IGCSE Global Perspectives Paper 3: Assessing Argument Conviction (16 Marks)
📌 Question 3 requires assessing whose argument (Source 4: S or J) is more convincing, focusing solely on Source 4.
⚖️ The 16-mark question is split evenly: 8 marks for Analysis (Assessment Objective 1) and 8 marks for Evaluation (Assessment Objective 1, distinct component).
🗣️ A high-scoring response (Level 4, 7-8 marks for each section) demands consistent analytical insight and thorough evaluation, supported by frequent quotations/references from the source material.

Analysis Component (8 Marks)
🔍 Analysis involves comparing aspects of both arguments, such as the use of global perspective, national perspective, personal experience, and references to research/organizations.
📊 Arguments strong in analysis utilize global and national viewpoints supported by external evidence (e.g., J referencing the ILO and World Economic Forum), unlike weaker arguments relying only on personal opinion.
🗣️ The analysis must also cover the use of language, evaluating tone (e.g., emotive vs. precise/measured language) employed by S and J.

Evaluation Component (8 Marks)
⭐ Evaluation requires giving a detailed and reasoned judgment on which argument is more convincing, explicitly supported by evidence from the analysis.
👍 A convincing argument is judged by the strength of reasoning, including the balance, logic, and type of evidence presented (facts, opinions, anecdotes).
🧐 Candidates must assess potential bias or vested interest in both arguments (e.g., J favoring e-commerce due to his business success; S focusing on job losses due to her brother's store closure).

Key Points & Insights
➡️ Structure the response by first stating whose argument is more convincing, followed by detailed analysis, then evaluation, concluding with a single summary sentence.
➡️ J's argument was deemed stronger because it incorporated multiple perspectives (global, national via Germany, and personal success) supported by references to global organizations (ILO, WEF).
➡️ S's argument was weaker due to its heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence (brother's bookstore loss) and emotive language, lacking broader quantitative data or global perspective.
➡️ A balanced assessment requires noting weaknesses in the chosen argument (e.g., J's potential bias/overemphasis on positives) while acknowledging strengths in the rejected argument (e.g., S's clear identification of job loss issues).

📸 Video summarized with SummaryTube.com on Nov 16, 2025, 18:11 UTC