AQA Economics A level 11 May 2015

I done an economics exam today with AQA exam board, I done the context 2. But for the 25 essay I talked about postive externalities, and everyone else says they spoke about negative externalities. As I mentioned that the Heath care thing that was helping people to stay alive was a merit good, which are underconsumed etc. Which is bad as the government are not funding these schemes, as on the other extract it was talking about cars. So everyone done negative externalities, and the question was asking if government should fund schemes something like that. Is my answer wrong?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1

laeffy

I argued that energy caused positive externalities as people who do not consume it can get ill or die, which will occur if the price is too high an unsubsidised - as shown by the consumer side subsidy the Winter Fuel Allowance. I don't know where you got healthcare from though.

Reply 2

gemuz

I said about negative externalities and positive externalities. I think it just depends on what approach you took to whether you linked the right externality to you answer?

Reply 3

Joey_johnson

OP

i mean in content 2 it had that devise that they said wasn't subsided by the government, which was some machine to support people's heart or they will die. So I said it was a postive externalitiy, as it's a merit good from being underconnsumed and they don't take in account the MSB the long term benefits only MPB. So there is a need for government intervention, as some coo summers aren't all willing and able to get that care from it Br being subsided and affordable for all consumers. As things it said other things (I can't remember) but that didn't really need to be subsided, so is that approach correct for the postive externalities?

Reply 4

Epiphron

6

Original post by Joey_johnson

I done an economics exam today with AQA exam board, I done the context 2. But for the 25 essay I talked about postive externalities, and everyone else says they spoke about negative externalities. As I mentioned that the Heath care thing that was helping people to stay alive was a merit good, which are underconsumed etc. Which is bad as the government are not funding these schemes, as on the other extract it was talking about cars. So everyone done negative externalities, and the question was asking if government should fund schemes something like that. Is my answer wrong?

Should have done both really. One paragraph for cars or energy or blockbuster & the other for the defibrillators Your analysis on the defibrillator is spot on.

Reply 5

Joey_johnson

OP

Thanks, I would of but I didn't have any time left. After that I only got to mention two policies briefly with the advantage and disadvantages, then conclusion. The timing was so quick, what graph did you do for the 12 marks. For an increase in productivity and specialisation? I done a supply and done curve, with supply shifting to the right. How did you base your anylisis? If you done the same as me that is.

Reply 6

Joey_johnson

OP

Thanks, I would of but I didn't have any time left. After that I only got to mention two policies briefly with the advantage and disadvantages, then conclusion. The timing was so quick, what graph did you do for the 12 marks. For an increase in productivity and specialisation? I done a supply and done curve, with supply shifting to the right. How did you base your anylisis? If you done the same as me that is.

Reply 7

erikawilliams

1

Did anyone do context 1? How did you find it?

Reply 8

john123412

2

If you don't do a conclusion and only use the extract once and how many marks roughly would I lose

Reply 9

User1674917

12

On the multiple choice there was a question regarding capital and there was stocks and shares and savings and a van.
I did a van as capital???

Also context 1 12 marker I did not talk about price mechanism completely messed up just talked briefly about supply and demand what do u think I'll get,

AQA Economics A level 11 May 2015

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you