EXAMINERS’ REPORT

BIOLOGY – 0180/01 & 02

LGCSE Examinations
October/November, 2021

Examinations Council of Lesotho

2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

BIOLOGY: THEORY
Component: 0180/02

INTRODUCTION

This report is meant for sharing experiences and observations made by the 2021 team of
examiners when marking the theory paper, 0180/02. For every item, the report expresses
 the requirements
 expected response
 the general candidates’ performance and
 common errors and misconceptions.
Where necessary, recommendations are made to bring teachers attention to areas that need
improvement.

The 2021 paper displayed an equitable syllabus coverage and a similar difficulty level to the
one written in 2020. The mark scheme was fair and open in awarding marks. Nevertheless,
many candidates failed to access marks even from low order questions due to the generally
poor quality of their responses. The responses reflected incompetence as regards basic
conceptual knowledge, scientific language and action verbs and answering questions. There
was a common use of everyday language instead of scientific terminology, examples:
fallopian tubes instead of oviducts, and womb instead of uterus.
Frequent assessment practices which expose learners to questions of varying difficulty levels
and command words (stipulated in the glossary of terms section of the syllabus) are
recommended. Teachers are also advised to pay attention to the assessment objectives for
guidance and to maintain relevance when assessing learners.

Page | 2
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Section A
Question 1
The structures of cells from different organisms were shown in Fig. 1.1.

Fig. 1.1
(a) The candidates were expected to name the types of organisms in which cell X and cell Y
are found. The expected response was a bacterium (X) and plant (Y). The commonest
incorrect responses were bacterial cell or animal cell for X, and plant cell for Y, which are
not organisms as the question required. Therefore, this part was poorly done.

(b) The candidates had to state functions of the cell wall (A) and cytoplasm (B). Any valid
function was awarded a mark. For example, the cell wall maintains cell shape/ protects
cell from damage/ prevents cell from bursting due to osmotic pressure etc. The cytoplasm
holds necessary components of or substances for the cell (e.g., organelles, nucleic acids
and sugar molecules) / site for chemical reactions etc. “Cell membrane” was a common
misidentification of the cell wall, hence an incorrect function was stated. For the cytoplasm,
function of the nucleus was stated by many. As a result, of such mistakes the question
was only fairly done.

(c) Majority of the candidates managed to score high marks on this question. They were asked
to identify two visible differences between cell X and cell Y in Fig. 1.1. No (true) nucleus,
no chloroplast, no vacuole in X versus the presence of true nucleus, chloroplast, large
central vacuole in Y were the expected differences. Marks were lost in some cases for
mismatching the differences. For example, presence or absence of (i) DNA versus that of
nucleus, (ii) vacuole versus that of chloroplasts. Also for errors such as using the terms
chlorophyll for chloroplast and cell sap for vacuole.

(d) Candidates were told that a tissue made up of cells similar to cell Y was placed on a
microscope slide and covered with a highly concentrated sugar solution. The cells were

Page | 3
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

observed using a microscope. The candidates had to describe and explain the changes in
appearance of the cells that would be observed after 15 minutes.
The slight decrease in the cell and vacuole sizes/ cells becoming flaccid are the changes
candidates should have described. A mention of plasmolysis was appreciated. These
changes are a result of water leaving the cells by osmosis due to water potential difference,
which is higher inside the cells. Marks were frequently lost for referring to movement of
the concentrated sugar solution instead of water molecules. Failure to refer to water
potential difference and decrease in the size of the vacuole also resulted in majority
scoring very low marks. Therefore, the performance on this item was generally poor.

Question 2
The lower surface of a leaf of a bean plant viewed through a microscope was shown in Fig.
2.1.

Fig. 2.1

(a) (i) Cells R and T had to be named. Only a few scored a mark for epidermal cell (T) than for
guard cell (R) which was commonly mistaken for a stoma. Xylem and phloem were
haphazardly mentioned for either R or T.

