From Real Exams Exam Paper

A Level H2 History Practice Paper 1

Free Exam-Derived Owl Alpha A Level H2 History Practice Paper 1 practice paper with questions and answers for Singapore students. This page is rendered as a direct URL so the questions and answers can be discovered without pressing in-page buttons.

These static practice materials are generated from the site's syllabus and paper-generation workflow, with source and model context shown so students and parents can evaluate the material before use.

A Level H2 History From Real Exams Generated by Owl Alpha Updated 2026-06-07

Back to Subject Browse Free Exam Papers

Questions

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper - History H2 A-Level

TuitionGoWhere Secondary School (AI)

Subject: History (H2) Level: A-Level Paper: Practice Paper — Source-Based Skills Version: 1 of 5 Duration: 1 hour 30 minutes Total Marks: 60

Name: ___________________________ Class: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

Instructions

This paper consists of two sections: Section A and Section B.
Section A contains source-based questions. Answer all questions.
Section B contains an essay question. Answer one question.
Read all sources carefully before attempting the questions.
Credit will be given for the quality of your use of sources, your analysis, and your evaluation.
Write your answers in the spaces provided.

Section A: Source-Based Questions (40 marks)

Read the sources carefully and answer Questions 1–6.

Context

The following sources relate to ASEAN's role in regional security and economic cooperation from 1967 to 2000. ASEAN was established in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Over time, it expanded to include Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Laos and Myanmar (1997), and Cambodia (1999). The organisation has faced numerous challenges, including managing territorial disputes, responding to economic crises, and balancing the interests of member states with differing political systems.

Source A: Excerpt from the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration), signed on 8 August 1967 by the five founding members.

"The aims and purposes of the Association shall be: (1) To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nations; (2) To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter; (3) To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields."

Source B: Speech by a senior Indonesian diplomat at an ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 1995, following Vietnam's admission to ASEAN.

"The admission of Vietnam into ASEAN marks a historic milestone in our regional journey. For decades, our region was divided by ideological conflict and superpower rivalry. Today, we welcome a former adversary into our fold, united by shared aspirations for economic development and regional stability. Vietnam's membership strengthens ASEAN's collective voice on the international stage and demonstrates that our organisation can transcend the divisions of the past. However, we must also acknowledge that integrating a socialist economy into a predominantly market-oriented grouping will require patience, flexibility, and sustained dialogue."

Source C: Editorial from The Straits Times (Singapore), published in July 1997, during the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis.

"ASEAN's much-vaunted spirit of cooperation is being put to the test. As the Thai baht collapses and contagion spreads across the region, the Association's response has been, at best, sluggish. While individual nations scramble to secure IMF bailouts and shore up their currencies, ASEAN as an institution has offered little more than expressions of solidarity. The much-discussed ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) now seems a distant dream as countries turn inward, imposing capital controls and trade restrictions to protect their own economies. If ASEAN cannot demonstrate tangible economic cooperation in times of crisis, what, one must ask, is the purpose of the organisation?"

Source D: Excerpt from a report by the ASEAN Secretariat, published in 1998, assessing the impact of Myanmar's admission to ASEAN.

"The admission of Myanmar in 1997 was guided by ASEAN's policy of constructive engagement, which holds that integration into the regional community encourages gradual reform. However, the military junta's continued suppression of democratic movements, including the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, has drawn sharp criticism from Western governments and international human rights organisations. Several ASEAN member states have privately expressed concern that Myanmar's membership may damage the organisation's international reputation. Nevertheless, the consensus remains that engagement, rather than isolation, offers the best prospect for long-term change."

Source E: Extract from a speech by the Thai Prime Minister at the ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, November 1998.

"The Asian Financial Crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of our economies and the limitations of our regional mechanisms. Yet it has also presented us with an opportunity to deepen economic integration and strengthen our collective resilience. Thailand proposes the establishment of an ASEAN Surveillance Process to monitor economic developments and provide early warning of financial instability. We must also accelerate the implementation of AFTA and explore new areas of cooperation, including investment liberalisation and financial sector reform. Only through genuine, institutionalised cooperation can we prevent a recurrence of this crisis."

