Cambridge Assessment International Education

Cambridge International Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced Level

THINKING SKILLS 9694/21

Paper 2 Critical Thinking May/June 2019
MARK SCHEME
Maximum Mark: 45

Published

This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the
examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the
details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have
considered the acceptability of alternative answers.

Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the question paper and the Principal Examiner Report for
Teachers.

Cambridge International will not enter into discussions about these mark schemes.

Cambridge International is publishing the mark schemes for the May/June 2019 series for most
Cambridge IGCSE™, Cambridge International A and AS Level and Cambridge Pre-U components, and
some Cambridge O Level components.

This document consists of 10 printed pages.

© UCLES 2019 [Turn over

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Generic Marking Principles

These general marking principles must be applied by all examiners when marking candidate answers.
They should be applied alongside the specific content of the mark scheme or generic level descriptors
for a question. Each question paper and mark scheme will also comply with these marking principles.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 1:

Marks must be awarded in line with:

• the specific content of the mark scheme or the generic level descriptors for the question
• the specific skills defined in the mark scheme or in the generic level descriptors for the question
• the standard of response required by a candidate as exemplified by the standardisation scripts.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 2:

Marks awarded are always whole marks (not half marks, or other fractions).

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 3:

Marks must be awarded positively:

• marks are awarded for correct/valid answers, as defined in the mark scheme. However, credit
is given for valid answers which go beyond the scope of the syllabus and mark scheme,
referring to your Team Leader as appropriate
• marks are awarded when candidates clearly demonstrate what they know and can do
• marks are not deducted for errors
• marks are not deducted for omissions
• answers should only be judged on the quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar when these
features are specifically assessed by the question as indicated by the mark scheme. The
meaning, however, should be unambiguous.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 4:

Rules must be applied consistently e.g. in situations where candidates have not followed
instructions or in the application of generic level descriptors.

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 5:

Marks should be awarded using the full range of marks defined in the mark scheme for the question
(however; the use of the full mark range may be limited according to the quality of the candidate
responses seen).

GENERIC MARKING PRINCIPLE 6:

Marks awarded are based solely on the requirements as defined in the mark scheme. Marks should
not be awarded with grade thresholds or grade descriptors in mind.

© UCLES 2019 Page 2 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

1(a) This email suggests that FB may have been looking for a chance to prove to 2
the head that he was right [1]. It reveals a possible motive for FB to
misrepresent his evidence to the Headteacher [1] and gives support to AL’s
claim that FB provoked the incident [1]. He may have been trying to force the
Head to exert stronger discipline [1] and/or this may have been part of his
campaign to act quickly to prevent the Year 9 alleged troublemakers from
becoming a problem [1]. The email is probable evidence that FB is biased
against a group of Year 9 boys / JR [1]. It is likely that JR is one of the
troublesome boys from Year 9 to which Mr Bell referred [1], but it is not certain
[1].

1(b) The Headteacher’s position gives him a good reputation / VI to maintain his 3
reputation by acting fairly and honestly [1]. The Head was not present at the
incident himself and therefore has poor ability to know what really happened /
relies on what FB has told him [1] although he has good ability to know what
FB has told him [1]. The Head has no VI to misrepresent what FB has told him
[1]. As a teacher, FB has a good reputation / vested interest to tell the truth in
order to maintain his professional standing [1], but he apparently has a
bias/vested interest to exaggerate JR’s misbehaviour [1], in order to persuade
the Head to punish him severely / to prove that he was right [1]. FB’s
allegation of swearing is corroborated by Source E [1], but other aspects of his
allegations are contradicted by Source E [1]. The document is one-sided
(biased) because the Head has not consulted any other person [1].

Maximum 2 if only one side stated.

No mark for judgement.

1(c)(i) 1 mark each for up to 2 of the following answers: 2

• AL was present at the incident and therefore had very good ability to
see what occurred.
• Her evidence gives an alternative version of events to that given by
FB.
• It confirms the impression of FB gained from Source B.
• It partially corroborates the allegation made in Source D.
• It gives a justification for why JR was not working / shows that FB was
being unfair.
• It gives an explanation for why JR behaved as he did / shows that the
incident was probably not his fault.

1(c)(ii) AL has a vested interest to understate any misbehaviour which may have 2
occurred in the classroom / to exaggerate FB’s behaviour [1] in order to avoid
giving the impression that she was not able to cope with the situation [1] /
because she is annoyed at FB’s interference in a class under her authority [1].

© UCLES 2019 Page 3 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

1(d) 6
Level 3 A strong answer, which provides a reasoned argument
5–6 marks including thorough evaluation of all or most of the evidence to
support an acceptable conclusion in terms of probability and
evaluates the plausibility of at least one alternative conclusion.

Level 2 An answer which evaluates some of the evidence, draws an

3–4 marks acceptable conclusion in terms of probability and may mention
the plausibility of at least one alternative conclusion.

Level 1 A weak answer, which refers to some of the evidence, possibly

1–2 marks including a simple evaluative comment. The conclusion may be
unstated or over-stated.

