Cambridge Professional Development

9609 Marking Feedback

Paper 1
Script A

Total mark for the script 37/40

Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
1a Two knowledge marks are awarded for specific references to ‘data already 2/2
exists’ and ‘collected for a different purpose’.
1b A clear and precise explanation. This response gains all three marks. The 3/3
knowledge mark is gained for recognising it is new information gathered for a
specific purpose. Because there is not a specific context for this question, to
access the application marks, the examiner is looking for the candidate to build
on this knowledge. So the second sentence gains a further two marks for
developed application for explaining how having such information is helpful for
a business.
2a The candidate has decided to offer an alternative definition of sustainability to 1/2
the one included in the mark scheme, which is valid, so can be credited. The
‘only enough’ is vague, and it would be at the discretion of the examiner
whether this would be sufficient for the second mark. Had they used the word
‘renewable’ or referred to ‘prevent waste’ it could have gained full marks.
2b The candidate shows good understanding to explain why a business might take 3/3
measures to improve sustainability. The example is appropriate for limited
application. The comment about ‘improve image’ is too vague but the second
mark available for developed application can be awarded for recognising this
could lead to higher sales.
3a Two marks are gained in the first sentence for a precise definition. The second 2/2
sentence is not required.
3b A knowledge mark can be awarded for identifying a benefit of using budgets. 1/3
Instead of development, the second part identifies another benefit. To access
the application marks, the candidate needed to explain how allocating
resources, or being able to assess performance represents a benefit to a
business.
4 This is a strong answer and gains all five marks. The knowledge mark can be 5/5
awarded for the definition of ethics, or identification of a way, namely pay fair
wages. In the second sentence, the references to conflict between profit and
paying fair wages demonstrates developed application. There is developed
analysis showing the possible impact of the decision to pay fair wages on the
business, in terms of higher costs leading to higher prices and fewer sales in
the short term, before considering the potential long-term benefits of treating
employees in an ethical way. The last sentence is not needed to gain full
marks.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 1
 Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
6a It is important that candidates take time to read the question carefully. While the 8/8
response has gained full marks, the candidate has provided too much detail,
which takes up valuable time which could be spend on other questions.
As the question asks for two disadvantages, it is important to focus on this. The
candidate starts by explaining how PRP works, while this shows knowledge, a
detailed explanation is not required as this does not directly answer the
question, especially as the mirror argument of this is repeated in the
explanation of disadvantage one. The second knowledge mark is gained for
identifying the first disadvantage, namely depends on the targets set. The
recognition that some jobs, including those of managers is difficult to measure
shows limited application. The point is then clearly developed as it explains the
potential impact in terms of lower motivation and productivity demonstrating
developed analysis. The candidate correctly identifies a second disadvantage
which is also well developed. As it’s a second point in context, this means
developed application can be awarded.
6b There are plenty of knowledge points identified in this answer and the 12/12
candidate makes clear links to fast-food restaurants throughout, using words
such as burgers, shift, and recognising the work is often low paid, and low
skilled, and showing how this might affect the different functions of HRM.
There is also plenty of analysis throughout the answer, for example in the
development of points about both welfare and training. However, as there are
only two marks available, much of this is unnecessary. Also, some of the
analysis is repeated, so there are plenty of wasted words in this answer. While
the extra points are valid, they do not add to the overall mark as there are only
2 marks each available for [k], [app] and [an]. A shorter answer could have
gained the same mark overall.
The focus of this type of question should be on evaluation, as half the marks
are allocated to this assessment objective. At the end of the second paragraph,
the comment about ‘training is likely to have a limited role’ shows some attempt
to weigh up the argument gaining one mark for limited evaluation. A second
[eval] can be awarded for the comment about in a fast-food restaurant, this
(welfare) is likely to be really important as it is often low paid work for
developing the evaluation. So the response gains 2 EVAL marks even before
the final paragraph. The final paragraph is very strong. There is a clear
judgement made which is clearly in context and supported by previous
argument. It clearly answers the question, recognising the fact that fast-food is
a customer facing business and therefore maintaining employee morale is likely
to be critical to its success. This, along with the evaluative comments
throughout, means this answer is likely to gain full marks.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 2
 Paper 2

