Scroll to see replies
Original post by bennedwin
How did everyone find it??
really regret choosing context one, legit spent 5 minutes counting the boxes for 2 marker, and off topic for 25 marker, after writing 2 paragraphs, realized the question asked about promoting competition rather than efficiency
Original post by goldyfish
really regret choosing context one, legit spent 5 minutes counting the boxes for 2 marker, and off topic for 25 marker, after writing 2 paragraphs, realized the question asked about promoting competition rather than efficiency
That’s a shame g
I’m sure you’ll be fine I didn’t think it was too bad tbf
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
Original post by jathurshans
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
Which 9 marker
Have aqa ever reduced the grade boundaries for economics?
Original post by bennedwin
Which 9 marker
the banking sector - context 1
it was like "decreasing barriers to entry," etc
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
Original post by jathurshans
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
Perfectly comeptitve long run or monopolistic long run were fine
Original post by timsfhd1
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
9 marker- That sounds right, i guess i said something similar but instead of saying workers become more skilled i stated that their MRP increases which increases the demand for the workers by the firms as more is earnt with every extra unit of labour.25 marker- i spoke about how without interfering a monoply can be created, and used an example of boeing and airbus plane companies dominating the plane manafacturing industry because they had such large Research and development finance, this could therefore in the long-run lead to consumer exploitation and a reduction in consumer surplus and welfare. I also then stated that it could be effective as governments can subsidies firms to find new technology which in the long run can increase consumer welfare, i used an example of obama subsidising Tesla. But then evaluated by stating that there is an oppurtunity cost and in "a period of austerity" ECONPLUSDAL quotes should the government really be funding subsidies when the money could go elsewhere etc. (NHSor nurse wages ) i could of used a ppf curve here but wasnt confident enough with it. but to conclude i had the same conclusion as you.
Original post by jathurshans
what graph did you draw for the 9 marker?? send me a pic pls
which one u use?
Original post by Jcvjcvjcv
Perfectly comeptitve long run or monopolistic long run were fine
how u know bro?
wrote similar for the essays (pollution) i talked about indirect tax aswell pushing the prices up and leading to a contraction in demand...then i said the demand for cars especially is inelastic (linked that to min price of alcohol in scotland) as they could be regarded as a necessity and as they are a major pollutant (then i made up some bs figure) the demand would not be heavily influences by a tax (can also say that for minimum pricing) i then said tax revenue from these firms would be high due to the increased revenue they earn from the higher price/inelsatic demand therefore the gov could subsidise substitutes without externalities eg electric car leading to fixing the market failure.
yeh I did the same questions to you. I got the same answers pretty much but I Drew a different graph for the new tech increasing wages, I don't know if it was right though. and 25 I wrote same thing however for my evaluation I said that the gov should intervene because the costs are higher than the benefits like unemployment etc is worse for the economy and linked the extract as it said companies need an audience etc to buy their products but if no one has jobs no one has money to buy them so in the ling run its gonna be bad for firms anyway. and I also said that the firms that are that profit maximising and can afford all this machinery that is to a good enough level to replace the labour force it is likely to be a monopoly. idk I evaluated the point of the monopoly argument better in my exam but I don't know if it was even valid :/I chose the pollution area questions as well, for the first one I wrote the same thing and drew the negative externalities in consumption graph. (I think)and then for the 25 marker I ran out of time so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. x
so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. xOriginal post by timsfhd1
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
yeh I did the same questions to you. I got the same answers pretty much but I Drew a different graph for the new tech increasing wages, I don't know if it was right though. and 25 I wrote same thing however for my evaluation I said that the gov should intervene because the costs are higher than the benefits like unemployment etc is worse for the economy and linked the extract as it said companies need an audience etc to buy their products but if no one has jobs no one has money to buy them so in the ling run its gonna be bad for firms anyway. and I also said that the firms that are that profit maximising and can afford all this machinery that is to a good enough level to replace the labour force it is likely to be a monopoly. idk I evaluated the point of the monopoly argument better in my exam but I don't know if it was even valid :/ I chose the pollution area questions as well, for the first one I wrote the same thing and drew the negative externalities in consumption graph. (I think) and then for the 25 marker I ran out of time
so I hardly wrote anything and didnt even draw a graph but yeh I said the same points - I explained indirect taxes what their effect would be evaluated it etc and then I ran out of time but your other points seem like the ones I would have chosen to write. xOriginal post by bennedwin
How did everyone find it??