Source F: Cartoon published in a Malaysian newspaper in 1999, depicting ASEAN's response to the Cambodian crisis.

<image_placeholder> id: Q4-fig1 type: cartoon|source_image linked_question: Q4 description: A political cartoon showing ASEAN as a boat with member state flags, struggling in stormy waters labelled "Cambodian Crisis." One figure labelled "Indonesia" is bailing water, another labelled "Singapore" is reading a map, a third labelled "Thailand" is arguing with a figure labelled "Philippines" about which direction to row. A small figure labelled "Cambodia" is clinging to the side of the boat, trying to climb in. In the background, a large wave labelled "Political Instability" looms. Speech bubbles show disagreement among the rowers. labels: Indonesia (bailing water), Singapore (reading map), Thailand and Philippines (arguing over direction), Cambodia (clinging to boat), wave labelled "Political Instability", stormy waters labelled "Cambodian Crisis" values: N/A — political cartoon must_show: All labelled figures, speech bubbles, wave labels, boat with ASEAN flags, stormy waters, Cambodia figure outside the boat </image_placeholder>

Question 1 (5 marks)

(a) What does Source A tell you about the founding aims of ASEAN? Explain your answer using evidence from the source.

Answer space:

Question 2 (8 marks)

(b) Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources B and C on the effectiveness of ASEAN as a regional organisation.

Answer space:

Question 3 (7 marks)

(c) How far do Sources D and E agree that ASEAN should adopt a policy of engagement rather than isolation towards its member states?

Answer space:

Question 4 (6 marks)

(d) What can you learn from Source F about the challenges ASEAN faced over the Cambodian crisis? Explain your answer using evidence from the source.

Answer space:

Question 5 (8 marks)

(e) How reliable is Source C as evidence of ASEAN's response to the Asian Financial Crisis? Explain your answer with reference to the source's provenance, content, and cross-referencing with other sources.

Answer space:

Question 6 (6 marks)

(f) Using Sources A, B, D, and E, assess the extent to which ASEAN's approach to regional cooperation changed between 1967 and 1998.

Answer space:

Section B: Essay Question (20 marks)

Answer the following question.

Question 7 (20 marks)

"ASEAN's greatest challenge in the period 1967–2000 was managing the diversity of its member states." How far do you agree with this statement?

In your answer, you should:

Consider the different types of diversity within ASEAN (political, economic, ideological)
Evaluate the extent to which ASEAN successfully managed these differences
Support your argument with reference to the sources and your own knowledge
Reach a balanced conclusion

Answer space:

End of Paper

Mark Summary

Section	Question	Marks
A	Q1(a)	5
A	Q2(b)	8
A	Q3(c)	7
A	Q4(d)	6
A	Q5(e)	8
A	Q6(f)	6
Section A Total		40
B	Q7	20
Section B Total		20
Grand Total		60

Answers

TuitionGoWhere Practice Paper — History H2 A-Level

Answer Key & Marking Scheme

Paper: Practice Paper — Source-Based Skills Version: 1 of 5 Total Marks: 60

Section A: Source-Based Questions

Question 1 (a) — 5 marks

Question: What does Source A tell you about the founding aims of ASEAN? Explain your answer using evidence from the source.

Answer:

Source A, the ASEAN Declaration of 1967, reveals that the founding aims of ASEAN were threefold:

Economic and social development (2 marks): The source states that ASEAN aimed "to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours." This shows that the founding members sought collective action to improve living standards and foster regional prosperity. The emphasis on "equality and partnership" suggests a commitment to mutual benefit rather than dominance by any single member.
Regional peace and stability (2 marks): The declaration explicitly aims "to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law." The reference to adherence to UN principles indicates that ASEAN sought to ground its cooperation in international norms, reflecting the Cold War context in which regional stability was a pressing concern.
Collaboration across multiple fields (1 mark): The source lists economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific, and administrative fields as areas for "active collaboration and mutual assistance," showing that the founders envisioned broad-based cooperation, not limited to a single domain.

