A politician claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce employment by 200,000. Evidence later shows that employment rose. The original claim was

Positive, and shown by evidence to be false.

Normative, and therefore neither true nor false.

Normative, because it concerned government policy.

Positive, and therefore it must have been true.

Two governments face identical evidence that a tax cut would raise output but widen income inequality. One implements it and one does not. The difference is best explained by

Different value judgements about equity and efficiency.

Better data being available to one government.

Disagreement about the size of the predicted output gain.

Errors in one government's calculations.

A report states that cutting fuel duty would raise motoring by about 3%, and that the duty should therefore be cut. The report

Contains a positive claim and a normative claim.

Is entirely normative, because it recommends a policy.

Is entirely positive, because it contains a figure.

Is neither, because forecasts cannot be tested.

A government chooses to prioritise spending on defence over welfare. Economists describe the basis of that choice as

A value judgement about competing priorities.

A positive statement about defence spending.

A testable prediction about national security.

An assumption required by the ceteris paribus rule.

Two economists agree on every fact about a carbon tax but still disagree about whether it should be introduced. It follows that their disagreement is

Normative, and cannot be resolved by more evidence.

Impossible, since agreed facts settle policy.

Positive, and will be resolved by better data.

Resolved by whichever forecast proves accurate.

1.1.2 Positive and Normative Statements — Practice Questions

Six original multiple-choice questions on positive and normative statements, written to the style and difficulty of Edexcel Paper 1 Section A.

6 questions Edexcel A-Level Multiple choice Model answers included

Not read the notes yet? Start with the 1.1.2 Positive and Normative Statements revision notes.

6 questions in this set

1. Table 1 shows four statements made during a public debate on housing.
Using Table 1, the only positive statement is

Data interpretation

Table 1: Four statements made in a public debate on housing
	Statement
Statement 1	The government ought to build more social housing
Statement 2	It is unfair that first-time buyers are priced out
Statement 3	Rent controls should be introduced without delay
Statement 4	House prices in the city rose by 4.2% last year

Select one answer

A Statement 1.

B Statement 2.

C Statement 3.

D Statement 4.

Show model answer

Answer: D (Statement 4.). A positive statement describes what is, what was or what will be, and can be tested against evidence. A normative statement expresses what ought to be, and rests on a value judgement.
Statement 4 reports a measured change in house prices. It could be checked against the price index and found true or false, which is what makes it positive. The other three all contain a judgement — ought, unfair, should — and no amount of data settles them.

Why the other options are wrong

A — The word ought is the giveaway. Whether more social housing should be built is a matter of priorities, not of fact.
B — Calling an outcome unfair is a value judgement. The fact that first-time buyers are priced out can be measured; whether that is unfair cannot.
C — Should again signals a recommendation. Whether rent controls would reduce rents is positive and testable, but whether they ought to be introduced is not.

2. A politician claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce employment by 200,000. Evidence later shows that employment rose. The original claim was

Definition in context

Select one answer
A Normative, and therefore neither true nor false.

B Normative, because it concerned government policy.

C Positive, and shown by evidence to be false.

D Positive, and therefore it must have been true.
Show model answer
Answer: C (Positive, and shown by evidence to be false.). The claim predicts a measurable outcome — a fall of 200,000 in employment. That makes it positive: it says what will be, and evidence can check it.
The evidence went the other way, so the claim was positive and false. This is the distinction students most often lose: positive does not mean correct. It means capable of being tested. A claim that survives testing and one that fails it are both positive.

Why the other options are wrong
- A — Positive claims are the ones that can be true or false. Because this one names a figure that can be checked, it is not normative.
- B — A statement is not normative merely because its subject is policy. What matters is whether it makes a value judgement, and this one makes a forecast.
- D — Testability is the criterion, not truth. This claim was tested and failed, which is a perfectly ordinary fate for a positive statement.
3. Two governments face identical evidence that a tax cut would raise output but widen income inequality. One implements it and one does not. The difference is best explained by

Applied reasoning

Select one answer
A Better data being available to one government.

B Different value judgements about equity and efficiency.

C Disagreement about the size of the predicted output gain.

D Errors in one government's calculations.
Show model answer
Answer: B (Different value judgements about equity and efficiency.). Both governments accept the same positive analysis: output up, inequality up. What they do not share is a view about how to weigh those two outcomes against each other.
That weighting is a value judgement, and value judgements determine the goals policy aims at. A government that ranks efficiency first cuts the tax; one that ranks equity first does not. Neither is making a mistake — they are pursuing different objectives, which is why the same evidence supports opposite policies.

