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🏆 How to Write a Level 3 Decision-Making Answer
The extended decision-making question (worth 8–9 marks in OCR B Paper 3) is the most important question in the paper. It is also the question most students do worst on — because they slip back into "summarise the sources" mode instead of actually evaluating and deciding. Here is the structure that consistently earns Level 3.
The question type is: "Using the sources in the resource booklet and your own geographical knowledge, which option do you recommend for [the issue]? Justify your decision."
The Level 3 Structure (6 steps, approximately 350–450 words for a 9-mark answer)
Step 1: State your decision clearly in the first sentence
Do not build up to it. Do not say "having considered all the evidence..." Do not hedge. State it. "I recommend Option A (managed retreat) because it offers the most sustainable long-term solution to coastal erosion in this location." The examiner needs to know immediately what you are arguing. Everything that follows is justification.
Do not build up to it. Do not say "having considered all the evidence..." Do not hedge. State it. "I recommend Option A (managed retreat) because it offers the most sustainable long-term solution to coastal erosion in this location." The examiner needs to know immediately what you are arguing. Everything that follows is justification.
Step 2: Lead with specific evidence from the resource material
Do not make vague claims ("the erosion is getting worse"). Quote or reference specific sources by number: "Source 2 shows that the erosion rate has increased from 1.2m/year in 2010 to 2.1m/year by 2023, suggesting that hard engineering would need to protect against an accelerating problem rather than a stable one." This shows you have used the booklet and that you can interpret data.
Do not make vague claims ("the erosion is getting worse"). Quote or reference specific sources by number: "Source 2 shows that the erosion rate has increased from 1.2m/year in 2010 to 2.1m/year by 2023, suggesting that hard engineering would need to protect against an accelerating problem rather than a stable one." This shows you have used the booklet and that you can interpret data.
Step 3: Apply your own wider geographical knowledge
This is where many students lose marks. You cannot score Level 3 using only the resource booklet. You must bring in geographical knowledge from your course. A case study that shows a similar decision elsewhere. A geographical concept or theory. Evidence from named places. "Evidence from managed retreat schemes elsewhere supports this decision — at Medmerry in West Sussex, a scheme completed in 2013 removed 7km of defences, created 183 hectares of intertidal habitat, and now provides better flood protection to inland properties than the original sea wall."
This is where many students lose marks. You cannot score Level 3 using only the resource booklet. You must bring in geographical knowledge from your course. A case study that shows a similar decision elsewhere. A geographical concept or theory. Evidence from named places. "Evidence from managed retreat schemes elsewhere supports this decision — at Medmerry in West Sussex, a scheme completed in 2013 removed 7km of defences, created 183 hectares of intertidal habitat, and now provides better flood protection to inland properties than the original sea wall."
Step 4: Evaluate the alternative option — do not ignore it
Show you have genuinely weighed Option B. Explain specifically why it is less suitable. "Option B (hard engineering) would cost £4.7 million upfront and requires £200,000/year ongoing maintenance according to Source 4 — a total 50-year cost approaching £15 million. More significantly, the sea wall would interrupt the sediment cell, accelerating beach erosion to the south and ultimately leaving the shoreline in a worse condition than managed retreat."
Show you have genuinely weighed Option B. Explain specifically why it is less suitable. "Option B (hard engineering) would cost £4.7 million upfront and requires £200,000/year ongoing maintenance according to Source 4 — a total 50-year cost approaching £15 million. More significantly, the sea wall would interrupt the sediment cell, accelerating beach erosion to the south and ultimately leaving the shoreline in a worse condition than managed retreat."
Step 5: Address a stakeholder whose interests conflict with your recommendation
This is the mark of a sophisticated answer. Acknowledge that your recommendation creates winners and losers. "The main counterargument comes from the 12 cliff-top homeowners, who face the genuine prospect of losing properties worth £300,000–£800,000. Their concerns are understandable, and any managed retreat scheme must include fair compensation. However, the cost of protecting 12 properties through hard engineering — to be borne by all council taxpayers — cannot be justified when the long-term outcome is still likely to be erosion of those properties once the sea wall is overwhelmed."
This is the mark of a sophisticated answer. Acknowledge that your recommendation creates winners and losers. "The main counterargument comes from the 12 cliff-top homeowners, who face the genuine prospect of losing properties worth £300,000–£800,000. Their concerns are understandable, and any managed retreat scheme must include fair compensation. However, the cost of protecting 12 properties through hard engineering — to be borne by all council taxpayers — cannot be justified when the long-term outcome is still likely to be erosion of those properties once the sea wall is overwhelmed."
Step 6: Reach a clear justified conclusion that outweighs the counter-argument
Bring it to a close with a decisive statement that explicitly outweighs the objection you have just acknowledged. "Therefore, despite the short-term disruption and financial hardship to affected homeowners, Option A is the correct long-term decision: it is more cost-effective over a 50-year timescale, it creates environmental value, and it works with natural coastal processes rather than against them — making it the only genuinely sustainable solution." Do not introduce new information here. Resolve.
Bring it to a close with a decisive statement that explicitly outweighs the objection you have just acknowledged. "Therefore, despite the short-term disruption and financial hardship to affected homeowners, Option A is the correct long-term decision: it is more cost-effective over a 50-year timescale, it creates environmental value, and it works with natural coastal processes rather than against them — making it the only genuinely sustainable solution." Do not introduce new information here. Resolve.
Make this stick
Signing in gives access to all PrepWise features.