# data[].attributes.body
For question A the student is linking the question to the case study a lot but does not really explain what a subsidiary is. The explanation could probably be clearer     - 1 point?

They do convey the idea that Tesco owns Crucible and calls it a “chain” of tesco

The student gives examples of both types of research and for secondary research connects it back to the case study although they do not explain the key terms asked about in the question.

Nope - I just read the question wrong, the student did great here

Student B
Student B’s answers are very specific using a lot of key vocabulary words and ideas explaining the concepts using the case study.

All of their answers align with the answer key, the short answer questions are short and neat!

For the long answer questions, both students are using simila

The way that this student made a connection between the two types of research as their own separate idea from the case study was cool.

This student's long answer questions also use a lot of general ideas. For the last question, the student did really well in speaking about the different companies that were mentioned and analyzing parts of the different companies’ market mix for example coca-cola. The student even gave examples of what they may do later on (discounts) and also talked about specific conditions and guessing consumer habits which is something that was mentioned earlier in the case study. This student had many ideas to add and suggestions for the different companies rather than just restating the contents of the case study. This student did so well!

For the short answer questions, student A did really well with explaining and giving examples from the case study but during the long answer questions, the answers started to become more general. The advantages and disadvantages were correct, relevant and clear but did not really pull ideas from the case study or specifically mention much about crucible.

4-5 marks maybe?

Overall, student A did well because all of their answers were correct and relevant to the questions asked. The answers were also neatly separated. Places for improvement include, making their answers more specific to the case study and the situation of Crucible rather than just naming general ideas that apply to the concepts mentioned in the questions. The students also gave their own opinions about Cucible’s choices. Maybe they could have been more detailed in what happens next? Or create their own ideas about what could happen next.

Student A did well! Their ideas were sorted well, correct and written clearly. It was short and easy to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
STUDENT A:

1. NO QUESTION 1

1. 1 point (they don't make it clear that Tesco owns Crucible)

2.

1. 2 points (identify everything needed)

2. 5 points (identifies almost every key adv/disadv in primary and secondary research & applies it to Crucible)

3. 5 points (they make successful observations, however there could be between analysis and more specific observations in relation to the case study specifically)

STUDENT B:

1. NO QUESTION ONE

1. 2 points(they make it clear that Tesco owns Crucible)

2.

1. 2 points (identify everything needed)

2. 6 points (identifies every key adv/disadv in primary and secondary research stated in the syllabus)

3. 6 points (they make successful observations, and use Crucible’s data to apply it specifically to the companies stated)

# data[].attributes.body
Student A

2 a - (1/2); no development in the answer

2 b i - (4/4); clearly identified two primary and two secondary research methods

2 b ii - (4/6); did identify both advantages and disadvantages but limited in scope, did not make a connection to the case study, no balance between advantages and disadvantages of primary research

2 c - (4/8); the first point and the second point are basically the same? Both talk about how companies can obtain data about customers which will help them make the right business decision; no balance in the answer (two positive sides and one negative side (maybe ran out of time towards the end); did not talk about the point that was mentioned in the introduction: location at a new retail store; would have been better if the writer had briefly summarized the negative points in the introduction as well; nice attempt to give insightful examples that add value to the information from the case study (BMW and Coca Cola); nice attempt to weigh out the arguments to determine which one is stronger

Student B

2 a - (2/2); an accurate explanation with the use of some appropriate development

2 b i - (4/4); clearly identified examples of primary and secondary research

2 b ii - (6/6); clearly identified both advantages and disadvantages for primary and secondary research; in-depth analysis; directly relevant to the case study; both sides are balanced

2 c - (6/8); would have been better if the writer had presented ideas in opposite points of view (how the Crucible database would not be helpful); very insightful examples adding value to the information given in the case study; made direct connections to the case study; nice attempt to how it can help each P in the marketing mix; did not talk about what was mentioned in the introduction: how it could help those companies achieve high profitability

# data[].attributes.body
Student A

2a.

1. 1 mark: Did Not specify that TESCO owns Crucible and that its is holding company

2b.

1. 4 marks: Gave four examples

2. 4 marks: Primary had limited balance, not all arguments were valid. Secondary had good balance and critical thinking.

3. 6 good use of terminology and balanced  arguments

Student B

2a.

1. 2 marks: Mentions chain of command which was a good idea

2b.

1. 4 marks

2. 6 marks very specific examples to case study

3. 7 marks Overall had good/specific examples related to the case study

# data[].attributes.body
Student A

2a.

1 mark- A vague explanation of a subsidiary without the use of development

2bi.

4 marks- Given explanation of both primary and secondary research with examples for each type

2bii.

4 marks- There are examples of both the advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research, but without the use of scope and a very vague explanation on how they both affect the company.

2c.

7 marks- There is an in depth analysis of how the Crucible group customer database helps the companies, as well as gives both the pros and cons while justifying both sides

Student B

2a.

2 marks- There is an adequate definition of a subsidiary, while also applying it to the Crucible group and Tesco

2bi.

4 marks- There are two correct examples each for both given research types

2bii.

6 marks- Both the disadvantages and advantages of both types of research have been stated and applied to the Crucible group, giving examples to where they would apply in the company

2c.

7 marks- Both upsides and downsides have been given to how they would apply the customer database, and relating it to the effectiveness it would have on the company. Paragraphs were used to separate the different points that were stated, even though the handwriting was a little hard to read.

# data[].attributes.body
Student A

2a. 1 point, because it was understandable and the person understands what it means, i'm not giving 2 points because it was not using the right business terms, for example he doesn't mention ownership (at least 50%)

2bi. 2 points, they explained what primary research and secondary research was but not more.

2bii.  5 points, because the student did go over everything and showed that he understood it.

2C.  6 points, because the students explained everything thural and wrote at length about the ways the database could help these companies.

Student B

2a. 1 point, because he doesn't actually say that Tesco owns Crucible, but understands that the two companies are aligned.

2bi. 4 points, he gave two examples of each primary and secondary research, and explained everything needed

2bii. 6 points, because the student fully covered advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary research.

2C. 8 points, because the student showed deep knowledge on the topic and used examples to explain his writing. He even talked about the marketing mix.