Level 0
No credit-worthy material.
0 marks

Indicative content

The possible conclusions are:

• JR fully deserved to be suspended from school.
• JR deserved to be suspended, but his behaviour was not as bad as
alleged by FB.
• JR deserved to be punished, but not by such a serious penalty as
suspension.
• JR did not deserve to be suspended.

Notes for the guidance of markers

Simple supported conclusion 1 (if no/wrong conclusion cap at Level 2)

+ simple consideration of alternative +1

AND reasoned rejection of alternative +1

+ explicit use of some (3 or fewer) sources of evidence +1

OR explicit use of all or most (4 or more) sources of evidence +2

+ critical evaluation of evidence +1 or (more than one case) +2

+ good inferential reasoning +1 or (more than one case) +2

© UCLES 2019 Page 4 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

2(a) Not well / it does not support the claim [1]. There is no evidence to show that 3
the dog’s ability to know the difference between one ball and another is
because one is blue and the other green / there may be other physical
differences between the balls [1]. The difference in colour is likely also to
represent a difference in tone/shade, which the dog would be able to
recognise with black and white vision [1]. The blogger appears to claim that
the dog’s intelligence is further illustrated by her fetching the correct ball after
being told she got it wrong, but since there is only one other ball this does not
seem to show anything [1]. There is no evidence that the dog can classify
objects by colour [1], which would be the reasonable meaning of ‘recognise
colours’ [1]. By analogy with Source E, it is possible that the dog is picking up
cues from the owner’s behaviour [1].

Do not credit any of the following answers, but do accept them as sufficient
justification for awarding the judgement mark:
• Being able to differentiate between two colours is insufficient
evidence to justify the claim that the dog can distinguish colours.
• The fact that the dog sometimes brings the wrong ball shows that it
cannot really differentiate them accurately by colour.
• Because there are only two balls, there is a 50% chance of choosing
the right one by chance.

2(b)(i) 1 mark for either of the following: 1

• The owners have good expertise/ability to see the behaviour of their
own dogs
• Most of the estimates (1–6 years) are intuitively plausible.

2(b)(ii) The owners are likely to be biased in favour of their own dogs [1] and 2
therefore likely to over-estimate their abilities [1]. It is likely that respondents
held differing interpretations of ‘intelligence’ [1] and/or different estimates of
the intelligence of children [1], and their judgements are inevitably subjective /
merely opinions [1].

2(c) This case suggests that apparent intelligence on the part of animals may 3
actually be due to their ability to read cues from humans [1] and that
researchers should therefore design their experiments in such a way as to
exclude that explanation [1]. Arguably, the ability to draw inferences from very
close observation is a form of intelligence [1], but that suggests a form of
animal intelligence which is different from that implied by the claims already
made [1]. *However, the findings may not be applicable across species [1].
*Note to markers: do not credit this point on its own.

© UCLES 2019 Page 5 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

2(d) 6
Level 3 A reasoned argument, which uses and evaluates all or most of
5–6 marks the evidence provided.

Level 2
A simple argument, which uses and/or evaluates evidence.
3–4 marks

Level 1 A weak answer, which makes some correct reference to

1–2 marks evidence but consists of opinion and/or assertion rather than
argument
or a weak argument which makes no reference to evidence.

Level 0
No credit-worthy material.
0 marks

© UCLES 2019 Page 6 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

2(d) Indicative content

• The only source which directly supports this claim is Source A,

• in which the example of one exceptional dog shows that at least one
member of at least one breed of dog can be taught to recognise a
larger vocabulary than most people would probably think and to follow
a very limited range of instructions.
• Source B suggests that some owners are mistaken in the intelligence
they attribute to their dogs.
• Source C shows that most dog owners are fairly moderate in their
estimates of the intelligence of their dogs,
• but these estimates may be slightly higher than non-dog-owners
would estimate
• and some dog-owners are unrealistically optimistic in their estimates
(or a few dog-owners appreciate the extent of dogs’ intelligence).
• Source D suggests some ways of estimating how intelligent a dog is,
• which suggests that some dogs are quite intelligent in terms of these
tests,
• but it is not clear what it means to identify dogs as intelligent in these
terms
• and there is no evidence as to whether this level of intelligence is
higher ‘than most people realise’.
• Source E suggests that evidence of apparent intelligence may
actually be evidence of very close observation,
• which arguably is a form of intelligence.

Notes for the guidance of markers

Simple supported conclusion 1

or nuanced conclusion 2
(if no/wrong conclusion cap at Level 2)

+ use of up to 3 sources +1
or use of 4 or 5 sources of evidence +2
not just mentioning or summarising or comprehension

+ critical evaluation of evidence +1 or (more than one case) +2

+ good inferential reasoning +1 or (more than one case) +2

not speculation
+ personal thinking +1

Question Answer Marks

3(a) 2 marks: This policy [of requiring people to pass a test before being allowed to 2
drive] should be changed.
1 mark: Most countries require people to pass a test before being allowed to
drive, but this policy should be changed.

