AS

BIOLOGY
7401/2
Paper 2
Mark scheme
June 2019
Version: 1.0 Final

*196A74012/MS*
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant
questions, by a panel of subject teachers. This mark scheme includes any amendments made at the
standardisation events which all associates participate in and is the scheme which was used by them in
this examination. The standardisation process ensures that the mark scheme covers the students’
responses to questions and that every associate understands and applies it in the same correct way.
As preparation for standardisation each associate analyses a number of students’ scripts. Alternative
answers not already covered by the mark scheme are discussed and legislated for. If, after the
standardisation process, associates encounter unusual answers which have not been raised they are
required to refer these to the Lead Assessment Writer.

It must be stressed that a mark scheme is a working document, in many cases further developed and
expanded on the basis of students’ reactions to a particular paper. Assumptions about future mark
schemes on the basis of one year’s document should be avoided; whilst the guiding principles of
assessment remain constant, details will change, depending on the content of a particular examination
paper.

Further copies of this mark scheme are available from aqa.org.uk

Copyright © 2019 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.

AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet
for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that
is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

2
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Level of response marking instructions

Level of response mark schemes are broken down into levels, each of which has a descriptor. The
descriptor for the level shows the average performance for the level. There are marks in each level.

Before you apply the mark scheme to a student’s answer read through the answer and annotate it (as
instructed) to show the qualities that are being looked for. You can then apply the mark scheme.

Step 1 Determine a level

Start at the lowest level of the mark scheme and use it as a ladder to see whether the answer meets the
descriptor for that level. The descriptor for the level indicates the different qualities that might be seen in
the student’s answer for that level. If it meets the lowest level then go to the next one and decide if it
meets this level, and so on, until you have a match between the level descriptor and the answer. With
practice and familiarity you will find that for better answers you will be able to quickly skip through the
lower levels of the mark scheme.

When assigning a level you should look at the overall quality of the answer and not look to pick holes in
small and specific parts of the answer where the student has not performed quite as well as the rest. If
the answer covers different aspects of different levels of the mark scheme you should use a best fit
approach for defining the level and then use the variability of the response to help decide the mark within
the level, ie if the response is predominantly level 3 with a small amount of level 4 material it would be
placed in level 3 but be awarded a mark near the top of the level because of the level 4 content.

Step 2 Determine a mark

Once you have assigned a level you need to decide on the mark. The descriptors on how to allocate
marks can help with this. The exemplar materials used during standardisation will help. There will be an
answer in the standardising materials which will correspond with each level of the mark scheme. This
answer will have been awarded a mark by the Lead Examiner. You can compare the student’s answer
with the example to determine if it is the same standard, better or worse than the example. You can then
use this to allocate a mark for the answer based on the Lead Examiner’s mark on the example.

You may well need to read back through the answer as you apply the mark scheme to clarify points and
assure yourself that the level and the mark are appropriate.

Indicative content in the mark scheme is provided as a guide for examiners. It is not intended to be
exhaustive and you must credit other valid points. Students do not have to cover all of the points
mentioned in the Indicative content to reach the highest level of the mark scheme.

An answer which contains nothing of relevance to the question must be awarded no marks.

3
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

1. (Reference to) hydrolysis of peptide bonds; 4 Accept chain/chain of

2. Endopeptidase act in the middle of amino acids/peptide
protein/polypeptide for polypeptide
OR
Accept
Endopeptidase produces short(er) polypeptides/
digest/breakdown/
increase number of ends;
break for ‘act’
3. Exopeptidases act at end of protein/polypeptide
OR Mark points 2, 3 and 4
01.1 Exopeptidase produces dipeptides/amino acids; reject answers where
4. Dipeptidase acts on dipeptide/between two substrate or product is
amino acids incorrect eg
OR ‘Endopeptidase
Dipeptidase produces (single) amino acids; produces dipeptides’
Ignore references to
source and location of
enzymes

1. No significant difference (in protein absorption); 3 max Ignore reference to

2. (because ± 2) SDs overlap; ‘significance’ unless
3. (So mean) percentage absorbed not affected by qualified, eg
percentage in diet; ‘difference’
4. Amount of protein (in diet) is not a limiting factor
01.2 OR 2. Accept error bar for
Something else is limiting factor eg amount of SD
protease;
5. (But) small range of protein in diet
OR
(Should) Investigate wider range;

