This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
This criterion assesses the accuracy and relevance of DP Economics vocabulary. It is usually the easiest criterion for students to score full marks.
| Marks | Level Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 2 | Relevant economic terminology is used appropriately and accurately throughout the commentary. |
| 1 | Some relevant terminology is used, but with occasional errors or inconsistencies. |
| 0 | Terminology is inappropriate, misused, or absent. |
Terms include:
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Use terms like “consumer surplus,” “externality,” “opportunity cost,” “appreciate/depreciate.” | Use vague or non-economic words like “stuff,” “good,” or “thing.” |
| Integrate vocabulary naturally into sentences. | Overly define terms used, particularly obvious ones unnecessarily using up word count. |
| Use macro/micro/global vocabulary as appropriate. | Mix up concepts (e.g., calling income tax a supply-side policy). |
The imposition of the indirect tax (in this case an ad valorem tax) reduces consumer surplus, as shown by the shrinkage in the triangle beneath the demand curve. The incidence of the tax could fall more on either consumers or firms depending on the relative price elasticity of demand and supply.
“This is bad because prices go up and the item becomes harder to get.” (No use of DP Economics terms.)
An analysis of a government tax on sugar consumption that does not use vocabulary such as specific tax, ad valorem tax, indirect tax, Pigouvian tax, consumers, firms, deadweight loss, etc.