Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Skills revision
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Skills revision

232

Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
232
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. geog skills revision / drills
  • 2. • Maximise skills for Geog • Get use to time pressure objectives
  • 3. 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
  • 4. WARNING It's not the quantity but the QUALITY that determines the effective of each practice.
  • 5. Last reminder
  • 6. Last reminder It starts from here: Having the right thoughts
  • 7. Last reminder It starts from here: Having the right thoughts So that you can have the right destiny
  • 8. 1) Describing Features (20 mins)
  • 9. 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?)
  • 10. 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
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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 image Can”t tell from image but have content knowledge. USe as last resort Can”t tell from image but have content knowledge. USe as last resort
  • 13. 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 image Can”t tell from image but have content knowledge. USe as last resort
  • 14. 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 image Can”t tell from image but have content knowledge. USe as last resort Triangular in shape[1] Edges are not smooth - a lot of small islands [1]
  • 15. 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 image Can”t tell from image but have 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]
  • 16. 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]
  • 17. 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]
  • 18. phrase it properly
  • 19. 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]
  • 20. 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]
  • 21. 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.
  • 22. 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.
  • 23. 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.
  • 24. Finish it in 5-7 minutes practice Do (2)2 - qns (c)(i) Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/
  • 25. practice - mark yourself (2)2 - qns (c)(i) (c)(i) Describe the natural features of the coast [4]
  • 26. 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
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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
  • 29. End of Describing Features
  • 30. 2) Describing Trends (30 mins)
  • 31. 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 data eg: Increase by 50 people from 1990 to 2000 eg: Increase from 1990 ($100) to 2000 ($300) - Use adj to describe the changes eg: increase rapidly? slowly? fluctuating around / between?
  • 32. 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.
  • 33. 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.
  • 34. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns asked) Note: Qns didn't ask us to compare.
  • 35. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns 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]
  • 36. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns 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]
  • 37. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns 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]
  • 38. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns 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]
  • 39. 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 beyond 2005 (not what qns 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]
  • 40. Finish it in 10 minutes practice Do (3)4 - qns (a)(ii) Time yourself at http://www.online-stopwatch.com/countdown-timer/ Do (3)13 - qns (e)(i)
  • 41. (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.
  • 42. (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.
  • 43. (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.
  • 44. (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]
  • 45. (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]
  • 46. (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]
  • 47. (e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops. practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
  • 48. (e)(i) Describe the trends shown in area used to grow genetically modified crops. practice (ii) (3)20 - qns (e)(i)
  • 49. (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.
  • 50. (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. No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually
  • 51. (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. No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually question asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark
  • 52. (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. No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually question asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
  • 53. (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] No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually question asked for trendS = more than one trend. 1 country's trend = 1 mark Generally - all countries increase but at varying speed. [1]
  • 54. (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] No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually question 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]
  • 55. (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] No clear grouping (DCs and LDCs) or base on region (Asia, North America etc.) = describe individually question 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]
  • 56. (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]
  • 57. (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]
  • 58. (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] Canada - slow increase from 2.5 million hectares in 2000 to 6.5 million hectares in 2006. [1]
  • 59. (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] 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]
  • 60. 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]
  • 61. 3) Comparing (30 mins)
  • 62. 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
  • 63. (a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A. Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
  • 64. (a) Compare the level of development in countries shown in Fig. 8A. Demo pg (4)21 - qns 8(a)
  • 65. (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.
  • 66. (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
  • 67. (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
  • 68. (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
  • 69. (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
  • 70. (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
  • 71. (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
  • 72. (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
  • 73. (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
  • 74. (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
  • 75. (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
  • 76. (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
  • 77. (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
  • 78. (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
  • 79. (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
  • 80. (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
  • 81. (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
  • 82. (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
  • 83. (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
  • 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
  • 85. (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
  • 86. (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
  • 87. (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%)
  • 88. (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%)
  • 89. (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%)
  • 90. (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%)
  • 91. (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%)
  • 92. Finish it in 10 minutes practice Do (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/
  • 93. 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
  • 94. 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
  • 95. 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 14 4850 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]
  • 96. Skills done Describing Features Describing Trends Comparison
  • 97. More Practice Pg (3)16, Qns (d) Development 2012 - refer to previous describing distribution qns for hints Pg (2012)7-8, Qns (b) Coast 2012 Pg (4)16-17, Qns (c) Development 2010 Pg (3)13-14, Qns (a) Food 2010 Pg (3)10, Qns (b) Food 2009 Pg (4)19, Qns (e) Development 2010 Pg (2012)3-4, Qns (c) Rivers 2012 Pg (2012)12-13, Qns (d) Food 2012 Pg (2012)16, Qns (b) Food 2012 Pg (2012)17, Qns (e), Food 2012 Spend not more than 5 mins in each qns Do in this order

×