Skills revision
-
Upload
luo-yanjie -
Category
Education
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Skills revision
geog skillsrevision/ drills
• Maximise skills for Geog
• Get use to time pressure
objectives
To maximise this session for maximum results
• Keep to the time limit
• Don't just click through the slides. Learn from it
• Copy key points from demo for revision ref.
• Self mark and learn from your mistakes
note
WARNINGIt's not the quantitybut the QUALITYthat determines theeffective of each practice.
Last reminder
Last reminder
It starts from here:Having the right thoughts
Last reminder
It starts from here:Having the right thoughts
So that you can have the right destiny
1) Describing Features (20 mins)
When you describe features...
a) Be clear where you are describing > Top? Bottom? Sides? > If it is photograph taken from ground, use terms like (background, middle ground, foreground)b) Use appropriate terms: - Shape (flat? sharp?) - Size (if you are shown a satellite / aerial image) - Gradient (Steep gradient? Gentle Gradient?) - Surface (rough? smooth?) - What kind of materials? (Rocks? Sediments?)
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]
- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?
features = special characteristics
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]
- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?
features = special characteristics
Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort
Can”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]
- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?
features = special characteristics
Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]
- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?
features = special characteristics
Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort
Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]
- Shape - Size - Gradient - Surface - What kind of materials?
features = special characteristics
Can”t tell from imageCan”t tell from image buthave content knowledge. USe as last resort
Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
covers a large area [1]
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
covers a large area [1]
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
covers a large area [1]
Anything else special? : Contain many small lakes [1]
phrase it properly
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
Triangular in shape[1]Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]
The delta is triangular in shape.
Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
covers a large area [1]Contain many small lakes [1]
The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot
of small islands.
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
Contain many small lakes [1]
The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot
of small islands.
It covers over a large area.
Demo (i)pg (1)6 - qns (d) (2009)
(d)(i) Describe the shape and features of the delta shown on the satellite image. [4]features = special characteristics
The delta is triangular in shape.It's edges are not smooth as it has a lot
of small islands.
It covers over a large area.
It contains many small lakes in the delta.
Finish it in 5-7 minutes
practiceDo (2)2 - qns (c)(i)
Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/
practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)
(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]
practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)
(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]
natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph
practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)
(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]
natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph
background
middle-ground
fore-ground
practice - mark yourself(2)2 - qns (c)(i)
(c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]
natural features = ignore man-made things in the photograph
background
middle-ground
fore-ground
• Background - cliffs. [1]• Cliff at left background has a gentler
gradient than cliff at centre background. [1]
• Sea cave in cliff at centre background. [1]
• Top of cliff at centre background has a gentle gradient. [1]
• Middle-ground and foreground - gentle-sloping beaches. [1]
• Larger materials on beach are closer to sea than smaller materials on beach. [1]
Any 4 points = 4 marks
End of Describing Features
2) Describing Trends (30 mins)
When you describe trends...
a) You are describing changes over time.- Generally, increase, decrease, no change?- Give eg. to support your general trend- Anomalies? (However, there are...)- Give eg. to support your anomalies
b) Tips- Don't forget to give the date and dataeg: Increase by 50 people from 1990 to 2000eg: Increase from 1990 ($100) to 2000 ($300)- Use adj to describe the changeseg: increase rapidly? slowly? fluctuating around / between?
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]
DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]
DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]
LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]
DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]
LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]
LDC - Increase was not constant - faster between 1975 to 1995 (increase by 500kcal/person/day) and slower between 1965 to 1975 and 1995 to 2005 (increase by about 100kcal/person/day) [1]
Demo pg (3)3 - qns (a)(i)
(a)(i) Use Fig. 3A to describe the changes in food consumption in DCs and LDCs between 1965 and 2005
beyond2005(notwhatqns
asked)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally increase from 2900kcal/person/day in 1965 to 3400kcal/person/day in 2005. [1]
DC - increase is constant and always above recommended daily calorie intake [1]
LDC - Generally increase from 2000kcal/person/day in 1965 to 2300kcal/person/day in 2000. [1]
LDC - Increase was not constant - faster between 1975 to 1995 (increase by 500kcal/person/day) and slower between 1965 to 1975 and 1995 to 2005 (increase by about 100kcal/person/day) [1]LDC - reach recommended daily calorie intake level only in 2005. [1]
Finish it in 10 minutes
practiceDo (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/
Do (3)13 - qns (e)(i)
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]LDC - Generally, increase from 2300kcal/person/day in 2005 to 2900 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]
(a)(ii) Use Fig. 3A, describe how food consumption is expected to change between 2005 and 2025
practice (i) (3)4 - qns (a)(ii)
1965-2005 : Not what this qns is asking for
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
DC - Generally, a slow increase from 3400kcal/person/day in 2005 to 3500 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]LDC - Generally, increase from 2300kcal/person/day in 2005 to 2900 kcal/person/day in 2025. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individuallyquestion asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]
(e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops.
