The Student Room Group

HELP. I think I messed up my A-Level Economics Paper 1 Exam!!! AQA June 2018

I'm really worried. I was supposed to get at the very least an A, but after how that exam went, I feel like I got a D/E - after the exam, I noted what I wrote, but I am not sure how I did. Here's what I wrote:

Can someone let me what kind of grade I should expect for this exam?



BTW I waffled a lot in this paper, and at times due to time pressure I scribbled and just wrote utter rubbish. I really hope somehow I got a least a C. I was supposed to get an A* in this paper. Let’s hope grade boundaries are lower - much lower than last year.



CONTEXT 1:

01) My working out was: 142500:42500

142.5:24.5

3.6:1 (final answer - although I did not state it clearly in the exam))



02.) Used the information from the data to demonstrate how Barclays and (I think) it was HSBC who had lost a significant amount of personal accounts, hence demonstrating weakened market power due to loss of market share

Then used information from the extract to show the rise of small banks such as TSB who had a net positive amount of accounts of personal accounts to explain how this competition undermined the power of the big four (something like this)



03.) I drew a market diagram alongside a theory of the firm diagram to demonstrate that:

Lowering barriers to entry (which I defined) will cause an influx of supplies (it makes the market more contestable)

On the market diagram this causes S1 to shift outwards to S2

The influx of suppliers means the individual firms lose some of their market share, and hence price making ability to influence the market, this causes P1 for the firm to fall to P2 - where P2 was the point of normal profit. (showed this on the diagram but didn't refer to it correctly in my explanation).



04.) It was a bit of waffling but I stated for this:



P1 - by introducing the market to new competitors, the market would be made more contestable. The higher number of competitors will increase dynamic effieicncy of existing firms, and in an attempt to stop new firms taking market share - the incumbent big four will reduce prices - both of which benefit the consumer. I used my own application of McDonalds and fast guys rather than the extract because i wanted to show dynamic efficiency.

Evaluate: I stated there is no point making there market more contestable as there could be high levels of consumer inertia of consumers who are just accustomed to the big four. I also argued due to the big four’s size - they are better able to exploit economies of scale



P2 - I argued that due to the Economies of scale of the big firms, rather than open the market too new competitors, it would be best to regulate the incumbent firms better by mimicking regulation in the water industry i.e. following an RPI+K pricing strategy. This would reduce consumer exploitation and benefit consumers.

EV - something along the lines of regulatory capture I think.



Conclusion: Best to sue a mixture of the two (I did not have time for a third point as by this time, i was 1 hour 10 mins into the exam - I spent 10 mins on the first damn question!)



SECTION 2 - PART 1

09.) Defined Market failure and then argued:

Negative externalities from consumption due to the usage of cars

Negative externalities from Consumption due to the sight and sound of petrol and diesel cars (waffle)

Negative externalities from production due to the factories which emit C02 when making the cars (wtf)

10.) Defined Market filature (I think or some definition and argued)

P1: Regulation is good, due to other attempts to curb air pollution (clean air act for smoking) and so is effective and can generate revenue through fines.

Evaluate: May be hard to measure, and requires a lot of administration from governments.

P2: Talked about property rights (throw away point as it was all waffle). Also drew a diagram to explain how it could reduce the negative externality from production of factories.

Evaluate: Can be hard to assign property rights as well as clamping down on individuals who cause the externalities. In hindsight i did not know pollution permits was a form of property rights - otherwise I would have done a far better paragraph on this.)



P3: Taxation:

Kind of explained how it works (i had ten minutes left in the exam)

It’s benefits in the sense that it provides revenue, is effective and can also be systematically increased (used the application of the gradual expensiveness of the landfill tax).

EV: Hard to measure and government failure if they get the tax rate wrong. Also argued what’s the point if the pollution from other countries interferes, i.e. Trump leaving Kyoto protocol and Paris agreement (i used one of these two).



Conclude - use a mixture of factors - regulation and tax, as the negatives of one will be cancelled by the positives of the other policy (complete scribbling at this point).
Reply 1
Right babe listen!!! That exam went awful for me as well, so awful I didn't finish either 25 marker so no value judgement/conclusion! but you cant dwell on it now, whats done is done, u cant go back and change time at all!!!!!! so just learn from it and move on, don't predict what you think you got etc etc, thats not ur business for the moment, just make sure the same doesnt happen for macro and paper 3, cross that bridge when u get to it!!!!!!!! now just hope for a really nice examiner, good luck in ur exams my lover

-rbunny98
I didn't take economics, but on the assumption you answered all the questions, and by scrolling through it looks like you got most marks so I'd say at least a C is extremely likely.
And don't worry, people only tell you not to waffle because of time and because it's important in English exams. I don't think the examiner will mind if you went a little off topic.
Original post by The1AndOnly1
I'm really worried. I was supposed to get at the very least an A, but after how that exam went, I feel like I got a D/E - after the exam, I noted what I wrote, but I am not sure how I did. Here's what I wrote:

Can someone let me what kind of grade I should expect for this exam?



