Test yourself on Issue Evaluation with exam style questions, marked instantly.
Flashcards that come back just before you would forget them.
A revision plan that remembers what you know and shows what to do next.
See which topics you have nailed and which need another look.
Quiz yourself on Issue EvaluationGet your flashcardsBuild my revision planTrack my progress💡 Exam Tips for Issue Evaluation
🎯 How to Use Your 12 Weeks Effectively:
- Read the booklet in full twice in the first week. On the first read, do not make notes — just understand the issue. On the second read, annotate with source numbers, stakeholders, and key statistics.
- Build a stakeholder table (like the one above) for all stakeholders in your specific issue. Colour-code by position (FOR Option A / FOR Option B / UNCERTAIN).
- Identify 2–3 case studies from your course that are relevant to the issue. Practise writing one paragraph linking each case study to your specific pre-release issue.
- Do NOT try to identify "the correct answer" — spend your preparation time understanding the evidence and the trade-offs, not deciding in advance.
- Write at least one practice extended answer under timed conditions (approximately 20 minutes) using the Level 3 structure.
📝 How to Reference Sources in the Exam:
- Always cite sources by number: "Source 2 shows...", "According to Source 4..." — not "the graph shows" or "the map shows."
- When citing statistics, be specific: "Source 2 shows an erosion rate of 2.1m/year" rather than "Source 2 shows a high erosion rate."
- After citing a source, always add your interpretation: what does this statistic mean for the decision? Do not just describe — evaluate.
- If a source has limitations you have identified, acknowledge them: "Source 3, while useful for showing current conditions, was produced by the development company and may underestimate environmental impacts."
⚠️ Common Mistakes to Avoid:
- Summarising sources without evaluating them — every source citation must be followed by "this shows/suggests/implies [your interpretation]".
- Ignoring one option entirely — you must show you have engaged with all options to reach Level 3.
- Making a recommendation without a clear reason that outweighs the alternative — "Option A is better because it helps the environment" is not an outweighing argument; "Option A is better because the habitat it creates provides long-term flood protection at zero maintenance cost, unlike Option B's £200,000/year sea wall maintenance" is.
- Forgetting to use own geographical knowledge — this is required for Level 3 and the most commonly missed element.
- Hedging at the end — "it is difficult to say which option is better because they both have advantages and disadvantages" will cost you marks on the extended question. Commit to a decision.
- Writing "Option A is good and Option B is bad" — real Level 3 answers acknowledge that Option B has genuine advantages, then explain specifically why those advantages are outweighed.
🕐 Timing in the Exam:
- In OCR B Paper 3, allocate approximately 20 minutes to the extended decision-making question (8–9 marks). This is a higher mark-per-minute ratio than any other question in the paper.
- Spend 2 minutes planning your answer before you write: which option are you recommending? Which 2–3 sources will you cite? Which case study or own knowledge will you use? Which stakeholder conflict will you address?
- Aim for 350–450 words for the extended answer. Shorter than 300 words almost always means you have not addressed all Level 3 criteria.
Quick Check — Mini Practice Decision: Using ONLY the information in this topic and the coastal example (Option A: managed retreat vs Option B: hard engineering), write the opening THREE sentences of a Level 3 decision-making answer. Your opening must: state your recommendation clearly; cite one specific statistic; use a piece of own geographical knowledge.
Model Level 3 opening: "I recommend Option A (managed retreat) as the most sustainable long-term response to coastal erosion in this location. The erosion rate has increased from 1.2m/year in 2010 to 2.1m/year by 2023 (Source 2), indicating that hard engineering would face escalating pressure rather than a stable problem — and based on IPCC sea level rise projections, Option B would require continuous expensive upgrades throughout the 21st century. Evidence from the Medmerry managed retreat scheme in West Sussex (completed 2013) demonstrates that this approach can create 183 hectares of intertidal habitat while simultaneously providing better long-term flood protection to inland properties than the sea wall it replaced, suggesting that Option A would generate both environmental and flood-risk benefits over time." Notice what this opening does: (1) states the recommendation immediately ("I recommend Option A"); (2) cites specific statistics from the source material ("1.2m/year... 2.1m/year"); (3) interprets the statistics (not just describes them — "indicating that hard engineering would face escalating pressure"); (4) uses own geographical knowledge (IPCC sea level rise projections + Medmerry case study); (5) links the own knowledge back to the specific issue at hand. All three sentences serve the argument — none is wasted on description or summary.
Make this stick
Signing in gives access to all PrepWise features.