You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Paper 1 of AQA A-Level Business 7138 examines Unit 3.1 — What is business? Managing marketing and finance in isolation. Unlike Papers 2 and 3, there are no synoptic links into other Units; Paper 1 is the standalone paper, which means the content scope is narrower than the other two and revision can be focused. This lesson drills the case-study reading discipline, the time-allocation arithmetic, the AO-target identification by command word, and the 6 / 9 / 15-mark model-answer architectures specifically for the Unit 3.1 content scope. It closes with a fully-worked specimen 6 / 9 / 15 sequence built on a hypothetical SME finance case study so you see all three command-word tariffs deployed in sequence on the same Paper 1 case study.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Unit assessed | Unit 3.1 — What is business? Managing marketing and finance |
| Sections of 3.1 in scope | 3.1.1 Business and objectives; 3.1.2 Forms of business and stakeholders; 3.1.3 Marketing management; 3.1.4 Financial management |
| Synoptic rule | Standalone — no synoptic links into Unit 3.2 or 3.3 expected |
| Duration | 2 hours (120 minutes) |
| Marks | 90 |
| % of A-Level | 33.3 % |
| Question architecture | 2 case studies x 5 compulsory questions x 45 marks |
| Likely tariff distribution per case study | 6 + 6 + 9 + 9 + 15 |
| Command words used | Analyse (6), Assess (9), Evaluate (15) |
| Quantitative-question distribution | Two quantitative questions at 9 or 15 marks per paper |
| Sophisticated-concept rule | All 15-mark Evaluate questions award Annex 8 credit (Top-band discriminator) |
The narrow content scope is Paper 1's most exploitable feature. A student preparing for Paper 1 needs to drill the Unit 3.1.2 share-metric content (market capitalisation, dividends per share, dividend yield), the Unit 3.1.3 marketing toolkit (the Boston Matrix, Ansoff, the marketing mix, market mapping, AI / influencer / CRM / personal selling), and the Unit 3.1.4 financial toolkit (every Annex 7 formula 1-30 plus the Annex 8 financial concepts) — and that is the universe. Paper 1 cannot ask about Lewin's force-field analysis or Carroll's CSR pyramid because those sit in Unit 3.3.
Because Paper 1 is Unit-3.1-standalone, the sophisticated-concept pool you can draw on for 15-mark Evaluate answers is narrower than on Papers 2 and 3. The Annex 8 concepts most likely to lift Paper 1 Top-band answers are:
| Concept family | Annex 8 concepts most relevant to Paper 1 |
|---|---|
| Marketing models | Market mapping; Product Life Cycle; Boston Matrix; Ansoff Matrix |
| Stakeholders / governance | Stakeholder mapping; stakeholder vs shareholder approaches |
| Financial — profitability | Gross profit margin; operating profit margin; profit-for-the-year margin; ROCE; ROI; return on marketing spend |
| Financial — liquidity | Current ratio; acid test ratio |
| Financial — efficiency | Payables days; receivables days |
| Other financial | Dividends and dividend yield; market share; gearing; cash-flow forecasting; contribution per unit; break-even output; margin of safety; budget variance |
| Analytical | Price elasticity of demand; income elasticity of demand; correlation; opportunity cost; economies of scale; risk vs uncertainty |
That is ~25 sophisticated concepts in scope on Paper 1 alone. The Top-band rule still applies — every 15-mark Evaluate model answer must deploy at least one (preferably two or three) by name, accurately, and analytically. Drilling these concepts is the highest-leverage Paper 1 revision activity.
Each Paper 1 case study is typically 2 sides of A4 — narrative text about the business (sector, market position, recent strategic decisions), a financial table (revenue / profit / margin / cash position / ratios), one or two market-data extracts (market share, growth rate, key competitor metrics), and possibly a quotation from the founder / CEO. The case study is followed immediately by the five questions; you do not get a separate reading period — your two hours starts when the paper does.
| Pass | Time | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Skim | 2-3 min | Identify the business, sector, current situation, financial trajectory (growing / stable / struggling) |
| 2. Annotate | 4-5 min | Underline every numerical figure; circle every key term (e.g. "Boston Matrix", "break-even", "gearing"); star contradictions or anomalies; note stakeholder views |
| 3. Map to questions | 2-3 min | Read all five questions; jot in the margin which case-study elements feed each question |
That is ~10 minutes invested in reading and mapping per case study — non-negotiable. The remaining ~50 minutes per case study covers the five questions at 1.2-min-per-mark. The second case study repeats the cycle.
