Problem Solving Geography: Weighing and Justifying Decisions

There is no right answer here

Component 2 works differently from the rest of the course. You are given a real-looking geographical issue and a booklet of resources: maps, graphs, tables, and the views of the people involved. You are asked to weigh a set of possible solutions and decide which one to back. Students who revise facts and hope the right issue comes up are revising the wrong thing, because the issue is set by the exam and could be almost anything. What matters is that there is no single correct solution, and the marks are not for picking one. Two candidates can choose opposite solutions and both score full marks, or both score badly. The marks are for the quality of the justification. A justification does three things. It weighs each option against the evidence in the booklet, not against a hunch. It weighs each option against the different viewpoints, because the people affected want different things. And it is honest about the trade-off, saying what the chosen option gives up as well as what it gains. Weighing viewpoints is half the skill. A solution that suits one group often costs another. Naming who gains and who loses, and why you still back your choice, is what turns an opinion into a decision. Because the issue changes every year, the method is the thing to learn. The same steps work whether the exam sets a question about housing, flooding, traffic or tourism. Learn the steps and you can walk into any issue. Carry one question through everything that follows: have I weighed the options against the evidence and the viewpoints and justified my choice, or have I only said which one I like?

Words for making a decision

Five terms, each defined by what it is. They are the frame for every decision-making answer.

Tap the two that justify

Tap the TWO sentences that justify a choice by weighing it, rather than just stating a preference.

• The brownfield site is the better choice because the map shows it is already served by roads and is at low risk of flooding
• I back this option even though it costs more, because it protects the countryside that residents value most
• The greenfield site is obviously the best one to build on
• I would pick this solution because I just prefer it

Which answer actually scores

A question asks a candidate to decide where a town should build new homes and to justify the choice. Which answer earns the most marks?

• It chooses the brownfield site, uses the booklet to show it has good transport and low flood risk, notes that it costs more than the greenfield site, and explains why that cost is worth paying
• It states firmly that the greenfield site is the best and repeats that it is the best
• It describes both sites in detail but never actually makes a choice
• It picks a site and ignores the resource booklet entirely

Asserting against justifying

The same choice, made two ways. Only one of them earns the marks.

Match each stakeholder to its concern

Two that follow from the method

Select the TWO statements that follow from the marks being for the justification rather than the choice.

• Two candidates can choose different solutions and both score full marks if both justify well
• Every reason you give should be tied back to the evidence in the booklet
• There is one correct solution and you lose all the marks if you miss it
• The best answers never mention any downside to the chosen option

Answering a decision-making question

A method that works on any issue the exam sets. Read the issue and the booklet first, for what is at stake. Work out what the problem actually is, where it is, and who is affected. The resources are there to be used, so mine them for evidence. List the options and the people. Set out the possible solutions on one side and the stakeholders and their viewpoints on the other. Seeing both at once is what makes weighing possible. Weigh each option against the evidence and the viewpoints. For each solution, ask what the data says about it and who it helps or harms. This is the heart of the work. Choose, and justify with evidence. Back one option, and give reasons drawn from the booklet, not from feeling. Say why it fits this issue and this place. Be honest about the trade-off. Name what your choice gives up and who loses out, then explain why you still back it. That honesty raises the mark rather than lowering it. Two habits cost marks. The first is asserting a preference with no evidence behind it. The second is describing all the options fully but never actually deciding.

Order the moves of a decision

Put the moves of a decision-making answer into a sensible order.

• Read the issue and the resource booklet for what is at stake
• List the possible options and the stakeholders and their viewpoints
• Weigh each option against the evidence and the viewpoints
• Choose one option and justify it with evidence
• State the trade-off and explain why you back it anyway

Build the decision rule

This is the rule that every decision-making answer rests on. Assemble it.

The decision-making quick-fire

Five questions on weighing options and justifying a choice. Three lives.

One decision, worked properly

Here is the whole method on one example. The town and the details are invented for practice, and there are no real figures anywhere in it. Imagine a made-up town, Elmbridge, that must find room for new housing. The booklet offers two sites. One is a greenfield strip on the edge of town: open countryside, cheaper and quicker to build on, but valued by residents and home to wildlife. The other is a brownfield site, a former factory near the centre: already served by roads and shops, at low flood risk, but more expensive to clear and build on. Now weigh them. Against the evidence, the brownfield site scores well: the map shows it is close to transport and shops, and it is not on the floodplain. The greenfield site scores well on cost and speed, but the same map shows it would spread the town into open land. Against the viewpoints, residents and the environmental group favour keeping the greenfield land, the developer prefers the cheaper greenfield build, and the council has to weigh the housing need against its budget. Make the decision. A justified answer might back the brownfield site: the evidence on transport, flood risk and protecting the countryside outweighs the higher cost, and it satisfies residents and the environmental group. Then it names the trade-off honestly: it costs more and the developer would prefer otherwise, but the benefits justify the price. Notice what the answer did. It weighed both sites against the evidence and the viewpoints, chose one, and was honest about what the choice gave up. A different candidate could have justified the greenfield site as well, and scored just as highly, because the marks are for the reasoning.

Complete the decision facts

A geographical problem that has more than one possible solution and affects different people is an _____. A person or group affected by it, or by a decision about it, is a _____. A choice backed by reasons that weigh it against the evidence and the other options is a _____. In this kind of question the marks are for that reasoning, not for the choice itself.

Three answers to strengthen

Three students answer a decision-making question. In each case pick the change that would earn more marks.

• A student writes a full page describing both possible sites in detail, but never says which one to build on. What is the fix?
• A student picks a solution and says it is the best because it feels right, using nothing from the resource booklet. What is missing?
• A student justifies a choice well with evidence but insists it has no downsides at all and ignores the groups it would harm. What would improve it?

Explain how to answer a decision question

A student in the year below panics at Component 2 because they do not know the issue in advance. Explain how to answer a decision-making question well whatever the issue turns out to be.

• Explain why there is no single correct solution, and what the marks are actually for
• Explain how to use the resource booklet as evidence rather than writing from memory
• Explain why the viewpoints of different stakeholders have to be weighed
• Explain how to make a clear choice instead of only describing the options
• Explain why being honest about the trade-off strengthens the answer
• Finish with the one check to run before finishing a decision-making answer