Marking notes:

1 mark for each valid point supported by direct quotation or close paraphrase from the source.
Maximum 2 marks if answers merely quote without explanation.
Credit answers that contextualise the aims within the Cold War environment of Southeast Asia.
Do not award marks for bringing in outside knowledge not prompted by the source — this is a comprehension question, not an inference question.

Common mistakes:

Students may simply list the three aims without explaining what each means. Explanation is required for full marks.
Students may bring in outside knowledge about ASEAN's later development, which is not asked for here.

Question 2 (b) — 8 marks

Question: Compare and contrast the views expressed in Sources B and C on the effectiveness of ASEAN as a regional organisation.

Answer:

Points of agreement:

Both sources acknowledge that ASEAN faces significant challenges. Source B notes that integrating Vietnam "will require patience, flexibility, and sustained dialogue," while Source C describes ASEAN's response to the financial crisis as "sluggish." Both implicitly recognise that ASEAN's cooperative mechanisms are imperfect.

Points of disagreement:

Overall assessment of ASEAN's effectiveness (3 marks): Source B is broadly optimistic about ASEAN's trajectory, describing Vietnam's admission as a "historic milestone" that "strengthens ASEAN's collective voice." The tone is forward-looking and positive. In stark contrast, Source C is deeply critical, questioning "what, one must ask, is the purpose of the organisation" if it cannot deliver tangible cooperation during a crisis. Source C implies ASEAN is failing in its fundamental purpose, while Source B sees ASEAN as evolving successfully.
Assessment of ASEAN's economic role (3 marks): Source B focuses on political and diplomatic achievements (Vietnam's admission transcending Cold War divisions), while Source C focuses specifically on economic cooperation, arguing that AFTA has become "a distant dream" and that countries are "turning inward" with protectionist measures. Source C's critique is specifically economic, whereas Source B's optimism is primarily political.
Tone and purpose (2 marks): Source B is a diplomatic speech intended to celebrate and encourage, while Source C is a newspaper editorial designed to criticise and provoke reflection. This difference in genre and purpose partly explains the divergence in their assessments.

Marking notes:

Up to 4 marks for identifying and explaining points of comparison (similarities).
Up to 4 marks for identifying and explaining points of contrast (differences).
Answers must address BOTH agreement and disagreement for full marks.
Reward answers that consider the provenance (speech vs. editorial) as a factor influencing the views expressed.
A well-structured answer should not merely summarise each source separately but should directly compare them point by point.

Common mistakes:

Summarising Source B and Source C separately without explicit comparison. This caps the answer at 4 marks.
Failing to identify any points of agreement — both sources acknowledge challenges.
Not referencing the provenance of the sources.

Question 3 (c) — 7 marks

Question: How far do Sources D and E agree that ASEAN should adopt a policy of engagement rather than isolation towards its member states?

Answer:

Areas of agreement (4 marks):

Both Sources D and E support the principle of engagement over isolation, though they apply it to different contexts.
Source D explicitly endorses "constructive engagement" as ASEAN's policy towards Myanmar, arguing that "engagement, rather than isolation, offers the best prospect for long-term change." This reflects ASEAN's broader philosophy of bringing countries into the fold rather than excluding them.
Source E, while focused on economic rather than political engagement, similarly advocates for deeper institutionalised cooperation — proposing an "ASEAN Surveillance Process" and accelerated AFTA implementation. The underlying logic is the same: closer integration and engagement produce better outcomes than going it alone. Source E's argument that countries should not "turn inward" (as criticised in Source C) is consistent with Source D's opposition to isolation.

Areas of difference (3 marks):

Context of engagement: Source D discusses political/human rights engagement (Myanmar's military junta), while Source E discusses economic/financial engagement (post-crisis surveillance and integration). The nature of the engagement differs significantly.
Degree of confidence: Source D is more cautious, noting that "several ASEAN member states have privately expressed concern" about Myanmar's membership damaging ASEAN's reputation. The support for engagement is qualified. Source E, by contrast, is more assertive and proactive, proposing specific new mechanisms (the Surveillance Process) with confidence.
Motivation: Source D's engagement is motivated by a desire to encourage gradual political reform, while Source E's is motivated by economic pragmatism — preventing future financial crises.

