakens Doc 1’s whole case. There are some other counter-arguments which ought to be considered. Doc 1 claims that the laboratory technology does not work, at present. This assumes that there will not be significant improvements. Doc 3, on the other hand states, “The process is getting ever cheaper and ever more sophisticated.” Doc 4.2 raises an objection about animal welfare related to the cloning process. Doc 4.2 itself is clearly biased as evidenced by the used of loaded, emotional language. Its claim about the size of mammoths in comparison to elephants therefore seems exaggerated. Indeed, the more neutral Doc 2 states that mammoths and another, only slightly larger, modern elephant were similar in size. 30

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 6 of 10 Question Answer Marks 4 Related to this idea of ‘not-working’ is Doc 1’s point that the environment is not now suitable for the reintroduction of such species. This line of reasoning may be true in a few specific cases but it is clearly not true in general. Doc 1 cites the demise of the American chestnut as a reason that passenger pigeons should not be reintroduced. Even if we assume that this was their main food source, Doc 3 acknowledges that numbers of the American chestnut are low but states that they are, “on the way back thanks to new genetic techniques”. Ignoring the fact that Doc 1 is self-contradictory about the success of species reintroductions, further evidence that Doc 1 is wrong comes from the successful reintroductions of other modern species cited in Doc 3, one of which is the California condor. This is itself corroborated by the graph showing the recovery of the California condor in Doc 5. Particularly interesting is the fact that numbers began to increase significantly only after captive breeding was begun. Individuals born in captivity need to be reintroduced into a wild from which they have been absent – and this presents the same problems as reintroduction of resurrected extinct species. If reintroduction problems can be overcome for the condor, they could be overcome for extinct species. The biggest argument put forward by Doc 1, and Doc 4.5, is the diversion of money away from existing conservation projects. There is no evidence to suggest that the money spent on de-extinction laboratory science necessarily comes from the same ‘pot’ as that of environmental conservation. Indeed, money spent on habitat conservation would benefit living and resurrected species alike. It seems likely that the publicity generated by such a project could actually divert money towards conservation, as mentioned in Doc 4.6. The upper graph in Doc 5 could support the idea, acknowledged in Doc 1, that projects about big, fierce or fluffy animals attract the most money. De-extinction would likely be such a money generating project. Both financially and scientifically de-extinction science could benefit traditional conservation. We should, therefore, encourage scientists to pursue de-extinction projects. Challenge (827 words) We should not encourage scientists to pursue de-extinction projects, for several reasons. With the exception of a handful of very recent extinctions, most of these species became extinct a very long time ago, in environmental terms. Even in the last 50 years the human population has doubled. The planet is a finite size and humans occupy space in the environment. This means there has been a big reduction in available environment in which these species could exist. Doc 1, although flawed, makes a number of valid points in this regard. Any visit to a decent zoo will tell you that Doc 1 is correct when it mentions vastly more captive breeding projects than reintroductions. The few successful reintroductions, mentioned by Doc 3, Doc 4.7 and Doc 5 and acknowledged by Doc 1 (not in contradiction to Doc 1’s main argument but as an appreciation of the complexity of the issue), are a mere distraction from the hundreds of species in zoos and botanic gardens with no prospect of anywhere they could thrive in the wild. Even the apparently successful condor reintroduction of Doc 4.7 and Doc 5 might not be such a success story. The graph shows only one year of major population

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 7 of 10 Question Answer Marks 4 increase and ends in 2009. We cannot tell if 2009 was unique if we have no subsequent data. Doc 4, point 4 introduces the problem of population size. A species, such as the oft-cited passenger pigeon, which lives in flocks, could not survive in the wild unless its numbers were high enough to form flocks. We do not know what size the condor population needs to be in order to remain viable. Doc 1 also mentions the potential harmful effects of introducing a long absent species to a changed habitat. This point is backed up by Doc 4, point 3 which suggests they might become pests or vectors for disease. Document 1 and Document 4.1 cite problems associated with the cloning process itself. While it is possible that these might be overcome in the future, it is worrying that the leader of the expedition reported in Doc 2 is at a loss to explain liquid blood in a thawed out mammoth. Although this is a single report, it does not fuel confidence in the scientists involved. More serious is the apparent contradiction within the de-extinction lobby. The scientist in the Doc 2 report states that finding living cells is the biggest problem; this, presumably, is why formerly frozen mammoths are so much in the frame. However, Doc 3 suggests that suitable cells for other species can be sourced from museum specimens. These two reports then are inconsistent. From a scientific point of view, the benefits of de-extinction are not strongly supported. The financial case against de-extinction is stronger. Doc 1 cites climate change, deforestation, pollution and over-fishing as much more urgent problems. Governments and private sector benefactors do not have limitless money. Often governments have a budget for science and environmental issues. So it is logical that more money for de-extinction projects means less money spent elsewhere. Inevitably the projects that get the most money are the headline-grabbing, big, fierce and cute animals. Doc 1 makes this point and even Doc 3 tacitly acknowledges it by mention of the moa. The top graph in Doc 5 seems to show that the US government spends much more money on ‘sexy’ animals rather than ‘boring’ plants. Whatever the problems with the x-axis, the y-axis difference between plants and animals is obvious. Document 4.6 counters the cost argument by stating that claims about the cost of de-extinction lack evidence, but everything contained within Document 4, point 6 is, itself, pure speculation. The other arguments in favour of de-extinction are also weak. The claim in Doc 3 that scientists should be free to pursue their interests is simplistic and does not really add anything to the debate. Quite apart from the more sinister implications of scientists being allowed to pursue any interesting project at, presumably, any cost, science has to be funded, often from public money. Those funding the science have a right to be involved in the debate about where it should be spent. The apparent increase in funding for animal projects shown in the upper graph of Doc 5 could be used to support a claim that de-extinction projects have changed US government policy. However, the last two years shown could be unusual, as could the first two. Four years is not enough to be confident about a trend. Indeed, the non-linear nature of the x-axis is suspicious. Furthermore, we cannot know the main reasons behind an increase in spending even if it were real.

