📚 Case Study Practical Exercises for GCSE Eduqas Politics | GCSE Eduqas 政治：案例分析实战演练
Case studies are a core component of the GCSE Eduqas Government and Politics examination. They test your ability to apply political concepts and theories to real-world or hypothetical situations, analyse evidence, and construct balanced arguments. This article provides a series of practical exercises designed to sharpen your case study skills and boost your confidence.
案例分析是 GCSE Eduqas 政府与政治考试的核心组成部分。它们考查你将政治概念和理论应用于现实或假设情境、分析证据并构建平衡论证的能力。本文提供一系列实战练习，旨在提高你的案例分析技能并增强自信。
1. Understanding Case Study Questions in Eduqas Politics | 理解 Eduqas 政治考试中的案例分析题
Case study questions in the Eduqas GCSE Politics exam often present a source (text, data or scenario) and ask you to identify, explain, assess or evaluate something. The command words are crucial: 'identify' requires a simple answer, 'explain' demands reasons and links to political concepts, and 'assess/evaluate' requires you to weigh up arguments and reach a supported judgement. Familiarity with these tiers helps you structure your response appropriately.
Eduqas GCSE 政治考试中的案例分析题通常提供一段资料（文本、数据或情境），要求你识别、解释、评估或评价某些内容。指令词至关重要：“identify”要求简单回答，“explain”要求给出理由并联系政治概念，“assess/evaluate”要求你权衡论点并得出有依据的判断。熟悉这些层次有助于你恰当地组织答案。
The questions are closely tied to the UK political system. For example, you might be asked: 'Using Source A, explain two advantages of the First Past the Post electoral system.' Or 'With reference to the source and your own knowledge, evaluate the extent to which pressure groups strengthen democracy.' Always pay attention to the number of points requested and the marks available.
这些问题与英国政治体系紧密相关。例如，你可能会被问到：“利用资料A，解释简单多数票选举制度的两个优点。”或者“参考资料并结合你自己的知识，评价压力团体在多大程度上加强了民主。”始终注意所要求要点的数量和可得的分数。
To succeed, you must integrate two types of knowledge: knowledge from the source and your own wider political knowledge. Examiners expect you to use the source explicitly (quote or refer to it) and then add context, examples or theories beyond the source. Practising this dual approach is the heart of case study mastery.
要想成功，你必须整合两种知识：来自资料的知识和你自己更广泛的政治知识。考官期望你明确使用资料（引用或提及它），然后补充资料以外的背景、例子或理论。练习这种双重方法是掌握案例分析的核心。
2. Key Skills for Success in Case Study Analysis | 案例分析成功的关键技能
Effective case study analysis relies on three assessment objectives: AO1 (knowledge and understanding), AO2 (application of knowledge to analyse and interpret), and AO3 (evaluation and judgement). Before you write, quickly deconstruct the question to identify which objective is being tested and how many marks each part carries.
有效的案例分析依赖于三个评估目标：AO1（知识与理解）、AO2（运用知识进行分析和解读）和 AO3（评价与判断）。在动笔之前，快速拆解题目，确定考查的是哪个评估目标以及各部分的分值。
AO1 requires you to recall key political terms, institutions and processes. For instance, you might need to define 'parliamentary sovereignty' or explain what the Committee stage in the House of Commons involves. Memorising definitions and key facts is essential; use flashcards to secure these foundations.
AO1 要求你回忆关键的政治术语、制度和过程。例如，你可能需要定义“议会主权”或解释下议院的委员会阶段涉及什么。熟记定义和关键事实至关重要；使用抽认卡来巩固这些基础。
AO2 is about application. You must select the right pieces of knowledge and connect them to the specifics of the case. If a source describes a pressure group using social media and legal action, you should link those methods to the concepts of 'insider' and 'outsider' tactics. The skill is to annotate the source as you read, jotting down relevant concepts.