1. More/remaining/undigested (protein) broken 3 1. Accept all (protein)

down; broken down
01.3 2. (So more) amino acids absorbed;
3. (Because) protein/food passes again through
stomach/ileum;

TOTAL 10

4
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

2 1. Accept more readily

1. Increases/more oxygen dissociation/unloading
OR 1. Accept releases
02.1 Deceases haemoglobin’s affinity for O2; more O2
2. (By) decreasing (blood) pH/increasing acidity; 2. Reject if reference
made to active site

1. Accept holds O2 at
1. High(er) affinity for O2 (than haemoglobin) 2
lower ppO2
OR
Dissociates oxygen less readily
OR
Associates more readily;
02.2 2. Allows (aerobic) respiration when diving/at 2. Accept acts as an
low(er) pO2 oxygen store
OR
Provides oxygen when haemoglobin unloaded
OR
Delays anaerobic respiration/lactate production;

Correct answer for 2 marks 2

10.8 to 11 (mins)
OR
10 minutes and 48 seconds = 2 marks;;

Accept for 1 mark,

10.48 minutes

OR
02.3 Reference to 2057.7 to 2058 (10 700 ÷ 5.2, time
oxygen would last if its mass was 1 kg)
OR
Reference to 56 to 56.3 (10700 ÷ 190, oxygen in 1
kg of seal)
OR
Reference to 988 (5.2 x 190, oxygen used min-1 by
the seal)
OR
Incorrect answer with correct answer shown in
working

TOTAL 6

5
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

Watson and Crick Correct spelling

03.1 OR 1 Ignore first/given/fore
Crick and Watson; names

03.2 DNA polymerase; 1 Correct spelling

Role of single-stranded DNA fragments 3

1. Template;
2. Determines order of nucleotides/bases;
3. Ignore forms
03.3 complementary bases
Role of DNA nucleotides
3. Forms complementary pairs / A – T, G - C 3. Accept sequence/
chain for strand
OR
Forms complementary (DNA) strand;

TOTAL 5

6
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

1. Bind to antigen 2 1. Accept opsonin for

‘marker’
OR
1. Accept form
Are markers;
(antibody-antigen)
complexes/are
2. (Antibodies) cause
04.1 complementary to
clumping/agglutination
antigen
OR
2. Reject clotting
Attract phagocytes;

Correct answer for 2 marks 2

110/111/111.1;;
04.2
Accept for 1 mark,
correct readings from graph (5.1 and 2.1)

1. Mean (antibody concentration) 4 max 2. and 3. Accept

increases; correct reference to
2. 1st injection protects some mice/1 number of unprotected
mouse/2 mice mice
OR
1st injection causes primary (immune)
response/memory cell production;
3. 2nd/3rd injection protects most/all mice
OR
2nd/3rd injection causes secondary
(immune) response
OR
2nd/3rdinjection uses memory cells;
04.3 4. Because antibody at/above protective 4. Accept converse
level/2.1;
5. Antibody decreased (rapidly after 3rd
injection);
6. No mice protected after 180 days
OR
Injections/vaccine not effective in long
term
OR
Booster required (when antibody below
protective level/after 120/180 days);
7. One mouse (after first injection) has big
response/already had meningitis/antigen;

7
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Mark as pairs, 1 and 2,

1. Inject vaccine (again)/meningitis antigen/ 2
3 and 4
inactive antigen/dead/living bacteria/
pathogen/use a booster;
Accept for inject,
2. (Memory cells present if) faster/more introduce, give, use
rapid production/higher concentration
antibody (than 1st injection) 1. Must refer to antigen
OR or cell, ‘disease’ or
‘meningitis’ is not
04.4 Immune response is quicker (than 1st enough
injection)
OR 2. Accept converse
2. Must be a
Symptoms do not develop; comparison
3. Add enzyme attached to (second)
antibody against memory cell;
4. Colour change shows memory cell 4. Ignore to detect
present; (meningitis)
antibodies

TOTAL 10

8
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

1. Initial and final mass (of beaker and all 2 1. Accept change in
contents); mass/weight
2. Number of (groups of) xylem vessels;
1. Ignore volume
1. Reject change in
05.1 mass of
celery/beaker/water
alone
2. Accept amount for
‘number’

Prevent evaporation/water loss 1

OR
05.2
(So) evaporation/water loss/transpiration only from
celery;