Marking notes:

Up to 4 marks for explaining areas of agreement with evidence from both sources.
Up to 3 marks for explaining areas of difference with evidence from both sources.
Credit answers that note both sources support engagement but in different domains (political vs. economic).
Reward nuanced answers that distinguish between the qualified support in Source D and the more confident approach in Source E.

Common mistakes:

Treating the two sources as if they discuss the same issue (they do not — one is about Myanmar, the other about the financial crisis).
Failing to note that both sources, despite different contexts, share a philosophical commitment to engagement.

Question 4 (d) — 6 marks

Question: What can you learn from Source F about the challenges ASEAN faced over the Cambodian crisis? Explain your answer using evidence from the source.

Answer:

Source F, a political cartoon from a Malaysian newspaper in 1999, reveals several challenges ASEAN faced regarding the Cambodian crisis:

Disagreement among member states (2 marks): The cartoon depicts Thailand and the Philippines "arguing about which direction to row," indicating that ASEAN members could not agree on a unified approach to the Cambodian crisis. This suggests internal division and a lack of consensus, which hampered collective action.
Lack of coordinated action (2 marks): While Indonesia is "bailing water" and Singapore is "reading a map," none of the figures are working together effectively. The boat is in disarray, symbolising ASEAN's inability to mount a coherent, coordinated response. Each member appears to be acting independently rather than as a unified body.
Cambodia's precarious position (1 mark): Cambodia is depicted "clinging to the side of the boat, trying to climb in," suggesting that Cambodia was not yet a fully integrated or secure member of the ASEAN community. Its membership was contested and its position within the organisation remained fragile.
External threats (1 mark): The looming wave labelled "Political Instability" and the "stormy waters" labelled "Cambodian Crisis" represent the external pressures threatening ASEAN. The cartoon suggests that the crisis was a significant threat to regional stability and to ASEAN's cohesion.

Marking notes:

2 marks for each well-explained point with direct reference to specific elements of the cartoon.
1 mark for identification without explanation.
Credit answers that interpret the symbolism of the cartoon (boat = ASEAN, storm = crisis, etc.).
Do not award marks for outside knowledge about the Cambodian crisis not supported by the source.

Common mistakes:

Describing the cartoon without interpreting its symbolic meaning.
Bringing in detailed outside knowledge about Cambodia without linking it to what the cartoon actually shows.

Image placeholder note: The cartoon must clearly show: ASEAN member figures (Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines) in a boat with ASEAN flags; Cambodia figure outside the boat; a wave labelled "Political Instability"; stormy waters labelled "Cambodian Crisis"; speech bubbles showing disagreement. All labels must be legible for the question to be answerable.

Question 5 (e) — 8 marks

Question: How reliable is Source C as evidence of ASEAN's response to the Asian Financial Crisis? Explain your answer with reference to the source's provenance, content, and cross-referencing with other sources.

Answer:

Provenance analysis (3 marks):

Source C is an editorial from The Straits Times, Singapore's leading English-language newspaper, published in July 1997 at the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis.
As an editorial, it represents the institutional opinion of the newspaper, not a neutral news report. Editorials are inherently argumentative and seek to persuade, which means the source is likely to present a selective or one-sided view.
Singapore was one of the countries affected by the crisis (though less severely than Thailand or Indonesia), so the editorial may reflect Singapore's particular perspective and frustrations. This could introduce bias — Singapore, as a more economically advanced ASEAN member, may have had higher expectations of regional cooperation.
The timing (July 1997, at the onset of the crisis) means the editorial was written before the full extent of ASEAN's response could be assessed. This limits its reliability as a comprehensive evaluation.

Content analysis (2 marks):

The content is strongly critical, using emotive language such as "sluggish," "little more than expressions of solidarity," and "what, one must ask, is the purpose of the organisation." This rhetorical style suggests the editorial is more interested in making a polemical point than providing a balanced assessment.
However, the specific claims — that ASEAN offered limited practical assistance and that countries turned to the IMF individually — are factually accurate and can be verified.

