The Definitive Guide to the WEC12 8-Mark Examine Question

#VERIDIAN V6 Economics | Pearson Edexcel IAL WEC12/01

---

This tool provides formative practice information only. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel. Marks are estimates to be used alongside teacher feedback.

---

#PART 1: THE CRITICAL STRUCTURAL FACT MOST STUDENTS NEVER LEARN

The 8-mark Examine is not a mini-version of the 14-mark Discuss. It is a 6-mark Analyse with exactly one evaluation point added.

The architecture is points-based — identical to the 6-mark:

AO1 (Knowledge):    2 marks  — 1 per chain
AO2 (Application):  2 marks  — 1 per chain
AO3 (Analysis):     2 marks  — 1 per chain
AO4 (Evaluation):   2 marks  — 1 evaluation point only
TOTAL:              8 marks

Confirmed by Pearson's ResultsPlus annotation on a full-mark
script: "This response gets 8/8 marks — 2K+2AP+2AN+2EV —
as it covers all the Assessment Objectives."

The single most important implication of this architecture:

AO4 is capped at 2 marks because it is points-based, not levels-based. There is no band to climb. A brilliant three-paragraph bilateral evaluation earns exactly 2/2 AO4 marks — the same as a single well-constructed evaluation sentence. There is no additional return for writing more evaluation.

This means the Examine question has a hard ceiling that the 14-mark and 20-mark do not. On a levels question, more depth earns higher marks within a band. On this points-based question, once you have hit 2K + 2App + 2An + 2Ev, the question is complete. Every additional sentence earns zero and steals time from Q12e.

Why this matters for how you write it:

A student who treats this as a mini-essay writes 250 words of KAA and evaluation, uses 12 minutes, and scores 6–7/8. A student who understands the architecture writes two complete chains and one evaluation point in 100–130 words, uses 10 minutes, scores 7–8/8, and banks 2 minutes for Q12e. The discipline is identical to the 6-mark: two complete chains, one evaluation point, stop.

---

#PART 2: WHY AO4 IS CAPPED AT 2 — THE MECHANISM EXPLAINED

Students who don't understand why AO4 is capped write evaluation that is designed to build toward a conclusion. They write a bilateral challenge, a comparative argument, and a conditional judgement — all of which are worth marks on the 14-mark and 20-mark, and zero on this question.

The reason the cap exists: The Examine command word sits in the middle of the command word hierarchy. It is above Analyse (no evaluation) and below Discuss (full evaluation band). Pearson designed it to test whether a student can challenge one analytical point — not construct a full evaluated argument. The 2-mark AO4 allocation is intentional: it rewards the discipline of one clear evaluative challenge, not the ambition of a full essay evaluation.

COMMAND WORD HIERARCHY:
Define    (2mk)  → No evaluation exists
Explain   (4mk)  → No evaluation exists
Analyse   (6mk)  → No evaluation exists
Examine   (8mk)  → 2 evaluation marks ONLY (points-based)
Discuss  (14mk)  → Full 6-mark evaluation band (levels-based)
Evaluate (20mk)  → Full 8-mark evaluation band (levels-based)

Each step up adds exactly one requirement. Examine = Analyse + one evaluation point. The addition of "one evaluation point" is precisely what the 2 AO4 marks reward. Nothing more is possible.

What happens if you write more evaluation: You earn 2/2 AO4 marks from the first complete evaluation sentence. The remainder earns zero. But more importantly: the time spent writing extra evaluation is stolen from the questions that follow. The 8-mark should take 10 minutes. Every minute over 10 costs marks on Q12e (14 marks) or Q13 (20 marks).

---

#PART 3: THE COMPLETE MARK ARCHITECTURE

MARK SPLIT — CONFIRMED FROM MARK SCHEMES:

K1  — Chain 1 knowledge statement (1 mark)
App1 — Chain 1 extract figure embedded (1 mark)
An1  — Chain 1 chain reaching macro significance (1 mark)

K2  — Chain 2 knowledge statement (1 mark)
App2 — Chain 2 extract figure embedded (1 mark)
An2  — Chain 2 chain reaching macro significance (1 mark)

Ev1  — Evaluation: mechanism of limitation (1 mark)
Ev2  — Evaluation: condition stated (1 mark)

TOTAL: 8 marks

Every mark is discrete and independent. K1 and App1 do not compensate for each other. A missing App1 costs exactly 1 mark regardless of how good K1 and An1 are.

