Original practice
Mark points shown after marking
A student placed one quadrat in a meadow, found three species in it, and concluded that the meadow has low biodiversity. Discuss this conclusion.
(4)Total for this question: 4 marks
COMMAND WORD · BIOLOGY
Discuss
Name the issue, then develop more than one side with a reason and with what that reason changes.
Writing frame
Name the issue. For each side: the point, the reason, and what that changes.
What the parts mean
- Issuethe decision, problem or claim, named first
- One sidethe point, the biological reason, and what that reason changes about the issue
- Other sidea different aspect, built to the same depth. A one-word opposite is not enough.
How to build your answer
- 1Name the issue in the first sentence, before a list of facts.
- 2On one side, give the point and the reason. A heading such as “advantage” is not yet depth.
- 3Say what that reason changes about this issue, using a detail from the question.
- 4Give the other side the same three layers. Do not finish with a slogan.
Biology exemplar
Original question
Discuss whether one illustrative zone of inhibition is evidence that a plant extract is a medicine. This is not medical advice.
Annotated answer
IssueThe issue is what a single plate can show about use as a medicine. One sideThe clear zone shows that the extract inhibited that microbe under those conditions, because growth is missing around the extract. That supports an effect on the plate, and only on the plate. Other sideIt does not show a medicine, because a plate has no dose, no safety evidence and no person. That changes the claim from “evidence for treatment” to “evidence of one laboratory effect”.
The labels match the frame. Read them in order. This is one accurate route, not the only one.
Exam habit
Depth is a reason tied to this question, then a sentence on what that reason changes. A longer list of topics is not depth.
Common pitfall
Writing “plant medicines are natural, so they are safe”, or stopping after “it has a zone”.
Practice question
Answer discussion
The issue is whether one quadrat can support a claim of low biodiversity for a whole habitat. One side: it can list the species inside its frame, because those organisms were recorded there. That changes the claim from the habitat to this small patch. The other side: it cannot stand for the habitat, because one frame can miss rare species and other patches, and nothing shows it was placed fairly or repeated. That changes “low biodiversity” from a habitat conclusion into one sample. Stopping at “one quadrat is not enough” names a limit and does not yet give the reason, or what that reason changes.