(ii) Two differences between the lower and upper surfaces of a leaf of a bean plant were to
be stated. Two marks were awarded for any two differences from: Thicker cuticle upper
surface/ thinner cuticle lower; fewer stomata on upper/ more on lower surface; and no
chloroplast versus chloroplast. Many candidates failed to differentiate. Some candidates
evidently had internal leaf structure in mind, which led to common errors such as many
chloroplasts on the upper surface/ few on the lower surface; more photosynthesis on the
upper surface/ low photosynthesis on the lower surface. Therefore, the performance
was very poor.
(b) Candidates were expected to explain the changes that occur to cell R when it is dark. The
explanation entails reference to loss of water; less (no) photosynthesis; flaccidity. Only

Page | 4
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

very few candidates accessed a mark for mentioning less (no) photosynthesis. However,
most candidates referred to the closure of the stomata and respiration. The performance
on this question was extremely poor.
(c) The candidates were expected to outline the mechanism by which water from roots
reaches cell T. The outline could to include any three points from: capillary action and
transpiration pull; xylem vessels; stem to leaves; osmosis or described; neighbouring cells.
Marks were mostly lost for referring to absorption of water instead of conduction of water,
xylem cell instead of xylem vessel, and water moving by osmosis in the xylem vessel rather
than by transpiration pull/ capillarity. This question was poorly done.
(d) Candidates were told that a piece of cobalt chloride paper was attached to the lower
surface of the leaf for 1 hour during a hot, dry day. Cobalt chloride is blue when dry, and
changes to pink when wet.
The question required candidates to suggest and explain the expected results. They were
expected to indicate that the cobalt paper would turn pink; due to high transpiration / a lot
of water vapour being released; Candidates’ responses tended to incline mainly to testing
a leaf for starch and thus, mentioning the colours blue/ black; yellow-brown. Also, the
cobalt chloride paper was confused with litmus paper. Very poor performance was
observed.

Question 3
A kidney tubule and its associated blood vessels were shown in Fig. 3.1.

Fig. 3.1

(a) Candidates had to identify structure Y, a Bowman’s / renal capsule; Marks were lost due
to common incorrect responses such as glomerulus, renal artery, and kidney.

Page | 5
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

(b) Candidates were asked to explain how water is reabsorbed in the kidneys. Only a few
correctly referred to the role of antidiuretic hormone/ ADH; in increasing permeability of
the kidney tubule and collecting ducts; for more diffusion of water molecules/osmosis back
to the blood to occur;. Reference to osmoregulation was not awarded marks. Despite the
question being specific to absorption of water, most candidates explained ultra-filtration
and selective reabsorption of substances in general. Consequently, extremely poor
performance was noticed on this question.

(c) Role of the liver in excretion was to be described. Correct reference to any three of the
following points: deamination/ described; excess amino acids; urea; release of carbon
dioxide in respiration; detoxification/described yielded 3 marks;. Most candidates scored
marks for deamination and detoxification. Unfortunately, marks were commonly lost for
mistakes and/or incorrect answers such as “excreting urea”, referring to amino acids
instead of excess amino acids and referring to regulation of glucose. The question was
fairly performed.
(d) Having been told that the urine of a person was found to contain red blood cells,
candidates were asked to suggest and explain the possible cause of the finding. The
expected possibilities were the urinary tract infection/ kidney stones/ enlarged prostate/ or
any valid point (AVP); bleeding or rupture of blood vessel/ other tissues;
The kidney failure, not drinking enough water and drinking alcohol were the commonest
errors. Candidates could not associate the problem with bleeding and red blood cells being
filtered. The performance was very poor.

Question 4`
(a) A food chain with four organisms A, B, C and D was shown in Fig. 4.1.

organism A organism B organism C organism D

producer (primary) (secondary) (tertiary)
consumer consumer consumer
Fig. 4.1

(i) A is the letter of an organism which produces oxygen in the given food chain. Majority
scored a mark. However, a few failed to follow the instruction, and rather stated “plant”,
“tree” etc, which led to loss of the mark. The question was well done.
(ii) A pyramid of numbers and a pyramid of biomass for the food chain in Fig. 4.1 were
shown in Fig. 4.2.

Page | 6
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

D D
C C
B B
A A

Pyramid of numbers Pyramid of biomass

Fig. 4.2

Candidates were to describe and explain the difference in the shape of the two
pyramids. While some compared the two pyramids as though they both are pyramids
of numbers, others described their shapes. Therefore, the performance was extremely
poor. The expected response was simply as follows: narrow versus broad; a small
number of very large producers/ large biomass.

