http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31057005

Happened with our history exam, many failed it.

I've never studied economics and got a 2 in CSE match, but the question in the photo looks fairly straight forward to me. Certainly with no knowledge of the subject, I'd be able to give a halfway coherrent answer.

And one of the studies had not been part of the course? I assume that the study was included in the exam paper, not that they mentioned a study, but didn't provide any documentation? Isn't that what they are supposed to be able to do? Take two documents and compare them, whether they have seen them before or not?

I know that is certainly my daily bread and butter and I don't usually get time to read the documents thoroughly and fully understand them, before I have to give my recommendations...

The question is would they have been expected to read about it themselves rather than rely on lectures? At the start of uni our lecturers said 'if you just quote back our lectures in exams, you'll get a 2:2 at best. You need to show your studied more yourselves.'
That's why at the start of each university challenge episode, each student says 'I'm reading .......'