Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

[UPDATE: Discussion] AS OCR Critical Thinking Unit 1 January 10 2011 Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So how much (if any) revision have you done for AS OCR Critical Thinking Unit 1 on January 13? I've just been reading through the class handouts and plan to do a few worksheets from my school's VLE, then a few past papers throughout next week (although there are only like 4 of the new spec?).

    What have you done so far? What are you planning to do?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,
    I am going to be taking my Unit 1 Critical Thinking exam in January for the 1st time and I am wondering how should revise for this subject. I have gone through the book and looked at the key terms. However, when doing the paper I have not been getting good marks. Can someone please tell me what I should and how I could possibly aim for the highest marks. Very much appreciated . Wishing you all an early happy new year
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you need to get hold of the mark scheme for the papers that you have done,this will give you an idea of where you can lose or gain points. You could also try and find the exam report for the exam you did . I would also suggest buying or borrowing the ocr critical thinking book , it has exam questions at the back ( i cant remember the title) this was a great help to my daughter. I got the book at waterstones. I hope this helps you, good luck next week.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've been doing the past papers from OCR. On all of them, I can hardly ever get any marks on the final question (usually number 9) on the unit 1 paper (F501).

    It's usually worth around 13-14 marks, and says something along the lines of:
    Referring to the material within the documents come to a judgement as to whether [...] will
    [...] or [...]. You should make a reasoned case with a judgement based on:
    • the relative credibility of both sides. OR an assessment of the quality of evidence on both sides
    • the relative plausibility (likelihood) of both outcomes
    It is especially difficult because they change the question slightly each time. Sometimes the first point is about credibility, sometimes it's about quality of evidence. In the latter case, credibility is only to be mentioned in the plausibility arguments - though in the former case, credibility is not to be mentioned in the plausibility arguments.

    Any help please? The main problem I have with it is creating "strong"* arguments. But a lot of the time I just do the completely wrong thing.

    * = Mark scheme:
    ‘Strong’ means a developed point with justification.
    ‘Weak’ means an assertion without justification.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by U4EA)
    So how much (if any) revision have you done for AS OCR Critical Thinking Unit 1 on January 13?
    I swear it's on the 10th?
    Oh dear... :confused:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^^
    yeh it is
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Exam is tomorrow and I'm still having great trouble with the 13-16 mark question at the end. Please, is there anybody who can offer advice?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkw)
    Exam is tomorrow and I'm still having great trouble with the 13-16 mark question at the end. Please, is there anybody who can offer advice?
    This is what our teacher gave us to answer the last question:

    How to write answer to question 9:

    First part: The relative credibility of both sides

    1) Identify the individuals/groups on one side.
    2) For each individual/group on this side attach relevant quotes which demonstrate their arguments and a credibility criteria (CRAVEN). Explain why.
    3) Identify the individuals/groups on the opposing side.
    4) For each individual/group on this side attach relevant quotes which demonstrate their arguments and a credibility criteria (CRAVEN). Explain why.
    5) Then provide a conclusion saying which side is more credible and include what the strongest side are claiming/promoting.

    Second part: The relative plausibility (likelihood) of both outcomes

    In the documents both sides will make claims about what may/will happen. You have to explain which side's claims are more likely and why.

    1) Explain why one side's claims are unlikely.
    2) Use quotes which sum up these unlikely claims.
    3) Explain why the other side's claims are more likely.
    4) Use quotes which sum up these more likely claims.
    5) Give a conclusion.


    Hope that helps!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by U4EA)
    This is what our teacher gave us to answer the last question:

    How to write answer to question 9:

    First part: The relative credibility of both sides

    1) Identify the individuals/groups on one side.
    2) For each individual/group on this side attach relevant quotes which demonstrate their arguments and a credibility criteria (CRAVEN). Explain why.
    3) Identify the individuals/groups on the opposing side.
    4) For each individual/group on this side attach relevant quotes which demonstrate their arguments and a credibility criteria (CRAVEN). Explain why.
    5) Then provide a conclusion saying which side is more credible and include what the strongest side are claiming/promoting.

    Second part: The relative plausibility (likelihood) of both outcomes

    In the documents both sides will make claims about what may/will happen. You have to explain which side's claims are more likely and why.

    1) Explain why one side's claims are unlikely.
    2) Use quotes which sum up these unlikely claims.
    3) Explain why the other side's claims are more likely.
    4) Use quotes which sum up these more likely claims.
    5) Give a conclusion.


    Hope that helps!
    Thank you, that's very helpful but I have a question:
    One time (June 2009), instead of using "The relative plausibility" and "The relative credibility", they used "The relative plausibility", and "Quality of evidence". On the mark scheme was this note:
    Where candidates assess credibility this can only be used to assess plausibility. Evidence needs to be assessed via such criteria as relevance, significance, representativeness.
    The example answers did not even include anything about credibility (or at least CRAVEN) despite the question being in Section B of F501. Do you know if this version of the question is likely to come up again?