The two AO4 marks are also independent:

• Ev1 (1 mark) = a genuine challenge to one of the KAA chains — a mechanism explaining when or why it is weaker
• Ev2 (1 mark) = the condition: the specific circumstance under which the challenge applies ("only if / unless / provided that")

Writing a mechanism without a condition = Ev1 only = 1/2 AO4. Writing a condition without a mechanism = Ev2 only = 1/2 AO4. Writing both = 2/2 AO4. Writing a bilateral evaluation with a full conditional judgement = still 2/2 AO4. The extra content earns nothing.

---

#PART 4: WHAT THE EVALUATION ACTUALLY REQUIRES

This is the most misunderstood component of the 8-mark. Most students either skip evaluation entirely or over-write it into a mini-essay. Both are errors.

The evaluation on the 8-mark has one job: challenge the validity of one KAA chain. Not both chains. One.

The one-sentence test — apply before every evaluation sentence:

"Does this sentence REDUCE confidence in one of my KAA arguments?"

If yes → evaluation. Write it. Stop. If no → additional analysis. Zero AO4 marks.

Why evaluation that adds more analysis is wrong:

From every examiner report (Jun 2022 verbatim): "Many responses were not able to access evaluation marks as they gave solutions to these effects rather than answering the question directly."

"Solutions to effects" = suggesting policy to fix the problem = additional KAA. If the question asks about the effects of unemployment and the student writes "the government should cut interest rates to reduce unemployment" — that is not evaluation of the unemployment effects analysis. It is a new analytical point that does not reduce confidence in any existing argument.

What genuine evaluation on the 8-mark looks like:

KAA1: Higher unemployment reduces consumer expenditure,
      shifting AD leftward and reducing real output.

GENUINE EVALUATION OF KAA1:
"However, the impact on consumption depends on whether
unemployed workers have significant savings buffers —
if households maintain precautionary savings from prior
employment, the short-run fall in expenditure may be
smaller than the income loss suggests. This mechanism
holds only if savings are limited; if household savings
rates are high, the AD contraction is less severe."

Why this is genuine evaluation:
→ It reduces confidence in the KAA1 argument
→ It states WHY the mechanism might be weaker (savings)
→ It states the condition (only if savings are limited)
→ Ev1 + Ev2 both present → 2/2 AO4

FAKE EVALUATION OF KAA1:
"Furthermore, higher unemployment also reduces government
tax revenues as fewer workers pay income tax."

Why this is fake:
→ This adds another consequence of unemployment
→ It AGREES with the general argument (unemployment is bad)
→ It does not reduce confidence in KAA1
→ It is additional KAA dressed as evaluation → 0/2 AO4

---

#PART 5: THE THREE EVALUATION TYPES — APPLIED TO 2 MARKS

Every valid evaluation point on this question is one of three types. Knowing which type you're writing determines its two-sentence structure.

#TYPE 1 — THE LIMITING EVALUATION

Identifies the specific condition under which the KAA argument is weaker or fails.

SENTENCE 1 (Ev1 — mechanism):
"However, the impact of [KAA mechanism] depends on
[specific factor] — if [factor is absent/different],
[mechanism explaining why KAA weakens]..."

SENTENCE 2 (Ev2 — condition):
"...meaning [KAA argument] holds only if [specific
condition tied to extract context]."

Example: "However, the impact of the interest rate rise on reducing inflation depends on whether inflation is demand-pull in origin — if Brazil's CPI acceleration from 3.08% reflects cost-push pressures from supply-chain disruptions rather than excess demand, rate rises compress consumption without addressing the underlying cause. This mechanism holds only if inflation has a substantial demand-pull component."

#TYPE 2 — THE SCALE EVALUATION

Challenges whether the magnitude of the effect is as large as the KAA implies.

SENTENCE 1 (Ev1 — mechanism):
"However, the scale of [KAA effect] depends on
[specific magnitude factor] — [extract data] suggests
[mechanism explaining why effect may be smaller/larger
than the chain implies]..."

SENTENCE 2 (Ev2 — condition):
"...meaning the [KAA macro outcome] is less/more severe
than stated only if [specific condition]."

