Explain herbicide tolerant crops
Candidates who reached the scholarship standard demonstrated a wide general knowledge of the living world to which they could relate biological theory and use this to assist in answering the questions. They showed a wide biological content knowledge and used terms appropriately. These candidates were able to analyse data and use it in conjunction with biological knowledge in formulating their answers.
Scholarship candidates answered in specifics rather than broad generalisations.
Evidence presented by Scholarship candidates addressed the question asked with minimal irrelevant material presented. Answers were coherent with ideas integrated and it was clear these candidates spent time planning their answers and organising their ideas. It was evident that candidates understood what was required in an answer when the questions used terms such as evaluate, discuss, compare and contrast.
Candidates who did not achieve the standard tended to write in generalisations rather than specifics eg 'it evolved by natural selection'; 'releasing insect resistant crops into the environment will have catastrophic effects and insects may become extinct'; 'releasing GM crops will cause a loss of biodiversity'. They tended to use inappropriate descriptors eg 'catastrophic', 'terrible', 'chaotic', 'havoc' rather than biological terms.
In Question One, candidates who did not achieve the standard tended to treat the release of herbicide tolerant crops and insect resistant crops as one unit rather than two separate ones and so couldn't compare and contrast them. They also tended to personify nature eg ' the plants want to survive'.
In Question Two, when analysing the data, candidates tended to focus on unimportant detail rather than looking for patterns and trends. They tended to describe the Figure 1 actograms rather than comparing and contrasting them ie identifying the similarities and differences.
Candidates who did not achieve the standard tended to describe rather than discuss in Question Three and while there were a lot of descriptions of the diversity in fish, there was little or no attempt made to discuss the evolutionary processes that resulted in this diversity. Candidates gave their own opinion as an evaluation.