Why the other options are wrong
- A — The stem says the evidence is identical. Better data would change the positive analysis, and there is nothing here to change.
- C — Also ruled out: the predicted output gain is shared. A dispute about magnitude would be a positive disagreement, settled in principle by more evidence.
- D — A calculation error is something to correct. It cannot explain a deliberate and settled difference in policy.
4. A report states that cutting fuel duty would raise motoring by about 3%, and that the duty should therefore be cut. The report

Applied reasoning

Select one answer
A Contains a positive claim and a normative claim.

B Is entirely normative, because it recommends a policy.

C Is entirely positive, because it contains a figure.

D Is neither, because forecasts cannot be tested.
Show model answer
Answer: A (Contains a positive claim and a normative claim.). Read the two halves separately. Motoring would rise by about 3% is a forecast that traffic data could confirm or refute — positive. The duty should therefore be cut recommends a course of action — normative.
Most real policy documents mix the two, and the word that marks the switch is usually should or ought. Being able to separate the evidence from the recommendation is what lets you accept a report's analysis while rejecting its conclusion.

Why the other options are wrong
- B — The 3% forecast is testable, so at least part of the report is positive. Only the recommendation carries the value judgement.
- C — A figure does not make a passage positive. The recommendation attached to it is a judgement about what ought to happen.
- D — Forecasts say what will be, and can be checked afterwards. That is exactly what makes them positive.
5. A government chooses to prioritise spending on defence over welfare. Economists describe the basis of that choice as

Definition in context

Select one answer
A A positive statement about defence spending.

B A testable prediction about national security.

C A value judgement about competing priorities.

D An assumption required by the ceteris paribus rule.
Show model answer
Answer: C (A value judgement about competing priorities.). A value judgement is a view about what is morally or subjectively important, and it is what underpins every normative position.
Ranking defence above welfare is not a claim about the world that could be checked; it is a statement about which outcome matters more. Economics can supply the positive analysis — what each pound buys in each use — but the ranking itself comes from political and ethical beliefs, and that is where the decision is actually made.

Why the other options are wrong
- A — The choice does not describe what is. It settles what ought to be funded.
- B — Nothing is being predicted. A prediction would be a claim about what the spending will achieve, which is a separate and positive question.
- D — Ceteris paribus is a modelling device for isolating variables. It plays no part in ranking priorities.
6. Two economists agree on every fact about a carbon tax but still disagree about whether it should be introduced. It follows that their disagreement is

Applied reasoning

Select one answer
A Impossible, since agreed facts settle policy.

B Normative, and cannot be resolved by more evidence.

C Positive, and will be resolved by better data.

D Resolved by whichever forecast proves accurate.
Show model answer
Answer: B (Normative, and cannot be resolved by more evidence.). Every positive question has been settled — the emissions saved, the effect on prices, the burden on households. What survives is a disagreement about whether that package of outcomes is worth having.
That is a normative dispute, and it is not the kind of thing evidence closes. More data would sharpen the facts both already accept while leaving the ranking of costs against benefits exactly where it was. Recognising this saves a great deal of wasted argument.

Why the other options are wrong
- A — Facts constrain a policy debate without settling it. Choosing between outcomes requires a view about what matters, which no fact supplies.
- C — Positive disagreements are about what is or will be, and more evidence narrows them. This one survives complete agreement on the evidence.
- D — The stem rules this out — the forecasts are already agreed. What remains is whether the forecast outcome is desirable.

Ready to go further?

Revision Notes: Positive and Normative Statements Edexcel Past Papers Book a Free Intro Call

1. Table 1 shows four statements made during a public debate on housing.Using Table 1, the only positive statement is

2. A politician claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce employment by 200,000. Evidence later shows that employment rose. The original claim was

3. Two governments face identical evidence that a tax cut would raise output but widen income inequality. One implements it and one does not. The difference is best explained by

4. A report states that cutting fuel duty would raise motoring by about 3%, and that the duty should therefore be cut. The report

5. A government chooses to prioritise spending on defence over welfare. Economists describe the basis of that choice as

6. Two economists agree on every fact about a carbon tax but still disagree about whether it should be introduced. It follows that their disagreement is

Your score

1. Table 1 shows four statements made during a public debate on housing.
Using Table 1, the only positive statement is