    EDIT: Also, the mark scheme examples usually assess both all individuals/groups on both sides under one credibility criteria (e.g. assess everything using expertise), do your teacher's notes suggest using more than one or have I misinterpreted it?

    mark scheme example example:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The relative credibility of both sides
    eg Relevant expertise

    The side advocating a positive future in that eco-towns will help in tackling
    ‘climate change’ and ’affordable housing’, includes the Housing Minister
    who has access to government expertise to be able to judge this outcome
    in an informed manner. Additionally the TCPA, who advises about eco-town
    ‘sustainability’, has practical expertise through their related research, which
    might accurately inform their prediction of eco-towns as a ‘successful urban
    development’.
    The side that predicts a negative future has more views presented, but less
    expertise, which weakens the credibility of their claims. It includes a
    pressure group, the CPRE which claims the locations are ‘unsuitable’ and
    ‘unsustainable’, but they may have less access to experts to inform this
    judgement. A local resident describes one plan as a ‘horrendous site’.
    However his expertise to make this judgement is not stated. On the other
    hand this side includes the RTPI and the LGA who warn of ‘eco-slums’ and
    ‘soulless suburbia’ if eco-towns are not linked to other developments. This
    might be well judged and credible, as they deal directly in planning matters
    and are likely to have both experience and expertise in this area, although
    possibly not yet with eco-towns.
    Thus although there is expertise on both sides, that of the Housing Minister
    and the advisory body TCPA might be more directly relevant to eco-towns,
    making their claims for a positive future more credible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by finestory)
    I swear it's on the 10th?
    Oh dear... :confused:
    AQA is tomorrow, this thread is for the OCR exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mfc1993DP)
    AQA is tomorrow, this thread is for the OCR exam.
    I'm doing OCR, and mine's tomorrow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Any tips?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OCR is definitely tomorrow too.
    + I haven't done any work for it, maths is much more important :L
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juliewho)
    OCR is definitely tomorrow too.
    + I haven't done any work for it, maths is much more important :L
    Join the club! We were forced to do this stupid subject. Cant risk biology and chemistry for this!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkw)
    I'm doing OCR, and mine's tomorrow.
    oh, i take back what i said lol. I'm doing AQA tomorrow and pressumed that the OP wouldn't have posted this thread before checking the date.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosi M)
    Join the club! We were forced to do this stupid subject. Cant risk biology and chemistry for this!!
    Agh same, as like an additional thing yeah? I have maths Monday morning then Bio and Chem too :/ Critical thinking is literally getting a dinnertime worth of work..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juliewho)
    Agh same, as like an additional thing yeah? I have maths Monday morning then Bio and Chem too :/ Critical thinking is literally getting a dinnertime worth of work..
    Wow all 3 in one day! Im in A2 so we had to do it if we drop an AS!! Im doing a biology resit on tuesday. Have critical tomorrow but my teacher can do one! Yep same here, its getting an hour in the morning only because then im going for a biology revision lesson!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to wing it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My bad, they made a typo on my exam timetable. It is tomorrow, good luck everyone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkw)
    Thank you, that's very helpful but I have a question:
    One time (June 2009), instead of using "The relative plausibility" and "The relative credibility", they used "The relative plausibility", and "Quality of evidence". On the mark scheme was this note:

    The example answers did not even include anything about credibility (or at least CRAVEN) despite the question being in Section B of F501. Do you know if this version of the question is likely to come up again?

    EDIT: Also, the mark scheme examples usually assess both all individuals/groups on both sides under one credibility criteria (e.g. assess everything using expertise), do your teacher's notes suggest using more than one or have I misinterpreted it?

    mark scheme example example:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The relative credibility of both sides
    eg Relevant expertise

    The side advocating a positive future in that eco-towns will help in tackling
    ‘climate change’ and ’affordable housing’, includes the Housing Minister
    who has access to government expertise to be able to judge this outcome
    in an informed manner. Additionally the TCPA, who advises about eco-town
    ‘sustainability’, has practical expertise through their related research, which
    might accurately inform their prediction of eco-towns as a ‘successful urban
    development’.
    The side that predicts a negative future has more views presented, but less
    expertise, which weakens the credibility of their claims. It includes a
    pressure group, the CPRE which claims the locations are ‘unsuitable’ and
    ‘unsustainable’, but they may have less access to experts to inform this
    judgement. A local resident describes one plan as a ‘horrendous site’.
    However his expertise to make this judgement is not stated. On the other
    hand this side includes the RTPI and the LGA who warn of ‘eco-slums’ and
    ‘soulless suburbia’ if eco-towns are not linked to other developments. This
    might be well judged and credible, as they deal directly in planning matters
    and are likely to have both experience and expertise in this area, although
    possibly not yet with eco-towns.
    Thus although there is expertise on both sides, that of the Housing Minister
    and the advisory body TCPA might be more directly relevant to eco-towns,
    making their claims for a positive future more credible.
    I have absolutely no idea my friend, the notes I typed out was all we were given for the last question. You sound more prepared than all of us though!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.