When groups want the same land, a good answer weighs each need with the facts supplied and says plainly where facts are missing. This lesson shows how to do that with an original case.
It is part of effects and management of resource extraction. If local examples tempt you to add detail, read using a local example without inventing facts about my town.
How do I sort the facts?
Make two columns before you write: facts supplied, and facts missing. Only the first column may appear in your argument as evidence.
The second column is useful too. A missing fact can become your limitation, such as “soil quality is not given, so farm yield cannot be judged”.
Worked example: a former mining parcel
The numbers here are made up for illustration. A fictional 40 ha parcel of former mining land is offered for three uses.
| Use | Figures supplied |
|---|---|
| Housing | 600 homes planned |
| Vegetable farm | Expected 3.5 tonnes per hectare, 12 farm jobs |
| Forest reserve | A stream on the parcel feeds a village water intake |
Housing density is 600 ÷ 40 = 15 homes per hectare. Farm output is 3.5 × 40 = 140 tonnes a year, assuming the whole parcel is farmed.
Facts missing: soil quality, the number of people in the village, the cost of each use, and how far the parcel is from existing roads. A reasoned answer uses the supplied facts and names these gaps:
“Housing would put 600 homes on the parcel, 15 per hectare, meeting a housing need. Farming would give 140 tonnes a year and 12 jobs if the whole parcel is used. The stream feeds the village intake, so building or farming beside it could affect the water. The number of villagers and the soil quality are not given, so the weight of the water need and the farm yield cannot be judged, and a mixed use that keeps the stream protected is the most cautious recommendation.”
The mistake that loses marks
The padded answer says: “The village is poor and the soil is very fertile, so farming is best.” Neither fact is supplied. The answer has made up a need and a soil quality to reach a neat conclusion.
| Padded with invented facts | Built from the evidence |
|---|---|
| The soil is very fertile. | Soil quality is not given, so yield cannot be confirmed. |
| The village needs the water most. | The stream feeds a village water intake, but the number of users is not given. |
| Housing is the most profitable. | Cost and price are not supplied, so profit cannot be compared. |
How do I reach a recommendation?
Compare the uses on the same criteria, using only supplied figures, and recommend what the evidence carries. When the evidence cannot separate two uses, say so and choose the option that keeps more choices open later.
For the parcel, protecting the stream strip keeps the water option and leaves the rest open. That is a judgement tied to a supplied fact, not to a guess. Use the graph evidence and fair-comparison lab to set out criteria before you write.
Check yourself
Original data: a fictional 25 ha disused quarry could become a solar farm (producing power for 2 000 homes) or a recreation park (a school asks for a sports field). The quarry floor floods in heavy rain. Number of park visitors is not given. Write a two-sentence answer using only these facts and name one missing fact.
Answer
Model answer: “A solar farm would supply power for 2 000 homes, whereas a park would meet the school’s request for a sports field. Because the quarry floor floods in heavy rain, either use needs flood protection, and the number of park visitors is not given, so the park’s benefit cannot be compared with the solar farm’s.”
Facts not supplied, and so not allowed: cost, distance from homes, how often the flood happens.
What to study next
Try mixed questions that use all four lessons in the resource extraction practice questions.
To have a teacher check that every detail in your answers comes from the evidence, see online one-to-one Geography tuition.