Cross-referencing with other sources (3 marks):

Source E (Thai Prime Minister's speech, 1998) partially supports Source C's assessment by acknowledging that "the Asian Financial Crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of our economies and the limitations of our regional mechanisms." This corroborates Source C's claim that ASEAN's response was inadequate.
However, Source E also shows that ASEAN did eventually respond with concrete proposals (the ASEAN Surveillance Process, accelerated AFTA), which Source C — written earlier — could not have known about. This suggests Source C's assessment, while not wrong, was incomplete.
Source A provides ASEAN's founding aims, which included economic cooperation. Source C's criticism is essentially that ASEAN failed to live up to these aims during the crisis, which is a fair assessment of the immediate response but does not account for longer-term institutional development.

Overall assessment: Source C is partially reliable. Its factual claims about the inadequacy of ASEAN's immediate response are supported by Source E and by historical evidence. However, its provenance as a newspaper editorial means it presents a deliberately critical perspective, and its timing means it captures only the initial phase of the crisis response. It should be used alongside other sources for a balanced picture.

Marking notes:

Up to 3 marks for provenance analysis (nature, purpose, timing, potential bias).
Up to 2 marks for content analysis (language, claims, factual accuracy).
Up to 3 marks for cross-referencing with at least two other sources.
Reward answers that reach a nuanced overall judgement rather than simply labelling the source "reliable" or "unreliable."
Maximum 5 marks if the answer does not cross-reference with other sources.

Common mistakes:

Labelling the source simply as "unreliable" because it is an editorial, without explaining why and in what ways.
Not cross-referencing with other sources.
Confusing reliability with utility — a biased source can still be useful/reliable for certain purposes.

Question 6 (f) — 6 marks

Question: Using Sources A, B, D, and E, assess the extent to which ASEAN's approach to regional cooperation changed between 1967 and 1998.

Answer:

Evidence of change (3 marks):

From broad principles to specific mechanisms: Source A (1967) sets out only general aims — "joint endeavours," "active collaboration and mutual assistance" — without specifying institutional mechanisms. By contrast, Source E (1998) proposes concrete, institutionalised mechanisms such as the "ASEAN Surveillance Process" and accelerated AFTA implementation. This represents a significant shift from aspirational language to practical, structured cooperation.
From political to economic focus: Source A emphasises both economic and political goals equally. Source B (1995) focuses on political integration (Vietnam's admission as a diplomatic achievement), while Source E (1998) is almost entirely focused on economic cooperation and financial stability. The balance shifted over time, with economic integration becoming increasingly prominent.
From exclusivity to expansion: Source A represents the five founding members. Sources B and D show ASEAN actively expanding to include former adversaries (Vietnam) and controversial regimes (Myanmar), demonstrating a shift toward a more inclusive, expansionist approach.

Evidence of continuity (3 marks):

Commitment to engagement: Source A's principle of "equality and partnership" is reflected in Source D's policy of "constructive engagement" with Myanmar and Source E's call for deeper institutionalised cooperation. The underlying philosophy of inclusion and dialogue remained consistent.
Sovereignty and consensus: None of the sources suggest ASEAN moved toward supranational decision-making. Source D's reference to "consensus" and Source E's proposal for a "surveillance process" (not an enforcement mechanism) both respect national sovereignty, consistent with the spirit of Source A.
Regional stability as a goal: Source A's aim of "regional peace and stability" remains central in Sources B (transcending Cold War divisions), D (managing Myanmar's membership), and E (preventing financial instability). The fundamental objective of stability persisted throughout.

Overall assessment: ASEAN's approach evolved significantly in terms of scope, specificity, and membership, but its foundational principles of engagement, consensus, and regional stability remained remarkably consistent. The organisation moved from a loose association based on shared aspirations to a more institutionalised body with specific policy mechanisms, while retaining its core identity.

Marking notes:

Up to 3 marks for well-supported arguments about change, with evidence from at least two sources.
Up to 3 marks for well-supported arguments about continuity, with evidence from at least two sources.
Reward answers that reach a balanced overall judgement rather than arguing exclusively for change or continuity.
Maximum 4 marks if the answer only addresses change OR continuity, not both.

