Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level

8021 English General Paper March 2023

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

ENGLISH GENERAL PAPER

Paper 8021/12
Essay

Key messages

• Keep introductions short and focused on the question

• Use examples to support points being made
• Ensure the essay has a conclusion which steps back and forms a final judgement on the topic
• Write using an appropriate formal academic register, avoiding contractions such as ‘don’t’ and ‘it’s’
• Proofread the essay at the end to correct errors
• Write in a sustained formal register

General comments

Candidates clearly engaged with the questions and were able to develop essays of an appropriate length.
There were very few short responses and every candidate had made an attempt at answering the question.
Some responses did not fully grasp the meaning of the question and wrote generally on the topic, meaning
the arguments were only partially relevant and focused.

A good number of responses were written in an appropriate formal style and had a range of vocabulary,
including some appropriately used advanced terminology. Register was often inappropriate: with informal
direct address such as ‘You guessed it’, ‘you see’ and overuse of the verb ‘to get’. Phrases such as a ‘lot of’,
‘lots of’, ‘alot of’; paragraphs opening with ‘Let’s start with’, ‘Moving on’, ‘To close out’; ‘gonna’ and ‘etc’
indicated a lack of development and thought. There were several essays written with many errors of all kinds
which were difficult to follow, such as the haphazard use of capital letters and ‘like’ being used
conversationally instead of ‘as’. There was evidence of the overuse of metaphors and attempts to employ
more complex phrases and vocabulary which sometimes was unsuccessful and led to misunderstanding or
an unclear meaning. However, when in control, candidates displayed a lively, original and confident use of
language and expression that warranted high marks.

Most essays were comfortably placed in L3. Whilst there were many errors noted of various kinds this did not
prevent the general meaning being lost. Hence, the expressions ‘some control’ and ‘everyday vocabulary’
were entirely apt for many essays. When sentences were overlong, and lacking the divisions needed for an
effective sequence of points, the assessment began to drift towards L2. Scripts in this level lacked control
and invariably needed careful reading or complete re-reading to interpret the candidate’s intentions.

Many candidates wrote a balanced argument, exploring both sides before reaching a suitable conclusion.
Several responses were filled with assertions such as ‘All people spend the whole day glued to their
screens.’ This is not true and it is advisable for candidates to avoid using assertions by using words such as
‘many people’ or ‘might’. Essays were often well structured, with a clear introduction, several paragraphs of
development with examples and a clear conclusion. A large number of candidates spent too longer than
necessary on the introduction, defining what the topic is about, listing the areas that will be covered and
offering a general view on the topics. It would be better to make the introduction focused on the question, but
relatively short so as not to repeat material or examples that will be used later on. There were a number of
essays with very brief conclusions that did little more than repeat a point or two from the main part of the
essay. More successful conclusions offered an evaluative assessment by stepping back from the material
and commenting on the key arguments, giving their own independent views.

There was evidence of candidates introducing material in their analysis that was linked to the theme but not
necessarily clearly focused on the topic. For example, there were many long explanations of global warming
as being an element of overpopulation in response to Question 1. Many points raised lacked support and
therefore remained in L3. It is important to have a clear path from the introduction of an idea, through
development and discussion, with some consideration of options and perspectives, concluding with a

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

viewpoint. Candidates seemed to want to give the ideal, or personal view and seemed reluctant to examine
opposing sides to produce a more balanced and fair assessment of a case. Conclusions were mostly fair and
logical when they emerged. Most candidates seemed more intent on providing descriptions of as many
aspects of the question as possible rather than making a closer example of key points and components of
arguments.

Examples were used in many essays to support the main points being made. Some essays had very general
examples or anecdotal ones, which were less convincing. The most successful responses explored a range
of valid and specific examples which allowed a convincing argument to develop. Weaker essays, instead of
integrating an example within their argument, would write ‘Let’s start with an example’ or not give any
specific examples by writing ‘the list of examples could simply go on and on’. A strong response to Question
7 wrote: ‘With the introduction of emojis, gifs, stickers, text is being rendered insignificant’. The essay then
went on to illustrate what these are. There was clear evidence that candidates are selecting appropriate
information to support their case. Examples were generally ‘applied’ and used ‘to support the main ideas and
opinions.’ However, there was a tendency to include examples in a detached way rather than using them as
an integral part of the argument. The listing of examples was common and sometimes deflected the direction
of the essay by imagining that the addition of names and protracted descriptions of achievements would
carry weight and worth. The strategic employment of examples and information is key to the unlocking of
levels 4 and 5 and when this was achieved the essay gained strength and stature.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1

Discuss the ways that overpopulation is the most serious threat to the world today.