(iii) Two reasons for numbers of organism D always being smaller than the numbers of
organism C were to be suggested for 2 marks. The plausible suggestions were: D
needs constant supply of C for food; individuals of D larger in size than C / this requires
more than 1:1 ratio; loss of energy from trophic level C / to trophic level D; reference
to extinction was rejected. Almost all candidates failed to score marks as they
commonly repeated the stem of the question, some showed the feeding relationship
while others interchanged the sizes of C and D.

(b) Candidates were told that a second primary consumer, organism E, was introduced to
form a food web shown Fig. 4.3.

organism organism organism

B C D
organism
A
organism
E

Fig. 4.3

Having been told that the numbers of organism E rose at first and then later levelled off,
candidates were asked to suggest two reasons for levelling off. The anticipated responses
are: competition for food supply; predation; disease/ parasite; competition for space/
habitats; Marks got lost for mistakes such as reversing the direction of flow of energy i.e.,
C feeding on D. So, the question was only fairly done.

Page | 7
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

(c) Candidates were told that farmers use chemicals to protect their crops from pests.

(i) Additionally, they were told that some farmers make long-term use of insecticides that
cannot be broken down by living organisms. Then, candidates were required to state
the trophic level of the organism in Fig. 4.1 that would be expected to have the highest
concentration of those insecticides in their bodies, which is basically the fourth trophic
level / tertiary consumer. Nonetheless, the commonest incorrect answer was the
producer / organism A and the question was poorly done.

(ii) The required suggestions of the adverse effects that could result from the long-term
use of pesticides that cannot be broken down were: killing useful insects/ pollinators/
predators of pests/ named; as well as any harmful effect on tertiary consumer/ named;
Reference to pollution, destruction of soil structure and fertility, as well as the effect on
primary consumer were the commonest suggestions that led to loss of marks. The
performance was extremely poor.

Question 5
It was described that hair colour in mice is controlled by a single gene with two alleles. A
homozygous black-haired mouse was bred with a homozygous brown-haired mouse. All
offspring were black-haired.

(a) (i) The term ‘homozygous’ was to defined as having two identical alleles of a particular
gene; and the term ‘recessive’ as an allele expressed when no dominant allele of the
gene is present; The performance was quite poor as alleles were commonly confused
with genes, just as reference to letters (e.g., same letters and small letters) was
common. Also, absence of dominant allele was not mentioned in many cases when
defining ‘recessive’.

(ii) Given the information described in the stem of the question, candidates were expected
to categorise the allele for black hair colour as dominant. Only about half of the
candidates scored this mark. The common errors included homozygous, brown-
haired. Overall, the question was fairly done.

Page | 8
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

(b) (i) A fully labelled genetic diagram was to be drawn to show the cross and the expected
ratio of different offspring using the symbols B and b to represent alleles.

Parental phenotype Black × Brown ;

Parental genotype Bb × bb ;

Meiosis

Gametes b b ;
B b

Random fertilisation

Bb Bb bb bb ;
F1 genotypes

F1 phenotypes Black Black Brown Brown ;

Phenotypic ratio 1 Black : 1 Brown

Genotypic ratio 1 Bb : 1 bb ;

Most candidates crossed homozygous dominant and recessive individuals, some left
out the labels while others crossed the genotypes instead of the gametes. Therefore,
the performance was generally poor.

(ii) Having been told that twenty offspring were produced from the cross, candidates were
asked to state the expected number of black mice, which is 10. Common incorrect
responses included 20 offspring and ratios such as 1:1. As a result, performance was
poor.

Page | 9
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

SECTION B
Question 6
(a) With reference to ribs, intercostal muscles and diaphragm, candidates had to describe the
process of expiration. It was important highlight: relaxation of external intercostal muscles/
contraction of internal intercostal muscles; pulling ribs downwards and inwards; while
diaphragm simultaneously relaxes and becomes dome shaped; and the general effect of
these muscular movements in decreasing volume of the thoracic cavity; and consequently
increasing pressure;.
The common errors included describing inspiration, incomplete statements such as ribs
moving downwards without mentioning inwards, and no reference to actions of the internal
and external intercostal muscles. In some cases, they would describe activity of the
intercostal muscles and leave out that of the diaphragm. Only a few went as far as
describing the changes in volume and pressure. The performance on this question was
very poor.
(b) Candidates were to state and explain the differences between inspired and expired air.
The expected response was as follows:
Differences
Explanation
Inspired air Expired air

20% to 21% of oxygen 16% of oxygen *used in respiration;

0.04% carbon dioxide 4% carbon dioxide *released from respiration;
variable water vapour saturated with water vapour *released from respiration; at 37 ℃;

at air temperature at 37% temperature *air warmed in the lungs;

However, candidates lost Mark’s due to failure to compare and explain, instead they were
explaining breathing mechanism, with a common misconception that we breathe in oxygen
and we breathe out carbon dioxide. Some managed to score marks by differentiating the
amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen in inspired and expired air while most candidates failed
to refer water vapour and air temperature. The performance on this item was poor.

