OCR F581 Markets in Action - 11 May 2015

Sorry to re-post but need an answer as worrying...

I wrote the entire essay fine but instead of the subsidy decreasing the Under-Production I talked about how it shifted supply which decreased the Under-Consumption.

Any issues with this??? D:

first of all your choice of wording 'decreased the under consumption' is a bit odd. secondly a subsidy works to increase production and consumption, as price decreases due to subsidy, supply shifts to right, increase supply, lower price = increase demand.

so if thats what your saying you said then it should be fine.

The EE marks vary depending on the mark scheme. It used to be enough to say "this is the most effective policy" to get 2 marks, but they made it stricter that past few years. If you explained it well, you could still get both or at least one of the marks.

I didn't exactly follow the "pros and cons" structure as it is superficial for me. I explained, using a diagram, the effectiveness of subsidies and then how they actually solve the market failure (the last part is considered as part of the advantages for some though).

Two very well explained points is enough to get you the marks. People usually write 3 or more because they're not actually sure what "very well explained" is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

By the way what do you guys think the 18 marker for the macroeconomic exam will be ???

For the public good question I argued that it is not non rivalry and excludable - because of a lack of space for leisure activities as mentioned in the case study- and then I put however in the short term it would be a public good- depends on how much land is used- but in the long run will become a quasi public good.
Does seem okay? I ran out of time for this question

The EE marks vary depending on the mark scheme. It used to be enough to say "this is the most effective policy" to get 2 marks, but they made it stricter that past few years. If you explained it well, you could still get both or at least one of the marks.

I didn't exactly follow the "pros and cons" structure as it is superficial for me. I explained, using a diagram, the effectiveness of subsidies and then how they actually solve the market failure (the last part is considered as part of the advantages for some though).

Two very well explained points is enough to get you the marks. People usually write 3 or more because they're not actually sure what "very well explained" is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Has to be said - many people, myself included, write three or more very well explained points. Just because we write more, doesn't mean we don't explain ourselves well enough

Has to be said - many people, myself included, write three or more very well explained points. Just because we write more, doesn't mean we don't explain ourselves well enough

I did the opposite. First stated that such places are usually public goods, but explained that they can also be private or quasi-public goods as well. Then added the commentary on how the type of good changes in specific cases.

I believe both ways can be correct, seeing as public goods are more so opinion than facts.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You misread my comment - many people think they don't explain themselves correctly or that the examiner won't think they explain correctly. Their explanations can be perfect. It's just the fear.

For the PES comment question- whilst also putting the figures are inelastic-below 1- I also put that demand is increasing and supply is inelastic- for farmer/suppliers to maximise profit they would have to make supply more elastic to benefit from more revenue- does that seem okay?
whilst also putting the common problem of them being estimates, usually based on consumer surveys etc

If you meant it in this way then fair enough, it's just myself and various friends felt as if your comments read like they were somewhat derogatory towards people who included more points as you believed they didn't truly understand what they were saying. I'm sure two would be sufficient, though I've always found it's difficult to explain fully with two points.

If you meant it in this way then fair enough, it's just myself and various friends felt as if your comments read like they were somewhat derogatory towards people who included more points as you believed they didn't truly understand what they were saying. I'm sure two would be sufficient, though I've always found it's difficult to explain fully with two points.

If I didn't do supply shifts for the consumer surplus question, but everything else was right, how many marks do you reckon out of 4?

I just remembered I used the additional pages at the end of the answer booklet to continue writing the 18 marks. but i completely forgot to put the question number in the margin because it was just the next page.

Do you think they won't mark it ? because I saw it said you must write the question number....

It will be marked. When marking we need to go over every page.