An important aspect of this question was the focus on ‘the ways’ overpopulation is a serious threat to the world
today or not. Some candidates misread the question and spent too long considering other areas that are
serious threats to the world. Some consideration of this is acceptable but should not form the majority of the
response. Stronger responses explored how overpopulation has caused many problems for the world: the
impact on resources including food, water and fuel; competition for jobs and a good education; the issues
caused by an ageing population; the need for shelter and the destruction of large areas of land to enable this.
There was also exploration about how overpopulation can benefit the world in that more people means more
great minds and ideas and therefore more ingenious solutions to problems. Some of the more evaluative
essays stepped back and considered the importance of family planning and other policies in controlling future
population growth. For example, one essay stated that ‘the myth that a large family ensures economic
prosperity is widely held In India, especially in the rural areas’. Some candidates challenged ‘one child’
policies on ethical and emotional grounds.

Question 2

The only way to achieve equality in society is for the rich to pay more tax. Discuss.

A large number of candidates chose to spend a large amount of the first part of the essay defining the
various types on taxation systems such as directive and regressive taxation. This was helpful but was not
directly answering the question and less time should have been spent on this. Candidates would have been
better to immediately focus their arguments on whether the rich paying more tax was the only way to achieve
equality. More successful responses considered whether it was a good idea for the rich to pay more taxes to
achieve equality and many good lines of argument were explored including whether it was disincentivising
people from working or persuading the rich to find tax avoidance measures. Wider ranging essays explored
other possible effective ways of achieving equality in society, including areas such as race, gender and
sexuality.

Question 3

It can never be justified to prevent a person from receiving an education. Discuss.

Candidates often wrote passionately about why no one should be denied an education. Some explored what
reasons were given to deny people the right education, whether that be for religious reasons or because of
gender-related issues and then explored why these were unacceptable approaches. A few essays remarked
that it is never justifiable but sometimes understandable that people are prevented from having an education.
‘Some countries simply cannot afford to finance educational opportunities’ wrote one candidate who went on

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

to say that ‘some countries struggle to provide food for their people and that is a more pressing need than
education’. So, not only evaluative but also well expressed. A broader range of examples would have made
responses more enlightening.

Question 4

There is no longer any justification for humans to eat meat. Discuss.

There were a good number of thoughtful responses to this question where candidates explored both sides of
the argument: the benefits to health of eating a balanced diet, including meat, to those who assessed
whether meat was necessary when so many viable alternatives are now available. There were some very
knowledgeable candidates who had a clear grasp of the issues. Less successful arguments were too narrow
in focus and a little too assertive, dismissing either those who eat meat as murderers or those who refuse to
eat meat as overly sensitive, denying their bodies crucial nutrients. Several candidates referred to the
environmentally negative consequences of intensive farming. One candidate wrote ‘that while eating meat
might have been necessary in the past, today with new technology and food science we can achieve
environmental balance and avoid cruelty to other species’. This is a cogent and evaluative point. Weaker
arguments assumed that ‘people are forcing all the non-vegetarians to turn into vegetarians’. There were
some unconvincing answers about plants and their capacity to feel pain.

Question 5

Not enough is being done to prevent the loss of life caused by natural disasters. Examine this
statement.

There were a few mostly well-informed responses to this question based largely on recent cataclysmic
events. The work of international organisations was often recognised and praised. One candidate wrote that
less economically developed countries ‘cannot afford the preventative measures that the U.S.A. and Japan
take to reduce the deaths and destruction caused by earthquakes’. This has an evaluative tone and a
balanced approach. Some candidates distorted their answer to this question by simply blaming capitalism
and greed for the lack of successful measures. A small number of essays did not distinguish between natural
disasters and those caused by humans such as war and its consequences. Several candidates spent longer
than necessary listing natural disasters and saying what we could do to ensure a greater survival rate. Better
responses focused on pre-emptive measures that could be adopted: systems for detection of disasters such
as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Good responses often evaluated that these were acts of
nature and it was not always possible to prepare for every eventuality.

Question 6

Modern technology has done little to prevent crime. Discuss.