Page | 10
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

Question 7
(a) Having been told that pepsin is the protease enzyme that is active in the stomach,
candidates were asked to suggest the conditions in which pepsin works best. The
expected conditions were the following: at body temperature / 370 C; and in acidic medium
/ pH 1 or 2 / very low pH. However, marks got lost because of errors such as: low pH
instead of very low pH, optimum pH instead of specifying pH 1 & pH 2, stating temperature
as a range instead of 370 C. Generally, the item was fairly done.

(b) Candidates were to outline the role played by a named enzyme in each of the following
activities:
(i) Digestion of carbohydrates in germination of maize seeds.
Candidates were expected to know that amylase; breaks down starch; into a soluble
sugar, maltose; which (via glucose) can be used in respiration to provide energy for
growth;
Candidates lost marks due to the following common errors: carbohydrates digested to
starch, starch digested to glucose, using salivary amylase or even pepsin instead of
just amylase. The item was poorly done.

(ii) Use of biological washing powders to remove blood stains. The item tested candidates’
knowledge that protease; in washing powders digests proteins; into amino acids; which
are soluble;
A reasonable number of candidates obtained marks for digestion of protein by
protease. However, some made errors such as pepsin removing blood stains, use of
detergents instead of enzymes in biological washing powders, referring to use of warm
water to remove stains. This question was fairly done.

(iii) Fat digestion in the alimentary canal. The knowledge being tested was that lipase;
digests fats to fatty acids and glycerol; in the small intestines / duodenum;
Some candidates made errors such as: mentioning only fatty acids as products, i.e.,
leaving glycerol out; and confusing fatty acids with amino acids. The question was also
fairly done.

Page | 11
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /02) – Theory

Question 8
(a) Candidates were to describe the process of fertilization in humans. They were required to
demonstrate knowledge of the site where fertilisation occurs, i.e., the oviduct. Also, that
the acrosome releases enzyme; which breaks the cell membrane of the ovum; for the
sperm nucleus to enter; then the ovum membrane immediately becomes impenetrable.
The sperm and egg nuclei unite; to form a zygote;
Encountered common errors: fusion of sperm cell and ovum instead of fusion of their
nuclei, confusing ova with ovules, fertilization occurs in the ovary, embryo forming before
zygote and sperm head enters the ovum. A reasonable number of candidates missed
marks for the role of acrosome and enzymes, as well as for the membrane of the ovum
becoming impermeable. Therefore, the performance was very poor.

(b) Candidates were to state the sites of production of oestrogen and progesterone, and
describe their roles in the menstrual cycle.
Candidates had to recall: that oestrogen is produced in the ovaries / by follicle; that
increasing its levels in blood inhibits release of FSH; its role in thickening the uterus lining
/ endometrium;
For progesterone, candidates had to recall: that it is produced by the corpus luteum / ovary;
that increasing its levels in blood inhibits release of LH and FSH; its role is in maintaining
the endometrium / lining of the uterus thick;
Many candidates failed to obtain marks because of the following errors: oestrogen and
progesterone being produced by the uterus, oviduct, testicles etc, and the hormones have
roles in promoting secondary characteristics, and are mood influencers. Also, the role of
oestrogen in maintaining uterus lining.
The performance on this item was very poor.

Page | 12
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

ALTERNATIVE TO PRACTICAL
COMPONENT: 0180/03

INTRODUCTION

Assessment reveals gaps in information, weaknesses and strengths of the candidates and
thus, informs future teaching. Therefore, this report is intended to provide information
regarding observations made by the examiners during marking of the 2021 biology alternative
to practical paper (0180/03). It presents comments on every question, which entail the
rephrased question, expected response, candidates’ performance, common errors and
misconceptions as well as recommendations meant to bring teachers’ attention to areas that
need improvement.