Script B

Total mark for the script 46/60

Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
1a (i) One mark for identifying a relevant benefit. 1/1
1a(ii) The knowledge mark is awarded for an accurate definition. However, there is 1/3
no application as the second sentence repeats the point already made. The
candidate needed to build on their knowledge to show what control means,
for example they have full control over business or other key feature of this
type of business organisation.
1bi As there is no working and the answer is incorrect, there is no opportunity to 0/3
award marks here. Where the final answer is wrong, some marks can still be
awarded for the use of correct figures or formulae. In this case no marks can
be awarded.
1b ii This response gains a knowledge mark for identifying ‘find out about potential 3/3
demand’. This point is then developed to explain how this is helpful to Amir’s
business so can be awarded limited application. Many candidates fail to gain
maximum marks as they provide no application to the case. The references to
‘Asian food’ and recognising that this is in addition to its existing products
sold, shows the answer is clearly applied to the scenario so all three marks
can be awarded.
1c This answer gained knowledge and developed analysis marks for explaining 4/8
how limited liability [k] means that owner’s risk of loss is restricted to amount
invested [an] and this is then further developed to show how this protects his
personal assets [an]. Application could have been gained for referring to the
fact that he mortgaged his house to start-up his business.
The disadvantage, of ‘cannot control who sell shares to’ is incorrect, as the
candidate has confused the term with a public limited company. Therefore,
the reference to his son working as a chef cannot be credited as application
as there is no underlying knowledge demonstrated in this part of the answer.
1d There are a number of points made in this answer. The candidate identifies 9/12
market share and market research as knowledge points. Mentioning his
original objective and the correct use of market research data gains the two
application marks, though there is plenty of other examples that could have
been credited instead.

Each of the points made is then developed for the candidate to gain the
analysis marks.

Most candidates struggle to gain more than one or two evaluation marks for
limited evaluation. A candidate may make a judgement/conclusion as to
whether Amir should sell Asian food. In the first paragraph, the sentence
starting even though could be viewed as limited evaluation. There is a
second, separate attempt at an evaluative comment for discussing the
reaction of competitions beginning ‘it is highly unlikely’ which can be awarded
second mark for limited evaluation.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 3
 Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
The final paragraph starts with a clear decision, in which they attempt to build
on these earlier points to support the decision made. The last sentence
makes a good point about focusing on his strengths which attempts to explain
why it is risky, but the evaluation lacks the necessary depth required to
access the higher mark bands. Had they explained what alternative actions
Amir could take such as developing his delivery service or compete against
his smaller rivals in his existing market, further marks might have been
awarded. There is also no context to support this evaluation, which is
necessary to access the top band for evaluation. Had they mentioned that he
a potential strength of his business was a local delivery service or the fact that
he was market leader in his current market, this would have added some
context.

It is important to note that while quality is more important than quantity, it is

very difficult to write a good evaluative section in a few sentences.
2ai This question only requires a single word answer. Rent is an example of an 1/1
indirect cost so gains 1 mark.
2aii The mark scheme requires three separate elements, and the same format is 3/3
used for all similar questions. Marks are awarded for knowledge of the term.
The remaining two marks are for application. In this question, there is no
business context, so the examiner is looking to for the candidate to
demonstrate their understanding of the key term. The first application mark is
awarded for a clear understanding of a business plan, and the second mark
for a relevant example of how it can be used.
2bi The final answer is incorrect as the candidate has added 50 rather than 2/3
multiplying the total cost per unit by 50%. However, two marks can still be
awarded for the correct method. It is good practice to include the working for
all calculations, even if the question does not require it, in case of simple
errors.
2bii One method has been identified and explained. The two application marks 3/3
are awarded for an explanation of how the method would work in this context
(dresses). The final sentence is ignored as the question does not ask for a
disadvantage.
2c The first point is a good example of how simple linked statements can gain 7/8
developed analysis. ‘demotivation [k] as workers are highly skilled [app] so
more likely to make mistakes [an] which could reduce the quality of the
trousers, damaging the businesses excellent reputation [ developed analysis].
This part of the answer alone could gain 5 marks.