Many responses referred to CCTV, IT, profiling, data bases, facial recognition technology, tagging, DNA
analysis and various security systems. There were some well-informed arguments. Several were adept at
pointing out that technology gives rise to crime and helps it in the various forms of cybercrime such as
hacking, trolling and the dissemination of pornography. Some arguments referred to military technology as
criminal but did not achieve nuance in their answers except for one who wrote that the use of such
technology ‘can amount to crimes against humanity’. Exploratory answers that step back and evaluate the
issues in a balanced way are to be encouraged. Some candidates chose simply to describe the methods of
crime detection rather than evaluate their effectiveness. Crime prevention was sometimes discussed in
social terms rather than considering the first part of the question (modern technology). The best responses
considered types of crime and the application of different technological solutions with some evidence of
examining and evaluating outcomes. The inclusion of success criteria was a high-level approach.

Question 7

The increasing use of social media is damaging people’s communication skills. Discuss.

Many essays interpreted the question as being ‘The increasing use of social media is damaging people’ with
insufficient focus on communication skills. Weaker responses provided little more than a critique of the
different sources of social media available to young people. The broader aspects of social media in assisting
emergency services, governments, and the full age range profile was often overlooked. When
communication skills were examined and outlined there was as good range of reference evident including
shortened words, abbreviations, and the use of icons that have emerged within the social media community.

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

This added strength to arguments if developed and explained in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages. As with most questions that have any flavour of the internet and social media, so many
responses were narrow and personal, revealing a lack of breadth in experience of consideration of
communication and its demise. The best responses focused on the key word ‘communication’ referring to it
throughout. Some arguments recognised that social media has promoted skills and jobs and is not just a
negative factor. One candidate wrote that ‘young entrepreneurs have harnessed social media to make
money and provide enjoyment to millions’ which is thoughtful and evaluative. Unfortunately, too many
candidates, anticipating what they thought adults or examiners wanted to see, wrote very assertive
responses best illustrated by a response which stated without any qualification ‘children in today’s world are
lethargic, anti-social and are glued to electronic gadgets rather than spending time outdoors’. ‘All children’ is
too assertive and it would have been better to write ‘many’.

Question 8

Nature is always presented positively in books, paintings and music. To what extent do you agree?

Most answers to this question included examples, although there were some essays that indulged in poetic
expression for expression’s sake. There were references to Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice, the use of
pathetic fallacy, Van Gogh, Bruce Springsteen and Michael Jackson and ‘The Jungle Book’. Very few noticed
the phrase in the question ‘always presented positively’. This meant that the darker, more ominous side to
Nature was rarely examined, although there was occasional effective reference to works such as Melville’s
‘Moby Dick’ and Vivaldi’s ‘The Four Seasons’. Most essays considered each of the art forms separately and
wrestled with the meaning of the question with some not being sure what was meant by ‘presented.’ Those
that focused on the word ‘always’ in the question were more likely to be balanced and evaluative.

Question 9

To what extent are traditional arts and crafts a vital part of your country’s heritage?

Many responses to this question contained a variety of interesting examples such as dance, architecture,
music and religious ceremonies. One essay stated that while arts and crafts are vital in our heritage ‘they are
incomparably more vital in sustaining our country’s economy through tourism’ which was well expressed and
evaluative. There were some very good attempts which outlined the importance of arts and crafts in Indian
culture, though with a tendency to be descriptive. The inclusion of ‘vital’ proved to be an important trigger
word as it generated responses that considered how many traditional methods were being passed over in
favour of ‘progress’ and mechanisation. Candidates seemed aware of globalisation and westernisation
(notably in music) and how this was eroding traditions that may well disappear in the next generation.

Question 10

To what extent can advertising be trusted?

This was a popular question and many of the aspects of advertising such as celebrity endorsement, scams,
the danger to the young and impressionable of perfect images leading to anxiety and body shaming were
often referred to. Some responses referred to the consequences of not reading the ‘small print’ carefully,
particularly when financial products are being promoted. Some arguments referred to advertising that
encourages compassion and giving to worthy causes. A number of essays were anecdotal and descriptive,
merely listing products bought that did not live up to expectations. There was evidence of good employment
of examples showing some detailed knowledge of different approaches to advertising. The best essays
explored successes and failures and considered the dangers of advertising in a variety of contexts. Some
essays successfully explored the concept of trust in a variety of contexts including how facts might be
manipulated to adjust and influence public perceptions by governments.