The paper equitably assessed the following experimental skills and investigations fairly well:
 use techniques, apparatus and materials (including the following of a sequence of
instructions where appropriate)
 make and record observations, measurements and estimates
 interpret and evaluate experimental observations and data
 plan investigations and/or evaluate methods, and suggest possible improvements
(including the selection of techniques, apparatus and materials).

Overall, the question paper was more accessible than that of the 2020 paper. It consists of
three questions, of which one was poorly done while the other two were fairly done.

The quality of 2021 cohort was found to be lesser compared to their predecessors. The
candidates lacked basic skills needed to handle biology questions at this level. As observed
with the previous cohort (2020), many candidates were evidently lacking in content. They
could not correctly spell and/or use biological terms, even the names of the apparatus already
labelled on the question paper. The candidates’ data presentation and interpretation abilities
still proved to be inadequate.

Page | 13
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Question 1
(a) Candidates were requested to draw a large, neat, labelled diagram of the annelid shown
in Fig. 1.1.

Fig. 1.1

2 marks were awarded for a large, neat, realistic drawing; showing a distinct head and
segments; while the remaining 3 marks for labelling the head segments; and clitellum;
The question was fairly performed as most diagrams were large and resembled Fig.1.1,
with no shading and no broken lines. However, many candidates failed to correctly label
the head, segments and clitellum. A few were lost marks for shading their diagrams. The
use of arrows for labelling, instead of label lines, was the commonest error.

(b) (i) The instruction required candidates to measure the length of the annelid in Fig.1.1,
which is 48 mm; and the length of the one they drew. Candidates were generally able
to measure correctly, and thus, displayed a fair performance. However, some lost
marks for measuring in centimetres (cm) rather than in millimetres (mm) as stipulated
in the syllabus. A few presented their measurements in millimetres (mm) but with
decimal points, e.g. 48.1 mm.

(ii) The item directed candidates to calculate the magnification of their drawings of the
annelid in (a). A mark was awarded for dividing the length of their own drawing by that
of Fig. 1.1. The second mark was awarded for the correct magnification factor and the
third for expressing it appropriately. Majority did well, although some candidates did
not show their working, while others divided the length of Fig.1.1 by that of their
drawing and others expressed magnification without “×”.
More practice is recommended on measuring and magnification using live specimen
as well as photomicrographs.

Page | 14
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

Question 2
The apparatus used to investigate some environmental factors required for germination of
seeds are shown in Fig. 2.1.

airtight lid

seeds
dry cotton
wool damp cotton dry cotton
wool wool
Liquid N – absorbs
Liquid M
oxygen
–releases Liquid M
oxygen
20 oC 20 oC 20 oC 20 oC
Test-tube D Test-tube E Test-tube F Test-tube G

Fig. 2.1

It was described that the test-tubes, each containing three seeds, were kept in the dark. In
suitable conditions, the seeds used in this investigation germinate within seven days.

(a) (i) Candidates had to state the factors that are being investigated in Fig. 2.1, i.e.,
oxygen; and water; candidates are advised against use of the terms ‘air’ and
‘moisture’, which were used by many. The question was attempted by many
candidates, though the performance was generally poor.
The common incorrect responses were: oxygen concentration, water potential, light
intensity and suitable temperature.

(ii) The item required candidates to predict, with explanation, the results in test-tubes E
and F after 7 days. No germination was expected in test-tube E; due to the absence
of oxygen; required for aerobic respiration; It was quite unexpected to have some
candidates wrongly foreseeing occurrence of germination owing to oxygen being
absorbed.
The beans in test-tube F were supposed to germinate as all necessary conditions were
available; Oxygen from liquid M; enabled aerobic respiration; and water from the cotton
wool; dissolved nutrients / activated enzymes; under the suitable temperature
conditions provided; for the enzymes. Some candidates failed to explain the
importance of each factor for germination as the question directed. “Warmth” and

Page | 15
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

“good temperature” were commonly mistaken for suitable/optimum temperature.

Seeds, instead of liquid M, were wrongly commonly said to release oxygen.

Attention should be paid to information provided in stimuli such as Fig. 2.1, and effort
should be made to understand it. This could help avoid misinterpretation as it evidently
happened with the role of liquids M and N. Some seemingly understood oxygen to have
been lost in tube F, rather than supplied to the beans by liquid M. Others understood
oxygen to have been absorbed by the beans rather than by liquid N. This possibly explains
the incorrect predictions made.

