Case Study Practice Drills | 案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Study Practice Drills | 案例分析实战演练

Case study analysis is a core skill in SQA Modern Studies and Politics. It requires you to break down real-world situations, evaluate evidence, and build balanced arguments under time pressure. This guide takes you through a complete practice drill, from reading a source pack to writing a high-scoring response.

案例分析是SQA现代研究与政治课程的核心技能。它要求你在限定时间内剖析真实情境，评估证据，并构建平衡的论证。本指南将带你完成一个完整的实战演练，从阅读资料包到撰写高分答案逐一拆解。

1. What Is Case Study Analysis? | 什么是案例分析？

Case study analysis in SQA exams asks you to explore a contemporary political or social issue using a set of provided sources. You are not expected to recall all the facts, but to interpret, cross-reference and form a judgement based on evidence.

在SQA考试中，案例分析要求你利用一组提供的资料来探讨一个当代政治或社会议题。你不需要记忆全部事实，而是要对证据进行解读、交叉比对，并形成判断。

Questions often begin with ‘to what extent’, ‘evaluate’ or ‘justify’. This means your task is to weigh arguments, spot bias, and reach a reasoned conclusion.

问题常以“在多大程度上”“评价”或“论证”开头。这意味着你的任务是权衡论点、识别偏见，并得出一个有理有据的结论。

2. Structure of a Case Study Question | 案例分析题的结构

A typical case study question gives you 3–4 sources such as news articles, statistics, or political speeches. You then need to answer one or more extended-response questions, often worth 8–12 marks.

典型的案例分析题会提供3–4份资料，比如新闻文章、统计数据或政治演讲。接着你需要回答一道或多道扩展应答题目，通常占8–12分。

Your answer should follow a clear paragraph structure: point, evidence from source, explanation, and link back to the question. You should also reference the source directly, e.g. ‘Source A shows…’

你的答案应遵循清晰的段落结构：论点、来自资料的证据、解释，以及回扣题目。你还需要直接引用资料，例如“资料A显示……”。

3. Understanding the Issue and Context | 理解问题与背景

Before you write, spend 3–4 minutes scanning the sources. Identify the main topic, any keywords like ‘poverty’, ‘inequality’ or ‘government’, and note the viewpoint each source represents.

动笔前，花3–4分钟快速浏览资料。找出核心话题，标出如“贫困”“不平等”“政府”等关键词，并记下每份资料代表的观点。

It helps to underline one key phrase in each source that captures its argument. This will anchor your own analysis later.

在每一份资料中划出一个能抓住其论点的关键语句很有帮助。这会成为你后续分析的锚点。

4. Identifying Key Stakeholders | 识别关键利益相关者

Every political issue involves different groups: politicians, voters, trade unions, businesses, media, or campaigners. Spotting them early lets you compare perspectives in your answer.

每个政治议题都牵涉不同群体：政治家、选民、工会、企业、媒体或活动人士。尽早识别他们，能让你在答案中比较不同视角。

For example, in a case study about raising the minimum wage, stakeholders might include low-paid workers, small business owners, opposition parties, and economic think tanks.

例如，在一个关于提高最低工资的案例中，利益相关者可能包括低薪工人、小企业主、反对党和经济智库。

5. Evaluating Evidence and Sources | 评估证据与来源

Not all evidence is equally reliable. Ask yourself: who wrote this source? What is their motive? Is the data recent and from a credible origin? Does the source use emotive language or factual reporting?

并非所有证据都同样可靠。问一问自己：这份资料的作者是谁？动机是什么？数据是否出自可信来源且时效较新？资料使用的是情绪化语言还是事实报道？

When you use a source, show you have evaluated it: ‘Source B, written by a union representative, presents a strong pro-worker argument, but may lack balance…’

当你使用一份资料时，要展示你做过评估：“资料B由一名工会代表撰写，提出了有力的亲劳工论点，但可能缺乏平衡性……”

6. Considering Viewpoints and Bias | 考虑观点与偏见

Bias is not always a bad thing, but you must recognise it. A government leaflet will naturally defend policy, while a pressure group statistic will emphasise its own cause.

偏见并不总是坏事，但你必须识别它。一份政府宣传单自然会为政策辩护，而压力集团的统计数据则会强调其自身的主张。

To reach a balanced judgement, pull evidence from sources on both sides of the debate. Use phrases like ‘on the one hand’ and ‘conversely’ to signal balance.

要得出平衡的判断，就需要从正反双方的资料中提取证据。可以用“一方面”“相反地”这样的短语来体现平衡。

7. Forming an Argument | 形成论点

Your argument must be driven by the question. If asked ‘To what extent is the minimum wage rise harmful?’, avoid a simple yes/no. Instead, build a line of reasoning that acknowledges harm in some areas but benefit in others, then decide which side is stronger.

