Badges: 1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
Is there anyway someone can tell me a good structure for the 25 marker? I normally get 20-23 in the macro, but anywhere from 16-18 in the micro section.

Is there a good structure to follow? Need to get the grade boosted up, but finding it quite difficult.

James E Walker
Badges: 6
Report 5 years ago
(Original post by Indigo.Brownhall)
25 marker:

-2 solid definitions explaining the relevant keywords the question is asking (backed with examples if applicable)

-An introduction to the topic at hand, depending on whether it's macro refer back to macroeconomic objectives

-1st Diagram / Explanation of what's happening (from the text)
-Analysis of first diagram, (Chain Links) words such as 'therefore, in hindsight'
-Evaluation of first diagram, words such as 'although, other factors effect' talk about stakeholder's affected
(Evaluation is where you use your own knowledge to assess the impact of the ongoing of your analysis)

-2nd Diagram / Explanation of what's happening (from the text)
-Analysis of second diagram
-Evaluation of second diagram

-3rd Diagram / Explanation of what's happening (from the text)
-Analysis of second diagram
-Evaluation of second diagram

This is where you weigh up your argument to come to a finalized conclusion; taking into account you're evaluation of the 3 Analysis points you've made. You say what overall effects may occur, the effect on the economy and add relevant concluding factors in regard to the question. Argue different viewpoints and say which you think has the higher weighting.


Example 25 mark structure:

Here's a quick plan for a 25 mark essay structure (microeconomics)

I'll provide you with a basic plan of how I'd probably go about tackling the question.

"Using the data and your economic knowledge, assess the case for
and against government intervention in the markets for food and drink to encourage a healthy diet." (25 marks)

I would define Government intervention (just state their role and the tools they have i.e Fiscal Policies, direct provision, tax rates, information provision)

I'd also define the free market. Operates according to the laws of supply and demand where firms use the signalling/incentive function to price goods and services at the equilibrium price level.

Point 1:
Line 5 states "One option is to tax junk foods". Show this on a graph (supply curve shifts left) or a negative externality graph .
Analysis 1: By taxing junk food > it will increase the production costs of firms who supply junk food > this will lead to a reduction in supply of junk food > this will internalise the externality > prices for consumers would increase > leading to a potential reduction in junk food intake > people may switch to healthier goods
Evaluation 1: As producers may just pass the tax onto consumers, a tax on junk food would be 'regressive' as those with lower incomes have to pay a larger proportion of their earnings. Also there's no garuntee that it will help reduce the consumption of demerit goods, as it depends on the elasticity of junk food.

Point 2: Line 5 also states the government could subsidise healthy food companies. Show this on a graph (Supply curve shifts right)
Analysis 2: Subsidising healthy food companies > results in firms lowering their production costs > may encourage new entrants into healhy food markets > supply curve shifts to the right > results in a lower equilibrium price level > consumers are likely to purchase more healthy produce
Evaluation 2: Subsidising is expensive (especially with the current budget deficit). There's an opportunity cost as governments could spend money elsewhere (schools, NHS). Healthy food firms may not reduce prices and keep the subsidies as a revenue intake. It doesn't have any strong direct effect on the demand for junk food (assuming its inelastic)

Point 3: Without government intervention the free-market will rectify itself in the long-term. (Diagram showing demand decrease).
Analysis 3: As demand for goods are operated by the laws of supply and demand > In the long-term, people may start becoming more aware of the dangers of fast food (as a result of more junk-food related deaths > this will decrease the demand for junk food > also make it more elastic, as people would be willing to substitute junk food for healthier goods > causing a decrease in the consumption of junk food > and a potential increase in consumption of healthier goods
Evaluation 3: This is only a theoretical assumption and its very difficult to calculate the timescale in which this possibility could occur. It's prevalent now that junk food causes problems, yet people choose to ignore the warning signs. The free-market allocation of goods and services fails to take into account negative externalities causing market failure.

Conclusion: (Personally I'd say) Although it is quite clear that liberal economists such as Milton Friendman and Fredrick Hayek found positives to leaving the market by itself. It's clear that the problems associated with having non-healthy diets (such as obesity) are widespread amongst the western world. Consumers fail to take into account the long-term costs of having unhealthy diets, and firms are unwilling to limit their supply, as long as there's demand. I believe leaving the free-market to itself may be detremental in trying to resolve the issues regarding health as there's no clear time-scale of when the free market can rectify itself (or even if it ever will). Whereas government intervention has the potential for a more immediate effect. By taxing fast foods and subsidising healthy food companies, as stated in line 5, may help people consume more healthier goods. Etc.. etc.. you can be creative here and justify which policies work best and why.


Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
to top
My Feed

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.


Has your university communicated any last minute changes?

Yes, and they were what I was expecting (0)
Yes, and they were not what I was hoping for (0)
Yes, and they don't change my view on attending uni (0)
No, I haven't received any communication (1)

Watched Threads

View All