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

ENGLISH GENERAL PAPER

Paper 8021/22
Comprehension

Key messages

Candidates are advised to read all the questions very carefully before beginning their answers, to ensure
they know exactly what they are required to do. Noting the number of marks available will give an indication
of how many points to offer, for example, and this may also be stated specifically in some questions (e.g.
1(b) ‘Explain four advantages…’) Similarly, it is important to recognise when a response demands to be
mostly in candidates’ own words, or whether any word limit is applied. Such rubrics must be observed
strictly. Conversely, where an answer does not require the use of ‘own words’, because it is testing location
and selection of relevant points, candidates who attempt to phrase their responses in their own words are
more likely to miss some of the essential detail or nuance, or to change the meaning or emphasis of what
they write, thereby missing out on marks.

General comments

Candidates engaged very well with the material in both Sections A and B although, as is frequently seen on
this paper, tended to find it easier to score marks in response to questions set in Section A (Question 1,
logical reasoning) than Section B (Question 2, reading comprehension). Generally this was due to a lack of
precision in the detail provided in the responses to Question 2, especially when limited to a certain number
of words (2(b), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii) and 2(e)(ii)) or asked to re-work points largely in their own words (2(a)(ii),
2(e)(i) and 2(e)(iii)). Please see detailed comments below relating to these questions.

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

The vast majority of the candidates appeared to find the material for Section A accessible and quite
engaging. The responses to 1(a) and 1(b) usually offered sufficient points to match the mark tariffs, with the
discrimination coming from the level of logic, accuracy and detail provided. There were occasional
misunderstandings of the language used, for example the ‘10-strong design team’, worked in by Sandrine
Jonas, was sometimes taken to mean 10 teams, or even 10 strong teams.

However, candidates are advised to read all the material in the Insert carefully. In Section A, this includes
noting any details contained with the opening ‘Background’. While more candidates than usual this session
made some use of this part of the material (for example, Diamond D-ZINE’s being active in the international
film and music industries, and the proposed team size to manage; see comments on 1(a) below), a number
of candidates relied upon one or other of the potential employees being ‘well qualified’, whereas the
‘Background’ made it clear that both were, so this would not be a clear, logical advantage for either Richard
Bradfield (1(a)) or Sandrine Jonas (1(b)).

(a) The key skills being assessed in questions such as 1(a) and 1(b) are comprehension, logic and,
most importantly, the ability to make connections across different parts of the material. To form a
developed point, candidates need to explain or make a link between distinct elements, for example
the requirement for the successful candidate ‘to lead a team of 25 people’ (from the ‘Background’)
and Richard Bradfield (from the bullet points under his name) currently being ‘a deputy manager of
a team of 22’, i.e. having some leadership experience with a team of very similar size (1(a)). This
was a clear advantage for this candidate over Sandrine Jonas, who has only worked ‘within a 10-

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

strong design team’, sometimes erroneously cited as an advantage for her in 1(b), and which thus
lacked logic.

Similarly, a number of candidates mentioned Bradfield’s five years of experience as an advantage,

even when they (correctly) noted Sandrine Jonas’ 12 years’ – therefore much longer – experience
at a global company in 1(b). Richard Bradfield’s having worked in two quite different work
environments already, thus having more variety of experience, could have been a logical
advantage in comparison with the rival candidate but, on its own, was too vague and lacked logic
when looking at the material and context as a whole. Several candidates correctly noted that
already living in Yaramanta was an advantage, since the company would not have to pay
relocation costs. This detail was important, whereas suggestions relating to travel costs, or Richard
Bradfield’s general convenience, were not valid, since there was no suggestion Sandrine Jonas
intends commuting 900 km. Some thoughtful responses, making this a clear benefit for Richard
Bradfield himself, related to his being able to continue his association with the local homeless
shelter and/or drama group, since he would not need to move house.

In addition, detail and nuance are vital in questions such as this. For example, a number of
candidates selected Richard Bradfield’s preference for casual clothes as aligning well with
Diamond D-ZINE’s casual dress code – a potentially valid point – but without making clear that this
was not the case all the time, i.e. applied only in the day-to-day office environment. This
understanding was needed to secure the development of that idea, in contrast with the demands
made when meeting clients. Some candidates used this point to highlight Bradfield’s preference for
letting his work do the talking for him as a positive point, but generally lacked convincing
development. Another nuance which was quite frequently missed related to Richard Bradfield’s
claimed creativity, the only evidence for this being his own opinion and frustrations at his former
workplace, therefore a weaker point when contrasted with Sandrine Jonas and her paintings (1(b)).