Example: "However, the scale of the AD reduction depends on the proportion of households with variable-rate debt — if the majority of Brazilian mortgages are fixed-rate, the transmission from the 13.75% base rate to reduced disposable income is weaker than the model predicts. This AD contraction is less severe than stated only if variable-rate debt is the dominant borrowing form."

#TYPE 3 — THE TIME HORIZON EVALUATION

Challenges the timeframe over which the KAA argument operates.

SENTENCE 1 (Ev1 — mechanism):
"In the short run [KAA argument] may not hold because
[specific short-run mechanism] — [extract context]
suggests [time-bound limitation]..."

SENTENCE 2 (Ev2 — condition):
"...meaning this argument holds only in the long run,
provided that [condition for short-run adjustment]."

Example: "In the short run, supply-side education investment does not raise productivity because workforce composition changes only as cohorts complete training — meaning the LRAS shift is delayed by at least 5–10 years. This argument holds only in the long run, provided the policy is sustained over the full investment horizon."

Which type to choose: Use the type that is most directly challenged by something specific in the extract. If the extract gives you data about scale (e.g. debt ratios, exact rate levels), use Type 2. If the extract implies a short-run context, use Type 3. If the extract implies a condition under which the mechanism operates, use Type 1.

---

#PART 6: THE EXACT STRUCTURE — SENTENCE BY SENTENCE

Five sentences. Ten minutes. Stop.

CHAIN 1 (3 sentences):

S1 [K1]: [Economic mechanism with precise terminology]
S2 [App1]: [Extract figure embedded mid-argument — not quoted]
S3 [An1]: [Chain reaching named macro outcome with signal words]

CHAIN 2 (3 sentences):

S4 [K2]: [Different mechanism — same structure as S1]
S5 [App2]: [Different extract figure — same USE test as S2]
S6 [An2]: [Different macro outcome with signal words]

EVALUATION (2 sentences):

S7 [Ev1]: [Genuine challenge to one KAA chain — mechanism of
            the limitation — does this REDUCE confidence?]
S8 [Ev2]: [The condition: "only if / unless / provided that /
            depends on whether" + specific extract context]

STOP. Total: ~120–140 words. 10 minutes. Move on.

Which chain should the evaluation challenge? Either. The evaluation does not need to address both chains. Choose the chain where you can write the clearest mechanism and the most specific condition.

Must the evaluation use extract data? It should where possible — examiner reports consistently note that evaluation "linked to the context of the question" scores higher. Tying the condition to a specific extract figure ("only if Brazil's CPI reflects demand-pull pressures given its 3.08% growth trajectory") is stronger than a generic condition ("only if inflation is demand-pull").

---

#PART 7: THREE ANNOTATED STUDENT ANSWERS

Question: Oct 2024 Q12c: "With reference to the information provided, examine the likely impact of the increase in the rate of unemployment on workers in India."

Extract context: India's unemployment rate increased from 7.1% in January 2023 to 8.5% in June 2023. Real GDP growth: approx 6% (2023/24). Informal sector: approx 90% of workforce.

---

#STUDENT A — scored 4/8

"Higher unemployment means workers lose their jobs. This reduces their income and they have less money to spend. As a result, consumption falls and aggregate demand falls. Workers also face mental health problems when unemployed.

However, the government could increase spending on job creation schemes to reduce unemployment and help workers."

AO1 mark 1: ✓ — income loss mechanism identified AO2 mark 1: ✗ — "7.1% to 8.5%" not mentioned; no extract data used AO3 mark 1: ✓ — "consumption falls → AD falls" — reaches a macro consequence AO1 mark 2: ✓ — "mental health problems" — valid effect on workers AO2 mark 2: ✗ — still no extract data; India not named with figures AO3 mark 2: ✗ — "mental health problems" — stated not developed; no chain, no signal words, no macro significance AO4 Ev1: ✗ — "government could increase spending" = a solution = additional KAA, not evaluation of the argument above AO4 Ev2: ✗ — no condition stated

Score: 4/8 — K3✓✓✓ App0 An1✓ An2✗ Ev0

Diagnosis: Two knowledge points and one analysis point. Zero application marks — no extract figures embedded anywhere. Evaluation is a solution to the problem, not a challenge to the analysis — confirmed zero-mark error from examiner reports. One chain stops before macro significance.