AO2 是关于应用。你必须选择恰当的知识点，并将它们与案例的具体细节联系起来。如果一份资料描述了一个压力团体使用社交媒体和法律行动，你应该把这些方法同“内部人”和“外部人”策略的概念联系起来。其技巧是在阅读资料时进行批注，随手记下相关的概念。
AO3 demands evaluation. You need to consider both sides of an argument and present a justified conclusion. Use phrases like 'On the one hand... On the other hand...', 'A stronger argument is... because...', and 'However, it could be argued that...'. The conclusion should match the strength of the evidence you have presented, not just a personal opinion.
AO3 要求评价。你需要考虑正反两方面的论点，并给出合理的结论。使用诸如“一方面……另一方面……”、“一个更有力的论点是……因为……”以及“然而，可以说……”这样的措辞。结论应与你所展现的证据力度相匹配，而非仅仅是个人观点。
3. Case Study 1: The Online Safety Bill – Parliamentary Process | 案例一：网络安全法案——议会过程
Scenario: The government introduces the Online Safety Bill, aiming to impose duties on social media platforms to remove harmful content. The bill passes its Second Reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 85, but 30 MPs from the governing party vote against it, citing free speech concerns. At the Committee stage, several amendments are made to limit the regulator's powers. The House of Lords later votes to add an amendment requiring age verification for all users, which the government opposes. After a period of 'ping-pong', the Lords eventually backs down and the bill receives Royal Assent.
情境：政府提出《网络安全法案》，旨在对社交媒体平台施加删除有害内容的义务。该法案在下议院二读中以 85 票多数通过，但有 30 名执政党议员以言论自由为由投了反对票。在委员会阶段，若干修正案被提出以限制监管机构的权力。上议院随后投票增加了一项要求对所有用户进行年龄验证的修正案，政府对此表示反对。经过一段“乒乓”拉锯后，上议院最终妥协，法案获得御准。
Question 1 (6 marks): Using the source, explain two ways in which Parliament scrutinises legislation. Question 2 (12 marks): With reference to the source and your own knowledge, evaluate the view that the House of Lords should have more powers to block government bills.
问题 1（6 分）：利用资料，解释议会审查立法的两种方式。问题 2（12 分）：参考资料并结合你自己的知识，评价认为上议院应拥有更多权力来阻止政府法案的观点。
4. Step-by-Step Analysis for Case Study 1 | 案例一逐步分析
For Question 1: First, identify two scrutiny methods from the source. The Committee stage is explicit – detailed examination and amendments show legislative scrutiny. The Lords' amendment and the 'ping-pong' process illustrate the revising role of the upper house. Explain each: the Committee stage allows cross-party MPs to refine a bill line by line, holding the government to account; the Lords acts as a revising chamber, sending back proposals that can force the government to reconsider. Keep your explanation concise and source-linked.
针对问题 1：首先，从资料中识别两种审查方式。委员会阶段明确展示了详细的审查和修正——体现了立法审查。上议院的修正案和“乒乓”过程说明了上议院的修订角色。分别解释：委员会阶段允许跨党派议员逐条完善法案，对政府进行问责；上议院作为修订院，发回提案能迫使政府重新考虑。解释要简洁并联系资料。
For Question 2 (evaluate): You need to present arguments for and against more Lords' powers. Arguments for: the Lords often contains experts who can improve legislation without party whip pressure; the source shows the Lords raised an important age verification issue – such expertise justifies a stronger veto. Arguments against: the Lords is unelected and unaccountable, so giving it more powers undermines the democratic mandate of the Commons, as seen when the government opposed the Lords' amendment. Use your own knowledge to mention the Salisbury Convention, which restricts Lords' powers over manifesto commitments. Conclude that while the Lords' role as a check is valuable, extending its powers would weaken parliamentary democracy; the source supports this balance as the Lords ultimately yielded.