Most candidates were able to select at least three relevant advantages, the most popular ones not
already mentioned being Richard Bradfield’s linguistic prowess (linked with the need to travel
abroad and the international nature of the business and its clients), his keen following of trends in
horror films (relevant when thinking of new angles for promotion of the same), and his work
experience scheme and efforts to help the homeless locally (aligning with Diamond D-ZINE’s
emphasis on corporate social responsibility and support of local charities respectively). Slightly less
convincing, but valid in this same regard, was his current (enthusiastic) work on the government’s
healthy-eating and anti-smoking campaigns.

Some candidates made use of the fact that Bradfield has been working for the government and
might thus have contacts or be familiar with procedures for tendering for contracts and similar, if
required in the new post. This was excellent use of the material and demonstrated very good
independent thought. It was rare to see anyone make use of the podcast information, but those
who did suggested it boded well for the interview presentation, another element which was almost
completely overlooked in candidates’ responses. The ‘group activity’ part of the selection day was
rarely, if ever, mentioned but could easily have been linked to his (deputy) leadership role as a
likely advantage. Similarly, very few candidates made reference to the fact that Bradfield is already
seeking his third post after five years of employment, and looking to move from deputy manager to
manager of a team, thus indicating ambition, as an advantage. This point could also have been
used as a disadvantage, as it may make the new employers cautious, thinking he might not stay
very long, or that he lacks the ability to get on with his co-workers.

There was some fruitful use made of Richard Bradfield’s response to the unexpected question,
suggesting a level of confidence under pressure (the whole purpose of the exercise) and an ability
to think logically, creatively and on his feet, skills which some candidates were able to link to the
job description, especially for management of a team and dealing with demanding clients. An
example of a very well-developed point here was: He exudes confidence and shows character
when put under pressure, as illustrated by his response to the unexpected question. Moreover he
is meticulous and pays attention to detail which was proven when he said ‘You did say in and out?’
His response also revealed a love of flying, deemed useful for the foreign business trips sometimes
required at short notice, although there was some confusion over his living ‘on the flight path’ and
whether this should necessarily be assumed to be close to the airport.

Balance (‘one disadvantage’) was also required to gain all the available 10 marks for this question
and, as ever with this type of question, it was necessary to develop this idea negatively, rather than
offer mitigation. For example, candidates often correctly identified that Richard Bradfield preferred

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

not to wear suits. Successfully developed balance points went on to connect this with Diamond D-
ZINE’s requirement to dress formally ‘when meeting clients’ (Additional Information point 2),
perhaps even suggesting that he might refuse and damage the company’s reputation, whereas
some candidates merely suggested that he could overcome this reticence. The other common
disadvantages cited related to his awkwardness when socialising with current colleagues outside
the workplace, linked with the expectation of the same at Diamond D-ZINE (from Additional
Information point 7) and his favouring his private office as deputy manager, compared with the
more open, collaborative and flexible arrangements on offer at Diamond D-ZINE and which he was
likely to find challenging (Additional Information point 6).

There were occasional issues with logic and balance, where candidates offered either an equal
number of advantages and disadvantages, or even conveyed more disadvantages than
advantages successfully. This defies the logic of the question, the thrust of which was why Richard
Bradfield was ‘the more suitable candidate for the vacancy’.

(b) The vast majority of candidates were able to identify four valid advantages relating to Sandrine
Jonas. The most frequent ones chosen were her 12 years of experience in a global company
(though most candidates found it difficult to develop either part of this convincingly, generally just
re-working the idea of ‘experience’ and missing the international angle); her being accustomed to
sharing desk spaces and therefore likely to be comfortable in Diamond D-ZINE’s informal working
environment; her emphasis on smart presentation being a huge advantage when asked to attend
events or meet clients and a good impression would be essential; her father’s job in television
meaning she is used to meeting famous people, linked to the requirement to attend VIP events and
be comfortable/not become tongue-tied or star struck in such company; her artistic tendencies as
demonstrated by her love of painting (though relatively few connected this successfully to creativity,
while even fewer linked the subject matter – wildlife and landscapes – with Diamond D-ZINE’s
environmental interests), and her scheme to promote local artists. Overall, this point was explained
and developed less successfully, usually relying on the corporate social responsibility angle; a
much more convincing consideration for Richard Bradfield.

