Scribd
Upload
97 views

Global Perspectives Revision Notes

Uploaded by

uzair.ziakhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97 views

Global Perspectives Revision Notes

Uploaded by

uzair.ziakhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Global Perspectives - Written Paper Tips, and Notes

Global Perspectives
Possible Strengths and Weakness, of the evidence:

(How well does X support his view with argument and evidence) (Note: Find reasonable
evidence that you can see a particular strength or weakness in the source):

Strengths Weaknesses

Amount/range of Range of factual evidence is used, and • There is very little clear, specific
Evidence comprises of several different types: statistical/ numerical evidence
statistical and behavioral • The facts are weak as they are based
on statistics/examples which may not
Several different types of evidence are continue
used – opinion, fact, statistics, values • The facts are weak as they are
based on examples which may not
be typical
Relevance of the • the factual evidence is generally • The evidence is not easy to
Evidence relevant; used forcefully in a verify/check from the information
strongly worded argument provided
• research evidence is cited • Too much reliance on anecdotal
evidence/ facts
• Evidence may be out of date
• Examples may not apply to other
places/ countries/cultures etc.
• Personal testimony/anecdote/values
may not apply to other
places/countries etc.
Ambiguity/Clarity • The evidence is related clearly and • Evidence is not cited – the dates
explicitly to the argument and sources are not clear
• method of research is alleged/unclear • Accuracy of the examples is not clear
• Level of expertise of the author is not
clear – may have poor knowledge
claims in practice

• Clearly reasoned, credible and structured evaluation; usually two (or more) developed
points clearly linked to the issue, usually with some other undeveloped points; or a
wide range (three or more) of undeveloped points.

• A convincing overall assessment or conclusion is reached.

1
Testing a claim (Types of Information, Sources, and Methods)
Types of Information Sources Methods

• Compare • National and local governments • Review of secondary


statistics/information on and their departments, reputed sources/
internet usage and privacy – officers from the department literature/research/docum
for individual • International organisations e.g. ents
• Countries and globally; trends United Nations; UNESCO; • Interviews
• Interview or questionnaire data UNICEF; WHO; UNSC etc. • Interview relevant experts
from local people • Experts on the relevant topic • Internet search
• Interview or questionnaire data (Ex. a professor from a • Questionnaires
from professionals in internet relevant department of • Surveys
security – university) • Case studies
e.g. police/security • Research reports • Other relevant response
businesses/ government • Pressure groups, charities and
security non- government organisations
• expert testimony • Media and worldwide web
• material from international
NGOs and pressure groups

• Clearly reasoned, credible and structured explanation of ways to find out if it is


likely to happen. The response is likely to contain two (or more) developed points,
and may contain some undeveloped points.

• The response is clearly and explicitly related to the statement.

Types of Statements:
• Value Judgment: A value judgement is generally defined as a view or belief about what
is important; reference to ethics and morals.

• Prediction: A prediction is a claim about something that is likely to happen in the future.

• Opinion: An opinion is a point of view, belief, judgement or something that


someone thinks but which cannot be verified or proven to be true.; a personal
belief.

• Fact: Something that can be proven, or is already proven.

Whose reasoning works better?

You should aim to give: Clear, credible and well supported points about which reasoning works better.
Coherent, structured evaluation of both arguments with clear comparison. The response is likely to
contain three (or more) developed evaluative points, and may include some undeveloped points

Quality of the argument Quality of the evidence


o clarity o relevance
o tone – emotive; exaggerated; precise o sufficiency – sample
o language o source – media; radio
o balance o date – how recent
o use of arguments/counterarguments o factual, opinion, value, anecdote
o testimony – from experience and expert
Knowledge claims Ability to see
2
Sources of bias Acceptability of their values to others
o gender o how likely other people are to agree with their
o political perspective/view
o personal values
o experience
Likelihood of solutions working and consequences of
their ideas

The last Evaluative 18 marker long-answer question:

• State the decision – why


• Impact of decision on local, national and global scale

• Time consumed to put it to action

• Finances – feasibility

• Comparative analysis of developing and developed nations

• Socio-cultural impacts: the effects of cultural differences and beliefs


• Will it create any ethical/cultural conflicts? If yes, then how will the government be able
to tackle it.
• Other perspectives and rebutting – vested interest/ biases

• reference to scale of impact on individual/group/governmental behaviour/actions

• barriers to change

• the power of collective action


• the difficulties of changing individual behaviour

• the influence of individuals and groups acting locally

• the role of vested interests and power differences

• difficulties in coordinating globally and across different

• countries with independence


• cost and access to resources to implement change

• governmental responses and action

You might also like