GENERAL PAPER

Paper 8004/01
Paper 1


General comments

This report for 2008 has many similarities with last years report. Examiners awarded the customary wide
range of marks. As was the case last year, certain centres have made substantial progress which is very
encouraging. It is noticeable that these centres have paid close attention to the recommendations in
previous reports and their candidates have clearly benefited from this approach. On the other hand, there
are still many scripts where the candidates English is seriously flawed. These scripts contain many basic
errors of the same sort listed in the common errors section of the previous report. Misinterpretations of the
question were relatively rare this year although a minority of candidates did stray from the question into
unnecessary digression. Candidates are reminded to note the key words in the question and to pay due
attention to them in their responses. In some cases not enough attention is paid to the wording of the
question and it is not uncommon to find words wrongly spelled in essays which appear in the title of the
question.

Candidates who were rewarded with high marks fulfilled the requirements of the question. They wrote in
clear and sometimes ambitious English and made few errors. Their essays were well structured and points
were well developed with appropriate examples and illustration. Candidates who held very strong views on
certain topics did acknowledge that there were counter-arguments and, in the better essays, showed why
they chose to dismiss them. Their rough work, duly crossed out before embarking on their essays, revealed
how they developed their essays logically and systematically from diagrammatic essay plans. This is good
practice and an infinitely better approach than actually writing several paragraphs, only to cross them out and
start the essay anew.

Competent answers were awarded mid-range marks. They were usually not as detailed as the best essays
but did contain relevant material with main points being satisfactorily developed. Sometimes the balance in
length between introduction, main body of the essay and conclusion was not ideal. The main problem
tended to be an overlong introduction before the main points of the essay were tackled. On occasion,
conclusions were too brief and failed to refocus the readers attention on the real substance of the essay.
Candidates showed a reasonable working knowledge of English. Examiners had no difficulties following the
discussion but some candidates tended to make a sprinkling of careless and avoidable mistakes.

Weaker answers often suffered from digression and were not consistently relevant. A small minority were
totally irrelevant. Some were very brief and therefore contained little of real substance. Poor standards of
English, as mentioned above, often impeded meaning. In some cases, candidates did not have sufficient
ability to express themselves clearly in English although it was quite evident that they had relevant
comments to make on the content of the question.

Examiners noted very few rubric infringements this year. However, last years comments about having
margins on both sides of the paper and about the sometimes excessive waste of paper by using answer
booklets with more than six pages remain valid. Similarly, for the sake of security, it is not good practice to
permit candidates to provide their own paper for use in the examination.

Use of time

The vast majority of candidates seemed to have no problems writing two essays within the given time frame.
It was noticeable that more candidates are leaving themselves ample time to check their work for careless
and mechanical errors. These candidates saved themselves an appreciable number of marks. However,
there are still too many instances of candidates writing at some length and then crossing it all out to start the
question all over again or even, to tackle a different question. This is obviously poor practice which leaves
little or no time for a comprehensive check near the end of the examination.


8004 General Paper June 2008
1 UCLES 2008
Use of English

Examiners had few problems understanding what candidates were stating in their essays. This year it was
pleasing to note that the number of essays written in very good English has increased. Such essays
revealed a good command of grammar, vocabulary and idiom and contained very few errors. The tone was
appropriate to the subject matter. However, as already mentioned, a minority of candidates were
handicapped by their very weak English.

Errors which occur regularly year after year include:

1 incorrect joining up of words e.g. alot, infact, donot, aswell, eventhough, atleast, afterall
2 incorrect separation of words e.g. now a days, some body, no where, more over
3 confusion between everyday and every day, to/too, here/hear there/their
4 incorrect use of the apostrophe e.g. its not true, pollution is spoiling its beauty,
5 frequent misspelling of opportunity and government
6 incorrect comparative forms such as more easier/richer/older
7 confusion between affect/effect, amount/number, economic/economical and lose/loose
8 frequent and unnecessary overuse of etc.
9 repeated problems with the use of definite and indefinite articles
10 misuse/omission of commas leading to loss of meaning and disruption of flow

Errors occurring frequently this year include:

frequent misspelling of steroids, cigarettes and habit
confusion between weather/whether, your/youre
misunderstanding of chain smoker often used for heavy smoker
omission of plural form after one of. e.g. one of the most difficult/significant problem/thing
misuse of vanish as a transitive verb e.g. the government can vanish this problem.