针对问题 2（评价）：你需要提出支持和反对上议院拥有更多权力的论点。支持理由：上议院经常包含不受党鞭压力影响的专家，能改进立法；资料显示上议院提出了重要的年龄验证问题——这种专业性证明更强否决权的合理性。反对理由：上议院是非选举产生且不负责任的，赋予其更多权力会削弱下议院的民主授权，正如政府反对上议院修正案所示。利用自己的知识提及索尔兹伯里惯例，它限制上议院在宣言承诺方面的权力。结论是尽管上议院的制约作用很有价值，但扩大其权力会削弱议会民主；资料支持这一平衡，因为上议院最终让了步。
5. Case Study 2: The Midshire General Election – Electoral Systems | 案例二：米德郡大选——选举制度
Scenario: At a general election in the constituency of Midshire, the results under First Past the Post (FPTP) are as follows: Conservative 21,500 (41%), Labour 19,800 (38%), Liberal Democrat 8,100 (16%), Green 2,600 (5%). The Conservatives win the seat with a majority of 1,700. Nationally, the Liberal Democrats received 12% of the vote but only won 2% of seats. The source includes a statement from a Green Party spokesperson: 'Our votes are wasted under FPTP; proportional representation would reflect the people's real wishes.'
情境：在米德郡选区的大选中，简单多数票制（FPTP）下的结果如下：保守党 21,500 票（41%），工党 19,800 票（38%），自由民主党 8,100 票（16%），绿党 2,600 票（5%）。保守党以 1,700 票的多数赢得该席位。在全国层面，自由民主党获得 12% 的选票却仅赢得 2% 的席位。资料包含一位绿党发言人的声明：“我们的选票在 FPTP 下被浪费了；比例代表制将反映人民的真实意愿。”
Question 1 (8 marks): Using the source and your own knowledge, explain two features of the FPTP electoral system. Question 2 (12 marks): Assess the extent to which proportional representation (PR) would be an improvement for UK general elections.
问题 1（8 分）：利用资料和你自己的知识，解释 FPTP 选举制度的两个特征。问题 2（12 分）：评估比例代表制（PR）在多大程度上会是英国大选的改进。
6. Step-by-Step Analysis for Case Study 2 | 案例二逐步分析
For Question 1: First, pull features from the source: FPTP produces a single representative for a constituency (the Conservatives won Midshire with a majority, not a majority of votes). This is the 'winner-takes-all' feature. Secondly, the source shows disproportional outcomes – the Liberal Democrats got 16% locally and 12% nationally but far fewer seats, illustrating FPTP's tendency to favour larger parties and create 'wasted votes' (as the Green spokesperson notes). Explain both features clearly, using examples from the data.
针对问题 1：首先，从资料中提取特征：FPTP 为每个选区产生一名代表（保守党以多数赢得米德郡，而非绝对多数票）。这就是“赢者通吃”的特点。其次，资料显示了不成比例的结果——自由民主党获得了 16% 的地方选票和 12% 的全国选票，但席位少得多，说明了 FPTP 偏向大党并产生“废票”的倾向（如绿党发言人所指出的）。用数据中的例子清晰地解释这两个特征。
For Question 2 (assess): Break the argument into for and against PR. Arguments for PR: it would produce fairer representation, ensuring that parties' seat shares match their vote shares; this would reduce wasted votes and potentially increase turnout, as every vote counts. The Green spokesperson's view supports this. Arguments against PR: it can lead to coalition governments, which may be unstable and break manifesto promises; under FPTP, governments are usually strong and accountable, and the constituency link (one MP per area) is clear. Use your own knowledge of PR systems like AMS (Additional Member System) used in Scotland and Wales, which blend proportionality with constituency MPs. Conclude by weighing the principle of fairness against the need for strong governance, perhaps arguing a mixed system like AMS is a suitable compromise, but that PR alone may create more problems than it solves.
