Ocr Critical Thinking A2 Level Helppppp.

1. How many papers are there?
2. How long is it?
3. What kind of questions are there?
4. Is there anything substantial i'll need to know?
5. Any good terms i might want to throw in once in a while for a better mark?

1: Refer to Documents 1 and 2. Explain why the term ‘designer baby’ might present problems of definition. [6]
2: Refer to Document 3. Identify and explain three factors that might affect how people view the issue of ‘designer babies’. [6]
3: Refer to Document 4. Explain some of the problems in using the views of church leaders when deciding a policy on ‘designer babies’. [4]
4: From Box 1 select one of the choices given. By referring closely to the criteria in Box 2 and to the documents in the resource booklet, evaluate your choice as a course of action. [24]
5: (a) State and explain one dilemma that arises when making decisions about creating ‘designer babies’. [4]
(b) Write an argument that attempts to resolve the dilemma you have identified. In your argument, you should:
• identify some relevant principles (these may be ethical/moral principles);
• assess the extent to which these principles are helpful in resolving the dilemma;
• use the evidence in the Resource Booklet to support your argument where relevant.
[36]

Total Marks [80]

Question 1: Problems of definition [6]
The candidate is referred to Documents 1 and 2 and asked to explain some problems of
definition that might arise from the term 'designer baby'. Although it might be expected that
candidates will attempt to explain more than one problem, an excellent in-depth treatment of one
problem could be credited with maximum marks.
• 1-2 marks: where up to two relevant problem of definition are identified/explained in only a
very general or vague manner with no clear reference to documents 1 and 2; or some
relevant explanation of one problem that is limited but contains some relevant/specific
reference to the documents/issue or definition.
• 3-4 marks: at least two problems are adequately explained with some clear reference to
the documents/issues raised in using the term ‘designer baby’; or one problem is clearly
explained with some evidence of discrimination used when referring to the documents.
• 5-6 marks: a good treatment of at least two relevant problems with evidence of some
skilful use of the documents; or a very good in-depth treatment of one problem involving
skilful use of the documents and some discussion/indication of the difficulties that a
problem(s) of definition might lead to in terms of decision/policy making.
Relevant problems might arise from issues connected with:
• Ambiguity/conflation in the use of language, expression and meaning: document 1 refers
to 'designer babies' in the same sentence as 'cloning'; does this mean that two similar
processes are being referred to here, or are they meant to be seen as very different?
Such a distinction will have to be made very clear to the public/potential opponents of
'designer babies'.
• Similarly, problems of definition might well arise from the context in which terms are being
used; words/phrases might convey different meanings/messages depending upon
social/political/cultural contexts. 'Religious leaders' are referred to in document 1, as are
politicians. The context in document 1 revolves around a discussion of the potential
medical benefits of 'designer babies'. While document 2 discusses the technological and
ethical 'challenges' involved. Definitions/explanations about what is meant when the term
'designer baby' is used may well be different in these different contexts. In document 2
scientists and ethicists might well mean different things when referring to
issues/possibilities thrown up by what might be loosely referred to as 'designer babies'.
Question 2: Identify and explain three factors [6]
Candidates are referred to Document 3
1 mark: identify a relevant factor;
2 marks: clearly identify and explain a relevant factor.
3x2 = 6 marks.
Relevant factors might include:
• Attitudes as to what constitutes a 'natural' process; doc 3 refers to gene-replacement as
being no less 'natural' than transplantation.
• Economic: the costs to families of 'genetic' diseases: doc 3 refers to the 'financial strain' on
parents of bringing up a child with certain genetic diseases.
• Political/historical: - people might be wary of the power genetic technology might give to 'any government authority' – 'we are made nervous';
- and/or: awareness of the dangers of 'eugenics' as practised by some governments in the first half of the twentieth Century – 'eliminating undesirables'.
• Discrimination: people's views might be affected by fears that those born with disabilities
might be more likely to be discriminated against as being seen as 'genetically inferior'.
• Social/political: the doc refers to 'major social concerns' resulting from breeding 'a race of superhumans' and of a sort of genetic 'lower class'.
Question 3: Using selected views [4]
The candidate is referred to Document 4 and asked to explain some problems in using views of
church leaders when deciding upon a policy about 'designer babies'. Although it might be
expected that the better responses will be those that explain at least two relevant problems
however, a very good in-depth treatment of one problem could gain maximum marks.
• 1-2 marks: where relevant problems are merely identified/explained in a very
generalised/vague manner (with no reference to doc 4, for instance); credit only up to two
such problems identified; or one relevant problem explained with some reference to the
doc/issue under discussion;
• 3-4 marks: problem(s) clearly identified and explained with clear and discriminating
reference to views expressed in doc 4 in relation to deciding upon policies on 'designer
babies'. An adequate treatment of two or more problems should be credited with 4 marks;
a very good treatment of one problem can be credited with 4 marks.
Candidates might be expected to explain/discuss some of the following points:
• The views of church leaders, as is likely to be the case with any head of an
organisation/institution, might well have to be treated with caution as liable to be
partial/one-sided. For instance Butler refers to the 'Christian perspective;
• Such views might prove to be untypical of a largely secular-minded population;
• Religious views as to what constitutes the 'welfare of the child' and on the 'sanctity of life' might be somewhat different from views based upon other factors such as medical, social, economic. The view that the child is 'a gift from God' might make it very difficult to decide upon any form of genetic interference even on humanitarian grounds;
• Butler seems to dismiss parental choice as a factor to be taken into consideration; in a modern democratic society that places strong evidence on freedom of choice any policy which ignores parental choice might be very difficult to impose.

