Explain herbicide tolerant  crops

Candidates who reached the scholarship standard demonstrated a wide general knowledge of the living  world to which they could relate biological theory and use this to assist in answering the questions. They  showed a wide biological content knowledge and used terms appropriately. These candidates were able to  analyse  data  and  use  it  in  conjunction  with  biological  knowledge  in  formulating  their  answers.

Scholarship candidates answered in specifics rather than broad generalisations.

Evidence  presented  by  Scholarship  candidates  addressed  the  question  asked with minimal  irrelevant material  presented.  Answers  were  coherent  with  ideas  integrated  and  it  was  clear  these  candidates spent time planning their answers and organising their ideas. It was evident that candidates understood what was required in an answer when the questions used terms such as evaluate, discuss, compare and contrast.

Candidates who did not achieve the standard tended to write in generalisations rather than specifics eg 'it  evolved  by  natural  selection';  'releasing  insect  resistant  crops  into  the  environment  will  have catastrophic  effects  and  insects  may  become  extinct';  'releasing  GM  crops  will  cause  a  loss  of biodiversity'. They  tended  to use  inappropriate descriptors eg  'catastrophic',  'terrible',  'chaotic',  'havoc' rather than biological terms. 

In Question One, candidates who did not achieve  the standard  tended  to  treat  the release of herbicide tolerant  crops  and  insect  resistant  crops  as  one  unit  rather  than  two  separate  ones  and  so  couldn't compare and contrast them. They also tended to personify nature eg ' the plants want to survive'. 

In Question Two, when analysing the data, candidates tended to focus on unimportant detail rather than looking for patterns and trends. They tended to describe the Figure 1 actograms rather than comparing and contrasting them ie identifying the similarities and differences.

Candidates who did not achieve the standard tended to describe rather than discuss in Question Three and while  there were a  lot of descriptions of  the diversity  in  fish,  there was  little or no attempt made  to discuss  the evolutionary processes that resulted  in  this diversity. Candidates gave  their own opinion as an evaluation.