针对问题 2（评估）：将论点分为支持和反对 PR。支持 PR 的理由：它将产生更公平的代表，确保政党席位比例与选票比例匹配；这将减少废票，并可能提高投票率，因为每一票都有用。绿党发言人的观点支持这一点。反对 PR 的理由：它可能导致联合政府，这可能不稳定并违背宣言承诺；在 FPTP 下，政府通常强势且易于问责，选区联系（每个选区一名议员）也清楚。利用你自己对 PR 系统的知识，如苏格兰和威尔士使用的附加议员制（AMS），它将比例制与选区议员相结合。在结论中权衡公平原则与强有力治理的需要，也许可以论证像 AMS 这样的混合制是合适的折衷方案，但 PR 单独使用可能弊大于利。
7. Case Study 3: Save Our Park – Pressure Group Campaign | 案例三：拯救我们的公园——压力团体运动
Scenario: 'Save Our Park' is a local pressure group formed after the council proposed selling half of Greenfield Park to a housing developer. The group uses several methods: an online petition gaining 15,000 signatures; a legal challenge on the grounds that the council did not consult residents properly; a peaceful march of 2,000 people; lobbying local councillors directly; and creating a viral social media video featuring a popular local celebrity. The council eventually agrees to hold a public consultation and postpone the decision. The source mentions the group is non-partisan and funded by small donations.
情境：“拯救我们的公园”是一个地方压力团体，在市议会提议将格林菲尔德公园一半土地出售给住房开发商后成立。该团体使用了多种方法：一份获得 15,000 个签名的网上请愿书；一项以市议会未适当咨询居民为由的法律挑战；一次 2,000 人的和平游行；直接游说地方议员；以及制作了一个由当地知名名人出演的、疯传的社交媒体视频。市议会最终同意举办公众咨询并推迟决定。资料提到该团体是无党派性质的，并由小额捐款资助。
Question 1 (6 marks): Using the source, explain two methods used by the pressure group and why they were chosen. Question 2 (12 marks): With reference to the source and your own knowledge, evaluate the effectiveness of pressure group tactics in a democracy.
问题 1（6 分）：利用资料，解释该压力团体使用的两种方法及其选择原因。问题 2（12 分）：参考资料并结合你自己的知识，评价压力团体策略在民主中的有效性。
8. Step-by-Step Analysis for Case Study 3 | 案例三逐步分析
For Question 1: Choose two contrasting methods. The online petition and viral video are 'outsider' tactics designed to mobilise public opinion and apply indirect pressure through visibility. The reason: the group lacked insider connections initially, so public pressure was necessary to force the council's hand. Secondly, the legal challenge is an 'insider' or expert tactic, using the courts to hold the council to procedural law. These were chosen because resident non-consultation was a strong legal point, and a court order could stop the sale outright. Link each method to its purpose in the source.
针对问题 1：选择两种对比鲜明的方法。网上请愿和火爆视频是“外部人”策略，旨在动员公众舆论并通过曝光施加间接压力。选择原因：该团体一开始缺乏内部人脉，因此公众压力对于迫使市议会就范是必要的。其次，法律挑战是一种“内部人”或专家策略，利用法院迫使市议会遵守程序法。选择这一方法是因为未咨询居民是一个有力的法律论点，法院命令可以直接阻止出售。将每种方法与其在资料中的目的联系起来。
For Question 2 (evaluate): Structure the response to assess when and why tactics are effective. Effectiveness: the source shows the campaign worked – a public consultation was granted. This illustrates that outsider tactics can succeed, especially when combined with insider lobbying. Use your own knowledge to add that well-resourced groups or those with professional staff (like legal teams) often achieve more. Limitations: without sustained pressure, the council might still approve the sale later; also, small, poorly funded groups struggle to sustain campaigns. In a democracy, pressure group success depends on public sympathy, media coverage and political opportunity. Conclude that while the tactics shown can be effective, influence is uneven, raising questions about pluralist fairness. The source suggests temporary success, so your judgement should be balanced.