Question 4. 24 marks [AO1]
The candidate is required to select one of the choices provided and to evaluate it – that is, to discuss and come to a judgement on the validity/
relevance/acceptability/effectiveness of this choice using some of the criteria given. There is no requirement that the candidate has use all of the
criteria, though it is expected that an effective response will be one that refers to a number of the criteria provided. The candidate is also required to
refer closely to the documents in the resources booklet; it should be expected that a really effective use of the documents will involve some critical assessment of the evidence provided.
Marking will by levels of response:

L4: 19-24 Sustained treatment of a number of criteria
to the selected choice; criteria clearly and
explicitly applied; explicit reference to
usefulness/relevance/importance of each
criteria as applied to choice
Explicit, appropriate and accurate use of
evidence; material critically assessed in
terms of utility, credibility, authority, and
flaws and assumptions, where appropriate;
it might be expected that at least 3 or 4 of
the documents are referred to
Very effective, accurate and clearly
expressed explanation and reasoning; clear
evidence of structured argument/ discussion,
with conclusions about each criteria reached
and stated in a cogent manner
L3: 13-18 Criteria are clearly applied; assessment/
evaluation/importance of each criteria
referred to is at least strongly implicit.
Application of only one criteria to one
choice
Relevant and appropriate use of evidence
provided; some indications that the
evidence has been approached/used in a
critical sense; generally, at least 2 or three
of the documents referred to
Effective and accurate, and on the whole
clearly organised and expressed
explanation, with some evidence of
structured argument/discussion about the
criteria/choice
L2: 7-12 Criteria applied, though treatment tends to
be lacking in depth overall; some limited
indication of an awareness of relevance
etc, though criteria generally applied with
little or no direct comment as to its
importance/usefulness in helping us to
make decisions
Limited reference to the evidence, which
tends to be used in an uncritical way to
provide a few examples which do not add a
great deal to the application of the criteria
The overall level of communication is more
limited; relevant points may be reasonably
well explained but remain on the whole
unrelated; evidence of coherent and well
organised explanation/argument is patchy
L1: 1-6 Criteria are described/referred to in an
unconvincing way; few, if any, indications
of an attempt to apply the criteria
Little or no use/reference made to the
documents; bits of the evidence might
merely be copied out
Little or no indication of an attempt to
organise information/analysis; answer is
cursory or descriptive showing little
awareness of the demands of the task;
communication overall not fit for complex
purpose

