Nicole — before we drill into the tactics, look at what the extended responses are actually worth. We audited every Paper 1 series Pearson has released for 1BS0/01 between May 2019 and August 2024 — that's twelve full papers. Every single one has the same shape: three 6-mark questions, two 9-mark questions and one 12-mark question.
| Series (1BS0/01) | 6-mark Qs | 9-mark Qs | 12-mark Qs | ER total | % of 90 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2019 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Aug 2019 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Nov 2020 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Feb 2021 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Nov 2021 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Feb 2022 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| May 2022 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Aug 2022 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| May 2023 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Aug 2023 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| May 2024 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
| Aug 2024 | 3 (=18) | 2 (=18) | 1 (=12) | 48 | 53.3% |
Mean across all 12 series: 48 of 90 marks (53.3%) from extended responses. Zero structural variation. No series substitutes an extra 6-marker or drops the 12-marker, and no series alters the 18 + 18 + 12 split. (An earlier skills note said “~45 of 90”; that was mixing Paper 1 and Paper 2 data — the audit above is the real figure for 1BS0/01.)
The questions also sit in the same positions every time: the three 6-markers are always Q3(e) in Section A (a Discuss), Q4(b) in Section B (an Analyse) and Q5(c) in Section B (an Analyse). The two 9-markers are always Q6(c) at the end of Section B (a Justify with two options) and Q7(d) in Section C (another Justify). The 12-mark Evaluate is invariably the final question, Q7(e). Nicole can plan timings on a fixed question map and expect the 2025 paper to follow exactly the same shape.
Because the short answers in Sections A–C are mostly multiple-choice, calculation or 3-mark explain questions where most candidates score similarly, it is the 6-, 9- and 12-markers that pull a grade 4 candidate up to a grade 6, and a grade 6 candidate up to a grade 8. Spend your revision time where the marks are.
The June 2025 series (Paper 1 sat Monday 12 May 2025) has been examined and results issued, and the question paper, mark scheme and examiner report exist within Pearson's system. Pearson typically padlocks new papers for ~9 months after the exam (teacher / exams-officer access only via Edexcel Online); that window has just elapsed, so the June 2025 materials should now be transitioning to open download, but at time of checking they had not yet appeared on Pearson's public PDF dam. There is no August 2025 or November 2025 1BS0 resit — GCSE Business is not offered in the resit windows, so June 2025 is the only 2025 sitting.
Routes to download:
Structural changes for 2025? None announced. Pearson's news/policy feed and the GCSE Business assessment-support page describe no change to the 1BS0/01 specification or paper format for 2025. The specification remains the 2017 one; the paper remains 1h 45min, 90 marks, three sections. The high-tariff distribution (3×6 + 2×9 + 1×12) has been stable through 2022, 2023 and 2024; the safest expectation is that it persists in 2025. (Note: a brand-new GCSE Business specification is in development at Pearson for first teaching from 2026 onwards under a different code — it does not affect the 2025 1BS0 paper Nicole will sit.) Once the June 2025 paper unlocks, download it via Nicole's teacher and re-run the audit to confirm.
Paper 1 is 90 minutes for 90 marks, so the baseline is one minute per mark. That is generous on the short-answer questions and tight on the 12-marker, so the trick is to bank time on the easy stuff and spend it on the long-answers.
| Question type | Marks | Target time | How that time breaks down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple choice | 1 | ~30 sec | Read, pick, move on. Do not agonise. |
| Multiple choice / short | 2 | ~1.5 min | Read, pick / write linked pair, move on. |
| Outline / Explain | 3 | ~3 min | Straight to writing — no planning time. |
| Calculation | 2–3 | ~2–3 min | Show your working: substitution = 1 mark, answer = 1 mark. |
| Discuss / Analyse | 6 | ~7 min | 1 min planning + 5 min writing + 1 min checking. |
| Justify | 9 | ~12 min | 2 min planning + 9 min writing + 1 min checking. |
| Evaluate | 12 | ~15 min | 3 min planning + 11 min writing + 1 min checking. |
The three extended-response slots eat about 34 minutes in total. That leaves ~56 minutes for everything else — comfortably more than 1 minute per mark on the short answers, which is the bank you draw from if a 12-marker runs long.
