You are on page 1of 2

Mapping Indigenous communities

1. Guns

2. Affordable equipment

3. Uninhabited

4. Definite boundaries

5. Perceptions

6. A

7. E

8. F

9. D

10. Village Censuses

11. Cartographers

12. Feedback and correction

13. Exact locations

14. Zone maps

15. D

16. E

17. F

Life without death








Not given











27 – 28. A and D

29. B

30. D


The chart shows the changes which look place in student spending in the United Kingdom over the three –year period from 1996 to 1999. Students spent 3% less on accommodation, which fell from 23% to 20% of total expenditure and there was a 2% decrease in spending on food, bills and household goods, which fell from 20% to 18%. At the same time course expenditure went down by 3% from 10% to 7%. Children, who constituted 1% of students expenditure in 1996, are not represented in 1999. On the other hand, there was a 5% growth in spending on entertainment, which stood at 26% of total expenditure in 1996 but rose to 31% in 1999. Spending other non-essential items and credit repayments grew by 4% to make up 16% of total expenditure. Spending on essential travel went up by 8% while non-essential travel underwent a 1% fall. Overall, with the exception of expenditure on travel, the most significant general change was a shift in spending on essential items to spending on non- essential items.

Section C2

Multinational companies nowadays find it easy both to market their products all over the world and set up factories wherever they find it convenient. In my opinion this has had a harmful effect on our quality of life in three main areas. The first area is their products. Supporters of globalisation would argue that multinational companies make high-quality goods available to more people. While this may be true to some extent, it also means that we have less choice of products to buy. When powerful multinational companies invade local markets with their goods, they often force local companies with fewer resources to go out of business. In consequence, we are obliged to buy multinational products whether we like them or not. This brings me to my second point; ft is sometimes said that multinational companies and globalisation are making societies more open. This may be true. However, I would argue that as a result the human race is losing its cultural diversity. If we consumed different products, societies all over the world would be more varied. This can be seen by the fact that we all shop in similar multinational supermarkets and buy identical products wherever we live. Thirdly, defenders of multinational companies often point out that they provide employment. Although this is undoubtedly true, it also means that we have become more dependent on them, which in turn makes us more vulnerable to their decisions. When, for example, a multinational decides to move its production facilities to another country, this has an adverse effect on its workers who lose their jobs. All in all, I believe that if we as voters pressured our governments to make multinational companies more responsible and to protect local producers from outside competition, we could have the benefits of globalisation without its disadvantages.