Can people leave the questions that they remember and the amount of marks awarded please?
Original post by timsfhd1
context 2 was decent
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
im going to place my answers to the questions i rememeber below
i would appreciate if someone who did context 2 to reply and tell me if they got close or similar answers.
how does new tech increase wages?
i wrote how advancements in technology bring in new technology and new machinery into markets. This requires specialised labour to monitor and be able to fix this new tech therfore training will be allocated to the excisting workforce leading to labour being more desireable and firms will be willing to increase wages as the labour will now have skills.
I showed this by a right shift in labour demand causing the price of labour to increase leading to new tech resulting in higher wages.
That may have been confusing but it sounded good when i wrote it in the exam XD
should the gov interviene where new tech enters markets?
no because the market mechasism leads to allocative efficience. intervention can be expensive. governments can fail leading to unintended concequences such as if a tax on robots, less dynamic efficiency
yes because the unemployment it causes. benefits may increase, pressure on public services increases, crime can increase, income inequality may rise
overall i said that they shouldnt interviene as new tech advancements can create new industries and markets so in the long term, jobs may be created however in the short term, governments may have negative impacts fromthe employment fall.
In the 15 + 25 marker section i did the polution area (first questions)
15 marker
how does deisel and petrol cause market failure
basically chain of reasoning for de merit with mab shift being on the left. also because of imperfect information they are overconsumed. blah blah miss allocation of scarce resources blah blah net wellfare gain insnt maximised.
25 marker
is regulation better intervention for polution rather than allocating property rights or taxation.
regulation is better as it puts a cap on polution emmisions but it can be expensive to administer and hard to judge how much firms are polluting. it burdens gov finance therefore a tax may be a better method
a tax will reduce pollution levels as their costs of production will be higher and there is incentive to be more efficient. however if tax is too high, firms may leave the narket/move country leading to gov failure. also hard to set tax rate accuratley.
allocating property rights will internalise any negative impacts on the land/area owned therefore the owner will have incentive to be efficient therefore pollution levels will fall. also they can sue anyone in court where they breach pollution or waste on their property and that revenue can be re invested for efficiency
overall tax will be the best as regulation burdens gov finance and property rights are very hard to allocate correctly and decide who deserves them. allthough a tax may disincentivise high profits and may reduce eco of scale exploitation, the rev gained by the government can be re invested for information failure and more sustainable energy methods such as solar power.
feedback would be highly appreciated . obviously i dont remember everything i wrote word for word but its just a rough idea.
shout out to econ plus dal’s wife
How many marks were awarded for each of these questions?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- AQA A level economics 2023
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- oxfordAQA chemistry papers
- Predictions for AQA A Level Economics paper 1,2,3 2023
- 2022 as level biology. chemistry and economics
- alevel econ resources
- French A-Level Specimen papers are so difficult?
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 1 (7136/1) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-Level Retake Advice
- A-Level Remark Success Stories
- A level exams leaked????
- 5 months till alevel exams can i still get AAA
- Self studying further maths and maybe economics
- A levels
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 4 minutes ago
Is it hard to make friends in college/sixth form?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official Leeds Beckett University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official: University of Glasgow A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 9 minutes ago
How do I get out of a Trio as the third wheel?Last reply 10 minutes ago
amazon apprenticeship Buying and MerchandisingLast reply 12 minutes ago
Official: University of Cardiff A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 13 minutes ago
What med school should I pick? Southampton, Sheffield and Newcastle?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA A Level Economics Paper 1 (7136/1) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 3 (H460/03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC A Level Economics Paper 2 (1520U40-1) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 1 Microeconomics (H460/01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 2 Macroeconomics (H460/02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 3 (H460/03) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
AQA A Level Economics Paper 3 (7136/3) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) Unofficial MarkschemeLast reply 5 months ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 1 Microeconomics (H460/01) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 10 months ago
What was the 25 marker on international competitiveness again?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA A Level Economics Paper 1 (7136/1) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 3 (H460/03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
WJEC A Level Economics Paper 2 (1520U40-1) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 1 Microeconomics (H460/01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 2 Macroeconomics (H460/02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 3 (H460/03) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 4 weeks ago
AQA A Level Economics Paper 3 (7136/3) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 months ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 2 (9ECO 02) Unofficial MarkschemeLast reply 5 months ago
OCR A Level Economics Paper 1 Microeconomics (H460/01) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 10 months ago
What was the 25 marker on international competitiveness again?
