1 · Power, legitimacy and source analysis · 权力、合法性与来源分析
legitimacy · agenda
U1-Q1 · 2 marks
What best demonstrates agenda-setting power? · 什么最能体现议程设置权？
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
An actor's ability to decide which issues receive consideration. · 行动者决定哪些问题获得考量的能力。
U1-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: Two organizations have equal formal votes but different budgets and access to information. Formal equality does not make every actor equally influential. · 解释此原创案例中的机制或推理：两个组织拥有同等的正式投票权，但预算和对信息的获取渠道不同。形式上的平等并不意味着每个行动者的影响力都相同。
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
Compare the organizations' formal rights with their ability to commission research and set meeting agendas. This separates rule-based authority from practical influence and shows where another actor might challenge a decision. · 比较这些组织的正式权利与其委托研究及设定会议议程的能力。这区分了基于规则的权威与实际影响力，并表明其他行动者可能挑战决策的环节。
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
Do not treat legitimacy as popularity alone, or assume a source is false because it has an interest. / Explain how origin, purpose and content affect the claim's usefulness for your question. · 不要仅将合法性等同于受欢迎程度，也不要因为某来源存在利益关系就认定其为虚假。/ 说明起源、目的和内容如何影响该主张对你问题的有用性。
2 · Rights, development, sustainability and peace · 权利、发展、可持续性与和平
justice · sustainability
U2-Q1 · 2 marks
What makes a peace agreement more durable in the resource case? · 在资源案例中，什么使和平协议更具持久性？
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
Credible enforcement and arrangements that address the parties' underlying needs. · 可信的执行措施及能够解决各方根本需求的安排。
U2-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: A community resource dispute involves access, livelihood and environmental limits. Treating it as only an economic problem can miss questions of rights and authority. · 解释此原创案例中的机制或推理：一项社区资源争议涉及使用权、生计和环境限制。若仅将其视为经济问题，可能会忽视权利和权威方面的问题。
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
Map the actors' needs and responsibilities. Compare a negotiated access agreement with a restriction imposed without consultation. Explain which conditions could make each option durable, fair and enforceable. · 绘制各方主体的需求与责任图谱。比较通过协商达成的准入协议与未经磋商单方面施加的限制措施。说明哪些条件可使每种方案具备持久性、公正性和可执行性。
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
A single case is not proof that every conflict has the same cause. / State the relevant concept, evidence and counter-perspective before reaching a judgement. · 单一案例不能证明所有冲突都有相同的原因。/ 在得出结论之前，陈述相关概念、证据及反方观点。
3 · Engagement and reflective research · 参与和反思性研究
engagement · perspective
U3-Q1 · 2 marks
Which reflection is strongest? · 哪一种反思最为有力？
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
Explain how access to only staff perspectives limits conclusions about users' experiences. · 解释为何仅依赖工作人员视角会限制关于用户体验的结论。
U3-Q2 · 4 marks
Explain the mechanism or reasoning in this original case: A school wants to improve accessibility to a shared facility. You can study how decisions are made without staging activism or collecting sensitive information. · 解释此原创案例中的机制或推理：一所学校希望提高共享设施的可达性。你可以在不组织抗议活动或不收集敏感信息的情况下，研究决策是如何做出的。
Answer and reasoning · 答案与解析
With school approval, attend a permitted consultation or interview responsible staff about access arrangements. Compare the experience with policy documents and users' voluntary accounts. Analyse power and competing needs, then reflect on what the evidence cannot establish. · 经学校批准，参加允许的咨询或访谈，就准入安排向负责人员了解情况。将体验与政策文件及用户自愿提供的陈述进行比较。分析权力及相互冲突的需求，然后反思证据无法确立的内容。
- Accurate relevant concept (1)
- Specific evidence from the case (1)
- Connected reasoning (2)
Participation itself is not analysis; avoid a diary that only recounts events. / The teacher approves the real activity and authorship; a fictional engagement report cannot satisfy IA requirements. · 参与本身不是分析；避免撰写仅记录事件的日记。/ 教师批准真实的活动和作者身份；一份虚构的参与报告无法满足内部评估要求。