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 8 of 10 Question Answer Marks 4 The apparently moral argument about correcting the mistakes of the past is weak also. We have, arguably, more of a moral duty to protect what we have. If we focus on the past we might forget about the present and lose the future. De-extinction is not the answer to our problems.

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 9 of 10 Level Structure Max 8 Quality of argument Max 8 Use of documents Max 8 Treatment of counter positions Max 6 4 Precise conclusion and accomplished argument structure with consistent use of intermediate conclusions. Likely to include at least two of the following: • strands of reasoning • suppositional reasoning • analogy • evidence • examples Argument is structured so the thought process is made clear. Uses vocabulary of reasoning appropriately and effectively to support argument. 7–8 Cogent and convincing reasoning which answers the question which was asked. Subtle thinking about the issue. Use of relevant own ideas and ideas from documents. Very few significant gaps or flaws. 7–8 Perceptive, relevant and accurate use of documents to support reasoning. References 3+ documents. Sustained and confident evaluation of documents to support reasoning. (Two or more valid evaluative references to documents). Able to combine information from two or more documents and draw a precise inference. 7–8 Consideration of key counter arguments and effective response to these. Use of own ideas in response to counter arguments not mentioned in the documents. Use of valid critical tools to respond to counter arguments. Effective use of appropriate terminology. 5–6 3 Clear conclusion that is more than “I agree”. Clear argument structure, which may be simple and precise or attempt complexity with some success. Appropriate use of intermediate conclusions. Use of other argument elements to support reasoning. Generally makes thinking clear. Appropriate use of vocabulary of reasoning. 5–6 Effective and persuasive reasoning which answers the question which was asked. (Although there may be some irrelevance or reliance on dubious assumptions.) Use of own ideas and ideas from documents. Few significant gaps or flaws. 5–6 Relevant and accurate use of documents which supports reasoning. References 3+ documents. Some evaluation and comparison of documents to support reasoning. Inference drawn from at least 1 document. 5–6 Consideration of key counter arguments and effective response to these. Response uses own ideas or is developed from documents. Some use of appropriate terminology. 3–4

9694/41 Cambridge International A Level – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED October/November 2017 © UCLES 2017 Page 10 of 10 Level Structure Max 8 Quality of argument Max 8 Use of documents Max 8 Treatment of counter positions Max 6 2 Conclusion stated but may be “I agree”. Sufficient clarity for meaning to be clear throughout. Structure may be easy to follow but brief or a longer argument which has a less clear structure. Uses reasons. Some appropriate use of vocabulary of reasoning. 3–4 A reasoned stance which attempts to answer the question which was asked. Some support for the conclusion. (Although there may be considerable irrelevance or reliance on dubious assumptions.) Some thinking/own ideas about the issue. Use of rhetorical questions and emotive language. Some significant gaps or flaws. 3–4 Some relevant use of documents to support reasoning, but some documents used indiscriminately. Some comparison of documents or some critical evaluation of documents or reasoned inference drawn from document. 3–4 Inclusion of counter argument or counter assertion. Response is direct but weak or taken entirely from documents. 2 1 Attempt to construct an argument. Unclear conclusion, multiple conclusions or no conclusion. Disjointed, incoherent reasoning. Use of examples in place of reasoning. Possibly a discourse or a rant. Reasons presented with no logical connection. Documents considered sequentially. Substantial irrelevant material. 1–2 Attempt to answer the general thrust of the question. Attempt to support their view. Excessive use of rhetorical questions and emotive language. Ideas which are contradictory. 1–2 Some, perhaps implicit, use of documents. No attempt at critical evaluation. No comparison of documents. 1–2 Inclusion of counter argument or counter assertion. Response is direct but ineffective. 1