1. Water evaporates/is transpired (from leaves/ 3 2. Accept negative

stalk/celery/plant); pressure for tension
2. Water potential gradient/lower water potential
creates tension/pulls up water
05.3
OR
Osmosis creates tension/pulls up water;
3. Hydrogen bonds/cohesion/adhesion maintains
column;

1. Cut away from body; 2 1. Accept description

2. Against hard/non-slip/flat surface; of cutting technique to
05.4 avoid cutting fingers
2. Accept named hard
surface eg tile/board

Median (no mark) 2 1. Accept anomalies /

1. (Presence of) outliers/80/70 extremes for ‘outliers’
OR
Small sample size/8 (measurements);
2. 41;
05.5
Accept for 1 mark,
Mean of 47
OR
Mode of 35

TOTAL 10

9
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

1. Wash hands to remove/kill microbes 3 max Each must include an

explanation
OR
3. Accept use sterile/
Wear gloves/apron to prevent contamination;
antiseptic/bleach for
2. Burning Bunsen close by to create upward ‘disinfect’
current of air;
4. Accept autoclave/
3. Disinfect bench/work on disinfected cloth to kill
use alcohol/steam/boil
microbes/prevent contamination;
for flame
4. Flame instrument/equipment to sterilise/kill
06.1 microbes/prevent contamination; 4. Accept scalpel/
5. Lift lid slightly to prevent entry of microbes; inoculating loop/wire
loop/loop/forceps/
spreader for
instrument
1. 3. 4. & 5. Accept
microorganisms/
spores/bacteria/fungi/
contaminants for
‘microbes’

Differences must be
Mitosis given first 2 max
given as comparisons
1. One division, two divisions in meiosis;
2. (Daughter) cells genetically identical, daughter Ignore references to
cells genetically different in meiosis; asexual / sexual
3. Two cells produced, (usually) four cells produced reproduction, growth,
in meiosis; repair & replacement
4. Diploid to diploid/haploid to haploid, diploid to
06.2 haploid in meiosis; 2. Reference to
5. Separation of homologous chromosomes only in ‘genetically’ needed
meiosis; once
6. Crossing over only in meiosis;
7. Independent segregation only in meiosis; 4. Accept same
number chromosomes
in mitosis, but half the
number in meiosis

06.3 28; 1 Automarking

10
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

1. Separation of homologous chromosomes 3 max 1. Accept description

(occurred) of homologous
OR chromosome
(Independent) segregation (occurred); movement for
2. (Arrangement/separation/segregation of ‘separation’
chromosomes is) random/ (almost) equally
frequent (in tubes 1 and 2); 1. Accept alleles for
3. Crossing over occurred in tube 3/10 tubes; ‘chromosomes’
4. (Crossing over) is rare/infrequent/in only 10 1. Accept as a
tubes; labelled diagram of
06.4 chromosomes
eg

3. Accept as labelled
diagram of crossing
over
3. and 4. “Crossing
over occurred in only
10 tubes” = 2 marks

TOTAL 9

11
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

Type of selection 2 2. Ignore

1. Directional; references to
adaptations/
07.1 Reason: natural selection
2. One extreme selected/removed/favoured/
2. Accept large
chosen fish/small fish for
OR ‘extreme’
One extreme allowed to breed;

1. As a baseline/control; 2 2. Ignore reference

to type of selection
2. To show effect of no selection
2. Accept not
OR
removing/not
To show what happens in a normal
catching/not fishing
population/naturally
for ‘selection’
OR
To show effect of/ compare with tank A/tank 2. Accept genetic
C; drift for ‘no
07.2 selection’
2. Accept no
fishing/no
selection/no caught
fish for ‘normal
population’
2. Accept to
compare with other
results

Correct answer for 2 marks 2 5

Accept 3 for 2
(How much greater) 1.6 to 1.7;; marks
Accept for 1 mark,
07.3
1.2 : 1 and 2 : 1

Accept for 1 mark,

4.1 : 3.4 and 4.8 : 2.4

12
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

3 max
Not supported because 2 max for “But”
1. (Sea) fishing reduces (mean) mass of fish;
2. Because large fish removed
OR
Because small fish escape/put back
OR
Because fishing (model) like Tank C;
But
3. Information from (only) one species
OR
Sea fishing catches other/different (types of)
species;
07.4 4. No statistical test;
5. Size of tank may affect fish growth;
6. Fish in tanks are all same age/sea fish not all
the same age;
7. No measure of number of fish (removed)/
only measured mean mass
OR
No measure of (total) yield of fish
OR
No measure of reproductive success of fish;
8. Removal of 90% of population is unlikely to
be replicated in the sea fishing;
9. Sea fish do not have life cycle of one year
OR
Sea fish do not reproduce all at the same
time;