针对问题 2（评价）：构建答案以评估策略在何时以及为何有效。有效性：资料显示运动取得了成效——公众咨询得以进行。这说明外部人策略可以成功，特别是与内部游说相结合时。利用你的知识补充：资源充足的团体或拥有专业人员（如法律团队）的团体通常能取得更多成果。局限性：如果没有持续施压，市议会以后仍可能批准出售；此外，小型、资金不足的团体难以维持运动。在民主中，压力团体的成功取决于公众同情、媒体报道和政治机会。结论是尽管所展示的策略可能有效，但影响力分布不均，这引发了关于多元主义公平性的问题。资料显示的是暂时的成功，因此你的判断应保持平衡。
9. Case Study 4: The Northshire Devolution Referendum | 案例四：诺斯郡权力下放公投
Scenario: The UK government proposes a referendum on whether the region of Northshire should have its own elected assembly with powers over education, housing, and transport, similar to those in Wales. The Yes campaign argues it will bring decision-making closer to the people and boost the local economy. The No campaign warns of higher taxes, an extra layer of politicians, and a threat to the unity of the UK. The source shows that 52% voted No on a turnout of 41%. It also quotes a Yes campaigner: 'The result was disappointing, but the debate itself has put devolution firmly on the agenda.'
情境：英国政府提议就诺斯郡地区是否应拥有自己经选举产生的、对教育、住房和交通拥有权力的议会进行公投，权力类似于威尔士议会。赞成运动认为这会使决策更贴近民众并提振地方经济。反对运动则警告税收将增加、政客层级增多以及对英国统一的威胁。资料显示，在 41% 的投票率下，52% 的人投了反对票。它还引用了一位赞成运动者的话：“结果令人失望，但辩论本身已将权力下放坚定地提上议程。”
Question 1 (6 marks): Using the source, outline two arguments used against devolution. Question 2 (12 marks): Assess the view that referendums are the best way to decide constitutional issues in the UK.
问题 1（6 分）：利用资料，概述反对权力下放的两个论点。问题 2（12 分）：评估认为公投是在英国决定宪法问题的最佳方式的观点。
10. Step-by-Step Analysis for Case Study 4 | 案例四逐步分析
For Question 1: Extract arguments directly. First, the No campaign argued higher taxes – devolution would mean an additional administration needing funding, which could increase the tax burden. Second, they warned of a threat to UK unity, suggesting that more regional assemblies could weaken the cohesion of the nation. Acknowledge the extra layer of politicians as another point. You need only two, so choose the clearest and support with source reference.
针对问题 1：直接提取论点。首先，反对运动认为税收会增加——权力下放意味着需要资金支持额外的行政机构，这可能加重税收负担。其次，他们警告对英国统一的威胁，暗示更多地方议会可能削弱国家的凝聚力。另一个层次是增加政客层级。你只需要两条，所以选择最清晰的并用资料佐证。
For Question 2 (assess): This requires evaluating referendums as a constitutional tool. Arguments for: referendums give direct democratic legitimacy to major changes, like devolution or Brexit; they engage the public and settle contentious issues with a clear mandate. The source shows even a lost referendum put devolution on the agenda, showing deliberative value. Arguments against: low turnout (41% in Northshire) undermines legitimacy; complex issues can be oversimplified; the result can depend on campaign funding and misinformation. Use your own knowledge of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum (high turnout, clear result) vs the 2011 AV referendum (low turnout, unclear debate). Conclude that while referendums can be appropriate for irreversible constitutional changes, safeguards such as supermajorities or better information campaigns are needed; the Northshire example with low turnout weakens the claim that they are 'best'.
针对问题 2（评估）：这需要评价公投作为宪法工具的作用。支持理由：公投为重大变革（如下放权力或脱欧）提供了直接的民主合法性；它们促使公众参与，并以明确授权解决争议性问题。资料显示，即使是失败的公投也将权力下放提上议程，显示了其审议价值。反对理由：低投票率（诺斯郡为 41%）削弱了合法性；复杂问题可能被过度简化；结果可能取决于竞选资金和错误信息。利用你对 2014 年苏格兰独立公投（高投票率、明确结果）和 2011 年替代投票制公投（低投票率、讨论不清）的知识。结论是，尽管公投对于不可逆的宪法变革可能是合适的，但需要诸如超级多数制或更好的信息宣传活动等保障措施；诺斯郡低投票率的例子削弱了“公投是最佳方式”的说法。
11. Summary and Exam Tips | 总结与考试技巧
Case study questions reward precision and structure. Always begin by reading the source carefully twice: once for general gist, once with a highlighter
Published by TutorHao | GCSE 政治 Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图