BTW I waffled a lot in this paper, and at times due to time pressure I scribbled and just wrote utter rubbish. I really hope somehow I got a least a C. I was supposed to get an A* in this paper. Let’s hope grade boundaries are lower - much lower than last year.



CONTEXT 1:

01) My working out was: 142500:42500

142.5:24.5

3.6:1 (final answer - although I did not state it clearly in the exam))



02.) Used the information from the data to demonstrate how Barclays and (I think) it was HSBC who had lost a significant amount of personal accounts, hence demonstrating weakened market power due to loss of market share

Then used information from the extract to show the rise of small banks such as TSB who had a net positive amount of accounts of personal accounts to explain how this competition undermined the power of the big four (something like this)



03.) I drew a market diagram alongside a theory of the firm diagram to demonstrate that:

Lowering barriers to entry (which I defined) will cause an influx of supplies (it makes the market more contestable)

On the market diagram this causes S1 to shift outwards to S2

The influx of suppliers means the individual firms lose some of their market share, and hence price making ability to influence the market, this causes P1 for the firm to fall to P2 - where P2 was the point of normal profit. (showed this on the diagram but didn't refer to it correctly in my explanation).



04.) It was a bit of waffling but I stated for this:



P1 - by introducing the market to new competitors, the market would be made more contestable. The higher number of competitors will increase dynamic effieicncy of existing firms, and in an attempt to stop new firms taking market share - the incumbent big four will reduce prices - both of which benefit the consumer. I used my own application of McDonalds and fast guys rather than the extract because i wanted to show dynamic efficiency.

Evaluate: I stated there is no point making there market more contestable as there could be high levels of consumer inertia of consumers who are just accustomed to the big four. I also argued due to the big four’s size - they are better able to exploit economies of scale



P2 - I argued that due to the Economies of scale of the big firms, rather than open the market too new competitors, it would be best to regulate the incumbent firms better by mimicking regulation in the water industry i.e. following an RPI+K pricing strategy. This would reduce consumer exploitation and benefit consumers.

EV - something along the lines of regulatory capture I think.



Conclusion: Best to sue a mixture of the two (I did not have time for a third point as by this time, i was 1 hour 10 mins into the exam - I spent 10 mins on the first damn question!)



SECTION 2 - PART 1

09.) Defined Market failure and then argued:

Negative externalities from consumption due to the usage of cars

Negative externalities from Consumption due to the sight and sound of petrol and diesel cars (waffle)

Negative externalities from production due to the factories which emit C02 when making the cars (wtf)

10.) Defined Market filature (I think or some definition and argued)

P1: Regulation is good, due to other attempts to curb air pollution (clean air act for smoking) and so is effective and can generate revenue through fines.

Evaluate: May be hard to measure, and requires a lot of administration from governments.

P2: Talked about property rights (throw away point as it was all waffle). Also drew a diagram to explain how it could reduce the negative externality from production of factories.

Evaluate: Can be hard to assign property rights as well as clamping down on individuals who cause the externalities. In hindsight i did not know pollution permits was a form of property rights - otherwise I would have done a far better paragraph on this.)



P3: Taxation:

Kind of explained how it works (i had ten minutes left in the exam)

It’s benefits in the sense that it provides revenue, is effective and can also be systematically increased (used the application of the gradual expensiveness of the landfill tax).

EV: Hard to measure and government failure if they get the tax rate wrong. Also argued what’s the point if the pollution from other countries interferes, i.e. Trump leaving Kyoto protocol and Paris agreement (i used one of these two).



Conclude - use a mixture of factors - regulation and tax, as the negatives of one will be cancelled by the positives of the other policy (complete scribbling at this point).



Hey I literally wrote the same and I’m predicted an A don’t worry the 15 marker I did consumption and production too because i thought firms would produce more cars . You did fine
What did u get then, cuz I'm in the same shoes now???
Reply 5
Original post by Jamiefornagh
What did u get then, cuz I'm in the same shoes now???

same omg stressing
Original post by user93_
same omg stressing

yhyh

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending