IGCSE English 0500: Selecting and Embedding Evidence from a Source Extract

You are writing a discursive coursework assignment arguing that single-use plastic bottles should be banned from sale on your school campus. You are using the following extract from a report prepared for the student council's environment committee as source material:

"Vending machines across the school sell roughly 400 single-use plastic bottles a week, most of which end up in general waste rather than the recycling bins beside them. A survey of 120 students found that 68% said they would use a refill station if one were installed near the sports hall. The three refill stations already fitted last year in the science block have, between them, dispensed enough water to replace an estimated 9,000 single-use bottles over the year. Some staff have raised concerns that refill stations cost more to install than a vending contract earns the school in commission, though no exact figures have yet been published to confirm this."

(a) Which single piece of evidence from the extract would most strongly support the claim that banning single-use plastic bottles on campus would meaningfully reduce environmental harm? Name the evidence and explain, in one sentence, why it supports this specific claim more strongly than the other evidence in the extract. [3]

(b) Write one or two sentences, suitable for a coursework paragraph, that embed this evidence in your own words, not copied directly from the extract, and explicitly link it back to the claim. [5]

Assessment focus

This question tests two connected coursework skills: selecting the piece of evidence from a source that most directly supports a specific claim (rather than any evidence that is merely on-topic), and integrating that evidence smoothly into original writing rather than lifting it wholesale.

Part (a): selecting the strongest evidence

The 9,000-bottle figure from the science block refill stations is the strongest evidence because it is the only figure in the extract that shows a genuine, measured environmental outcome, bottles actually avoided by an intervention already in place, rather than merely describing the size of the problem, a survey of intentions, or an unconfirmed cost concern.

The 400-bottles-a-week figure establishes that a problem exists, but says nothing about whether removing vending machines would actually reduce environmental harm.
The 68% survey figure shows willingness to change behaviour, not an outcome that has actually happened.
The staff cost concern is explicitly flagged in the extract as unconfirmed, so it cannot be used as reliable supporting evidence either way.

Part (b): embedding the evidence

Model sentences: “The school does not need to guess whether refill stations would work: the three already installed in the science block have, over the course of a single year, displaced an estimated 9,000 single-use bottles between them. Extending that same provision across the rest of the campus, in place of vending machines, would be expected to cut plastic waste on a similar scale.”

Why this works

The model sentences restate the figure in new phrasing (“displaced,” “over the course of a single year”) rather than copying the extract, and the second sentence makes the link to the claim explicit, reasoning from the existing science block result to the expected effect of a campus-wide change, rather than leaving the reader to make that connection unaided.

Common pitfalls specific to this task

Quoting the extract’s exact phrase “enough water to replace an estimated 9,000 single-use bottles” rather than paraphrasing it.
Giving the correct figure in (b) but never connecting it back to the ban itself, so it reads as an isolated fact rather than evidence for an argument.
Selecting a piece of evidence that is on-topic but does not actually measure an environmental outcome, showing willingness, scale or cost instead.