你的论点必须紧扣题目。如果问“最低工资上调在多大程度上有害？”，不要简单回答是或否。而是构建一个推理过程，承认在某些领域有害但在其他领域有益，然后判断哪一方更有力。

Start your conclusion with ‘Overall, the evidence suggests that…’ and refer back to the strongest source points you have used.

结论以“总体来看，证据表明……”开头，并呼应你用过的最强有力的资料观点。

8. Reading the Source Pack Quickly | 快速阅读资料包

In an exam, you have roughly 10 minutes per case study question. Practise reading three sources in 5 minutes. Circle two facts in each, and scribble one-word margin notes like ‘for’ or ‘against’.

考试中，每道案例分析题大约分配10分钟。练习在5分钟内阅读三份资料。在每份中圈出两个事实，并在页边草草写下“支持”或“反对”等单字批注。

This active reading habit prevents you from re-reading whole paragraphs later and helps you find a quote instantly while writing.

这种主动阅读的习惯能防止你之后反复重读整个段落，并帮助你在写作时即时找到引用。

9. Practice Drill: The Minimum Wage Proposal | 实战演练：最低工资提案

Let’s work through a concrete example. Imagine this source pack:

我们来演练一个具体例子。设想这个资料包：

Source A: A newspaper editorial arguing that increasing the minimum wage will force small shops to close.
Source A: 一篇报纸社论，主张提高最低工资将迫使小商店倒闭。
Source B: A trade union report showing that low pay has led to a 20% rise in home repossessions among retail workers.
Source B: 一份工会报告，显示低薪已导致零售工人房屋被收回的数量增加了20%。
Source C: A government survey revealing 58% of the public support a minimum wage rise, but only 31% of employers agree.
Source C: 一项政府调查揭示58%的公众支持最低工资上调，但只有31%的雇主同意。

Question: To what extent should the government increase the national minimum wage? Use all three sources.

问题：政府应该在多大程度上提高国家最低工资？请使用全部三份资料。

10. Sample Answer Breakdown | 答案分解示范

Paragraph 1 – The case for an increase: Source B highlights severe consequences of low pay, such as home repossessions. This suggests that current wages do not meet basic living costs. Source C shows strong public support, implying democratic pressure on the government.

第1段——支持上调：资料B突出了低薪的严重后果，例如房屋被收回。这表明当前工资无法满足基本生活成本。资料C显示强大的公众支持，意味着对政府的民主压力。

Paragraph 2 – The risks: Source A warns that a sudden rise might cause job losses in small businesses. We must evaluate this—newspapers often exaggerate business fears. However, Source C confirms only 31% of employers agree, signalling real opposition.

第2段——风险：资料A警告，突然上调可能导致小企业裁员。我们必须评估这一点——报纸往往夸大了企业忧惧。然而资料C证实只有31%的雇主同意，表明存在真实的反对。

Paragraph 3 – Balanced judgement: Overall, the evidence from Source B and the public opinion in Source C outweigh the worst-case view in Source A. However, a gradual increase rather than an abrupt one would address both social need and economic caution.

第3段——平衡判断：总体来看，资料B的证据和资料C的民意强于资料A的最坏情况观点。不过，逐步上调而非突然上调，既能应对社会需求又能兼顾经济审慎。

11. Checklist and Common Mistakes | 检查清单与常见错误

Before moving on, tick these boxes:

在继续之前，逐项打勾：

Have I used evidence from all three sources?	我是否使用了全部三份资料的证据？
Did I name sources directly (e.g. ‘Source A states…’)?	我是否直接点名了资料（如“资料A指出……”）？
Did I consider reliability of each source?	我是否考虑了每份资料的可靠性？
Is my conclusion clearly stated and justified?	我的结论是否清晰陈述并论证充分？

Common errors: forgetting to evaluate even one source, writing a one-sided answer, or describing sources without linking them to the question.

常见错误：忘记哪怕评估一份资料、答案一边倒，或者只描述资料而不与问题挂钩。

12. Final Tips for Exam Success | 考试成功终极提示

Practise at least one unseen case study per week. Time yourself strictly—12 minutes per question in the SQA exam. Use a highlighter to pick out opposite viewpoints in two colours.

每周至少练习一道不熟悉的案例分析。严格计时——SQA考试中每道题约12分钟。用荧光笔以两种颜色标出对立观点。

Finally, remember that marks come from analysis, not description. Every sentence should either argue, compare, evaluate, or link back to the question. Trust the process you have drilled.

最后，记住分数来自分析而非描述。每句话要么在论证、比较、评估，要么在回扣问题。相信你已经反复演练过的流程。

Published by TutorHao | Modern Studies Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Case Study Practice Drills | 案例分析实战演练