Candidates need to focus consistently on the errors which have occurred regularly over years. They are
avoidable if a real effort is made to take due notice of them. Candidates can ill afford to squander marks
unnecessarily. However, the work seen from an increasing number of Centres indicates that steps are being
taken to avoid these common errors and that the checking of work at the end of the examination is beginning
to eliminate careless slips.


Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

This question was reasonably popular. Weaker answers focused too much on drug taking in general and
offered little or, occasionally, no illustration. Better answers welcomed bans for the cheats in various sports.
The question of winning at all costs was often justifiably linked to material and financial gain which was
considered to be a far cry from the original Olympic ideal. It was felt that not only had the reputation of
various sports been severely dented, notably cycling, athletics and baseball, but also that the honour of the
home country of these cheats had been sullied. However, the number of spectators at sporting events or
following them on TV does not seem to have gone down.

Question 2

This was also a reasonably popular question. Responses were quite varied according to prevailing
circumstances in the respective countries. In developing countries there was much talk of corruption where
wealthy and influential parents are able to bribe officials to release their wayward children from custody with
charges being dropped. This was seen in contrast to the fate of impoverished young offenders who were
committed to overcrowded jails for minor offences. Essays from developed countries expressed criticism of
lenient punishment even for more serious crimes. It was generally considered, albeit for different reasons,
that not enough was being done to help young offenders see the error of their ways and to provide
rehabilitation programmes.

8004 General Paper June 2008
2 UCLES 2008
Question 3

This question triggered a fair number of responses. Poorer answers were not very clear about the meaning
of oppressed which was sometimes confused with depressed. However, most candidates were able to
give examples from various countries where violence was able to depose corrupt regimes. By contrast,
examples were also given where passive resistance, civil disobedience and negotiation were able to achieve
positive results. Most candidates were only prepared to condone violence, whether in the family, in the
community, nationally or internationally, when all other options had failed.

Question 4

Quite a popular question. Weaker candidates had plenty of ideas about possible steps governments could
take to close the gap between rich and poor but failed to identify the source and amount of the necessary
funding or to stress the role of individual effort. Better answers explored the allocations in the national
budgets of the respective countries and were able to discuss sensibly where reallocated funds could be used
to provide good quality education, skills training and related benefits. The very best responses also pointed
out how certain jobs could be made accessible to handicapped applicants and that success in closing the
gap could only be achieved by the joint efforts of government and individual citizens.

Question 5

Slightly more popular than Questions 1 and 2. Most candidates answered this question within the
framework of globalisation. Weaker answers dealt simply with volatile land boundaries (often misspelled as
boundries although appearing in the essay title), for example, Mexico/USA and Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Some listed the pros and cons of globalisation without linking it closely to the set question. High scoring
answers took a much broader view to demonstrate diminishing geographical/ethnic/religious/ language and
cultural barriers. The role of the Internet in helping to establish a global village was also discussed as was
the predominance of the English language.

Question 6

Not a universally popular question. More able candidates stressed the perpetual human thirst for knowledge,
for securing untapped resources and for finding other planets to colonise. They knew the size of NASAs
budget and how it compared to other major budget items. This enabled them to make a judgement on the
cost within an appropriate context. They were also aware of the spin-offs from space research in the fields of
medicine, communications and technology. Weaker candidates tended to be assertive, did not know the
cost of space research but assumed that it would go a long way to solving many of our global problems,
instead of being wasted on space research.