A Paper 1 case study is engineered to load specific Unit 3.1 content into the question stems. The signals to track:
The systematic check: when annotating, ask of every paragraph, which Annex 8 sophisticated concept could the examiner be loading here? — and pre-stage that concept in the margin so you do not need to recall it from scratch under time pressure.
flowchart TD
Stem["Read question stem"] --> Cmd{"Command word?"}
Cmd -->|Analyse 6| A1["Identify single chain<br/>AO1 → AO2 → AO3<br/>NO judgement"]
Cmd -->|Assess 9| A2["Plan for/against/balance<br/>AO1 → AO2 → AO3 → AO4<br/>Defended judgement"]
Cmd -->|Evaluate 15| A3["Plan two-option weigh<br/>Pre-list 2-3 Annex 8 concepts<br/>Pre-list operationalised recommendation"]
A1 --> Margin["Margin: AO bundle<br/>+ Annex 8 candidate"]
A2 --> Margin
A3 --> Margin
Margin --> Write["Write at 1.2 min/mark"]
style A3 fill:#7c3aed,color:#fff
style Margin fill:#15803d,color:#fff
Per accredited spec section 4.2 — simply restating elements of the case study earns no AO2 credit. Paraphrasing the case is not application; only use of case-study data to drive a chain-of-reasoning is application. The diagnostic question to apply to every paragraph you write: if I deleted this sentence, would the AO3 chain still work? — if yes, the sentence is restatement and is forfeiting time.
The 1.2-minute-per-mark rule yields:
| Question | Tariff | Time | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 6 | 7.2 min | 7.2 |
| Q2 | 6 | 7.2 min | 14.4 |
| Q3 | 9 | 10.8 min | 25.2 |
| Q4 | 9 | 10.8 min | 36 |
| Q5 | 15 | 18 min | 54 |
| Per case study | 45 | ~54 min | |
| Two case studies | 90 | ~108 min | |
| Plus reading + review | ~12 min | 120 min |
This leaves ~6 minutes per case study for the three-pass read plus ~6 minutes at the very end for a final review pass (re-check calculations, re-read conclusions, fill any blanks). The arithmetic is tight; over-investment in any single question — especially the early 6-mark Analyse items — eats into the 15-mark Evaluate budget where the discriminator marks live.
flowchart TD
Start["Paper opens<br/>120 min total"] --> CS1Read["Case study 1<br/>read + annotate<br/>~6 min"]
CS1Read --> Q1["Q1 Analyse 6<br/>~7 min"]
Q1 --> Q2["Q2 Analyse 6<br/>~7 min"]
Q2 --> Q3["Q3 Assess 9<br/>~11 min"]
Q3 --> Q4["Q4 Assess 9<br/>~11 min"]
Q4 --> Q5["Q5 Evaluate 15<br/>~18 min<br/>+ Annex 8 concept"]
Q5 --> CS2Read["Case study 2<br/>read + annotate<br/>~6 min"]
CS2Read --> Q6["Q6-Q9 6/6/9/9<br/>~36 min"]
Q6 --> Q10["Q10 Evaluate 15<br/>~18 min<br/>+ Annex 8 concept"]
Q10 --> Review["Final review<br/>~ remainder"]
style Q5 fill:#7c3aed,color:#fff
style Q10 fill:#7c3aed,color:#fff
style Review fill:#15803d,color:#fff
The two 15-mark Evaluate questions are the largest single time investments on the paper — together they consume ~36 minutes (30 % of total time) for ~33 % of total marks. Protecting their time budget is the single most important time-management discipline on Paper 1.
