Minutes from a city council meeting recorded the following proposal by a councillor: 'I propose that our city commit to generating 100% of its municipal ele...

Part (a) [3 marks]

This question tests your understanding of how the source of a study can affect its reliability, specifically through the concept of vested interest.

1. The transport department is a public body with a responsibility to provide accurate, balanced information for policy decisions, not to promote any particular product or technology. [1]
2. An electric vehicle manufacturer has a direct financial interest in the outcome: favourable findings could boost sales. This commercial motivation could consciously or unconsciously influence the study's design, the questions it asks, and how it interprets results. [1]
3. A government-commissioned study is more likely to present a comprehensive picture, examining costs, infrastructure requirements, and limitations alongside potential benefits, rather than selectively highlighting only positive data. [1]

The underlying principle is that financial or institutional interest in a particular outcome can introduce bias, making it important to consider who funded and conducted a study when evaluating its conclusions.

Part (b) [4 marks]

This part tests your ability to evaluate whether evidence from one context can be applied to another - a skill called assessing transferability.

Any two well-developed reasons are accepted. Examples:

• Climate and geography: The neighbouring cities may have more favourable conditions for renewable energy generation, such as greater sunshine hours for solar or higher average wind speeds for turbines. A city with less favourable conditions would find the same targets harder or more expensive to achieve. [1+1]
• Infrastructure and demographics: The cities may differ significantly in population size, industrial energy demand, or existing energy infrastructure. A larger or more industrial city would face greater challenges in converting its entire supply to renewables. [1+1]
• Funding and subsidies: The neighbouring cities may have received national government grants or subsidies that made the transition more affordable. If this city does not have access to the same financial support, the cost calculations would differ substantially. [1+1]
• Target vs achievement: The councillor says the cities 'adopted similar targets,' but adopting a target is not the same as achieving it. The neighbouring cities may still be far from meeting their goals, which would undermine the argument that the policy works in practice. [1+1]

Part (c) [2 marks]

This part assesses your ability to identify a gap between general public opinion data and a specific policy proposal.

Ranking 'environmental protection' among top priorities is a broad statement of values, not a specific endorsement of a 100% renewable electricity target by 2032. [1] Residents might strongly support environmental protection as a general principle but oppose this particular policy if it required higher council taxes, service disruptions during the transition, or the visual impact of large-scale solar or wind installations in their area. General survey questions do not capture these nuances. [1]

Part (d) [3 marks]

This part requires balanced evaluation: you must engage with the opposing councillor's claim and use both the extract and your own knowledge.

• Argument supporting the response (technology not reliable enough): Renewable sources like solar and wind are intermittent - they depend on weather conditions that cannot be controlled. Without sufficient battery storage capacity or backup generation systems, a city relying entirely on renewables risks power shortages during extended periods of cloud cover or calm weather. Current large-scale storage technology remains expensive and limited in capacity. [1-2]
• Argument challenging the response: The extract provides evidence that renewable technology is already functioning effectively in practice. Rooftop solar on public buildings saved the council $1.2 million, demonstrating that the technology generates real financial returns. Furthermore, three neighbouring cities have adopted similar targets, suggesting that the technology is sufficiently mature for real-world municipal implementation rather than merely theoretical. [1-2]

A strong answer engages with both the practical limitations and the real-world evidence, rather than simply asserting one position.