More unusual and thoughtful points included the dedication to the new job Sandrine Jonas was
showing, in being prepared to move so far from her current location, and also the loyalty she has
demonstrated to her current employers, by remaining in post for 12 years. Another effective and
original angle was to link the local artist scheme not only with the potential to attract future
employees or encourage collaboration, but also to suggest this might allow employees a new
hobby, tied to the encouragement at Diamond D-ZINE for a life outside work (as claimed by Anton).
Occasional inspiration was drawn from the relocation angle (from 900 km away): As she is moving
to Yaramanta, she wouldn’t have friends here, allowing her to socialise after work with her office
members, building strong professional work relations in and outside the office, as desired by
Diamond D-Zine.

Less logical choices, however, included Sandrine Jonas’ fluency in a local language. Spoken only
in a region 900 km from Yaramanta, this was not a clear advantage for her, when compared with
Richard Bradfield’s linguistic competence and the international nature of Diamond D-ZINE’s
operations. Some candidates also attempted to use Jonas’ experience of working in a group of 10
as an advantage. Once again, as mentioned in 1(a), the deputy-manager experience of her
competitor, in a team much closer in size to that requiring to be managed in the post sought, was a
more logical advantage for Richard Bradfield. If referring to the payment of relocation expenses, it
was necessary to explain this as an advantage for Ms Jonas herself, since it was a more obvious
advantage to the company if appointing Mr Bradfield, and thus more valid in 1(a).

(c) Candidates engaged well with this question and were often able to deduce at least the required two
ideas as to why the interviewers may not have been impressed by Sandrine Jonas’ response to the
unexpected question. The most common responses related to her lack of confidence, stuttering
and hesitation, often supported by specific examples from the material (Um…er…gosh or
Maybe…um…), her guessing rather than making any attempt to calculate logically, her lack of
precision (quite a lot/around 200 000) and the rather dismissive and defensive way in which she
queries the relevance of the question. Some candidates missed the point made in the material, that
the intention was to see how potential employees performed under pressure, rather than needing
any particular knowledge, or the production of a ‘correct’ answer. Indeed, the material deliberately
does not state whose response is more accurate. Furthermore, while some credit could be gained
for mentioning Sandrine’s lack of experience of flying, the distance she lives from Yaramanta was
not valid, as the interviewers would have known this already when conducting the initial round of

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

interviews. A small number of candidates seemed to be under the impression that Sandrine was
afraid of flying, which was inaccurate.

(d) This question proved challenging for many candidates, and as such a good discriminator, in that it
required elucidation, from the material (‘Referring only to the quotes…’), regarding how to account
for Helena’s and Anton’s differing impressions of the work culture at Diamond D-ZINE. A number of
candidates either simply described their views, often missing the subtlety of Helena’s and focusing
too much on the work pressures only. A large number of responses were too speculative,
suggesting that the two current employees hold different roles, work in different departments or that
Helena had held an easier position prior to working here. Most candidates who gained any marks
here noted that Anton makes a contrast between his more pressured previous work environment
and this one, and a further mark could be gained by offering more detail regarding the two positions
he has held, and his attitude towards work-life balance or having a social life outside work. For a
third mark, there needed to be a clear point made about Helena, since the question focuses on
contrasts, but relatively few candidates recognised that she compares the workload with the
facilities on offer and seems happy with this balance, even thriving on the atmosphere and
choosing to spend a lot of time at the offices. A good example of a three-mark answer was: Anton’s
past job had a more cumbersome workload with no structure of work timings, so he appreciates the
shorter work hours and increased socialising promoted at Diamond D-ZINE, whereas Helena is
more concerned about work pressure regarding clients and claims to have no social life but
appreciates the facilities offered.

(e) While there were occasional misunderstandings evident in responses to this ‘application of own
knowledge’ question (focusing, for instance, on Diamond D-ZINE’s overall corporate social
responsibility policy), most candidates were able to select at least one valid example of a policy or
activity which could contribute to ‘carbon-neutral offices’, such as planting trees or bringing in
potted plants, recycling, car-pooling, reducing the use of air conditioners and similar, installing solar
panels or switching to other methods of renewable power generation. Some candidates offered
several examples but did not manage to explain how these would contribute, whereas the question
asked for ‘one way’ to be explained. Examples of well-focused, two-mark answers: Companies
could plant more trees outside the office area which would absorb carbon dioxide and cancel out
the carbon-dioxide emissions from their refrigerators and air conditioners. / Reducing their carbon
footprint by conducting meetings with international clients online instead of flying there.