---

#STUDENT B — scored 6/8

"One effect of rising unemployment on workers in India is loss of earned income. As India's unemployment rate rose from 7.1% to 8.5% between January and June 2023, an additional 1.4 percentage points of the labour force lost employment income — reducing their disposable income and therefore consumer expenditure. This shifts AD leftward, reducing real output and creating a negative multiplier effect as income falls propagate through the economy.

A second effect is psychological harm — increased unemployment raises financial anxiety, reducing household confidence and precautionary saving behaviour. Workers facing unemployment uncertainty cut discretionary spending further than their income loss alone warrants, amplifying the AD contraction beyond the direct income effect.

However, in India's informal economy, official unemployment figures may understate genuine employment insecurity."

AO1 mark 1: ✓ — income loss → disposable income → consumer expenditure AO2 mark 1: ✓ — "7.1% to 8.5% between January and June 2023" embedded in the mechanism AO3 mark 1: ✓ — "AD shifts leftward → reduces real output → negative multiplier" AO1 mark 2: ✓ — psychological harm → confidence reduction → precautionary saving AO2 mark 2: ✗ — second chain contains no extract figure; "90% informal sector" not used AO3 mark 2: ✓ — "amplifying the AD contraction beyond direct income effect" — macro significance reached AO4 Ev1: ✓ — "informal economy means official figures understate genuine employment insecurity" — challenges the validity of the KAA premise AO4 Ev2: ✗ — no condition stated. "May understate" identifies the issue; never states "only if / this holds unless"

Score: 6/8 — K2✓✓ App1✓ App2✗ An2✓✓ Ev1✓ Ev2✗

Diagnosis: One missed App mark (second chain has no extract figure) and one missed Ev mark (condition never stated). The evaluation correctly challenges the analysis — it reduces confidence in the KAA by questioning whether official unemployment data accurately reflects the true impact. But without the "only if" condition sentence, Ev2 is not awarded.

The exact fix: Add one sentence after the evaluation: "The income and confidence effects on workers hold at the stated scale only if India's official ILO unemployment measure captures the majority of work loss — given the approximately 90% informal sector share cited in the extract, the true impact on workers may be significantly larger than the 7.1% to 8.5% shift implies." That sentence earns App2 (90% informal sector figure used) and Ev2 (condition stated) simultaneously — converting 6/8 to 8/8.

---

#STUDENT C — scored 8/8

"A primary effect of rising unemployment on Indian workers is the direct loss of earned income. The increase from 7.1% to 8.5% — a 1.4 percentage point rise representing hundreds of thousands of additional unemployed workers — directly reduces households' disposable income, contracting consumer expenditure (C) as a component of AD = C+I+G+X−M. This leftward shift in AD reduces real output below India's approximately 6% growth trajectory, compressing employment further through the negative multiplier as falling demand leads firms to reduce output and shed additional labour.

A second effect operates through India's predominantly informal labour market. With approximately 90% of India's workforce employed informally, rising official unemployment likely understates genuine income insecurity — informal workers facing reduced hours or contract termination fall outside ILO unemployment measurement, meaning the household income shock is broader than the 7.1% to 8.5% rise captures. This amplifies the consumption contraction and fiscal consequences as reduced spending flows reduce indirect tax revenues.

However, the severity of these income effects depends on whether unemployed workers have access to formal social protection — if India's social security system covers a significant proportion of newly unemployed workers, disposable income falls less severely than labour income loss alone implies. This argument holds only if formal welfare provision is limited, which given India's predominantly informal labour market, is the more likely condition."

AO1 mark 1: ✓ — "loss of earned income → disposable income → consumer expenditure" — precise mechanism AO2 mark 1: ✓ — "7.1% to 8.5% — a 1.4 percentage point rise" embedded in mechanism AO3 mark 1: ✓ — "AD shifts leftward → reduces real GDP below 6% trajectory → negative multiplier" — full macro significance AO1 mark 2: ✓ — "informal labour market → income insecurity → consumption contraction" — distinct from chain 1 AO2 mark 2: ✓ — "approximately 90% of India's workforce informal" — extract figure embedded AO3 mark 2: ✓ — "amplifies consumption contraction → reduces indirect tax revenues" — macro significance AO4 Ev1: ✓ — "social protection covers unemployed workers → income falls less severely" — genuine challenge, mechanism stated AO4 Ev2: ✓ — "holds only if formal welfare provision is limited" — explicit condition tied to extract context

Score: 8/8 — K2✓✓ App2✓✓ An2✓✓ Ev2✓✓

What makes this 8/8: Every mark has a specific sentence earning it. The second chain uses a completely different mechanism (informal labour market) with a different extract figure (90%). The evaluation genuinely challenges the KAA — asking whether social protection buffers the income loss — and states the condition under which the challenge applies. Both Ev1 and Ev2 are clearly present in consecutive sentences.