TOTAL 9

13
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

1. Comparing (measurable/observable) 2 max Must have idea of

features/characteristics; comparison/
2. Comparing amino acid sequences/primary differences/similarities
structures (of a/named/the same protein);
Ignore courtship/
behaviour/mutations/
number of
chromosomes/allele
08.1 frequency/species
richness/index of
diversity
Accept comparing
amount of antibody
bound to
antigen/protein (in
different species)

08.2 36 to 36.4; 1

08.3 B, A, C; 1

1. Student’s t-test; 2 Accept average for

2. Comparing mean of data sets/histograms ‘mean’
OR
2. Ignore difference
08.4 Comparing (2) means
between means
OR
Data are normally distributed;

TOTAL 6

14
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

Question Marking Guidance Mark Comments

Iron ions 5 max Must have MP1 for 5 max

1. Haemoglobin binds/associates with 3 max for sodium and 3 max for
oxygen phosphate
OR
Haemoglobin transports/loads 1. Ignore reference to 2+ or 3+ in
oxygen; Fe2+ or Fe3+
Accept 5. OR 6. – not both
Sodium ions
Accept for 1 mark,
2. Co-transport of glucose/amino Sodium ions cause water
acids (into cells); reabsorption in kidneys
3. (Because) sodium moved out by OR
active transport/Na – K pump; Sodium ions establish resting
4. Creates a sodium potential (in neurones)
09.1
concentration/diffusion gradient; OR
5. Affects osmosis/water potential;
Sodium ion diffusion creates
Phosphate ions action potential
8. Reject ‘energy produced’
6. Affects osmosis/water potential;
7. Joins nucleotides/in
phosphodiester bond/in backbone
of DNA/RNA/in nucleotides;
8. Used in/to produce ATP;
9. Phosphorylates other compounds
(usually) making them more
reactive;
10. Hydrophilic/water soluble part of
phospholipid bilayer/membrane;

15
 MARK SCHEME – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

5 max
1. and 2. Accept correct named
1. Phospholipid (bilayer) allows
examples
movement/diffusion of non-
polar/lipid-soluble substances; 1 and 2 Ignore water
2. Phospholipid (bilayer) prevents 1. Accept phospholipid (bilayer)
movement/diffusion of polar/ allows movement/diffusion of
charged/lipid-insoluble substances O2/CO2
OR
(Membrane) proteins allow 1. Accept water-insoluble
polar/charged substances to cross 2. Accept water-soluble
the membrane/bilayer;
3. Carrier proteins allow active 4. Accept aquaporins allow
transport; osmosis
09.2
4. Channel/carrier proteins allow 6 and 7 accept correct reference
facilitated diffusion/co-transport; to faster/slower/rate for ‘how
5. Shape/charge of channel / carrier much movement’
determines which substances
move; 7. Accept microvilli / Golgi
6. Number of channels/carriers (apparatus) / ER / rER
determines how much movement; 7. Accept surface area to
7. Membrane surface area volume for ‘surface area’
determines how much
diffusion/movement; 8. Accept cholesterol affects
vesicle formation/
8. Cholesterol affects
endocytosis/exocytosis/phagocy
fluidity/rigidity/permeability;
tosis;

TOTAL 10

16
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – JUNE 2019

General Comments

Topics in which students demonstrated good knowledge included the role of ions and movement of
substances across membranes, the role of haemoglobin in oxygen transport and the differences
between mitosis and meiosis. The question on immunity (Q4) appeared to be more accessible to
students than equivalent questions on previous papers. Knowledge was less secure on protein
digestion and investigating diversity.

Many students missed opportunities to score marks by failing to take note of the detail shown in
patterns of data and by omitting obvious detail in their extended answers.

Examiners commented on the poor legibility of handwriting shown in a significant number of

answers and the extensive use of blue ink instead of black ink, which more than occasionally made
it difficult to read these answers.

Question 01.1

This question discriminated very well, with secure understanding of protein digestion demonstrated
by approximately 40% of students. Conversely, around 40% of the cohort had little, if any,
knowledge of protein digestion above that expected at GCSE level. Examiners reported seeing
many descriptions of digestion in general terms and many of how enzymes act, again in general
terms. Students frequently mentioned lipase and carbohydrase and achieved no marks.

