Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hm100)
    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?
    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):

    (Original post by OCR)
    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]
    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:
    (Original post by OCR)
    Question 1: Problems of definition [6 marks: AO1 = 2; AO2 = 2; AO3 = 2]
    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 marks: AO1 = 2; AO3 = 4]
    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 marks: AO1 = 2; AO2 = 2]
    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 = 4; AO2 = 12; AO3 = 8]
    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 Marks: AO2 = 2; AO3 = 2]
    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 = 12; AO3 = 24]
    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

    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michaelyus)
    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.
    Put it in a spoiler! ([ spoiler] [/spoiler]) :mad: :p:

    Seriously though, that's really good advice, OP. I'd recommend Roy van den Brink-Budgen's books too.

    Also, on the multiple choice, circle the right one in your answer book first. You have to mark in pencil on a sheet (I'm sure you'll have seen them before), so try to rub out as little as possible!

    Good luck
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hm100)
    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
    Err...it's three hours

    Two papers, 1hr 15 (Resolution of Dilemmas) 1hr 45 (Critical Reasoning).

    Substantial stuff: You'll need to know about the various ethical standpoints - hedonism, egotism, altruism, utilitarianism..., and also about particular people's ideas (Kant, Bentham, Mill(er?)).

    Good terms: all the fallacies for the second paper. You can use any argument structure, but one they recommended for AS was:

    R1, R2, Ev, IC, R3, Ev, C

    Reasons (R) can be independently or jointly supporting. The others are evidence (Ev), intermediate conclusion (IC) and main conclusion (C).

    How well did you do in the AS? I got As on the two AS papers, an A on the fourth paper and a C on the third (bad marking? Apparently they had some problems), but I still ended up with a high A overall. What I'm trying to say is that the grade boundaries probably won't be as bad as you think, so don't worry too much.

    Hope this helps
 
 
 

University open days

  • Southampton Solent University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Sun, 18 Nov '18
  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Help with your A-levels

All the essentials

The adventure begins mug

Student life: what to expect

What it's really like going to uni

Rosette

Essay expert

Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

Uni match

Uni match

Our tool will help you find the perfect course for you

Study planner

Create a study plan

Get your head around what you need to do and when with the study planner tool.

Study planner

Resources by subject

Everything from mind maps to class notes.

Hands typing

Degrees without fees

Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

A student doing homework

Study tips from A* students

Students who got top grades in their A-levels share their secrets

Study help links and info

Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsRules and posting guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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