Tactical rule: never overrun on a 1-mark MCQ. If you are still staring at it after 60 seconds, pick the answer that feels closest, circle the question number to revisit at the end, and move on. Three minutes lost to a stubborn MCQ is three minutes stolen from your 12-marker — and those minutes are worth far more there.
The command word is the verb at the start of the question (“Analyse…”, “Justify…”, “Evaluate…”). It tells you exactly what kind of answer the examiner wants. Match it, and you tick the AO boxes automatically. Miss it, and even a brilliant answer caps at Level 1.
| Command word | Typical marks | What the examiner wants |
|---|---|---|
| State / Give / Identify | 1 | A single word or short phrase. No explanation. Do not over-write. |
| Outline | 2 | A point plus one linked development sentence. Two clear, joined ideas — not a list of two unrelated things. |
| Explain / Describe | 3 | Point + develop + impact. One chain of reasoning, three sentences is plenty. |
| Analyse | 6 | Build a chain of cause-and-effect: A leads to B, which leads to C, which means D for the business. No final judgement. |
| Discuss | 6 | Look at both sides of the issue — an advantage and a drawback, or a for and an against — with analysis on each. A final position is welcome but optional. |
| Justify | 9 | Pick one option (you are usually given two) and defend it. One-sided argument, reasons backed by case-study evidence, ending in a clear judgement. |
| Evaluate | 12 | Balanced analysis (for + against), then a contextual final judgement weighing the factors. The conclusion must say which side wins and why, in this specific business. |
The command word is also a map of how marks are split. A 6-mark Discuss does not need a judgement — if you spend three sentences crafting one, you are sacrificing analysis marks for nothing. A 12-mark Evaluate without a judgement caps at Level 2 (8 marks) however good the analysis is. Write for the verb.
For Section B and Section C the case study sits on its own page — in the August 2024 paper it was a customised-trainers business called Adikoggz; in August 2023 it was a wind-farm cooperative called Ripple; in November 2021 it was a barber shop called That Feeling. Every 6+ mark question in those sections must use the Item. Generic answers cap at Level 1.
Nicole, the 6-mark extended response shows up in two different places on Paper 1 (1BS0/01), and the version you get changes how you have to answer it:
A 6-marker is roughly two short PEEL paragraphs, or one fully-developed PEEL with two chains of reasoning. There is no conclusion needed and no evaluation (AO3b) being tested — do not waste time writing “Overall, I think…”. Aim for around 6–8 minutes on this question.
Use two PEEL paragraphs. Each PEEL is: Point · Explain (or Evidence from the extract) · Expand (chain of reasoning — “this means… therefore… as a result…”) · Link back to the question.
[Optional one-line opener naming the topic / business.] PEEL 1 (positive or first impact) P — One impact is that… E — This is because… (Section B/C: quote / paraphrase the extract here) E — This means… therefore… as a result… L — So the impact on [the business] is… PEEL 2 (negative or second impact) P — However, another impact is… E — This is because… (Section B/C: quote / paraphrase again) E — This means… therefore… as a result… L — So the impact on [the business] is…
Section A vs Section B/C — the key difference:
New employment laws cover areas such as the minimum wage, working hours and health-and-safety rules that a small business must legally follow. AO1b
One impact is that new employment laws can increase the running costs of a small business. AO1b If the law raises the National Minimum Wage, the business has to pay every member of staff at least the new hourly rate. AO1b This means the total wage bill rises each month, which therefore eats into the profit margin on every product sold, and as a result the owner may have to put prices up or cut staff hours to stay profitable. AO3a
However, a positive impact is that new employment laws can improve staff motivation and retention. AO1b Laws that protect rest breaks, holiday pay or safer working conditions make employees feel fairly treated. AO1b Happier employees are less likely to leave, therefore the business spends less money on recruiting and training replacements, and as a result productivity and customer service can improve over time. AO3a
Reminder of the extract: Sports Tours Ltd is “one of the leading online specialist sports tour operators” arranging tours for sports teams in the UK and Europe.