Question 5a. [4]
The candidate needs to identify one dilemma.
• 1 mark: identify an issue/problem connected to the topic but without showing any real
evidence of attempting to frame it as a dilemma; eg students who merely state something
like we should do x or not should be credited with only one mark.
• 2 marks: identify a relevant problem/issue and show some limited awareness of what is
meant by a dilemma;
• 3 marks: clearly identify and explain a relevant dilemma:
• 4 marks: clearly and convincingly identify and explain a relevant dilemma, which involves
a choice between alternatives that will both involve some unfavourable consequences.
Note that such consequences result from having to forego an action from which benefits
might accrue.
Question 5b. 36 Marks: [AO2]
In attempting to resolve the dilemma the candidate is required to:
• Identify some relevant principles, which may be ethical/moral principles;
• Assess the extent to which these principles are helpful in trying to resolve the dilemma;
• Use the evidence in the Resources Booklet to support their argument where relevant.
Marking will be by levels of response
L4:
28-36
A sustained and
very effective
treatment of a
clearly
understood and
relevant
dilemma
A number of
relevant principles
clearly and
accurately
identified and
explained;
principles applied
and discussed in
a critical manner
with clear regard
for their relative
usefulness in
terms of resolving
the dilemma
identified
The evidence
is used to
support
explanation
and argument
where
appropriate
and with
discrimination
in a very
effective and
telling manner
The argument – which is the
attempt to resolve the
dilemma – will be sustained,
coherent and convincing
throughout; some complex
material will be handled
accurately with confidence;
the argument will be very
well constructed, so as to
enable the reader to clearly
identify the reasoning
presented, which should
include many, if not all the
following elements: reasons,
explanations, supporting
evidence, counter-argument,
hypothetical reasoning,
intermediate conclusions and
a clearly stated conclusion
L3:
19-27
Consistent and
effective
treatment of a
relevant
dilemma
Relevant
principles clearly
identified and
explained; how
and to what
extent these
principles can
helpfully be
applied to a
resolution of the
dilemma is
discussed in an
effective manner
Evidence is
used in a
generally
appropriate
manner to
support
explanation
and reasoning;
some indication
of
discrimination
in the use of
the evidence
A relevant argument that is
effective overall in terms of a
clearly identifiable structure;
generally coherent and
convincing, with some clear
indication of an attempt to
reach some sort of a
conclusion of the evidence in
terms of resolving the
dilemma
L2:
10-18
Overall, a patchy
and limited
treatment of a
dilemma that
may well not
have been
sufficiently well
defined and
explained
Some limited
identification of
relevant
principles;
perhaps only one
principle used;
some inaccuracy/
misunderstanding
in the application
of principles;
some limited
assessment/
discussion of the
usefulness of
principles in trying
Some fairly
limited use of
evidence,
generally
presented in an
uncritical
manner
A less well developed
argument, though still with
some indication of structure
and overall relevance in
terms of trying to resolve the
dilemma; intermediate and/or
main conclusions may not be
made readily or clearly
apparent
L1: 1-
9
A weak
treatment in
which the
dilemma is
possibly
undefined
Principles, if
any, are illdefined
and
understood, with
frequent
inaccuracies in
explanation; little
or no
assessment of
how principles
might usefully be
applied
Little or no use
of evidence to
support points
made; sections
of the
documents
might merely be
copied out to no
discernible
purpose
Weakly argued; little
indication of an organised or
coherent argument being put
forward; lacking in
identifiable structure

F493 = Resolution of Dilemmas
F494 = Critical Reasoning (includes Multiple Choice and Written bits)

F493 is like F491 - a bit of evaluating people's opinions on a topic. Here are the questions of June 2007 (the one I did, and got a B on):



Scaled to UMS [120]


The actual thing you need to know is what a dilemma is. You have to same the main good and bad point of each of two positions, that are directly against each other.

Mark scheme for the above:


F494 = almost exactly like F492, but a bit more difficult. It includes Venn diagrams. The analysis is longer, and so is the argument you have to write.

Basically, i have no idea what this exam is about and its in roughly two hours?
Questions:
1. How many papers are there?
2. How long is it?
3. What kind of questions are there?
4. Is there anything substantial i'll need to know?
5. Any good terms i might want to throw in once in a while for a better mark?

Thanks! i know, it sounds like i'm a complete ****, but basically they made us do it, there was a lesson a week, with a crappy teacher and sleeping seemed like a better option