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 · 2020 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: National Center for University Entrance Examinations (DNC)
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.0 / 5
100
60 min
Applying public and ethical concepts to concrete cases: rights conflicts, welfare choices, environmental responsibilities, bioethics and democratic participation.
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
100
Duration
60 min
Session difficulty
3.0 / 5
Calculator policy
Scientific calculators permitted only where specified in the DNC implementation guidelines; programming functions and CAS are prohibited. En
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and…
The DNC direction for 公共・倫理 is concept use in real public life. Expect unfamiliar case material, not only textbook definitions.
Two-subject social candidates must manage stamina; ethics items look short but quotations can be dense, so mark key terms before options.
For utilitarian reasoning, calculate consequences broadly: affected persons, intensity, duration and distribution, not just majority preference.
The DNC Problem Evaluation Committee publishes per-subject reports after each January session, rating alignment with the Course of Study (学習指導要領), item difficulty balance, and whether items discriminate without exceeding syllabus scope.
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
Cognitive skills emphasised in official test design.
Conceptual application
Weight: 32100%Source interpretation
Weight: 2888%Comparative ethical reasoning
Weight: 2578%Factual civic knowledge
Weight: 1547%
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
Thinkers: Matching thinkers by keyword without understanding the argument. — Summarize each thinker in one sentence containing problem, c…
Rights: Assuming one right automatically overrides another in every case. — Check proportionality, legal basis, public purpose and impact…
Policy scenarios: Selecting the morally attractive option even when it contradicts the source data. — Use the supplied data first; ethica…
Economy and welfare: Confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. — Identify whether the measure changes access, redistrib…
Quotations: Reading a short quotation without noticing negation or contrast words. — Underline not, only, however, therefore and conditio…
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
Official body
National Center for University Entrance Examinations (DNC)
Grading system
Per-subject raw scores (素点); universities convert to deviation values (偏差値, mean 50) — no national pass/fail grade
Scale band
0–100 raw
Scale band
Deviation 50 = mean
Scale band
University cut-off
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
Attach thinkers to problems
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.
Separate fact, value and policy
In civic scenarios, identify descriptive claims, value judgments and proposed measures. Wrong choices often mix a correct fact with an unsupported value conclusion.
Practise rights conflicts
Common cases involve freedom versus equality, privacy versus safety, majority rule versus minority rights, and economic efficiency versus welfare. State both sides before choosing.
Read quotations slowly
For ethical quotations, locate the key contrast: autonomy versus heteronomy, utility versus duty, self-interest versus common good, individual versus community.
Use public-policy criteria
Evaluate policies by legality, fairness, effectiveness, cost, unintended consequences and democratic legitimacy. This helps with unfamiliar contemporary issues.
Connect ethics and society
Environmental, medical and information-society items often combine ethical vocabulary with public institutions. Bring both concept knowledge and civic reasoning.
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
Public society, law, rights and democratic participation
Official topic weighting
Japanese
Official topic weighting
Eastern and Western ethical thought
Official topic weighting
Contemporary ethical issues and life questions
Official topic weighting
Economy, welfare, environment and global citizenship
Official topic weighting
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
Public society, law, rights and democratic participation
Japanese, Eastern and Western ethical thought
Contemporary ethical issues and life questions
Economy, welfare, environment and global citizenship
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Public, Ethics: for one subject / when taking two subjects Multiple-choice using quotations, case studies, civic data and ethical comparison
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
Public society, law, rights and democratic participation
Official topic weighting
Practise in RevuiJapanese
Official topic weighting
Practise in RevuiEastern and Western ethical thought
Official topic weighting
Practise in RevuiContemporary ethical issues and life questions
Official topic weighting
Practise in RevuiEconomy, welfare, environment and global citizenship
Official topic weighting
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and…
- 2Message
The DNC direction for 公共・倫理 is concept use in real public life. Expect unfamiliar case material, not only textbook definitions.
- 3Message
Two-subject social candidates must manage stamina; ethics items look short but quotations can be dense, so mark key terms before options.
- 4Message
For utilitarian reasoning, calculate consequences broadly: affected persons, intensity, duration and distribution, not just majority preference.
- 5Message
The DNC Problem Evaluation Committee publishes per-subject reports after each January session, rating alignment with the Course of Study (学習指導要領), item difficulty balance, and whether items discriminate without exceeding syllabus scope.