Because Sports Tours Ltd is an online tour operator, the internet means it does not need a high-street retail location. AO2 Customers (sports teams) book tours through the website rather than walking into a shop. AO2 This means the business can locate its premises in a cheaper area such as an industrial estate or even a small office, therefore fixed costs such as rent and business rates will be much lower, and as a result Sports Tours Ltd needs to sell fewer tours to break even. AO3a
In addition, the internet allows Sports Tours Ltd to reach customers across the UK and Europe without needing to be near them. AO2 Sports teams in different cities can compare destinations, prices and reviews online from their own clubhouse. AO2 This means location is no longer about being near the customer base, therefore Sports Tours Ltd can choose premises close to good transport links to airports or to its suppliers (hotels, coaches), and as a result the business can serve a much wider market while keeping operating costs down. AO3a
Nicole, the 9-mark Justify is the headline question of Section B on Paper 1 — it almost always sits as Q6(c), the last question before you move into Section C. You are shown a named small business and given two clearly labelled options (Option 1 and Option 2). The command is always: “Justify which one of these two options…”
Justify is a ONE-SIDED question. You pick ONE option in the very first sentence and you defend that option for the rest of the answer. You do not write a balanced essay weighing both options against each other — that is what the 12-mark Evaluate in Section C is for. Examiners will cap a balanced answer at Level 1 or low Level 2, no matter how long it is.
The 9 marks are split: AO2 3 marks for application to the named business · AO3a 3 marks for analysis (chains of reasoning) · AO3b 3 marks for judgement (a justified decision tied to the business’s context). There are no AO1 marks here — you do not need to define terms, you need to use them.
Every Level 3 Justify answer follows the same four moves. Drill this into your head:
[Choice] I would recommend Option X for [Business] because [headline reason].
[PEEL] This is because [point]. The extract states that [evidence],
which means [explain]. Therefore [chain — "so…which means…"].
As a result, [link to a business aim such as profit / survival /
growth / cash flow].
[Reject] Although Option Y could [brief benefit], it would not suit
[Business] because [one applied weakness].
[Conclude] Overall, Option X is the better choice for [Business] because
[judgement tied to specific context from the extract].
Justify is ONE-SIDED. Do NOT write “On the one hand… on the other hand…” Do NOT give a developed paragraph on Option 1 followed by a developed paragraph on Option 2. The examiner’s report for Paper 1 says it explicitly: a candidate who weighs the benefits of one option against the benefits of the other scores Level 0 for AO3b judgement, because comparing two options is not the same as justifying one. You can only earn the 3 judgement marks by committing to one option and defending it.
Examiners do not have a preferred answer. You can choose either option and still hit 9/9 — what matters is that the reasoning is tightly applied to the business in the extract. Pick whichever option you can build the stronger context-specific chain for. If one option lines up more obviously with a fact in the extract (e.g. cash-flow worries, a target market, a USP), pick that one.
AO2 I would recommend Option 2, using social media to promote the business, for Lili Heating Ltd, because the extract shows the business is trying to grow its customer base in a competitive plumbing and heating market where most engineers are male and the owner is keen to reach a wider audience.
AO2 AO3a Social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook are extremely low cost compared with print or radio advertising, which matters for a small limited company like Lili Heating Ltd that is still building its reputation. Posting before-and-after photos of boiler installations and short videos of the team at work would let the owner showcase the quality of her engineering and the fact that she is a female-led business — a genuine point of difference in this industry. Because posts can be shared by satisfied customers, each happy household becomes a free promoter, which means the business gains word-of-mouth recommendations at almost no extra cost. As followers grow, the business reaches not only female customers but anyone in the local area searching for a trusted heating engineer, so demand for call-outs rises. Higher demand leads directly to higher sales revenue, supporting Lili Heating Ltd’s aim of growing and becoming a successful established small business.
AO3b Although Option 1 (a discount for female customers) might attract some new bookings, it would shrink the profit margin on every job and could even be seen as unfair by male customers who already use the business, risking lost repeat work.
AO3b Overall, Option 2 is the better choice for Lili Heating Ltd because social media gives long-term, low-cost brand visibility that builds the reputation the business needs to grow, whereas a price discount only delivers a short-term sales bump while damaging margins — and reputation, not price, is what wins repeat customers in heating services.
AO2 I would recommend Option 2, trade credit from suppliers, for Adikoggz, because the extract shows the business is trying to plug a short-term cash-flow gap caused by waiting for customer payments while still needing to buy stock to fulfil its next round of orders.