---

#PART 8: THE POSITION ROTATION — WHERE THIS QUESTION APPEARS

A critical logistical fact: the 8-mark Examine does not always appear at Q12c. It rotates positions across series.

Pattern: In most recent series, Q12c = 8-mark, Q12d = 6-mark. This has been the dominant pattern since 2022. However, assume nothing — read the mark allocation in the question before starting.

Why this matters: Students who assume Q12c is always 8 marks occasionally write evaluation on what is actually a 6-mark question, or skip evaluation on what is actually an 8-mark. Spend 3 seconds checking the mark allocation printed in brackets before you start.

---

#PART 9: FIVE FATAL TRAPS — WITH EXAMINER REPORT EVIDENCE

Trap 1 — Giving solutions instead of evaluation [confirmed zero AO4, confirmed series]

From Jun 2022 Examiner's Report (verbatim): "Many responses were not able to access evaluation marks as they gave solutions to these effects rather than answering the question directly."

If the question examines the effects of unemployment and you write "the government should reduce interest rates to stimulate employment" — you have written a new KAA point about policy, not an evaluation of your unemployment effects argument. Zero AO4 marks. This is the most commonly reported evaluation error on this specific question.

The fix: every evaluation sentence must be about whether your KAA argument is as strong as it appears — not about what should be done about it.

---

Trap 2 — Skipping evaluation entirely [confirmed, multiple series]

From Jan 2024 Examiner's Report (verbatim): "Evaluation was lacking and not very well written with some only identifying a point and not explaining it well. There were some candidates who did not try writing any points. For eight-mark questions and above, evaluation is an essential requirement and should be included."

From Jun 2022: "For eight-mark questions and above, evaluation is a key requirement and should be included."

No evaluation on an 8-mark question = maximum 6/8 regardless of how good the chains are. Those 2 AO4 marks are available only if at least one evaluation point is written. They cannot be earned through better KAA.

---

Trap 3 — Over-writing evaluation [time theft]

Writing a full bilateral evaluation with a conditional judgement earns exactly 2/2 AO4 — the same as two sentences. Every word beyond sentence 8 is time theft from Q12e. On a 10-minute question, spending 4 minutes on evaluation means spending 6 minutes on the 6 KAA marks — which is too little for two complete chains. The evaluation must be exactly 2 sentences. No more.

---

Trap 4 — Copying the extract [confirmed zero AO2, all series]

The same USE vs COPY rule from the 6-mark applies here identically. "As stated in the extract, unemployment rose from 7.1% to 8.5%" = zero AO2. "The increase from 7.1% to 8.5% — representing hundreds of thousands of additional unemployed workers — directly reduces households' disposable income" = AO2 earned.

---

Trap 5 — One evaluation mark instead of two [most common AO4 failure]

From Jan 2024: "Evaluation was lacking and not very well written with some only identifying a point and not explaining it well."

"Identifying a point" = Ev1 awarded (mechanism named), Ev2 not awarded (no condition). Writing "however, this depends on whether workers have savings" identifies the mechanism but states no condition. The condition requires one additional sentence: "this holds only if savings buffers are minimal." Two sentences. Two marks. Missing the second sentence costs exactly 1 AO4 mark every time.

---

#PART 10: THE STOP RULE AND TIME MANAGEMENT

TARGET:  10 minutes.
CEILING: 11 minutes.

AT 10 MINUTES:
  If you have written 8 sentences → stop now.
  If you have written 6 sentences (no evaluation) →
    write 2 evaluation sentences, then stop.
  If you have written 4 sentences →
    complete chain 2 (1 sentence), write evaluation
    (2 sentences), stop. Accept 6/8 and move on.

NEVER:
  Spend more than 11 minutes on this question.
  Q12e (14 marks) and Q13 (20 marks) have higher
  marks-per-minute ratios. Every minute over 11 here
  costs more marks elsewhere than it gains here.