(iii) A suggestion on how the investigation could be improved was requested. A maximum of
3 marks could be scored from: increasing the number of seeds in each test tube; repeating
the experiment/ replication; recording germination results every day; and recording
germination results over a period of more than ten days; Despite being attempted by the
majority, this part was poorly performed. The commonest errors included use of: a damp
cotton wool in all test tubes; same volume of liquids, soil; and performing the experiment
in the presence of light. There was a glaring confusion amongst germination,
photosynthesis and respiration.

(b) Having been told that a seed from test-tube G was taken out, candidates were to describe
how they would carry out a test for presence of proteins in the seed and state the result
they would expect if proteins were present. The seed should be crushed and mixed with
water; then, biuret reagent and shaken; development of a purple colour would indicate
presence of protein; Majority of the candidates attempted the question and displayed a fair
performance.

Question 3
Candidates were told that three different dough samples A, B and C were prepared.
The samples were prepared as follows:
Sample A: warm water, flour and yeast.
Sample B: warm water, flour and sugar.
Sample C: warm water, flour, sugar and yeast.
Each sample of dough was carefully mixed, kneaded, shaped and placed in separate
measuring cylinders, which are kept in a warm place for two hours.
(a) Candidates were asked to suggest two other factors that should be kept constant to
ensure that the results for the samples could be compared. A maximum of two marks could
be obtained from: same type/mass of yeast; same type/mass of sugar; same type/mass
of flour; or equal volume of water. While many candidates attempted the question, their

Page | 16
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

performance was poor. They lost marks due to mistakes such as using the word ‘amount’
instead of the more specific words, ‘volume’ or ‘mass‘. Also, reference to dough was often
made instead of the expected quantities, for example, of flour or sugar. Temperature was
commonly suggested as one of the conditions which should be kept constant yet it is
already kept constant in the investigation. Many candidates had a misconception of
expressing mass as weight.
(b) The volume of each dough sample, measured and recorded at 20 minute intervals, was
shown in Table 3.1.

Time (min) Volume of dough (cm3)

Sample A Sample B Sample C

0 12 12 12

20 18 12 20

40 26 12 32

60 34 13 41

80 39 13 48

100 39 13 48

120 39 13 48

(i) The candidates were instructed to use the data in Table 3.1 to draw a graph to show
the results for samples A, B and C on the grid provided.

Page | 17
2021 Examiners’ Report Biology (0180 /03) – Alternative to practical

A total of 6 marks could be obtained for the correct labelling and scale for the horizontal
axis; and vertical axis; accurate plotting for each sample – all points + joining;;; and
correct labels – curve A, B and C. The question was satisfactorily attempted and well
performed. Only a few mistakes were made, which included swapping the axes, wrong
scaling and wrong plotting of points.

(ii) The candidates had to describe the curves for samples A, B and C, which they could
do by using the display in (b) (i). Curve A generally shows a steady increase in volume
of dough from 12 cm3 until it stops rising at 80th when it becomes 39 cm3. Curve B
shows volume of dough remaining constant at 12 cm3 until 40th minute when it
increases by only 1 cm3 / from 12 cm3 to 13 cm3 and remains constant again. Curve C
shows volume of the dough generally increasing steadily until 80th minute as it
becomes 48 cm3 and then remains constant. This question was well attempted but
poorly performed. Not even a single candidate was able to access all the three marks.
(iii) The candidates had to state the time when the difference in volume between samples
A and C was greatest, which was at 80th minute. The question was well attempted and
well performed.
(c) Having been told that the volumes of samples A – C changed differently, candidates
were asked to describe and explain the observed differences in volumes between
(i) Samples A and B,
Absence of yeast in sample B, resulting in no respiration and hence no production of
carbon dioxide that raises the dough was the reason for sample A, which had yeast,
reaching a greater volume than sample B.

(ii) Samples A and C.

Presence of sugar, a respiratory substrate, in sample C, and its absence in sample A
made respiration and production of carbon dioxide faster in sample C. Thus, sample
C had a greater volume.
This question was well attempted, with a fair performance, though some candidates lost marks
for not clearly describing the difference in volumes between the two samples in each case.

Recommendations
The candidates should be given a lot of practice on plotting of graphs and describing of curves.
The issue of comparison must be addressed critically.
Teachers should refer to section 4.4.3 of the LGCSE biology 0180 syllabus for presentation.

Page | 18