Paper 2 —
Reasoning & Command Terms
Turn accurate knowledge into short-answer and extended-response writing that matches the depth of the command term.
By the end of class, you should be able to…
Read the command term
Identify the depth of response before writing.
Build evidence chains
Connect design concept → evidence → consequence.
Make judgements
Evaluate by weighing strengths and limitations.
Use time deliberately
Plan, answer and check instead of writing until time expires.
90 minutes · 50 marks · SL only
Short-answer and extended-response questions can draw from any SL topic in theory, practice or context. AO3 matters as much as knowledge/application overall.
Know
Facts, terminology, methods and ways of communicating design information.
Apply
Use knowledge in a specific product, user or design situation.
Analyse / evaluate
Break down, construct, justify and make reasoned judgements.
Precise recall
Use knowledge
Reason + judge
Explain
Show how/why: concept + reason/cause + design consequence.
Justify
Give valid reasons or evidence supporting a choice or conclusion.
Evaluate
Consider strengths and limitations, then make a supported overall judgement.
Name the design idea
Use precise terminology.
Apply it
Connect to the user/product/scenario.
Explain why it matters
Performance, usability, sustainability, etc.
Answer the question
For evaluate/justify, weigh evidence and decide.
Adjustable classroom stool
A stool must serve students with different body dimensions during 80-minute design lessons.
Redesigning a lunch container
Users report spills, but the designer does not know whether the cause is the latch, the sequence of actions or overfilling.
Evaluate whether a modular desk lamp is necessarily more sustainable than a sealed lamp.
Define the lens
Sustainability involves social, economic and environmental trade-offs—not one feature.
Evidence for modularity
Repair, upgrade, disassembly and component recovery can extend use.
Counter-evidence
More components/materials, cost or inefficient production may create trade-offs.
Judgement
Conclude conditionally: “more sustainable if…” and name the evidence needed.
| Dimension | Evidence for | Evidence against / limitation | Design judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| User / social | Who benefits? | Who may be excluded? | How important? |
| Product / performance | What improves? | What trade-off appears? | Does it meet the need? |
| Planet / system | Waste/energy/material benefits? | New impacts? | Net effect? |
| Economics | Value/repair/longevity? | Cost/availability? | Feasible? |
Definition dump
Correct definitions without applying them to the scenario.
Feature spotting
Naming ergonomics/sustainability without explaining consequences.
One-sided evaluate
Only strengths or only limitations; no balanced appraisal.
No final judgement
Evidence appears, but the response never answers the question.
Underline the verb
What depth is required?
Box the context
Which user/product constraints matter?
Plan evidence
2–4 design ideas before writing.
Check the judgement
Did you actually answer the question?
When we return, review becomes topic synthesis.
People → Process → Product → integrated product analysis → mini-mock → final Paper 2 synthesis.
Before you leave…
People, Users & Responsibility — Synthesis
Keep the retrieval loop moving: recall → apply → check → correct → revisit.
SL Paper 2: 1 hour 30 minutes, 50 marks, short-answer and extended-response questions on SL material only. Command-term glossary grouped under AO1, AO2 and AO3; Paper 2 tests AO1+AO2 and AO3 approximately equally.