A2 OCR Transport Economics F584 2016 (23/06/16)

Posted from TSR Mobile

The question was worded terribly. It said "Explain the economic effects of an increase in *blah blah blah* ON the environment" . This does not mean we are meant to discuss the effects of environmental change on the economy, but it is the other way around - the economic effects on the environment - which is why it doesn't really make any sense.

I think we should write a formal complaint. The question is literally impossible to answer

Wages can be fixed and variable. This is another example of a question in this exam that simply can't be answered coherently. Staff costs can be fixed if they're manager wages, but they're variable if they are paid hourly.

The question was: Analyse the economic effects of an increase in the demand for road transport on the environment.


The specification indicates: Transport and the environment – the impact of an increasing use of road and air transport especially.

You need to refer to pollution, greater use of non-renewable resources, global warming........................

The question clearly specified 'economic effects' rather than just effects of the economy. This means that any effects must be categorised by the fact they are economic - they concern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services - in the same way that if I say "discuss the bad effects of smoking on the body" I'd be looking for effects on the body that can be categorised by the fact they are bad. Although intuitively it may seem like we are meant to explain effects of the economy on the environment, that is simply not what the question asks. It seems impossible to answer as there are no effects on the environment that can be classed as economic, the employment rate of squirrels and the productive capacity of the trees does not seem to be a logical answer.

Economic effects is supposed to be the same as impact so any impact on the environment with a chain of reasoning starting from transport use is going to be valid.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Even if it were impact, the impact would still have to be categorised as economic. But environmental effects are not economic. Writing about the environment should technically not be worth any marks given the question, as there are no answers to the question given. What you have described is an economic cause.

I think you are taking economic effects too literal , my comments are based with previous questions and how it has been assessed. If you are referring to the environment following a good chain of reasoning from a rise in demand for transport you will get the marks. Whether you think it is not clear or it has been an unfair question that's another issue. In my view is part of the specification and without overthinking too much on "economic" effects should be a reasonable question.

Hi, not a clue if this would be deemed as acceptable, anyone got any thoughts?
I stated that increased road usage would lead to increased demand for petrol/fuel (environmental part), the price of this is decided by supply and demand and talked through how it's finite and then price will rise as demand does, did the S+D curve to explain it, and then stated that this will increase private costs of using a car (economic part).
Would this be right as the economic impact was only on the consumer instead of the whole economy?
Cheers