The second problem is also identified (training) for [k]. The reference to either
trousers or new machine gains the second application mark. Note to gain
both application marks, each point made must be in context. However, there
is limited analysis. Further analysis could be as simple as ‘which the business
might not be able to finance in addition to the cost of the machinery’.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 4
 Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
2d This is an excellent answer. The candidate identifies two relevant methods, 12/12
namely price skimming and penetration price for the knowledge marks.
Application marks could be awarded for a number of points such as trousers
and recognition that they plan to sell them in large shops. There is also good
extended analysis of both points made. However as there are only two
analysis marks available, the candidate could have excluded the sentence
beginning ‘in addition’. While valid, the extra analysis was not required. The
focus of this question, along with 1d should be on evaluation. Most
candidates struggle to gain more than one or two evaluation marks for limited
evaluation. They can only access 5 or 6 marks with very good contextual
EVAL. Here, there are evaluative comments throughout the response.
Comments such as not enough, unlikely demonstrate a clear attempt to weigh
up points. The final paragraph builds on the analysis, and along with all these
simple evaluative comments combine to produce a clear comparison between
the merits of the two pricing methods discussed, all points are in context, and
all this supports the final decision made.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 5
 Paper 3

Script C

Total mark for the script 41/60

Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
1 The definition of centralisation, which is the key term here, gains a knowledge 6/8
mark.

The second knowledge mark can be awarded for easier to control. Making
effective use of the case material by recognising it has two factories and
produces 30 million litres (when outlining the second advantage) shows
developed application. However, the analysis offered for both answers is
limited. For example, easier to control so know standards are the same [an].
There is no further development to show how this represents an advantage,
which could be as simple as which ‘a consistent standard could help protect
its reputation’. The second advantage also needs further explanation to be
awarded developed analysis. For example, they could have explained how
lower average cost could allow the business to be able to lower its prices or
increase its profit margin.
2 The candidate begins well with a simple definition of critical path analysis 6/8
which secures the first mark. While not necessary (if explanations of
limitations have been provided) as the question does not specify a definition,
it is always best practice.

They have identified two possible limitations, either of which would gain the
second knowledge mark. The first limitation is well explained as the response
provides a developed analysis, in context (complex and untried), of the
consequences for DL of using a system that is based on estimates and
assumptions. This section gains both knowledge marks, along with limited
application and developed analysis.

The second limitation is also identified, but by itself would not gain further
marks. The reference to the new production line is not application as this is
repetition of the question, so overall, this answer can only be credited with
limited application as the mark scheme required each point to be applied
separately. There is a limited attempt at development, but this does not add to
the overall mark. The candidate provides some brief analysis recognising that
a business has little influence over external events. This could have been
further explained with an example to show the potential impact of this for this
business.
3a A correct answer however the candidate should have shown the calculation. 1/1
3b The calculation is correct, but it is missing the units, which is necessary for full 2/3
marks.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 6
 Commentary Mark
Question
awarded
3c The candidate starts with a decision. There is nothing wrong with putting the 8/12
recommendation at the beginning, but it is not worth any marks at this stage
because it has not yet been justified. It is often best to leave the
recommendation until after the analysis and arguments have been put
forward as this is a more logical flow and helps the examiner to follow the
reasoning.

The first paragraph shows a large amount of knowledge and the use of $2.5m
counts as limited application. The candidate identifies a number of possible
sources of finance, but this is more descriptive and poses questions rather
than offering any analysis. However, at the end it could gain one mark for
limited analysis for recognising that interest paid on a bank loan would
increase expenses. There is a limited attempt to make an evaluative
comment in this section, but this is very weak.

The second application mark is gained in the second paragraph for the use of
CPA data, but there are further examples that could also have been awarded
in several places in this section.

The section about possible delays can be awarded developed analysis for
explaining how any potential disruption to production could result in lower
output and lost sales. It is simple development but clearly identifies the
connections between the impact of less output and the consequences for
sales and revenue. The candidate does try to justify the comment about it
being highly risky to explain why the timings in the CPA are important.

