A documentary filmmaker released a film arguing that multinational corporations exploit workers in developing countries. The film includes the following nar...

(a) Two pieces of factual evidence in the narration [2]

Any two of the following, each worth [1]:

• "Workers earn as little as $2 per day for 14-hour shifts" - a specific, verifiable wage claim.
• "Three factory collapses in the past decade killed over 1,500 people" - a verifiable claim about documented events.
• The specific reference to Dhaka as the location - an identifiable geographical fact.

These count as factual evidence because they are specific, measurable claims that can in principle be checked against independent records, unlike opinions or emotional appeals.

(b) One way the filmmaker uses emotive language to influence the viewer [2]

Any one example fully explained:

• "Exploitation" is a loaded, emotionally charged term [1] that frames the employment relationship entirely negatively and encourages viewers to feel anger or sympathy rather than considering the economic complexity of global manufacturing [1].
• "Unknowingly funding" implies guilt and makes viewers feel personally complicit in the suffering described [1], creating an emotional response that bypasses rational analysis of consumer choices and supply chain realities [1].

(c) Two reasons to be cautious about accepting a documentary's claims as objective truth [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Selective inclusion: Filmmakers choose which footage, interviews, and statistics to include in the final edit. By omitting information that contradicts their thesis (for example, interviews with workers who value their factory jobs or data showing improved conditions), the documentary can present a one-sided narrative that appears comprehensive.
2. Agenda or campaign: The filmmaker may have a personal political campaign or ideological agenda motivating the film, which introduces systematic bias into what is presented and how it is framed.
3. Editing techniques: Music, pacing, juxtaposition of images, and the selection of emotional footage can manipulate the viewer's emotional response in ways that distort objective assessment of the evidence.
4. No peer review: Unlike academic research, documentaries are not subject to independent peer review and do not have to meet formal evidence standards, disclose methodology, or present counterarguments.

(d) Analysis of the claim that consumers are "unknowingly funding this exploitation" [4]

Valid [2]: Global supply chains mean that purchasing decisions in one country directly fund production conditions in another. When a consumer buys a cheap garment, the money flows back through retailers and manufacturers to the factory where workers are paid $2 per day. Most consumers have no visibility into the supply chain, so they are genuinely unaware of the conditions under which their purchases are produced.

Challenge [2]: Many consumers are in fact aware of poor conditions in garment factories (it has been widely reported) but feel they have no affordable alternative, making the "unknowingly" claim inaccurate. Additionally, the claim oversimplifies a complex situation: factory work, despite its poor conditions, may still be preferable to the available alternatives (such as subsistence agriculture) in some contexts. Framing the relationship purely as "exploitation" ignores the agency of workers and governments in developing countries.

(e) Balanced evaluation of the documentary as a research source [6]

Level 3 (5-6 marks):

The documentary has clear strengths as a source. It draws attention to real, documented events such as factory collapses and low wages, providing vivid, first-hand material that academic papers may lack. The specific data cited (death tolls, wage figures, location names) can be independently verified against news reports and official records, giving the viewer concrete starting points for further research.

However, as a piece of advocacy filmmaking, it presents only one perspective. It does not engage with improvements in labour conditions that have occurred since major incidents, the views of workers who may value factory employment as an economic step up, or the economic constraints facing developing-country governments. It lacks the methodological rigour of academic research: there is no systematic sampling, no control group, no declared methodology, and no peer review.

For a research project on globalisation and workers' rights, the documentary would be valuable as one source among several. It effectively illustrates the human impact of global supply chains and can generate research questions. However, it should be cross-referenced with academic studies, industry reports, government data, and the perspectives of workers and employers to build a balanced, well-evidenced picture.