CIVICS-PUBLIC-ETHICS · Common Test for University Admissions (大学入学共通テスト)
CIVICS-PUBLIC-ETHICS/11
Public, Ethics
Civics: Public & Ethics · 2023 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: National Center for University Entrance Examinations (DNC)
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
—
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
No data available in official reports
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
No data available in official reports
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
No data available in official reports
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
No data available in official reports
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
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
No data available in official reports
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
No data available in official reports
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
No data available in official reports
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
No data available in official reports
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
No data available in official reports
Self-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
No data available in official reports
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
No data available in official reports
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 60 min for one subject / 130 min when taking two subjects
- Total marks
- 100
- Weighting
- 100%
- Question types
- Multiple-choice using quotations, case studies, civic data and ethical comparison
- Do not memorize Socrates, Kant, Bentham, Mill, Confucius or Buddhist thought as labels only. For each, write the problem they address and the criterion they use for good action.
- In civic scenarios, identify descriptive claims, value judgments and proposed measures. Wrong choices often mix a correct fact with an unsupported value conclusion.
- Common cases involve freedom versus equality, privacy versus safety, majority rule versus minority rights, and economic efficiency versus welfare. State both sides before choosing.
Common mistakes
Thinkers
Matching thinkers by keyword without understanding the argument.
How to avoid: Summarize each thinker in one sentence containing problem, criterion and desired action.
Rights
Assuming one right automatically overrides another in every case.
How to avoid: Check proportionality, legal basis, public purpose and impact on affected parties.
Policy scenarios
Selecting the morally attractive option even when it contradicts the source data.
How to avoid: Use the supplied data first; ethical evaluation must fit the case facts.
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.