The action of endopeptidases and exopeptidases was known by many; however, references to
dipeptidase enzymes were less common. Answers with good descriptions of all three types of
protease often failed to achieve full marks because they failed to mention the hydrolysis of peptide
bonds. Occasionally, students failed to gain a mark because their description gave a dipeptidase
hydrolysing more than a single bond in a dipeptide. Some failed to gain marks by incorrectly
naming the enzyme, eg exodipeptidase, or by giving an incorrect product of a reaction.

Question 01.2

This question tested students’ understanding of how to use statistics to draw valid conclusions
from data presented in the form of a bar chart and it was a good discriminator. Approximately 10%
of students scored all three marks; their answers showed clarity in their understanding of how
statistics supported a conclusion.

Those scoring no marks invariably ignored the error bars to describe a trend in the data and often
contradicted themselves by then saying that there was no significant difference in the percentage
of absorbed protein. It suggested many students have little understanding of significance testing.
Those who correctly referred to the overlapping of two times the standard deviations did not always
link this conclusion to differences between mean percentages of absorbed protein. They often
referred, incorrectly, to differences between percentages of protein in the diet.

Question 01.3

Students found this a challenging question, with about a third achieving no marks. Many answers
began with a general description of the digestion and absorption of nutrients or materials so did not
address the benefit to rabbits of eating their own caecal droppings. When the explanation turned to
what happens with re-ingested food, answers usually achieved a mark for the idea that more
protein is digested. Students often mentioned the role of the stomach or ileum in absorption,

3 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

although many kept this answer general by mentioning vaguely that absorption occurred in the
digestive system. Few students identified amino acids as the product being absorbed; again, they
used a general statement about absorbing proteins rather than include some obvious AS level
detail. Relatively few students achieved all 3 marks, often because otherwise well written, logical
suggestions included at least one of these general statements.

Question 02.1

This question discriminated well. Examiners noted some detailed and accurate explanations, which
showed these students made secure links between respiration, pH changes and the oxygen
supplied from haemoglobin.

Approximately two-thirds of students accurately described the effect of carbon dioxide on

haemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen and many went on to explain it in terms of reduced pH. Some
muddled answers contained contradictions; for example, ‘haemoglobin unloads more easily when
its affinity for oxygen increases’, or ‘a shift of the curve to the left shows a reduced affinity for
oxygen’. A common misconception observed in many answers had carbon dioxide bound to
haemoglobin. Many students failed to gain a mark by linking the change in haemoglobin’s affinity
for oxygen to changes in the rate of respiration rather than to changes in pH. Some students did
not confirm the direction of the pH change, or stated that increased acidity caused an increase in
pH value.

Question 02.2

Many students accurately applied their understanding of oxygen dissociation curves in the context
of a diving mammal. The majority of correct answers included reference to myoglobin’s increased
affinity for oxygen, or that it loaded/associated more readily. Some failed to gain this mark because
they referred to the affinity of a seal or they used haemoglobin in the wrong context.

Fewer students went on to explain how the adaptation enabled diving. The most frequent mark
gained here was for references to supplying oxygen to use in respiration during a dive, or that
myoglobin acted as an oxygen store.

Question 02.3

Approximately 80% of students achieved at least one mark because they recognised and used
numbers in standard form and successfully manipulated data to calculate valid figures in the
context of a diving seal. Many set out their working logically and demonstrated appropriate
sequential thinking. A significant number failed to gain one mark because they incorrectly rounded
down the correct answer, or they calculated the time a seal of 1 kg mass could remain under
water, or they calculated the oxygen used by a seal in one minute.

Question 03.1

Only about a third of students successfully named the scientists. Many of the rest either left the
answer blank or referred to scientists such as Meselson and Stahl.

Question 03.2

This enzyme is well known; three quarters of the students achieved the mark.

4 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

Question 03.3

This question discriminated quite well, although it was rare for students to get all three marks. The
majority understood that the DNA fragment is a template against which free nucleotides line up in
complementary pairs; however, very few went further to say that the order of nucleotides in the
new fragment is determined by the order on the template.