AO2 AO3a Trade credit lets Adikoggz receive its raw materials now and pay the supplier 30 or even 60 days later, which directly matches the timing problem the cash-flow forecast highlights — cash going out before cash comes in. Because there is no interest charged on standard trade credit, the business avoids the extra finance costs that an overdraft would add at a time when margins are already tight. The delayed payment date also gives Adikoggz the breathing space to convert stock into finished products, sell them, collect the money from customers, and then pay the supplier from that incoming cash — effectively letting customers fund the next batch of stock. This protects the business’s cash balance, which the owner needs in order to keep paying wages and rent on time and avoid the risk of insolvency. As a result, Adikoggz can keep trading smoothly during the lean period, supporting its aim of survival as a small business.
AO3b Although Option 1 (an overdraft) is flexible, the bank charges interest daily on the amount used and can demand repayment at short notice, which would put extra pressure on Adikoggz’s already fragile cash flow.
AO3b Overall, Option 2 is the better choice for Adikoggz because trade credit fixes the specific timing mismatch in its cash-flow forecast at zero interest, whereas an overdraft would solve the same problem but at a cost — and for a small business already struggling to balance inflows and outflows, the cheaper option that uses an existing supplier relationship is the more sustainable short-term fix.
The mark scheme uses three levels. In plain English:
The mental test for Level 3: if you removed the business name from your answer, would it still make sense as a general business answer? If yes, you’re at Level 2. If no — if your answer only works for this business in this extract — you’re at Level 3.
The 12-marker is the highest-value single question on Paper 1. It always sits as the final part of Question 7 in Section C, attached to the longer Section C case study and Extract B. Across the recent papers you have been working through, the command word at the 12-mark slot has been Evaluate every time: 2022 (Q7e on Digital Allies), 2023 (Q7e on Ripple) and 2024 (Q7e on PFC) all used “Evaluate…”. Some practice booklets do use “Justify” at 12 marks, so be ready for either – the technique is identical, but the AO weighting is heavier on evaluation.
The mark split is roughly AO1b ×3 AO2 ×3 AO3a ×3 AO3b ×3 — so a quarter of the marks are for the judgement itself. That is the single biggest difference from a 9-mark Justify. The 9-marker wants a one-sided, persuasive recommendation; the 12-marker wants balanced analysis (a strong FOR and a strong AGAINST) followed by a contextual judgement that weighs them up.
The “It depends on…” rule. Your conclusion must add new evaluative content – it cannot just repeat the body. The cleanest way to do this is to open with “It depends on…” and name one or two contextual factors that decide the answer: size of business, time horizon (short vs long run), level of competition, magnitude of the change, market conditions, or the strength of cash flow. Then commit to a judgement using those factors.
Aim for roughly 25–30 minutes and four clearly separated paragraphs. Two PEEL bodies, plus a real intro and a real conclusion.
INTRO (1–2 sentences) "Whether [decision/factor] benefits [business name] depends on several factors." Name what the body will weigh up. PEEL 1 – FOR (4–5 sentences, fully applied) Point → one clear benefit / supporting argument Evidence→ quote / paraphrase from the case study or Extract B Explain → chain: because… which means… therefore… Link → back to the exact wording of the question PEEL 2 – AGAINST (4–5 sentences, fully applied) Point → one clear drawback / counter-argument Evidence→ different fact from the case study Explain → another “because… which means…” chain Link → back to the question wording EVALUATIVE CONCLUSION (3–4 sentences) ← the marks-making bit "Overall, [decision] is/is not [important / the right choice]…" "It depends on [factor 1] and [factor 2]…" Final judgement: commit to ONE side, justified by those factors.
The conclusion must add new evaluative content. If it just summarises what you already said in the body (“So as I have shown, technology is important because…”), your answer caps at Level 2 (max 8/12) no matter how strong the body was. Always finish with “It depends on…” + a contextual factor the body did not fully explore.
Intro. Whether the level of consumer income is important to the success of PFC, a private fitness centre charging monthly membership fees, depends on how price-sensitive its target customers are and how much competition exists in the gym market.
