TOURISM-AND-HOSPITALITY-STUDIES · HKDSE
TOURISM-AND-HOSPITALITY-STUDIES/21
(Essay-type questions)
Tourism and Hospitality Studies · 2023 2023 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA)
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.8 / 5
90
165 min
Thematic applications of theoretical models in contemporary tourism and hospitality issues
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
90
Duration
165 min
Session difficulty
3.8 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
The 2023 Tourism and Hospitality Studies (THS) paper holds a solid 4-star difficulty index. While standard definitions are tested, the examiners placed a heavy premium on contextual application. Candidates who relied on rote memorization without understanding real-world scenarios
In Paper 1 (MCQs), major discriminators included Q15 (Executive Housekeeper duties) with a shockingly low 6% passing rate, and Q18 (Revenue centers) where many failed to distinguish between revenue-generating and support departments.
In Paper 1 Part B and Paper 2, high marks were awarded to candidates who could dissect Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL model (Gap 3) and apply it specifically to a virtual tourism context.
Many lost marks by writing generic service-quality answers rather than isolating causes from both customer and staff perspectives.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Recall & Understanding
Weight: 5100%Definitions
Weight: 480%Application & Critical Evaluation
Weight: 360%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Reporting source
HKEAA Subject Examination Report — comments on candidates’ performance with marking schemes
Admission context
Levels feed JUPAS and non-JUPAS university applications; 5** and 5* are most selective
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
No data available in official reports
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 2.5
Min per mark: 1.9
Min per mark: 1.3
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Tourism concepts and principles
32 marks this session
Accommodation Sector
28 marks this session
Current issues in tourism and hospitality
28 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Tourism concepts and principles
Accommodation Sector
Current issues in tourism and hospitality
Customer services
Destination geography
Food and Beverage Sector
Customer relations
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 (旅游與款待 試卷一 - MC & DRQ):
Paper 2 (旅遊與款待 試卷二 - Essays):
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Tourism concepts and principles
32 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAccommodation Sector
28 marks this session
Practise in RevuiCurrent issues in tourism and hospitality
28 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
The 2023 Tourism and Hospitality Studies (THS) paper holds a solid 4-star difficulty index. While standard definitions are tested, the examiners placed a heavy premium on contextual application. Candidates who relied on rote memorization without understanding real-world scenarios
- 2Message
In Paper 1 (MCQs), major discriminators included Q15 (Executive Housekeeper duties) with a shockingly low 6% passing rate, and Q18 (Revenue centers) where many failed to distinguish between revenue-generating and support departments.
- 3Message
In Paper 1 Part B and Paper 2, high marks were awarded to candidates who could dissect Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL model (Gap 3) and apply it specifically to a virtual tourism context.
- 4Message
Many lost marks by writing generic service-quality answers rather than isolating causes from both customer and staff perspectives.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2023 2023 2023
Tourism and Hospitality Studies
In Paper 1 (MCQs), major discriminators included Q15 (Executive Housekeeper duties) with a shockingly low 6% passing rate, and Q18 (Revenue centers) where many failed to distinguish between revenue-generating and support departments. In Paper 1 Part B and Paper 2, high marks were
The 2023 Tourism and Hospitality Studies (THS) paper holds a solid 4-star difficulty index. While standard definitions are tested, the examiners placed a heavy premium on contextual application. Candidates who relied on rote memorization without understanding real-world scenarios
In Paper 1 (MCQs), major discriminators included Q15 (Executive Housekeeper duties) with a shockingly low 6% passing rate, and Q18 (Revenue centers) where many failed to distinguish between revenue-generating and support departments.
In Paper 1 Part B and Paper 2, high marks were awarded to candidates who could dissect Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL model (Gap 3) and apply it specifically to a virtual tourism context.
- Total marks
- 90
- Duration
- 165 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.8 / 5
Session analysis
In Paper 1 (MCQs), major discriminators included Q15 (Executive Housekeeper duties) with a shockingly low 6% passing rate, and Q18 (Revenue centers) where many failed to distinguish between revenue-generating and support departments. In Paper 1 Part B and Paper 2, high marks were awarded to candidates who could dissect Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL model (Gap 3) and apply it specifically to a virtual tourism context. Many lost marks by writing generic service-quality answers rather than isolating causes from both customer and staff perspectives.
Updated Jun 11, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 (旅游與款待 試卷一 - MC & DRQ):
Paper 2 (旅遊與款待 試卷二 - Essays):
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
75% within easy or medium reach
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Essay Question
(卷二)
100·5·63%
Multiple Choice
(卷一甲部)
30·30·19%
Data-Response Question
(卷一乙部)
30·3·19%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Difficulty trend
Compare difficulty across recent years.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 Section A (
0.75 m/minPaper 1 Section B (
0.40 m/minPaper 2 (Essay Ques
0.53 m/minTotal marks
90
Total time
165 min
Avg pace
0.55
Cumulative marks ladder
The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
The MICE Sector and Mega Events in Hong Kong
90%90%
Smart Technology and AI in Hospitality Services
85%85%
Sustainable Tourism & Carrying Capacity Management
80%80%
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Vague Globalizations Arguments: When asked about the socio-cultural impacts of globalization, weaker candidates gave generic economic answers instead of focusing on specific concepts like cultural homogenization, standardisation of products (McDonaldization), or the loss of local cultural uniqueness.
- Confusing Typologies: Misinterpreting Cohen's tourist classifications (drifter vs. explorer) was common, leading to incorrect justifications of tourist impacts.
- Lack of operational realism: In menu planning for the elderly (Paper 2 Q3a), many candidates suggested generic healthy food options without linking them to physical challenges (e.g., chewing difficulties, swallowing safety) or restaurant profitability.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 1h 45min
- Total marks
- 40
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.