Question 04.1

This question tested knowledge of an immune response leading up to phagocytosis, and many
students knew it well. It was a good discriminator. Examiners noted good descriptions of antibody-
antigen complex formation leading to agglutination/clumping of pathogens. There were fewer
references to these complexes attracting phagocytes. Inaccurate statements, such as ‘they signal’,
‘identify’ or ‘alert’ phagocytes, gained no mark. More than occasional references to antibodies with
active sites or antibodies as memory cells were some of the misconceptions observed in answers.
Descriptions of cell-mediated responses gained no credit.

Question 04.2

Approximately 40% of students successfully translated information between graphical and

numerical forms and successfully completed the calculation. A further 10% achieved one mark for
identifying the correct co-ordinates in Figure 4, but could not calculate the correct figure. A frequent
error was to use 5.2 as the concentration of antibody in mouse Z, rather than the correct number of
5.1. Approximately 10% of students did not attempt to answer this question.

Question 04.3

This question discriminated quite well. Many students successfully used their graph-reading skills
to take appropriate information from Figure 4 and linked it to a good understanding of the humoral
immune response. Examiners noted many well explained answers contained references to primary
and secondary responses and identified the long-term effectiveness of this vaccine.

Many students did not gain marks because they failed to use mean values in their explanations, or
they described a pattern shown in Figure 4 without going further to link it to underlying changes in
the immune response. Relatively few students included references in their explanation to either
memory cell production or memory cell use, so failed to gain marks. A minority of students gave
nicely worded general explanations of the immune response without linking any of these ideas to
information shown in Figure 4; they also achieved no marks. Most students appreciated the
significance of the protective antibody concentration and successfully used it to determine the
success or otherwise of each injection.

Examiners noted that marking this question was more than occasionally hindered by poor legibility
of handwriting and students’ poor expression.

Question 04.4

Over half of the students achieved at least one mark on this question, but it was not a good
discriminator. The marks were usually given for references to injecting the antigen or pathogen and
observing faster/more rapid antibody production. Using a ‘disease’ or ‘injecting meningitis’ were
common misconceptions. Occasionally, ideas on ELISA testing were used; however, these
invariably tested for antigens rather than for memory cells. Many students did not make a

5 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

comparative answer about the amount of antibody produced, saying ‘high/fast antibody production’
instead of ‘higher/faster antibody production’.

Question 05.1

This question tested a practical skill of using apparatus to record quantitative measurements and it
proved to be very difficult for the majority of students: only about 2% achieved both marks.
Students did not appreciate that the question wanted a practical solution using the apparatus
shown, so suggestions such as, ‘measure volume’ or ‘record the drop in water level inside the
beaker’ were common and gained no mark. Many suggested incorrectly that the dimensions or
mass of the celery would change or they used poor expressions such as ‘measure changes in the
mass of the beaker’ rather than record the initial and final mass of the beaker and all of its
contents.

A relatively small number of students successfully referred to the units given for determining the
rate of water movement; consequently, few mentioned counting the xylem vessels.

Question 05.2

This question was answered correctly by around 65% of students, but did not discriminate
particularly well. Examiners suspected that success in applying a good understanding of practical
techniques in the novel context of using a weight potometer was centre-dependent. Some students
confused the weight potometer with a bubble potometer by, for example, commenting on ‘the
movement of bubbles through the oil’ or that ‘oil prevented bubbles forming inside the xylem’.
Others suggested incorrectly that the oil lubricated water movement or it prevented unwanted
substances from entering the beaker.

Question 05.3

In this question, students were asked to apply their understanding of the cohesion-tension theory
to a problem set in an investigation. It discriminated very well. A relatively small number of students
showed an excellent understanding of the cohesion-tension theory and succinctly articulated the
details of this process.

The question performed well for those who realised that water movement in the celery began with
evaporation. Unfortunately, about a third of all students scored no marks and many gave
explanations that skirted around the cohesion-tension theory, and confused its stages. Some of the
misconceptions observed in many answers included cohesion or evaporation creating the tension
in water, or descriptions of tension being a force that pulls up a water column, or evaporation
reduces hydrostatic pressure. Many also suggested incorrectly that water moved along xylem
vessels down an osmotic gradient. Some confused transpiration and translocation by mentioning
the idea of a ‘source’ and ‘sink’.

Question 05.4

This question tested an understanding of using dissection instruments safely and, judging from the
high level of detail provided in many answers, it appears that scalpels are being used in AS
practical work. Most students achieved at least one mark, usually for describing how to cut celery
without causing injury. Far fewer considered a type of surface against which to make the cut and,
for this reason, the question did not discriminate well between students of different ability. Those
who achieved no marks tended to describe how to safely transport or store the blade, which did not

6 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

address the question. Answers that suggested wearing gloves to protect fingers while cutting were
common and achieved no mark.

