[Chazzybish]

(Original post by don'tTRIP.)
If asked to analyse the characteristics of a contestable market for 15 marks, how would you go about answering it? As in how many features of a contestable market would you explain? This was asked once before and in the mark scheme, it had features of a perfectly contestable market too

I'd probably analyse three key aspects of a contestable market. I'd look at: low barriers to entry/exit; lack of brand loyalty; and number of firms being irrelevant/normal profit because of 'hit and run'.

I think the question implies that you're actually analysing the characteristics of a perfectly contestable market: this isn't an evaluation question, so you don't need to say 'some markets are not fully contestable because...' Rather, you just need to clearly analyse the characteristics of a market which IS contestable.

Remember of course that in 15 mark answers they say for 13-15 marks 'clear analysis of 2+ aspects'. I'd say go for 3 to be on the safe side, as sometimes it's difficult to tell whether you've fully developed a point, and I'd say for the full 15 marks they want that little bit more.

[JACKMSS]

Hey everyone,

Im retaking this exam but havnt really got any support off of my teacher for it.

Are there ANY changes to the specification, new knowledge I might need or changes to the exam in general that i should be aware of? I'd hate to walk into the exam and find something i've got no idea about.

[Chazzybish]

(Original post by JACKMSS)
Hey everyone,

Im retaking this exam but havnt really got any support off of my teacher for it.

Are there ANY changes to the specification, new knowledge I might need or changes to the exam in general that i should be aware of? I'd hate to walk into the exam and find something i've got no idea about.

No. The only thing that's sort of 'new' that isn't really new is that they're saying for 5 and 8 mark comment/discuss questions you need to make sure you include some sort of judgement/conclusion that directly answers the question, but that applied in January anyway.

[Groat]

(Original post by Chazzybish)
I'd probably analyse three key aspects of a contestable market. I'd look at: low barriers to entry/exit; lack of brand loyalty; and number of firms being irrelevant/normal profit because of 'hit and run'.

I think the question implies that you're actually analysing the characteristics of a perfectly contestable market: this isn't an evaluation question, so you don't need to say 'some markets are not fully contestable because...' Rather, you just need to clearly analyse the characteristics of a market which IS contestable.

Remember of course that in 15 mark answers they say for 13-15 marks 'clear analysis of 2+ aspects'. I'd say go for 3 to be on the safe side, as sometimes it's difficult to tell whether you've fully developed a point, and I'd say for the full 15 marks they want that little bit more.

If you have time, and are having ideas such as some markets are not fully contestable because... in the 15 mark question, I would still write it down!

[ray_charlene]

Can anybody still remember the Transport paper this Jan?

[tornzy]

I am trying to get an a overall in economics and I literally need to get 100 UMS in this paper in order to do so.

I just wanted advice on how to make sure that I dont drop any silly marks and also how to score very highly on the 20 marker, thanks

[SofiaZara]

the transport paper's extract was about railway - I wish I took it now
I find it strange how they want a judgement for some comment questions now, isnt it a bit amateur to add your own judgement? nevertheless I'm still gonna do it I need an A for A2 ughh

[Jtn Star]

(Original post by tornzy)
I am trying to get an a overall in economics and I literally need to get 100 UMS in this paper in order to do so.

I just wanted advice on how to make sure that I dont drop any silly marks and also how to score very highly on the 20 marker, thanks

Introduction:
- Define the key terms
- Bring in some theories and key concepts /examples
e.g. Road pricing could help reduce road congestion by reducing demand for road space. For example, Durham became the first city in the UK to introduce road user charge. As a result, traffic volumes fell significantly which reduced congestion. (1 example will do)
- Types of road pricing (road user charging and congestion charging)

Arguments for and against: (ideally 3 for and against)
- Start the first sentence of each paragraph with a key point e.g. Road pricing is a good way to correct market failure arising from road congestion. (Explain what is meant by market failure) Explain how could road pricing achieve allocative efficiency. Explain how it could internalise negative externalities (examples of negative externalities). Draw a diagram to underpin your explanation.
- In short, each paragraph has to PEE:
P – main point
E – explanation
E – evidence (application to transport)

Conclusion (judgement and evaluation):
- It depends on how well is the road pricing scheme established. Getting the price right is the key.
- An integrated transport policy together with public transport development could lead towards a more sustainable transport system.

[FutureActuary]

Hi, does anyone happen to have a copy of the jan 2012 paper or a link to it? It would be much appreciated.

[don'tTRIP.]

