Paper 4 — The Global Economy
The 6-Mark Analyse Guide
Provenance (built 2026-09-29): no raw "definitive guide" to this tariff exists in
~/Downloads/FINSTO/ for WEC14 (checked directly). forge-exam-technique-guide.md §2
("Section B's 6-mark part") was read in full first and is not restated wholesale. Three full
mark schemes/examiner reports were read directly with pdftotext -layout for this pass —
October 2023, January 2021 and January 2025 (examiner report only for the last; no January 2025
mark scheme exists in the archive used, ~/Downloads/home 4/ubuntu/economics_ial_u4_complete/).
WEC14 Section B's 6-Mark "Analyse/Examine Two…" Part — Tariff Deep-Dive
1. What the tariff actually is, verified
Knowledge 2 + Application 2 + Analysis 2, flat and additive, no Evaluation — confirmed directly
in two full mark schemes read this pass (October 2023 Q7(d); January 2021 Q7(b)), and stated
explicitly by the examiner in January 2025: "For the 6-mark question, evaluation is not required
and should not be included." The letter carrying this tariff varies by series exactly as
forge-exam-technique-guide.md §2 already states — 7(d) in October 2023, 7(b) in January 2021,
7(c) in January 2025 (per that series' own examiner report).
A genuinely useful structural finding not in the existing technique-hub documents: the 6-mark part is not always "analyse two named things in prose." January 2021's version required constructing (or correcting) a Lorenz curve diagram: 2 Knowledge marks for "correctly-labelled axes" and "correctly-labelled original Lorenz curve," 2 Application marks for reading the Gini coefficient values off Figure 1, and 2 Analysis marks for drawing the new Lorenz curve and explaining what the shift means for income inequality. The AO split (K2+App2+AN2) is identical to the prose version — it's the same tariff shape wearing a diagram-construction task instead of "analyse two roles/causes/effects" prose. Worth knowing this exists before assuming every 6-mark part is a text-only answer.
2. The "no evaluation, at all" rule — confirmed twice, independently, four years apart
forge-exam-technique-guide.md already quotes both series for this. Independently re-verified
directly against the primary examiner-report PDFs for this document:
- January 2021 (causes of income inequality): "Some students evaluated their analysis points, but this was not credited as this is not a requirement of the question."
- January 2025 (roles of the IMF): "For the 6-mark question, evaluation is not required and should not be included."
The second quote is stronger than the first — not just "uncredited" but explicitly "should not be included," a direct instruction against the habit, not merely a statement that it earns nothing.
3. Real worked examples, verified directly against primary PDFs
| Series | Letter | Real task | Knowledge (2) | Application (2) | Analysis (2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2023 | 7(d) | Analyse two roles of the IMF | e.g. "helps ease the balance of payments adjustment" / "promotes exchange rate stability" | Two of: Pakistan's $1.2bn IMF loan; the fiscal-deficit conditions; the interest-rate condition | Linked explanation for each identified role (1 mark each) |
| Jan 2021 | 7(b) | Analyse the effect of a Gini-coefficient fall on inequality | Correctly-labelled axes; correctly-labelled original Lorenz curve | Gini fell from 0.44 (2000) to 0.36 (2014) | Correct new Lorenz curve drawn; explanation of what the shift means for income distribution |
| Jan 2025 | 7(c)* | Analyse two roles of the IMF | Not independently re-extracted (no mark scheme in archive used) | "Relevant data from Extract A" per the examiner report | "Most candidates were able to explain and analyse their identified points" |
*Jan 2025 row is examiner-report-only, as no mark scheme for that series exists in the archive used — stated plainly rather than presented as equally verified to the other two rows.
4. Self-mark check
- Did I identify two genuinely distinct roles/causes/effects, not two versions of the same mechanism? (Confirmed real failure mode, October 2023 Q7(d): "few candidates confused role of the IMF with the World Bank and were unable to access any marks.")
- Did I write a linked explanation for each — i.e. is my Analysis mark actually connected to the specific Knowledge point it develops, not a generic add-on?
- If this part requires a diagram, did I label both axes and draw the corrected/shifted curve itself, not just reference the shift in prose? (§1's Lorenz-curve finding.)
- Did I write zero evaluation sentences here? (§2 — this earns nothing and, per the January 2025 report's own wording, "should not be included.")
- Did I use two separate application data points, not one repeated? (Same mechanic as the
4-mark part — see
forge-tariff-4-mark-explain.md§2 for the fuller pattern.)
5. Sources and honest gaps
Primary sources used directly this pass: the full October 2023 and January 2021 mark
schemes and examiner reports; the full January 2025 examiner report (no mark scheme for that
series in the archive used). research/veridian/WEC14-verified-facts.md and forge-exam- technique-guide.md §2 were read first.
Genuine gaps:
- The diagram-construction variant in §1 is confirmed for one series (January 2021) only — this document does not claim it recurs in every series, only that it is a real, verified variant worth knowing exists.
- Jan 2025's exact Knowledge/Application wording is not independently verified against a mark scheme, for the reason stated above.