questions","formulaUrl":null,"initialIndex":57,"initialQuestionWindow":[{"id":"bfb2f4bc-1db5-40d9-9719-fa823ead8e71","revisionId":"d908e4ec-2623-4848-9c43-e107abaa62f0","questionNumber":null,"questionType":"LA","specification":"","difficulty":3,"difficultyBand":"medium","totalMarks":3,"sourceTitle":null,"calculatorUse":null,"parts":[{"id":"b8ef6481-de85-4ba9-a905-1da4c53359ed","label":null,"content":"Explain **one** measure the Spanish government could use to reduce the impact of groundwater extraction from the Doñana National Park wetlands.","markscheme":"- Identifies a valid measure (e.g. closing illegal boreholes/wells, imposing strict water abstraction quotas, or subsidising efficient drip-irrigation) B1\n- Explains how the measure works to restrict water extraction (e.g. legally restricting the volume of water farmers can draw from the local aquifer) M1\n- Explains how this reduces the environmental impact on the wetlands (e.g. allowing the water table to rise/stabilise, keeping the surface lagoons hydrated and preserving critical habitats) A1","marks":3,"order":0,"markingRubric":null,"explanation":null,"options":[]}],"options":[],"explanation":null,"firstAttemptFullMarks":null},{"id":"e6ad244b-3ac0-4931-a597-1b2b099ca9cd","revisionId":"9f537be7-b6e4-455a-827f-871ccbe80799","questionNumber":null,"questionType":"LA","specification":"","difficulty":4,"difficultyBand":"medium","totalMarks":3,"sourceTitle":null,"calculatorUse":null,"parts":[{"id":"bf31495f-5934-43c6-80c8-259194875119","label":null,"content":"Explain one intervention the Australian government could use to reduce the environmental degradation caused by excessive water extraction for agriculture in the Murray-Darling River Basin.","markscheme":"- Identifies a valid government intervention, such as purchasing environmental water buybacks, establishing strict water extraction caps, or taxing commercial irrigation B1\n- Explains the economic or operational mechanism of the chosen intervention (e.g., government buybacks of water entitlements legally retire these rights from commercial agricultural use, preventing irrigators from drawing that volume) M1\n- Explains how this reduces the negative externality or environmental impact (e.g., by ensuring a greater volume of water remains in the river system to restore natural flow regimes, lower salinity levels, and preserve downstream wetland habitats) A1","marks":3,"order":0,"markingRubric":null,"explanation":null,"options":[]}],"options":[],"explanation":null,"firstAttemptFullMarks":null},{"id":"f604fb68-707b-4221-9377-d79e5428c26e","revisionId":"3652bfe2-18d8-42d2-acb6-af31eee9f811","questionNumber":null,"questionType":"LA","specification":"$44","difficulty":3,"difficultyBand":"medium","totalMarks":5,"sourceTitle":null,"calculatorUse":null,"parts":[{"id":"fda285b3-4bc2-426c-8e34-10f1efd3d14b","label":null,"content":"Explain what is meant by the 'unintended consequence' (Extract B, line 8) of the single-use vape levy.","markscheme":"- Defines an unintended consequence as an unforeseen, unplanned, and typically negative outcome that arises from a government intervention designed to correct a market failure. B1\n- Explains that this represents a form of government failure, where the intervention causes further market distortions or net welfare losses. M1\n- Applies the concept to Extract B, noting that the £1.20 environmental levy increases the cost of legal disposable vapes to discourage their consumption. A1\n- Identifies the specific unintended consequence as the rapid growth of an illicit black market and smuggling of unregulated, under-the-counter vapes. A1\n- Explains the economic or social impact of this consequence, such as lost government tax revenue, bypass of safety and health standards, or funding of organised crime, which worsens the overall market outcome. A1","marks":5,"order":0,"markingRubric":null,"explanation":null,"options":[]}],"opt

3.6 Government intervention

Question 5

3.6 Government intervention Questions

3.6 Government intervention

Question 5

3.6 Government intervention Questions