Question 05.5

Only around 10% of students failed to score at least one mark, but the majority chose to calculate
a mean which limited them to one mark and, for this reason, the question did not discriminate well.
15% of students gave the correct answer, ‘median’, and most of them recognised the relevance of
the outliers. A very small number selected the mode and they invariably identified its correct value.

Question 06.1

The question discriminated quite well, with the majority of students recognising that they had to
both describe and explain relevant aseptic techniques. In many responses, the depth of detail
demonstrated that students had actually used these techniques in practical work.

About one third of students achieved no marks because they did not explain why their suggestions
achieved aseptic conditions or they gave an inaccurate explanation: for example, an upward
current of air ‘kills bacteria’. These omissions reduced the level of discrimination achieved by this
question. Some students moved their description beyond the scope of the question by, for
example, considering how agar is sterilised or the safe disposal of contaminated equipment.
Examiners observed descriptions such as flaming the bottle neck or sterilising the lid of an agar
plate; again, these gained no marks. In some otherwise detailed and nicely articulated answers, a
significant number of students could not gain a mark because they failed to say how an inoculating
loop or a spreading device was sterilised.

Question 06.2

This question was relatively straightforward, with more than half of students achieving full marks.
The majority knew differences between mitosis and meiosis and many successfully articulated this
in concise, well-structured and comparative sentences. The most frequent correct answers made
references to the number of cells produced, to the number of divisions involved or to differences in
genetic variation found in the daughter cells. Some failed to gain a mark because they described
‘stages’ rather than (nuclear) divisions. General statements, such as ‘mitosis is involved in asexual
reproduction while meiosis is sexual’ or ‘mitosis produces diploid cells’, did not gain credit, since
these are not true of all life cycles.

Question 06.3

This question provided high challenge, not least because many of those who knew that the diploid
number was 14 did not answer the question, which asked them for the number of chromatids, not
the number of chromosomes. Approximately 37% of this cohort achieved the mark.

Question 06.4

This was a difficult question, testing objective AO3, by asking students to draw a conclusion from
information given in a theoretical context. Around 60% of students either did not attempt the
question or achieved no marks.

7 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

Some excellent answers achieved full marks by explaining how the data supported the idea that
random segregation and crossing over happened in this fungus. Those who scored no marks
usually just described the numbers given in Table 2 and did not link their ideas to meiosis.
Frequently, students scored one mark for recognising that homologous chromosomes separated,
or that independent segregation occurred. It was not uncommon to see references to independent
assortment, which is not relevant to a situation about a single locus. Many referred illogically to the
random movement of chromosomes during meiosis rather than the idea that chromosomes line up
in a random arrangement and many failed to gain the mark by discussing the arrangement of
spores rather than the arrangement of chromosomes.

Examiners noted many students gave good descriptions of crossing over without always linking
this knowledge to data given in Table 2.

Question 07.1

Students found this to be a difficult question, but it discriminated well.

Many students did not name a type of selection identified in the Specification. It suggested that
topic 3.4.4, ‘Genetic diversity and adaptation’, is not covered well in all centres. The inaccurate
types of selection students suggested included: planned, continuous, human, artificial, selective
advantageous, systematic, chosen, variable, specific, differential, individual, bias and statistical.
Those who did give ‘directional selection’ often went further to give an appropriate reason.

Examiners noted many answers gave inaccurate reasons for choosing directional selection. Some
described a consequence of directional selection; for example, ‘to select the best’ or ‘get fish of the
required size’ rather than ‘choosing or favouring’ one extreme type.

Question 07.2

A majority of students achieved at least one mark and almost half achieved both marks. The
importance of a control and reasons for it were well understood. Most correct answers referred to
‘control’ rather than ‘baseline’ and many students went on to explain in detail the purpose of using
this control, usually, but not exclusively, by comparing the results from tank B with the results
obtained from other tanks.

Question 07.3

This multi-step mathematics problem tested students’ ability to translate information from a graph
into ratios and then to compare these ratios. The correct answer was achieved by a quarter of the
students. Many more than this correctly calculated both ratios, but compared them using a
numerical difference forgetting that the figures showed proportions. It explained why the
discrimination value of the question was only quite good. Those who achieved no marks usually
failed to give ratios or they had misread one or more of the co-ordinates in the graph.