Question 7

Another less popular question and often not well answered. Specific examples of private sponsorship were
rare as were references to malpractice such as the side effects of concealing information about the possible
side effects of new drugs. A handful of better answers did illustrate how some companies, without a
research department of their own, commission university departments to conduct their research for them.
They also pointed out that government funds for research are not infinite and that the processes involved in
applying for funds can be lengthy and tedious.

Question 8

This was quite a popular topic. Candidates were generally able to present convincing arguments for and
against tourism. However, in many cases the element for the sake of our planet was underplayed or even
completely ignored. Some candidates who discussed the impact of environmental degradation of various
kinds tended to focus on local and regional effects rather than global. Pollution as a result of emissions from
different forms of transport to and from tourist destinations was often overlooked. Better answers did show
how some of the pollution caused by tourism could be reduced by more effective controls and better
management.

8004 General Paper June 2008
3 UCLES 2008
Question 9

This question attracted fewer answers than expected. Better answers did point out that there is already
sufficient food available to feed the whole world but that availability is seriously impeded by politics and
logistics. The recent trend to use land for bio fuels rather than food was also rightly identified as a
considerable worry. These answers were also impressively knowledgeable about the benefits and potential
demerits of GM foods. Weaker responses rejected GM food completely, describing it as Frankenstein
fodder without supplying any evidence to support this view and, in a few cases, claiming it had been
responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide.

Question 10

The most popular topic which was quite well handled overall. Weaker answers realised the dangers of
smoking relating to health, addiction and expense but, in supporting a total ban, overlooked the practical
difficulties of enforcement and the potential fiscal, economic and social consequences for individuals and the
state coffers. More able candidates, whilst supporting the notion of a total ban, pointed to the failure of
prohibition some 80 years ago in the United States and therefore questioned the viability of a total ban. They
advocated a ban on smoking in public places, as is already in force in an increasing number of countries, to
counteract the risks of passive smoking. This measure, linked to higher taxation on tobacco, increased
public awareness campaigns and heavy fines for supplying cigarettes to minors was seen as a credible
package to restrict smoking.

Question 11

Relatively few candidates chose this question. in the twentieth century was ignored by some candidates
who wrote a general appreciation of art forms covering a period much longer than the twentieth century.
Several engaging and interesting essays were seen which dealt in some detail with such musical styles as
Rock and Roll and Rhythm and Blues.

Question 12

A moderately popular question which was often answered quite well. Credible reasons were given for the
appeal or rejection of graffiti by the general public and typical segments of society for and against this art
form were identified. More able candidates could name famous exponents of the art and discuss particular
aesthetic styles. The abuse of the art form by, for example, exposing the young and innocent to bad or
profane language was condemned. The issue of spraying paint over private property was also fully
discussed.

Question 13

This was a reasonably popular question. Reference to specific written sources was often limited and even
non-existent in some cases. Some candidates dealt exclusively with the value of historic study. Others
showed considerable competence in assessing the value of gaining insight into different cultures. The best
responses demonstrated the universal aspects of the human experience in literary works.

Question 14

This question attracted quite a number of responses. The general opinion seemed to be that good books
are rarely turned into good films. Credible reasons were offered about the failure of the Harry Potter films to
live up to the standard of the books. In contrast however, the filming of The Lord of the Rings was acclaimed
as being on a par with the books. Good general points were recorded about the difficulties involved in
adapting films to meet the expectations of avid book readers given the differing criteria usually employed in
evaluating books compared with films.

Question 15

Not a very popular question, often tackled by candidates with limited personal knowledge and experience of
museums and art galleries. The element in your society was overlooked in some instances. Most answers
were generalised and focused on the preservation of culture, the widening of education and on providing an
attraction for tourists. Very few responses recalled personal visits to museums and or art galleries and
little/no information was given regarding specific museums and their contents.
8004 General Paper June 2008
4 UCLES 2008