The last evaluative paragraph is very poor and offers only a simplistic
summary of points made elsewhere and did not show how the points made
could be connected together to produce a developed judgement. This means
the answer is not holistic which limits that mark band the candidate can
access for evaluation, and the evaluation must be found in the main body of
the answer.
4a The formula in addition to the correct answer allows full marks. 4/4
4b This is an example of where the candidate has clearly analysed each the 6/12
advantages and disadvantages of each option. By mentioning the price
elasticity and multi-million dollar advertising budget of one of its rivals
appropriately as part of the explanations, this response gains developed
application.

This candidate however does not actually evaluate the two options and does
not offer a final judgement. There needs to be some comparison as to how
does it allow the business to do what it wants (widen its market appeal or
protect its brand image) and a reasoned decision as to whether one is better
or worse in comparison to achieve this objective.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 7
 Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
5 The answer starts by defining a key term, which gains a knowledge mark. The 8/12
candidate understands that CSR could mean an enhanced reputation [k]. The
candidate then goes on to analyse this point by explaining how this could help
increase sales [an]. By mentioning share of profits to environmental charities
clearly links the point to the context (app). The first paragraph concludes with
a weak attempt at an evaluative comment.

The candidate is able to demonstrate good knowledge and application in

many places, such as mentioning reduced legal action, higher costs, and
correctly referring to concerns about sugar, fat and palm oil.

There is some basic analysis given regarding the reduced risk of legal action,
which could gain one of the marks for limited analysis.

There is good, developed analysis in the paragraph about higher costs,

explaining how firstly the higher costs could increase cost of sales which
would reduce its gross profit, and ending with a simple explanation of how
higher costs might lead to lower returns for shareholders.

The next paragraph builds on the relationship between higher costs and
prices. However no further credit can be given as the candidate has already
been awarded all the marks available for knowledge, application and analysis.

The candidate concludes with a decision. However, this evaluation does not
actually evaluate the issues discussed, just states what the business should
do. They could have weighed up the various short-term costs and compared
them the risk of doing nothing and/ or the potential long term benefits of CSR.

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 8
 Paper 4

Script D

Total mark for the script 18/40

Mark
Question Commentary
awarded
1 The major issue with this answer is that the candidate has described how the 8/20
business has grown rather than evaluating its strategy. Reading the mark
scheme, Knowledge is gained for defining a key term (strategy) identifying
that RF used organic growth and that profit is an internal source of finance.
Instead of application, much of the answer is largely repeating the information
from the case study. Application is awarded where there is clear evidence of
the case being used in relation to 1% and ROCE data ($5 instead of $9).

The analysis is marked as limited as there is no development of the points.

The candidate highlights an effect of organic growth (slow) and the benefit of
using profit (no interest to pay) and share capital (no need to repay). There
are further examples of limited analysis evident in the response. The
candidate needed to explain further the implications of these, and other points
to access level 2 analysis.

The final statement is a summary and does not include an evaluative

comment. If they had planned their response carefully, this they could have
included an evaluative comment after each significant stage in its growth, and
this could then have allowed at least some evaluation marks to be awarded.

This shows the importance of reading the question and thinking about the
answer in a basic plan.
2 The candidate in this question identifies four different approaches (SWOT, 10/20
PEST, Porters five forces and Ansoffs matrix) and proceeds to define and
explain some of them in detail, and also manages to get in application at
various stages to ensure 5 out of the 20 marks are achieved.
Due to the amount of knowledge shown, the analysis is largely forgotten and
is lost in the answer. They can gain the marks for limited analysis for
identifying that due to understanding the external changes she is better
placed to increase sales, the business might not be able to afford some
techniques, and time consuming could delay decisions.

Evaluation is evident only at the end of the first three sections (SWOT, PEST
and Porter) and is therefore not holistic which means that only the 3 Level 1
evaluation can be achieved here. It is unclear whether the candidate ran out
of time or had finished their answer. The recommendation should have made
clear which approaches are likely to be most relevant and useful to RF2
situation.
Copyright © UCLES 2021

9609_Int_OTG_Marking_Feedback 9