Examiner Verdict & Difficulty Assessment

The June 2023 Oxford AQA International AS Economics Unit 1 and Unit 2 examinations offered a balanced and highly representative assessment of the 9640 specification. With a difficulty rating of 3.2 out of 5.0, the papers combined accessible core knowledge testing in Section A with challenging, data-rich analytical tasks in Section B. Unit 1 focused intensely on the dynamics of market intervention through the lens of electric vehicles and petrol markets, while Unit 2 tested students' grasp of macroeconomic variables, particularly productivity and supply-side policies. The exams rewarded students who possessed both quantitative precision and the ability to build coherent chains of economic reasoning.

Where the Marks are Won and Lost

The bulk of the marks are concentrated in the high-tariff analytical (12-mark) and evaluative (20-mark) questions of Section B. In Unit 1, these evaluated government intervention and indirect taxes in the electric vehicle market, while in Unit 2, they analyzed the determinants of saving and the efficacy of supply-side policies. To score highly, candidates had to move beyond rote-learned definitions and demonstrate strong AO3 (Analysis) and AO4 (Evaluation) skills.

  • The Essay Core: Successful responses to the 20-mark questions utilized a clear "market failure vs. government failure" framework or evaluated the opportunity costs and time lags associated with supply-side intervention.
  • Quantitative Accuracy: The 3-mark calculation questions on petrol vehicle ratios and productivity indices (such as Kenya's index of \( 106.4 \)) were crucial for securing easy marks, yet many students dropped marks due to rounding errors or missing units.

Examiner Pitfalls to Avoid

Examiner reports highlighted several persistent errors that cost students valuable marks:

  • Financial vs. Physical Capital Investment: A major misconception in Unit 2 was defining 'investment' as saving money in a bank or buying shares. Examiners look for a precise definition: planned spending on capital goods or stocks by firms to increase productive capacity.
  • Diagrammatic Deficiencies: In supply-and-demand diagrams (e.g., explaining petrol price increases), candidates frequently mislabeled axes or shifted curves in the wrong direction. A reduction in indirect tax shifts the supply curve down/right, not the demand curve. Additionally, failing to refer to the drawn diagram in the text prevents access to the top level of marks.
  • One-Sided Data Analysis: In the 6-mark "to what extent" questions, candidates often cherry-picked data that supported their hypothesis (e.g., India's productivity rise correlating with current account improvement) while ignoring contradictory evidence (e.g., Argentina's falling productivity alongside a surplus).

Strategic Preparation and Future Outlook

To excel in upcoming series, students must adopt a rigorous preparation strategy. Focus heavily on mastering calculations, particularly index numbers, percentage changes, and ratios, as these appear consistently. Ensure diagrams are drawn with precision, complete with labeled axes, equilibria, and arrows showing the direction of shifts. Furthermore, market structures (such as oligopoly and monopoly power) were lightly tested in Section A but are highly overdue for an appearance as a 12-mark or 20-mark analytical essay in future series. Keep a keen eye on global economic themes, as the examiner's use of real-world extracts (such as EV markets and transition policies) is set to continue as a core testing method.