Section B

Question 2

The majority of candidates seemed to grasp the essential points from the material and to find the content
accessible, since there were few real misunderstandings of the material demonstrated in the attempted
responses.

In Section B, some questions are summaries and have a strict word limit for the responses, the key skill then
being to select the relevant information and to convey the essential points succinctly. In particular, this
means not ‘wasting’ words repeating the question stem or including material that is not directly answering the
question. An occasional candidate attempted to circumvent the word limits (here 2(b), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii) and
2(e)(ii)) by not writing in full sentences, either partially or, more rarely, completely. This is not in the spirit of
such questions and the final mark awarded will reflect this.

Other Section B responses demand the relevant information to be conveyed, as far as possible, in
candidates’ own words, so little or no credit can be gained by copying from the material, except those terms
which are technical, proper nouns or for which clear synonyms do not exist. Any line references given in the
question will show clearly from which part of the material the answer may be derived. (In other cases, this is
signalled by asking for the views of a named person, e.g. 2(d), or similar use of the wording of the material.)

(a) (i) Both the situation and the cause needed to be identified here for two marks to be awarded. Some
candidates went outside the line references given in the question for their responses, such as by
saying that Faruk Hossain had to leave his house. This was an answer to another question, so
could not gain credit here. There was also some linguistic confusion, with candidates writing
inhabitable, rather than uninhabitable, meaning the exact opposite. Causes of the difficulty were
sometimes too vague (rising/flood water, the storm, flooding caused by Super-cyclone Amphan),

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

whereas the accurate reason was the fact that the waters had not retreated/the house had not
reappeared from the water and been claimed by the river.

(ii) In this, the first of the three ‘own words’ questions, the points most commonly rendered with
sufficient detail in candidates’ own phrasing were those relating to Faruk Hossain’s moving out of
his family/ancestral home, never to return/permanently, the family having resided there for
generations/many decades, and watching the remaining parts slowly succumb /submerged by the
waters. Occasional candidates wrote speculatively or attempted to empathise with Hossain’s likely
feelings, i.e. without reference to the information given in the material, so had overlooked the
question rubric giving line references. A successful response, which had rendered more than the
three ideas required for full credit, included: He would be particularly distressed that the final
remains of this home (1) are getting submerged into the river (1), especially since he stayed there
for around half a year (1) with several severe hardships (1) – max. 3.

(b) This was the first question in Section B requiring candidates to limit themselves to a certain number
of words. Quite a few candidates did exceed this number and there were some responses in which
potentially correct answers did appear, but partly or wholly after the end of the word count. In many
such cases, some of the allowable 30 words had been ‘used up’ in introducing the positive and
negative developments, or stating the death toll from Cyclone Bhola, which did not answer the
question. Candidates are advised not to repeat the question stem or to offer any kind of
introduction in response to such questions, and to place first the answers with which they feel most
confident, to maximise the chances of creditworthy material featuring within the permitted number
of words.

The only notable misunderstanding arising in answers to 2(b) was that the death toll from Bhola
had reduced, which made no logical sense; the falling tolls since then was the sole creditworthy
positive development. The other point commonly scored here related to the people being
homeless/stranded. While some reference was made to the frequency of natural disasters, the
comparative ‘more difficult’, in relation to recovery, and needed for credit, was most often omitted.
Similarly, the 18 villages remaining underwater were sometimes mentioned but with no reference to
the place, which was essential in showing concentration, and thus severity.

(c) (i) The second word-limited question again saw some candidates miss credit for later, valid points
because they had repeated the question stem regarding the number of displaced people, or had
included other erroneous information. Many more candidates, however, missed some of the
important details needed to obtain credit here, such as the range of (four) places where shelter had
been sought, the exasperation of those relocating, the type of huts (on stilts) being constructed and
where (on dry land), and the poorest people being affected by the lost agricultural/planting
opportunities. The only correct point commonly awarded credit here was the damage caused by
Covid-19 to jobs/the economy.