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
LDC - Increase at the same speed as from 1995 to 2005. [1]
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]
India - slow increase from 0.5 million hectares in 2000 to 4 million hectares in 2006. [1]Slight dip by 0.5million between 2004 to 2005. [1]
practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
US - Increase significantly/almost doubled from 30 million hectares in 2000 to 54 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
Argentina - Increase from 10 million hectares in 2000 to 18 million hectares in 2006. [1]
Brazil - Increase from 3.5 million hectares in 2000 to 11.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]Decrease by 3.5 million hectares from 2002 to 2003. [1]
Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]
India - slow increase from 0.5 million hectares in 2000 to 4 million hectares in 2006. [1]Slight dip by 0.5million between 2004 to 2005. [1]
China - Increasing at an increasing rate from 2002 to 2006, from 0 to 4 million hectares. [1]
3) Comparing (30 mins)
When you compare...a) Be clear about what you are comparing.Eg: Are you suppose to compare changes? A specific year?
b) Tips- Use comparative adjective as far as possible. (Higher, faster)- If unable to, use conjunctions (Also, similarly, however)- Unlike SS, there is no need for comparative criteria here.- one comparison = 1 mark. - Try to compare EXTREMES and things that contradict the general pattern- As far as possible, provide at least 1 similarity and 1 difference- ALWAYS CITE EVIDENCE
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC
Similar- Compare within DCs
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC
Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC
Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)
(a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A.
Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare individual indicators. So focus on comparing development.
DCs
LDCs
Diff - Extremes - Compare a DC with LDC - Israel is more developed than Ethopia, has Israel has a higher adult literacy rate (99% vs 57%), access to safe water (100% vs 22%) and doctors per 100 000 people (391 vs 3)Similar- Compare within DCs - Israel has about the same level of development as the Netherlands, as they both have similar adult literacy rate (difference of 1%), access to safe water (both 100%) and doctors per 100 000 people (difference of 62)
Similar- Compare within LDCs - Both Cambodia and Nepal have similar level of development,
Diff - But show how figures differ despite having similar level of development - as Cambodia has higher literacy rate (80%) than Nepal (63%) and more doctors per 100 000 people (16 vs 5), but has a lot lesser access to safe water than Nepal (34% vs 84%)
Finish it in 10 minutes
practiceDo (4)23 qns (e)(i)Add in question (f):
Compare the population structure of Japan and Uganda. [3]
Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/
Demo (4)23 Qns (e)(i)
Japan
(e)(i) Complete the table below Using Fig. 8C.
Uganda
% 0-14 years of age
% 15-64 years of age
% over 65 years of age
14
48
Demo (4)23 Qns (e)(i)
Japan
(e)(i) Complete the table below Using Fig. 8C.
Uganda
% 0-14 years of age
% 15-64 years of age
% over 65 years of age
14
4850 2
44 22
Demo (4)23 Qns (f)*added in
Japan
(e)(i) Compare the population structure of Japan and Uganda. [3]
Uganda
% 0-14 years of age
% 15-64 years of age
% over 65 years of age
144850 2
44 22
0-14 years old - Uganda has a higher percentage of its population that is between 0-14 years old of age (50%) as compared to Japan (14%) [1]
15-64 years old - Uganda has a slightly higher/ almost the same percentage of its population that is between 15-64 years old of age (48%) as compared to Japan (44%) [1]
over 65 years old - Uganda has a lower percentage of its population that is over 65 years old of age (2%) as compared to Japan (22%) [1]
Skills doneDescribing FeaturesDescribing TrendsComparison
More Practice
Pg (3)16, Qns (d) Development 2012 - refer to previous describing distribution qns for hintsPg (2012)7-8, Qns (b) Coast 2012Pg (4)16-17, Qns (c) Development 2010Pg (3)13-14, Qns (a) Food 2010Pg (3)10, Qns (b) Food 2009Pg (4)19, Qns (e) Development 2010Pg (2012)3-4, Qns (c) Rivers 2012Pg (2012)12-13, Qns (d) Food 2012Pg (2012)16, Qns (b) Food 2012Pg (2012)17, Qns (e), Food 2012
Spend not more than 5 mins in each qnsDo in this order