The triage rule when time is gone: If you reach minute 10 and have no evaluation, write the two evaluation sentences immediately and move on. Two minutes for 2 AO4 marks is the highest mark-per-minute available on this question. Never sacrifice evaluation to add a third KAA chain — a third chain earns zero additional marks. The evaluation marks are available and earnable in under 2 minutes.

---

#PART 11: SELF-MARK CHECKLIST

Run every box after every practice attempt.

KAA — 6 marks:

• Chain 1: Knowledge — economic mechanism stated with precise terminology, not just "it affects..."
• Chain 1: Application — specific extract figure embedded in the argument (not stated separately)
• Chain 1: Application test — if you remove the figure, does the sentence become generic? If yes → 0 AO2
• Chain 1: Analysis — chain reaches a named macro outcome (real GDP / unemployment / inflation / current account / fiscal position)
• Chain 1: Signal word present between each stage (therefore / as a result / meaning / consequently)
• Chain 2: Same three checks — K, App (different figure), An (macro outcome)
• Chain 2 uses a DIFFERENT mechanism from Chain 1 (not the same process with a different label)
• Consequence of missing application: −1 mark per chain. Fix: embed the extract figure mid-sentence

Evaluation — 2 marks:

• Evaluation is present (not skipped)
• Evaluation REDUCES confidence in one KAA argument (not adds to it, not solves it)
• Ev1: mechanism of limitation stated — WHY the KAA argument is weaker under some condition
• Ev2: explicit condition stated — "only if / unless / provided that / depends on whether"
• Evaluation does NOT offer a solution or policy recommendation (confirmed zero-mark error)
• Evaluation is exactly 2 sentences (not a full bilateral argument)
• Consequence of missing Ev2: −1 mark. Fix: add "this holds only if [condition]" at end of evaluation

Timing:

• Total time: 10 minutes maximum
• Word count: ~120–140 words
• No third chain written
• No conditional judgement written (belongs in Q12e and Q13, costs time here)

---

---

#PART 8: THE SAME 8-MARK AT THREE LEVELS — TOPIC 2: FISCAL POLICY

Question: "Examine the likely effects of an increase in government spending on economic growth."

---

LEVEL 2 KAA + LEVEL 2 EVAL (5-6/8): "Higher government spending raises aggregate demand. The UK increased spending during Covid. This boosts economic growth. However, it can cause inflation."

K✓ partial | App✓ partial (UK named, no figure) | An stops at "boosts growth" (Stage 3) | Eval: "can cause inflation" = no mechanism, no "only if" = Level 2 eval.

---

LEVEL 3 KAA + LEVEL 3 EVAL (7/8): "An increase in government expenditure directly raises the G component of AD = C+I+G+X−M and — through the multiplier (k = 1/(1−MPC)) — amplifies the initial injection into multiple rounds of consumer spending. The UK's furlough scheme deploying approximately £70bn (approximately 3.2% of GDP) in 2020 shifted AD rightward, limiting the GDP contraction to −9.9% (vs forecasts of −15%+) and enabling the +7.4% recovery in 2021 as preserved employment relationships immediately reactivated. [KAA: Stage 1→4, data embedded]

However, this growth-via-AD mechanism holds only if the economy has a significant negative output gap — at full employment, the same G injection generates demand-pull inflation rather than real output growth, as AD pushes beyond Yfe. [Eval Level 3: mechanism + 'only if' condition]"

---

LEVEL 4 (8/8) — both chains + bilateral eval: As Level 3 KAA, PLUS second mechanism (LRAS dual effect of capital expenditure: "Infrastructure investment simultaneously shifts AD rightward AND LRAS rightward, generating non-inflationary growth above trend — the dual-mechanism unique to capital expenditure that current expenditure cannot replicate").

Eval P2 targets Chain 1: "holds only if MPC is high enough for meaningful multiplier — import-heavy economies leak stimulus through M, reducing the effective multiplier below 1." Eval P4 targets Chain 2: "holds only if infrastructure targets genuine bottlenecks — white elephant projects consume fiscal space without generating the TFP improvement required for LRAS shift."

The key distinction at Level 4: Two different evaluation moves, each targeting its own chain. Not the same eval applied to both.

VERIDIAN™ | © VERIDIAN 2026. All rights reserved. This material is the intellectual property of VERIDIAN. Unauthorised reproduction, resale, or distribution is prohibited. For personal study use only. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Pearson Edexcel.