(ii) Most candidates managed to make their points here within the word count but still sometimes
lacked the precision for full credit for all three valid points, most usually missing the former
agricultural success (‘very good rice yield’) enjoyed by Shahjahan Moral, or not completely making
the connection between the ferrying of passengers by boat being enforced by, or a solution to, the
fact that those same fields were flooded and submerged. One candidate, deliberately or not,
produced a play on words in the response: … with pay so little he cannot keep his family afloat.
Most responses showed some understanding of the fact that Moral’s earnings were insufficient to
support him and his family now, but this was sometimes the point that came partially, or
completely, after the end of the word count (30 words). Where the word limit caused problems, it
was often because irrelevant material had been included, such as that relating to the fishing,
shrimp farms and the selling of vehicles, which appeared earlier in the paragraph indicated by the
line references, selection of relevant material to answer the summary question once again being
essential. An example of a three-mark response rendered well within 30 words was: Shahjahan
Moral, who used to have good rice yields (1), now sails passengers across flooded fields as his
paddy land is submerged (1). Sustaining his family on such little income has become challenging
(1).

(d) The vast majority of candidates were able to locate the relevant section of the material for their
responses but not all recognised that, in order to gain both available marks, a degree of precision
was required. Examples include: proper availability of displacement information, rather than
displacement information being available, and initiatives for creating stable housing, as opposed to

© 2023
 Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary Level
8021 English General Paper March 2023
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

stable housing. A small number of responses repeated sustainable solutions from the question
stem, gaining no credit.

(e) (i) This was the highest-tariff ‘own words’ question and candidates again sometimes struggled to
render the key ideas in their own terms, even when allowed to repeat from the material such words
as ‘flood embankments’, ‘storm(s)’, ‘river’, and ‘canal’, for which few obvious synonyms exist. There
was also some lack of focus in responses to this question, as with 2(a)(ii), where candidates
ignored the line numbers indicating where the material should be consulted. They instead offered
speculative or general comment on the importance of flood embankments, i.e. what they might
achieve, or why they should exist, or be repaired. While touching on similar ideas to the correct
answers, these responses lacked the precision of the original.

The most common correct answers included embankments constructed after/in the decade since
1960, no longer being effective/having perished/the failed embankments, people suffer from
poverty/are poor as a result of these storms, and the river failed to drop down/fall back. A good
response rendering of some of the key points, and gaining all four available marks, was:
Bangladesh’s existing embankments are obsolete (1) as they were constructed in the 1960s (1).
Currently, the government is yet to reply (1) to pleas for renovating the embankments (1).

(ii) In this final word-limited question, responses again needed precision and to be succinct in order to
include two of the relevant points within 20 words. Some responses omitted ‘after similar storms’
from the point about embankments going unrepaired, while others seemed to think that no funding
was available. More accurate ideas related to funding applications not being approved, resulting in
reliance on limited annual budgets. A small number lost the sense of ‘not approved’ by using terms
such as disapproved. A number of candidates exceeded the 20 words here. Once again, repetition
of the question stem was sometimes responsible for this, and should be avoided.

(iii) In the last of the three ‘own words’ questions, candidates most often struggled to find synonyms for
‘crowded’ and ‘population(s)’ and there tended to be more success in rendering the point relating to
the expansion of slums, along the lines of slum areas increasing/burgeoning or the rapid growth of
slums, rather than the migration from the countryside to packed urban areas.

(f) Not all candidates realised that they were intended to offer their own ideas here, so there was
some over-reliance on the context of the material (the specifics relating to the flooding in
Bangladesh) which tended to repeat answers to previous questions. Prompted by the material,
some responses recognised the limits of the/a national government to take sufficient action, given
the scale and recurrence of the problems, but attempted development of this angle tended merely
to reverse the same idea (along the lines of the international community would be better equipped
to fund relief schemes), or to restate the question stem (hence action from the international
community is needed), which could not gain further credit. There was an attempt, in a number of
answers, to address the international responsibility for climate change as a likely driver of
increased severe weather events but again, few were able to explain this well in context. There
was also some reference to refugees and international trade as likely motivating factors, and
occasional mention of moral, humanitarian or global development goals. A good example of a two-
mark response to this question was: Humans are social beings that need to help each other in a
crisis, regardless of location. The floods and cyclones are a result of climate change and global
warming, making the international community responsible as well.

© 2023