Anyone want to give me some tips on how to make sophisticated brief conclusions for the evaluative questions? Particularly the 30 markers as I am usually constrained with time (didn't finish Unit 1 but wrote well enough to steal an A) and tend to want to avoid a conclusion as they aren't marked but are good to have for QWC.
Look a couple of pages back, I posed a list of general evaluation techniques.
I'd recommend evaluating after you make each point. Do it in a separate paragraph. It's easier for you to remember what you're writing about and easier for the examiner to mark.
A question will give you two numbers, one will be the GDP of a certain year, lets call that £10,000,000,000. It will also give you a figure for how much of that was inflation, lets say £150,000,000.
You do the latter number over the former number, so 150,000,000/10,000,000,000, which would give you 0.015 in this case. You then multiply by 100, so you would get 1.5%. This is the level of inflation for the given year.
Look a couple of pages back, I posed a list of general evaluation techniques.
I'd recommend evaluating after you make each point. Do it in a separate paragraph. It's easier for you to remember what you're writing about and easier for the examiner to mark.
I didn't mean evaluating, I'm good at analysis and evaluation. I just meant the little conclusion at the end of answers. The small paragraph at the end of it all that sums it up.
I didn't mean evaluating, I'm good at analysis and evaluation. I just meant the little conclusion at the end of answers. The small paragraph at the end of it all that sums it up.
You don't need a conclusion. Anything worth writing, you should have already written in the analysis/evaluation, so you will just be repeating yourself, wasting your time and lowering QWC.
You don't need a conclusion. Anything worth writing, you should have already written in the analysis/evaluation, so you will just be repeating yourself, wasting your time and lowering QWC.
Ah OK, that's a relief. My school advises adding a conclusion to bring the discussion to an end - apparently, in a rare case, it can add as an emergency evaluation as well if your others go wrong. But yeah, I won't dedicate too much time to adding one, I don't think it's really needed.
Any one done this question, Assess impact of UK government labour market policies on any thee macroeconomic objectives...
This was the 30 marker on my mock exam a few weeks back.
I wrote about economic growth, reducing unemployment and reducing the national debt.
One policy is to improve education and training, so productivity improves and leads to an outward shift in AS. This leads to an increase in GDP (one objective) and a decrease in inflation (another but I didn't write about it). This also satisfies the objective to reduce unemployment, as more people will have skills to be employable, which leads to lower unemployment.
However, initially it is very costly for the government. They will have to either borrow money (increasing national debt, contradicting one objective) or increase taxes. Increasing taxes could put people off working longer hours/more demanding jobs, so the fall in AS could counteract the increase that the training schemes provided.
Furthermore, in the short run the impact will not be noticeable, but in the long run it will, since it takes a long time to train people through education. Additionally, in the long run more people will be employed, thus more people are paying taxes, which means that the government get more money from tax revenue, so the national debt reduces. Similarly, when more are employed, less is spend on benefits, so this further reduces the national debt.
Government could also 'push' people towards working, by reducing the minimum wage and making means tests for IB more strict. This means supply increases as those who were claiming IB are now in work. This satisfies the aims of lower unemployment, and also helps reduce national debt due to the factors mentioned earlier (less spent on IB, more tax revenue).
However, in the short run when people aren't claiming IB they will not be taken into account by the CC, but they will with the ILO. This could skew unemployment data. In the short run, if IB is cut, then AD would decrease as income would be lower for those who previously had it. However in the long run it would increase as these people would find jobs (theoretically). This increase in AD satisfies the objective for economic growth.
Government could also make changes to taxation to improve national debt. This could however put people off working if they are getting taxes more on their income. They would contradict the objective of lowering unemployment. Furthermore, if people decide to claim job-seekers rather than work, government spends more on that, which could increase the national debt and counteract the effect that the taxes initially had.
I also spoke briefly about magnitude to grab an extra mark.
PS: Bloody hope you appreciate this BTW, spent about 20 minutes typing it out!
This may sound stupid but i was just wondering, how exactly do you define macroeconomic objectives? Could you just say objectives that the government wishes to pursue?