Common mistakes:

Arguing that ASEAN changed completely, ignoring the strong threads of continuity.
Listing changes and continuities without explaining what they mean or how they connect.
Not using all four sources.

Section B: Essay Question

Question 7 — 20 marks

Question: "ASEAN's greatest challenge in the period 1967–2000 was managing the diversity of its member states." How far do you agree with this statement?

Marking Descriptors:

Level	Marks	Descriptors
Level 5	17–20	Well-structured argument with clear thesis; addresses multiple dimensions of diversity (political, economic, ideological); evaluates ASEAN's success and failure with specific evidence from sources and own knowledge; balanced conclusion that directly addresses "how far"; sustained analytical quality throughout.
Level 4	13–16	Clear argument with thesis; addresses at least two dimensions of diversity; uses evidence from sources and own knowledge; reaches a conclusion but may lack full balance or depth in evaluation.
Level 3	9–12	Some argument but may be largely descriptive; addresses diversity but may focus on one dimension; limited use of sources or own knowledge; conclusion may be weak or one-sided.
Level 2	5–8	Descriptive rather than analytical; limited engagement with the question; little use of sources; weak or no conclusion.
Level 1	1–4	Minimal response; largely irrelevant or factual recall without argument.

Indicative content (not exhaustive):

Arguments supporting the statement (diversity as the greatest challenge):

Political diversity: ASEAN included democracies (Philippines, Thailand), authoritarian regimes (Indonesia under Suharto), socialist states (Vietnam, Laos), and a military junta (Myanmar). Source D highlights the tension caused by Myanmar's admission, with Western criticism and internal disagreement. Managing these fundamentally different political systems within a single organisation was a profound challenge.
Economic diversity: The gap between Singapore's advanced economy and the developing economies of Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia was enormous. Source C shows how the financial crisis affected members differently, undermining collective economic action. AFTA's implementation was complicated by vastly different levels of economic development.
Ideological diversity: The Cold War divided Southeast Asia ideologically. Source B acknowledges that Vietnam was a "former adversary" and that integrating a "socialist economy into a predominantly market-oriented grouping" required "patience and flexibility." This ideological diversity was a fundamental challenge.
Evidence from Source F: The cartoon depicts member states pulling in different directions, symbolising how diversity of interests led to incoherence.

Arguments challenging the statement (other challenges were greater):

External threats and crises: The Asian Financial Crisis (Sources C and E) was arguably a greater challenge because it threatened the economic foundations of the entire region and exposed ASEAN's institutional limitations regardless of member diversity. The crisis was an external shock that would have tested any regional organisation.
Institutional limitations: ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making and non-interference principle (implied in Source D's "constructive engagement") were structural constraints that limited effectiveness irrespective of diversity. Source C's criticism is directed at ASEAN's institutional inadequacy, not specifically at diversity.
Expansion challenges: The rapid expansion from 5 to 10 members (Sources B, D) created administrative and coordination challenges that were about scale and capacity, not just diversity.
Sovereignty concerns: Member states' reluctance to cede sovereignty (evident in the non-binding nature of proposals in Source E) was a challenge independent of diversity.

For own knowledge, credit references to:

The Cambodian-Vietnamese conflict (1978–1991) and ASEAN's role in seeking a political resolution
The South China Sea disputes and ASEAN's attempts to forge a common position
The "ASEAN Way" of non-interference and consensus as both a strength and a limitation
The impact of the end of the Cold War on ASEAN's relevance and purpose
Specific AFTA implementation challenges and timelines
The East Timor crisis (1999) and ASEAN's limited response

Marking notes:

The essay must go beyond the sources and demonstrate own knowledge for Level 4 and above.
Both sides of the argument must be addressed for Level 5.
The conclusion must directly engage with "how far" — a simple restatement of the question is insufficient.
Reward specific factual evidence, dates, and named examples from own knowledge.
Source references should be integrated into the argument, not merely quoted.

Mark Summary

Section	Question	Marks
A	Q1(a)	5
A	Q2(b)	8
A	Q3(c)	7
A	Q4(d)	6
A	Q5(e)	8
A	Q6(f)	6
Section A Total		40
B	Q7	20
Section B Total		20
Grand Total		60