Difficulty Verdict
The May 2025 Higher Level Paper 1 represented a highly accessible, standard assessment that tested core curriculum topics across all three sections. Rather than introducing tricky or highly niche scenarios, the paper relied on classic debates: the differences in Price Elasticity of Demand (PED) between primary commodities and manufactured goods, the dual-nature effects of supply-side policies, and the mechanics/consequences of fixed vs. floating exchange rates. For prepared candidates, this paper was exceptionally fair, with the true differentiator being the quality of real-world examples and the depth of critical evaluation.
Where the Marks Are Won
Success on this paper relied heavily on adherence to the structural demands of the 10-mark and 15-mark essay formats:
- Part (a) Questions (10 Marks): Full marks required precise, textbook-level definitions (e.g., PED, interventionist policies, or fixed/floating systems) and perfectly labelled diagrams. For instance, in Question 1(a), candidates needed to draw two distinct demand curves to represent inelastic demand for primary commodities and elastic demand for manufactured goods. In Question 2(a), illustrating the simultaneous shift of both Aggregate Demand (AD) and Long-Run Aggregate Supply (LRAS) was critical.
- Part (b) Questions (15 Marks): The difference between a high-scoring essay (13-15 marks) and a mediocre one (7-9 marks) lay in the evaluation of real-world examples. Candidates had to move beyond mere list-making and instead synthesize. For exchange rate depreciation (Question 3b), discussing the short-run vs. long-run impacts (such as the J-curve effect and the Marshall-Lerner condition) was essential to unlock the highest level of the markscheme.
Examiner Pitfalls & Traps to Avoid
The May 2025 markscheme highlights several strict constraints that caught unprepared candidates off-guard:
- The "AND" Trap in Q1(b): The prompt asked for the importance of PED to "firms and government." The markscheme explicitly capped candidates at a maximum of 9 out of 15 marks if they only discussed one of these stakeholders.
- The "BOTH" Trap in Q2(a): Candidates had to explain how interventionist supply-side policies have "both demand-side and supply-side effects." Discussing only one side triggered a hard cap of 6 out of 10 marks.
- Floating vs. Fixed in Q3(a): Highlighting only one system also limited the score to a maximum of 6 marks. Comprehensive balance is non-negotiable.
Strategic Preparation and Predictions
Going forward, students must prioritize structured synthesis. To build robust evaluations, practice the CLASPS framework (Concepts, Long-run vs. Short-run, Assumptions, Stakeholders, Priorities, Pros & Cons). Furthermore, keeping a database of 3-4 highly detailed, real-world macroeconomic and microeconomic case studies is crucial. For the upcoming exam cycles, expect a shift back toward highly analytical HL-only topics such as Market Power (monopolies/oligopolies) and inequality measures, which were notably absent from this session.