Question 07.4

This question required students to look critically at information collected by scientists and use it to
evaluate whether it supported a suggestion. This proved to be a difficult question, with just under
half of all students concluding correctly that the evidence did not support the use of this type of
fishing net. Many students gave valid reasons to support the correct conclusion without actually

8 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

stating whether or not the scientists’ suggestion was supported; they did not score marks. A
frequently seen misconception was that the net reduced the size of the fish population rather than
what was shown in Figure 8, that it reduced the mass of fish in the population. Examiners regarded
this to be a consequence of students failing to take careful note of the label on the y-axis.

Many lengthy answers contained contradictory ideas and were not presented as a logical
sequence. Only around 1% of students covered contrasting sides in their evaluation, so very few
gained all three marks. This explained why the discrimination of the question was quite low.

Question 08.1

This question proved difficult for students even though it tested recall (AO1) of topic 3.4.7,
‘Investigating diversity’. Many students gave answers which did not make a comparison, so
answers such as ‘amino acid sequence’ did not score. Students commonly wrote about comparing
amino acids without mentioning sequences, so did not score. Answers relating to immunology
were seen frequently; some gained the mark with well-constructed descriptions, but many failed to
refer to the idea of comparing the amount of antibody bound to antigen/protein. References to
‘immunological differences’ did not contain enough detail for a mark.

All the answers identified as ‘ignore’ in the comment section of the mark scheme were seen, with
‘courtship’ appearing most frequently. Many answers referred to comparing DNA or RNA
sequences even though the question instructed students not to do this.

Question 08.2

This was a straightforward test of students’ ability to calculate a percentage and give a context to
theory in the question. About two-thirds of students calculated it correctly. Many, however,
miscounted the base differences or calculated the percentage similarity, not the percentage
difference between these sequences.

Question 08.3

Approximately 60% of students gave the correct order of histograms and a further 13% correctly
identified the species histogram, but did not appreciate that the family taxon had the highest mean
and widest spread of differences in base sequence.

Question 08.4

Of those who chose student’s t-test as the correct statistical test, only about half stated that it is
used to compare mean values, with many others writing about statistical significance without
referring to comparison of means. Some excellent justifications referred to significant differences
between means and included relevant comments on P values. Many failed to gain the ‘justification’
mark by making general comments such as, ‘the difference between two histograms’ or ‘the
difference between two results’. The last alternative in the mark scheme (data are normally
distributed) was rarely seen.

Question 09.1

This question discriminated extremely well, with many answers showing that students have a
secure knowledge of the role of ions in cells and can present their thinking as a logical sequence.

9 of 11
 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – AS BIOLOGY – 7401/2 – 2019

Most students achieved at least one mark because they knew oxygen associates with iron ions in
haemoglobin, although some answers associated oxygen with red blood cells. They also gave co-
transport, usually linked with glucose, as a role of sodium ions, but far fewer gave a clear
description of how the sodium concentration gradient is created. Some students confused the
direction taken by ions moving in the Na+/K+ pump. Many knew phosphate ions are in nucleotides
and ATP; however, a significant number of students could not be awarded this mark by going
further to state that energy is ‘created’. A smaller number of answers referred to phosphorylation
but sometimes erroneously linked it to reducing the activation energy of reactions and substances.
When answers made reference to phospholipids in the bilayer they rarely considered the water
solubility of the phosphate in this molecule. Very few students considered the role of ions in
osmosis.

Question 09.2

This question discriminated very well. Many students accurately described the structure of the
phospholipid bilayer without always going further to describe how it affected the movement of
substances. The hydrophilic and hydrophobic components of a bilayer and how they affect the
movement of water-soluble and water-insoluble substances was known well. About 13% of
students achieved four or five marks and gave well-structured descriptions using appropriate
terminology. These students often mentioned that the number of carriers/channels affected
membrane permeability.

A common misconception observed by examiners is the idea that membranes vary in width. Also,
many answers referred to differences in the size of substances rather than consider differences in
solubility or charge. Examiners regarded this to be obvious detail missed at AS.

Students did not always link active transport precisely to carrier proteins and frequently described
in detail the process of active transport.

Cholesterol was mentioned frequently, usually in the context of affecting membrane rigidity, but
general comments such as it ‘affected stability/support’ or ‘increased membrane strength’ were not
credited. Numerous answers referred to the effect of temperature on membrane permeability and,
again, gained no mark.

10 of 11