AQA AS Business Past Papers & Mark Schemes

Decision tree questions follow a rigid procedure: multiply the probability of each outcome by its financial value to calculate the expected monetary value (EMV), sum the EMVs for each option, then subtract the initial cost to find the net gain. The most frequent error is forgetting to subtract the cost of the option from the EMV — the question asks for net gain, not gross expected value. Always label your diagram clearly and show each calculation step. The examiners award method marks for correct procedure even if you make an arithmetic error. Price elasticity of demand (PED) and income elasticity of demand (YED) require careful interpretation, not just calculation. PED = percentage change in quantity demanded ÷ percentage change in price. A PED of −2.5 means the product is price elastic — a 10% price increase would reduce demand by 25%, reducing total revenue. The business implication is that price reductions increase total revenue for elastic products but reduce it for inelastic ones. YED tells you whether a product is a normal good (positive YED, demand rises with income) or an inferior good (negative YED, demand falls as income rises). Always connect the calculation to a business recommendation. Extended response questions (typically 12–16 marks) demand structured argumentation, not description. The mark scheme uses four assessment levels: Level 1 (knowledge), Level 2 (application to context), Level 3 (analysis — chains of reasoning showing cause and effect), Level 4 (evaluation — judgement with justified recommendations). To reach Level 4, you must weigh up competing factors and reach a conclusion that considers context. Generic responses that could apply to any business score Level 1–2; responses that reference specific details from the case study score Level 3–4. Motivation theory questions often ask you to evaluate whether a particular approach would work in a given context. Avoid presenting Maslow's hierarchy or Herzberg's two-factor theory as universal truths. Instead, consider the specific workforce described in the case study: are these skilled professionals who value autonomy and recognition (where Herzberg's motivators apply strongly), or routine workers in a cost-pressured industry (where hygiene factors and financial incentives may dominate)? The best evaluation acknowledges that different theories apply in different contexts.