PEEL 1 — FOR (income matters a lot). Gym membership is a luxury / normal good, which means demand is income-elastic: when consumer income rises, more households can afford the £30–£40 monthly fee at a private gym rather than a cheaper budget chain. Table 3 in the source booklet shows London has the highest gym membership rate (18%) and London also has the highest average earnings in the UK, which supports the link between disposable income and demand for paid fitness. If incomes in PFC’s region rise, more potential customers will move from no-gym or budget-gym options to a premium centre like PFC, increasing new memberships and revenue, which is exactly the success measure the owner is trying to grow. AO1b AO2 AO3a
PEEL 2 — AGAINST (other factors matter more). However, consumer income is only one of several influences on PFC’s success, and on its own it cannot guarantee growth. PFC operates in a competitive market with chains, council leisure centres and at-home fitness apps, so even if local incomes rise, customers may spend that extra money at a cheaper competitor or on a Peloton-style alternative instead of PFC. The case also implies PFC’s membership growth has stalled despite a generally rising UK income trend, which suggests that marketing, location and the quality of the service (Option 2’s individual fitness plans) drive new sign-ups more directly than the macro income figure. In other words, the level of income sets the ceiling on what PFC could earn, but the business’s own decisions decide how much of that ceiling it actually reaches. AO1b AO2 AO3a
Conclusion. Overall, consumer income is important but not the most important factor in PFC’s success. It depends on the time horizon and the level of local competition: in the short run, with the gym market already crowded, PFC’s pricing, fitness plans and customer service will move new-member numbers far more than a 1–2% change in local wages; but in the long run, sustained income growth in the region would widen the pool of customers who can afford a private gym and would protect PFC during recessions if it positions itself as good value. So for the owner’s current goal of increasing new memberships, income is a useful background indicator, but operational decisions matter more day-to-day. AO3b
Intro. Whether price is the most important element of Ripple’s marketing mix depends on how price-sensitive its customers are and how strongly its product, place and promotion already differentiate it from rivals.
PEEL 1 — FOR (price is very important). Ripple is a small start-up competing against larger, established businesses, so price is often the most visible reason a new customer decides to try a small brand for the first time. Because Ripple asks questions to identify customer needs (as mentioned in the case), it can use a penetration pricing strategy — setting a lower introductory price to win market share — and then move customers onto repeat purchases once they trust the brand. A competitive price also directly affects revenue: if the price is too high, demand falls sharply for a relatively unknown small business; if it is set correctly, sales volume and word-of-mouth both rise. For a business of Ripple’s size, where every customer matters, getting price right is therefore central to whether the marketing mix actually delivers sales. AO1b AO2 AO3a
PEEL 2 — AGAINST (other 3 Ps may matter more). On the other hand, the marketing mix is the four Ps working together, and for a small business like Ripple, competing on price alone is dangerous because larger rivals can undercut almost any price Ripple sets. The case shows Ripple already differentiates itself through product (asking questions to tailor to customer needs), which is a form of USP that bigger competitors find harder to copy. If Ripple’s customers value that personal service, they are likely to be price-inelastic: a small price rise will not lose them, because they cannot get the same tailored experience elsewhere. In that case, product and promotion are doing more of the work than price, and over-focusing on a low price would only squeeze margins and damage cash flow. AO1b AO2 AO3a
Conclusion. Overall, price is important but not the single most important element of Ripple’s marketing mix. It depends on the size of the business and the strength of competition: as a small business facing larger rivals, Ripple cannot win a price war, so its tailored product and customer relationships should lead the mix — with price set carefully to support, not replace, that differentiation. If competition intensifies further, Ripple should adjust price as a tactical lever rather than treat it as its main weapon, because the moment it loses its USP, no price will save it. AO3b
When you mark your own practice answers, Nicole, use this plain-English version of the official levels.
Level 1 — 1–4 marks (“notes-y”). Some relevant points, but they are isolated. Knowledge is there but used in a generic way — you could swap the business name for any other and the answer would still read the same. Little or no judgement, or just one weak “in conclusion I think…” sentence. No real chain of reasoning. If your draft answer would suit any small business, you are at L1.
Level 2 — 5–8 marks (“decent essay but no kicker”). Clear knowledge and at least some case-study application. The body has two sides and some chained explanation, but either (a) the argument stays one-sided, (b) the application is patchy, or (c) the conclusion just summarises the body and adds no new evaluative content. This is where most students land. The cap is 8 marks — you cannot reach L3 without a genuinely evaluative conclusion.
Level 3 — 9–12 marks (“the full picture”). Detailed, sustained application using specific facts from the case and Extract B. Both FOR and AGAINST sides are developed, not just listed, and ideas connect across paragraphs. The conclusion makes a clear judgement, justifies it using one or two contextual factors (size / time / competition / magnitude), and adds at least one new evaluative idea that was not in the body. To hit the very top (11–12), the judgement should also note what would change the answer.