© UCLES 2019 Page 7 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

3(b) 1 mark for each of the following, to a maximum of 3 marks: 3

• (So) the existence of the driving test does not guarantee that only
safe drivers are allowed to drive.
• they [driving tests] are not needed now
• Driving tests infringe against equality of opportunity.
• (So) passing a driving test is proof of ability to pay, not to drive safely.
• Driving tests (therefore) assess the wrong skills.

Allow one additional element or one significant omission in each case.

If more than three answers are offered, mark the first four only.

3(c) Marks for each evaluative point as follows, up to a maximum of 5 marks:

2 marks: Valid evaluative point, clearly expressed.

1 mark: Weak attempt at a valid evaluative point (e.g. assumption
expressed as counter).

Paragraph 1
• Straw Man: It is unlikely that anyone is suggesting that driving tests
guarantee that only safe drivers are allowed to drive.
• Non sequitur: The existence of bad drivers would support a
conclusion that drivers should be tested more rigorously or more
often, rather than that they should not be tested at all.
• Inadequate conclusion: The requirement to take a test may have
significantly reduced the number of unsafe drivers on the road, even if
it has not eliminated them entirely.

Paragraph 2
• Conflation: ‘drivers were not required to pass a test’ is conflated with
‘tests were not considered necessary’, whereas the question had
probably not been raised.
• Appeal to tradition/history: The fact that driving tests were not needed
when there were very few cars on the roads does not show that they
are not needed now, when most people drive cars. (Can be
expressed as an assumption.)
• Inadequate support: Even if it is true that drivers have not ‘become
less competent’, other factors may have changed, such as conditions
having become more hazardous. (Can be expressed as an
assumption.)
• Assumption: that drivers were competent before driving tests were
introduced.

Paragraph 3
• Assumption: That poor people need/should be able ‘to run a car’.
• Assumption: That the responsibility for paying for lessons and the
cost of the test should fall to the individual, rather than the state.
• Assumption: That (expensive) lessons are needed in order to pass a
driving test.
• Non sequitur: This would better support a proposal that lessons/tests
should be subsidised or free rather than being abolished.

© UCLES 2019 Page 8 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

3(c) Paragraph 4
• False dichotomy: Even if successful applicants are expected to show
their appreciation to the examiner in a financial manner, they may
also have to demonstrate competence in driving. (Can be expressed
as confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions or as an
assumption.)
• Inadequate support: The possibility that people in some countries
may be able to pass the test dishonestly does not support the
conclusion that other countries should abolish the test. (Can be
expressed as an assumption.)

Paragraph 5
• Assumption: That it is not important for drivers to be able to drive
safely under stressful conditions.
• Assumption: That a generic skill of test-passing applies to driving
tests.

3(d) 5
Level 3 Developed, coherent argument. Reasons strongly support
4–5 marks conclusion. Development may include intermediate conclusion
or apt examples.
Simply structured argument – 4 marks.
Effective use of IC etc. – 5 marks.

Level 2 A simple argument. One reason + conclusion – 2 marks.

2–3 marks Two or more separate reasons + conclusion – 3 marks.

Level 1
Some relevant comment.
1 mark

Level 0
No relevant comment.
0 marks

Maximum 3 marks for wrong conclusion or if conclusion is implied but not

stated.
No credit for material merely reproduced from the passage.

© UCLES 2019 Page 9 of 10

9694/21 Cambridge International AS/A Level – Mark Scheme May/June 2019
PUBLISHED

Question Answer Marks

3(d) Specimen level 3 answers

Support (102 words)

Lack of exercise lies at the root of much ill health in the world today. It can be
difficult to find time to go to the gym in the course of a busy schedule. But
most people have to travel to work, to the shops and to social events. So,
provided they are not too far away, walking or bicycling should be the favoured
mode of transport.

Motor vehicles are a major cause of air pollution. They also use up non-
renewable natural resources. So reducing the use of cars is an
environmentally responsible policy.

Therefore we should drive cars only when necessary.

Challenge (95 words)

The invention of the internal combustion engine revolutionised life in the

developed world. It dramatically extended the horizons of people’s
professional, commercial and social lives. By enabling people to travel beyond
their own neighbourhood, the use of the car has vastly improved their quality
of life.

In addition to the use of a car for necessary travel, many people enjoy driving
as a leisure activity, while motor sports give pleasure to spectators as well as
participants. So driving a car is enjoyable as well as useful.

Therefore we should not drive cars only when necessary.

Note to markers:
It is possible to interpret this claim as advocating an intermediate position
between driving cars whenever one wants to and completely refraining from
driving.
So on this occasion it is legitimate for arguments supporting the claim to argue
both for and against driving.
Arguments challenging the claim may conclude with any of the following (or
similar):
• We should not drive cars only when necessary.
• We should drive cars whenever we want to.
• We should not drive cars.

© UCLES 2019 Page 10 of 10