The command word gives the AO bundle, which determines the structural shape of the answer. Internalise this mapping so you can identify the AO target in 5 seconds when you read the question stem.
| Command word | Tariff | AOs touched | Architecture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyse | 6 | AO1 + AO2 + AO3 (no AO4) | One developed chain-of-reasoning. Define the concept (AO1), apply to the case figure (AO2), chain through 3-4 cause-effect steps (AO3). No "however..." — that is wasted on Analyse. |
| Assess | 9 | AO1 + AO2 + AO3 + AO4 | For / against / on balance. Two strong arguments per side, each developed; defended on-balance judgement. |
| Evaluate | 15 | AO1 + AO2 + AO3 + AO4 | Two options weighed (Type A: propose two; Type B: evaluate two given). Top-band requires explicit Annex 8 sophisticated-concept deployment. |
The AO weighting per tariff is approximately:
| Tariff | AO1 | AO2 | AO3 | AO4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-mark Analyse | ~2 | ~2 | ~2 | — |
| 9-mark Assess | ~2 | ~2 | ~3 | ~2 |
| 15-mark Evaluate | ~3 | ~3 | ~5 | ~4 |
AO3 is the highest-weighted strand on all three tariffs — chain-of-reasoning is what the 7138 spec rewards above all other skills. The Top-band model answers in this course are recognisable by the depth and density of their AO3 chains, not by their length.
The cleanest way to internalise paper-craft is to see all three tariffs deployed on the same case study. The hypothetical case study that follows seeds the Q1-Q3-Q5 specimen sequence.
Penmarrow Vineyards is a hypothetical South-West-of-England wine producer founded 2014 and based outside Truro, Cornwall. It owns 32 hectares of producing vines and a winery, employs 24 permanent staff plus ~40 seasonal workers, and sells through three channels: direct-to-consumer via cellar door and website (38 % of revenue), wholesale to UK off-trade (specialist wine retail and supermarket premium ranges — 44 % of revenue), and on-trade to UK restaurants (18 % of revenue). 2025 revenue £4.8m (up 14 % on 2024); gross margin 52 %; operating margin 9.5 %; return on marketing spend 280 % (computed against £180k marketing budget); cash balance £210k; trade receivables £620k; gearing 38 %. The 2025 management accounts note that the off-trade channel grew 22 % year-on-year while on-trade declined 6 %, attributed by the founder to "the continued strength of the at-home premium-wine drinking occasion since 2020". The founder is considering two responses to the channel shift. Option A: invest £450k in a doubled cellar-door tasting facility plus a CRM system to lift direct-to-consumer revenue from 38 % to ~50 % of total mix within three years. Option B: invest £450k in additional wholesale-channel field-sales capacity (two new account managers plus marketing-mix support) to lift off-trade revenue further by deepening account penetration with the specialist wine retail base.
Figures fabricated for illustrative purposes; not affiliated with any actual business.
Analyse one likely impact on Penmarrow's profit margin of the channel-mix shift from on-trade to off-trade between 2024 and 2025. (6 marks)
AO breakdown: AO1 ~2 marks + AO2 ~2 marks + AO3 ~2 marks. No AO4 — no evaluative judgement required.
Mid-band response (3 / 6): The shift from on-trade (-6 %) to off-trade (+22 %) will affect margin because off-trade typically has lower per-unit pricing than on-trade. Lower per-unit pricing reduces gross profit margin. So margin will fall.
Examiner-style commentary: The Mid-band response identifies the right direction of effect but the chain is too thin. The application step (AO2) merely restates the case-study percentages rather than using them. The AO3 development is two steps deep where the 6-mark tariff rewards 3-4 steps.
Top-band response (6 / 6): The channel-mix shift moves Penmarrow's revenue from on-trade (18 % of mix, declining 6 %) toward off-trade (44 % of mix, growing 22 %). On-trade typically commands higher per-unit pricing because restaurants accept lower-margin distributor terms in exchange for the volume of repeat occasion-based demand; off-trade — particularly specialist wine retail and supermarket premium range — extracts tighter margins from suppliers because the buyers have category-management power. Applied to Penmarrow, this implies the gross profit margin (Annex 8 financial concept #1) of the mix-weighted revenue base is compressing — the higher-margin on-trade business is contracting while the lower-margin off-trade business is growing. The chain-of-reasoning: shifting mix → blended gross margin compresses → if operating expenses hold, operating profit margin (currently 9.5 %) compresses proportionally → cash generation per pound of revenue falls. The 22 % off-trade growth is unambiguously volume-positive but margin-negative; the diagnostic question is whether absolute operating profit is rising despite the margin compression.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 4 lessons in this course.