- 6Pitfall
Thinkers: Matching thinkers by keyword without understanding the argument. — Summarize each thinker in one sentence containing problem, c…
- 7Pitfall
Rights: Assuming one right automatically overrides another in every case. — Check proportionality, legal basis, public purpose and impact…
- 8Pitfall
Policy scenarios: Selecting the morally attractive option even when it contradicts the source data. — Use the supplied data first; ethica…
- 9Pitfall
Economy and welfare: Confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. — Identify whether the measure changes access, redistrib…
- 10Pitfall
Quotations: Reading a short quotation without noticing negation or contrast words. — Underline not, only, however, therefore and conditio…
- 11Strength
Attach thinkers to problems: Do not memorize Socrates, Kant, Bentham, Mill, Confucius or Buddhist thought as labels only. For eac
- 12Strength
Separate fact, value and policy: In civic scenarios, identify descriptive claims, value judgments and proposed measures. Wrong choice
- 13Strength
Practise rights conflicts: Common cases involve freedom versus equality, privacy versus safety, majority rule versus minority r
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2020 2020
Civics: Public & Ethics
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and ju
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and…
The DNC direction for 公共・倫理 is concept use in real public life. Expect unfamiliar case material, not only textbook definitions.
Two-subject social candidates must manage stamina; ethics items look short but quotations can be dense, so mark key terms before options.
Thinkers: Matching thinkers by keyword without understanding the argument. — Summarize each thinker in one sentence containing problem, c…
Rights: Assuming one right automatically overrides another in every case. — Check proportionality, legal basis, public purpose and impact…
- Total marks
- 100
- Duration
- 60 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.0 / 5
- Calculator policy
- Scientific calculators permitted only where specified in the DNC implementation guidelines; programming functions and CAS are prohibited. En
Session analysis
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and judging ethical positions rather than reciting thinker names alone. National Center for University Entrance Examinations (DNC) emphasises applying public and ethical concepts to concrete cases: rights conflicts, welfare choices, environmental responsibilities, bioethics and democratic participation.. Priority revision: Public society, law, rights and democratic participation, Japanese, Eastern and Western ethical thought, Contemporary ethical issues and life questions, Economy, welfare, environment and global citizenship. 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.
Updated 2026-07-03
Paper breakdown
Public, Ethics: for one subject / when taking two subjects Multiple-choice using quotations, case studies, civic data and ethical comparison
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by syllabus topic
Revision priority from official test-design weighting.
Mark accessibility
Estimated difficulty spread based on official design.
Applying public and ethical concepts to concrete cases: rights conflicts, welfar
Paper structure
Official paper breakdown for this subject.
Public, Ethics
100·10·100%
Official syllabus scope
公共・倫理 covers public life, democratic society, human rights, law, economy and ethical thought, including Japanese, Western and contemporary perspectives on self, society and responsibility. R7 questions emphasize applying concepts to real social issues, interpreting sources and judging ethical positions rather than reciting thinker names alone.
Difficulty verdict
Rated 3/5 for January sessions. Applying public and ethical concepts to concrete cases: rights conflicts, welfare choices, environmental responsibilities, bioethics and democratic participation.
What examiners measure
1. Explain ethical concepts, major thinkers and traditions in relation to social issues. 2. Apply public, legal and economic concepts to civic decision-making scenarios. 3. Interpret quotations, diagrams and case materials accurately. 4. Compare positions on freedom, justice, welfare, responsibility and human dignity. 5. Evaluate choices using evidence and reasoned ethical criteria.
Where the marks are
Highest-weight syllabus areas: Public society, law, rights and democratic participation; Japanese, Eastern and Western ethical thought; Contemporary ethical issues and life questions; Economy, welfare, environment and global citizenship.
Examiner notes & key calculations
- The DNC direction for 公共・倫理 is concept use in real public life. Expect unfamiliar case material, not only textbook definitions.
- Two-subject social candidates must manage stamina; ethics items look short but quotations can be dense, so mark key terms before options.
- For utilitarian reasoning, calculate consequences broadly: affected persons, intensity, duration and distribution, not just majority preference.
- For Kantian or duty-based reasoning, ask whether the principle can be universalized and whether persons are treated as ends rather than mere means.
- Public-society items often require distinguishing legal rights, moral claims and policy desirability.
- When interpreting data on welfare, employment or demographics, note whether the graph shows rate, amount, share or index.
- Ethical comparison questions reward precise differences: liberty, equality, justice, community, virtue, duty and utility are not interchangeable labels.
- Paper 1: Public, Ethics · 100 marks · 60 min for one subject / 130 min when taking two subjects · Multiple-choice using quotations, case studies, civic data and ethical comparison.
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.