Seeing as two marks are now reserved for a good, solid conclusion, what should our conclusion contain? My teachers have always said never to bring in new points in your conclusion so, should I just regurgitate any evaluative comments?

[Jtn Star]

(Original post by don'tTRIP.)
Seeing as two marks are now reserved for a good, solid conclusion, what should our conclusion contain? My teachers have always said never to bring in new points in your conclusion so, should I just regurgitate any evaluative comments?

In your conclusion, you should make a judgement to weigh up your arguments. For example:
In conclusion, road pricing may be an effective solution to preventing market failure arising from road congestion, but it depends on how well is the road-pricing system is established so that it reduces congestion significantly. An integrated transport policy, which consists of road pricing and public transport developent could lead towards a more sustainable transport system which could minimise negative externalities.

[DymentriX]

(Original post by don'tTRIP.)
Seeing as two marks are now reserved for a good, solid conclusion, what should our conclusion contain? My teachers have always said never to bring in new points in your conclusion so, should I just regurgitate any evaluative comments?

Really? I've heard the opposite and my teacher marks papers for OCR

[Jtn Star]

(Original post by DymentriX)
Really? I've heard the opposite and my teacher marks papers for OCR

Having a judgement in your conclusion could move you from level 4(b) [11-15] to level 4(a) [16-20]. This is according to the mark scheme.

[don'tTRIP.]

(Original post by DymentriX)
Really? I've heard the opposite and my teacher marks papers for OCR

Oh great. All of my conclusions in January (bar my final question) were so mediocre So I should include any new points in my conclusion to justify it?

EDIT: I make all of my judgements before my conclusion

[DymentriX]

(Original post by Jtn Star)
Having a judgement in your conclusion could move you from level 4(b) [11-15] to level 4(a) [16-20]. This is according to the mark scheme.

I apologise, I was talking about making new points.

Oh great. All of my conclusions in January (bar my final question) were so mediocre So I should include any new points in my conclusion to justify it?

EDIT: I make all of my judgements before my conclusion

I'd add smaller points that are harder to explain in detail or you generally can't write as much about to strengthen your argument. Before that, it would be good to mention a few "depends on" points such as size, duration, long/short haul (in terms of transport), elasticities etc

[Aimanos]

Does anyone have the January 2012 Question Paper and Mark Scheme please? Thank you.

[DymentriX]

Just a quick question, how do you guys answer 15 mark questions?

[Groat]

(Original post by don'tTRIP.)
Oh great. All of my conclusions in January (bar my final question) were so mediocre So I should include any new points in my conclusion to justify it?

EDIT: I make all of my judgements before my conclusion

That's fine. I make judgements throughout and then sum it up in a conclusion and it's worked perfectly for me.

[tornzy]

This is exactly the same approach i took to the 20 marker in the global economy paper in jan 12 but i only ended up getting 12/20 and the examiner commented 'simple discussion' :/

Apparently its easier to get into level 4a by evaluating as you go along rather than just at the end, so when you give a reason as to why, for example, road congestion would correct market failure, then you would conclude that paragraph by saying 'However, the extent to which road congestion would correct market failure is dependent on the elasticity of demand for car users. Netherthess, even a small increase in road congestion is still likely to have a greater than proportionate change in demand for car users, hence resulting in a reduction in market failure'.

The only problem i have is being able to evaluate as you go along then think up new reasons for the overall conclusion.

(Original post by Jtn Star)
Introduction:
- Define the key terms
- Bring in some theories and key concepts /examples
e.g. Road pricing could help reduce road congestion by reducing demand for road space. For example, Durham became the first city in the UK to introduce road user charge. As a result, traffic volumes fell significantly which reduced congestion. (1 example will do)
- Types of road pricing (road user charging and congestion charging)

Arguments for and against: (ideally 3 for and against)
- Start the first sentence of each paragraph with a key point e.g. Road pricing is a good way to correct market failure arising from road congestion. (Explain what is meant by market failure) Explain how could road pricing achieve allocative efficiency. Explain how it could internalise negative externalities (examples of negative externalities). Draw a diagram to underpin your explanation.
- In short, each paragraph has to PEE:
P – main point
E – explanation
E – evidence (application to transport)

Conclusion (judgement and evaluation):
- It depends on how well is the road pricing scheme established. Getting the price right is the key.
- An integrated transport policy together with public transport development could lead towards a more sustainable transport system.

[tornzy]

I have noticed that in all of the five Transport Economic Papers since Jan 2010, all of the modes of transport have been used in the case-study apart from sea. Do you guys think that it may be likely for sea to come up?