# Gun Crime

## Gun crime, Gun ownership and the Brandt Line

## Mark 19/20

This project is a good, clear example of how a student can get high marks with simple, but clear ideas. The project involves the collection of data on gun crime and gun ownership in different countries both above and below the Brandt line. Some simple averages and box plots look at the central tendency and spread of the data. The student then goes on to make scatter graphs and calculate the Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient, PMCC, showing all of the working. The simple structure is clear and easy to follow and the overall coherence of the project made it quite easy to mark.

View the project Gun Crime

### The marks explained

Criterion | Mark | Justification | |

A | Introduction | 3/3 | The introduction on page 3 is clear and concise. There is a title, description of the task and the last paragraph specifically mentions the techniques that are going to be used and the purpose behind them. |

B | Information | 3/3 | The candidate has the two numerical data fields about gun crime and gun ownership for each of the 70 countries. They have also used a technique to divide these in to two groups to be compared using the 'Brandt Line' The data is all included, clearly organised for analysis and there is sufficient quality and quantity. the candidate thoroughly explains the collection process and the choice of source. They then explain and justify the choice of 70 countries from the chosen source (page 3 and 4). This deals with the need to talk about sampling with secondary data. |

C | Mathematical Processes | 5/5 | Candidate uses correct and relevant simple processes (averages and box plots). They go on to use scatter graphs and the successful calculation of the Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient, with all working shown. |

D | Interpretation | 2/3 | There is a good deal of meaningful discussion of the results and they are correct. It seems harsh, but the candidates comments in the conclusion on page 10 about positive and weak correlations are not quite the right. Although they clearly understand the implications of the results, this limits us to 2 here. |

E | Validity | 1/1 | Section on page 10 covers this. |

F | Structure and Communication | 3/3 | Project reads very well and is clearly structured and easy to follow. |

G | Notation and Terminology | 2/2 | Candidate makes consistently good use of notation and terminology. |

Total | 19/20 |