Evaluating Viewpoint, Argument and Bias: Question 6
Syllabus R3, R4
Read the following blog post, then answer the questions that follow.
I used to be exactly the kind of person who rolled their eyes at "miracle" supplements, until three months ago, when a friend introduced me to GlowBoost Morning Gummies and completely changed my mind.
Within a week, my skin looked like it had been photographed through a soft-focus lens. My energy levels, my mood, even my hair, everything felt different, in the best possible way. I am honestly convinced these gummies are the single most transformative thing I have put in my body in the last decade.
Sure, dermatologists will tell you no supplement can "transform" skin in seven days, and technically they are the experts. But experts have been wrong before, and I know what I saw in the mirror.
I should mention that a few months ago I became a GlowBoost brand ambassador, which means I now earn a small commission whenever someone orders through my link below, though obviously that has nothing to do with how genuinely I believe in this product.
If you have ever felt tired, dull-skinned or simply unlike yourself, do what I did: order a three-month supply today. Your future self, glowing with confidence, will thank you.
(a) Identify the detail in the passage that reveals the writer has a personal financial interest in GlowBoost Gummies, and explain why this detail should make a reader more cautious about trusting the review. [2] (b) Identify one example of exaggeration (hyperbole) in the passage and explain the effect it is intended to have on the reader. [2] (c) Explain one way the passage is written to make a paid promotion feel like a spontaneous, personal recommendation rather than an advertisement. [2]
Show worked solution Hide worked solution
Worked solution
Assessment focus
This question tests recognition of vested-interest (source) bias: understanding that a writer’s personal or financial stake in the subject can affect how trustworthy their claims are, even when the writing itself sounds sincere and personal. It also tests recognition of hyperbole as a persuasive technique.
Part (a): The hidden financial interest
The clearest evidence of bias in this passage is not in what the writer claims the product does, but in who the writer is: someone who profits, via commission, from readers acting on the recommendation. Strong answers quote this detail precisely and explain the mechanism of bias, not simply that the writer “likes” the product, but that they are financially rewarded for convincing others to buy it, which gives them a motive to overstate its benefits regardless of the truth.
Part (b): Exaggeration
The passage repeatedly reaches for extreme, absolute claims (“photographed through a soft-focus lens,” “the single most transformative thing… in the last decade”) rather than modest, plausible ones. These phrases are not measured descriptions of a supplement’s effect; they are designed to make the product sound extraordinary, so the reader’s excitement outpaces any actual evidence.
Part (c): Disguising promotion as personal advice
By telling the review as a personal journey (“I used to be exactly the kind of person who rolled their eyes…”) and speaking directly to the reader’s own possible frustrations, the passage borrows the credibility of a trusted friend’s recommendation rather than the more sceptical stance readers might bring to an advertisement. Minimising the commission disclosure in the very sentence that reveals it, “though obviously that has nothing to do with…”, reinforces this effect by pre-empting the reader’s doubt before it can form.
Common pitfalls specific to this text
- Some candidates focus only on the dismissal of dermatologists’ expertise for part (a), missing that this is a separate technique (dismissing an expert opinion) rather than the vested-interest detail the question asks for.
- Candidates sometimes describe the whole passage as “hyperbole” rather than selecting one precise, quotable example as the question requires.