1

Level 2 exemplars and comments Paper 1 Question 1

2

3

Comments

In Part (a), the candidate attempted to generalise two trends from the source, among which the first one

was relatively clearer.

In Part (b), s/he pointed out two problems and attempted to offer a brief explanation of the problem by

making use of Source B.

In Part (c), s/he made a minimal attempt to explain the problem with reference to the sources.

S/he gave a superficial answer and expressed his/her ideas vaguely.

4

Question 2

5

Comments

The answer in Part (a) provided a brief comparison between more developed and less developed regions.

It made brief use of some relevant points in the source, but with a lack of elaboration.

The answer pointed out two challenges with a brief explanation in Part (b).

The sources were used in a limited manner.

Part (c) was a limited answer with vague and partially developed arguments.

The answer made very limited use of the sources.

6

Question 3

7

8

Comments

In Part (a), the candidate described two major features from both tables but misinterpreted the condition

of press freedom as facts rather than public opinions.

Some data were drawn from Tables 1A and 1B but not comprehensively enough. Only self-censorship and

the monitoring role of the media were mentioned in the answer.

In Part (b), the candidate attempted to point out some expected roles of mass media e.g. ‘Journalists are

required to show their angles’, ‘report the truth from the news’, ‘diversity of standpoints’, etc. However,

s/he failed to identify the dilemma.

A little effort was made to use Source A. However, the discussion focus was twisted to the threats to mass

media.

There was no reference to Source B.

9

Level 2 exemplars and comments Paper 2 Question 1

10

11

12

13

Comments

In Part (a), the candidate listed four reasons, but they were only simple phrases with not much content.

All of them needed elaboration and concrete support such as examples from daily life. (The second reason

actually repeated the first in different words.)

The third reason was ‘parenting style’, but this does not match the content in the brief elaboration.

The fourth reason ‘lack of understanding’ is appropriate, but again the content elaboration did not match

exactly this reason, and digressed on to something else.

Overall, the answer did not show a comprehensive knowledge of the qualities and characteristics of

Cantonese Opera and the conditions that can help preserve it.

In Part (b), the candidate provided a clear stance, only agreeing to a small extent that intangible cultural

heritage can make an important contribution to contemporary life in Hong Kong.

Two main arguments were put forward, but they were both about the younger generation being unable to

become attached to the traditions embedded in intangible cultural heritage such as Cantonese Opera. One

argument referred to traditional stories, while the other referred to traditional values.

An attempt was made to propose a counter argument, that some might see the changes in some intangible

cultural heritage as potentially able to contribute to contemporary life. The extent of change however, was

not deemed enough.

The candidate did not provide any example of intangible cultural heritage beside a passing reference to

Cantonese Opera. Therefore, the answer was not substantiated by any specific reference to intangible

cultural heritage, making it very general and abstract.

There was also no substantiated discussion of specific aspects of contemporary life that may or may not

be enriched or improved by intangible cultural heritage.

14

Question 2

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Comments

In Part (a), the candidate attempted to explain the hindrances from different perspectives (competition

from state-owned enterprises, imbalanced government support, and high running cost), yet the answer

was indirect as much of the discussion was on the benefits enjoyed by state owned-enterprises (SOEs)

rather than the hindrances faced by private enterprises (PEs), which was the actual focus of the question.

Very little discussion on how PEs’ development is and will be impacted by the hindrances was provided.

Examples cited were not relevant to the Chinese context e.g. Malaysia’s state-owned airline and Air

France.

In Part (b), the candidate attempted to compare SOEs with PEs in terms of feasibility, effectiveness and

purpose, yet the discussion was one-sided.

There was almost no discussion on how the dominant role played by SOEs helps or will help facilitate

China’s economic development in the global context.

Examples given were not relevant to the Chinese context e.g. French automobile manufacturer Renault

and Air France.

23

Question 3

24

25

26

Comments

In Part (a), the candidate was able to identify some features of smart cities, such as electric vehicles. S/he

tried to explain how these features might reduce the use of non-renewable energy and increase the use of

renewable energy. The candidate showed some understanding of smart cities and the use of energy

resources but the elaboration was superficial.

The candidate presented his/her stance in Part (b). S/he showed some understanding of smart cities, such

as the use integrated data platforms and self-driving vehicles.

However, the scope was too narrow as the elaboration was mainly focused on one perspective, namely

how e-waste can be reduced. It indicated inadequate understanding of a sustainable society.