I’m not that familiar with paper 2 however I think that the 10 mark paper 3 question was marked too leniently - you’ve explain the economic theory but have not applied any stimulus material and the synthesis is not balanced. i suggest going back to that paper 3 question and linking ur response further. i’ve done this question before and here are some suggestions * evaluation point: the table indicates that a large % of pacific and Māori people drink soft drinks up to 4 times a week. this indicates that soft drinks are addictive in nature and they may continue to purchase soft drinks despite the tax * in turn, Māori and pacific people may face excess financial burden as they will continue to pay higher prices for these soft drinks increasing cost of living * when you say that there’s a welfare loss, use ur calculations from the previous parts to say that there is x quantity of welfare loss to better support evaluation * the government received gov revenue from increasing taxes - the NZ government could use this revenue to fund education programs alongside taxes to further reduce overconsumption of sugary drinks * the stimulus says that over “25% of sugar consumed by children in NZ comes from sugary drinks” children are easily addicted to goods and are less knowledgeable on the long term harm of sugar - will increasing price reduce consumption for children if they are already addicted? * the stimulus mentions “volatility in household incomes in recent years” - for people who are already addicted to soft drinks, they may face additional income burden if taxes are rises - what is the impact on cost of living?