Skip to topic
    ← Back to course topics

    The effect of lifestyle on some non-communicable diseases — AQA GCSE Combined Science

    Test yourself on The effect of lifestyle on some non-communicable diseases with AQA GCSE practice questions.

    Start free

    7 days Premium · Then free forever · No card, no charge

    The effect of lifestyle on some non-communicable diseases explained

    Non-communicable diseases cannot be passed between people, yet they still impose heavy costs.

    Read the full explanation

    Human cost means suffering: pain, reduced mobility, anxiety, stigma, lost independence and premature death. Financial cost means money spent or income lost. For an individual, this could be paying for medicines, transport to hospital or adapting a home, plus lost wages. A local community may lose a carer or volunteer and fundraise for treatment. A nation pays for NHS staff, screening and long-term care, and loses tax revenue when workers are ill. Globally, low-income countries may struggle to afford prevention and treatment. A useful method is to name the disease, then trace one human and one financial consequence at each level, using a concrete example such as type 2 diabetes or lung cancer.

    explain the effect of lifestyle factors including diet, alcohol and smoking on the incidence of non-communicable diseases at local, national and global levels.

    Incidence means the number of new cases in a population over a period. Lifestyle factors change that number. A diet high in saturated fat, salt and sugar raises the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and some cancers. Alcohol misuse damages the liver, causing cirrhosis, and raises the risk of some cancers and high blood pressure. Smoking damages lung tissue and blood vessels, increasing the risk of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary heart disease. These effects appear locally, for example in a town with many smokers, nationally in NHS statistics, and globally where tobacco or alcohol marketing is widespread. Explaining means linking the factor to a biological effect and then to a change in incidence, not just naming the disease.

    Risk factors are linked to an increased rate of a disease.

    A risk factor is anything that raises the chance of developing a disease, but it is not a guarantee. In non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes or coronary heart disease, risk factors act statistically across a population: groups exposed to the factor show a higher rate of disease than groups not exposed. For example, smokers show a higher rate of lung cancer than non-smokers, yet some smokers never develop it. Scientists identify risk factors by comparing disease rates between groups, often using large samples and long follow-up periods. Correlation does not prove causation, so other variables must be controlled. Understanding risk factors allows individuals to reduce risk through lifestyle choices and lets public health bodies target advice and screening.

    They can be:

    This statement defines the categories of risk factors that increase the rate of non-communicable diseases. Risk factors can be aspects of a person's lifestyle, such as poor diet, smoking, lack of exercise, and excessive alcohol intake. Alternatively, they can be substances in the person's body or environment. Examples include asbestos fibres accumulating in the lungs, tar from smoking, or environmental exposures like air pollution. Inherited genetic factors are not included in this specific classification. Understanding these categories helps scientists identify correlations, determine causal mechanisms, and provide public health advice on disease prevention.

    aspects of a person’s lifestyle

    Lifestyle means the choices and habits a person repeats over years, and these can raise or lower the risk of non-communicable diseases such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and some cancers. Risk factors include diet high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, smoking, alcohol intake, low exercise, and obesity. These factors often interact: poor diet and inactivity can cause obesity, which increases type 2 diabetes risk. A person cannot always control risk, but changing habits can reduce it. For example, stopping smoking lowers heart disease risk over time. Scientists study large groups to link habits with disease rates, since individual cases cannot prove cause.

    substances in the person’s body or environment.

    Risk of non-communicable disease also depends on factors inside the body or present in the environment. Inside the body, these include inherited factors such as faulty genes, hormones and chemicals produced by the body. In the environment, they include air pollutants such as particulates from burning fuels, carcinogens such as asbestos or tobacco smoke, and ionising radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays. Ultraviolet light from the Sun is non-ionising radiation, but it can still damage DNA in skin cells and increase melanoma risk. Air pollution can worsen cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Scientists use population studies to estimate how strongly each factor raises risk, because individuals vary in exposure and susceptibility.

    A causal mechanism has been proven for some risk factors, but not in others.

    A risk factor is anything that raises the chance of developing a disease, but a statistical link is not proof of cause. A causal mechanism is a biological explanation of how the factor produces the disease. For smoking, the mechanism is well established: tar and other chemicals in tobacco smoke are carcinogens that mutate DNA in lung cells, so smoking causes lung cancer. For diet, saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, which is deposited in coronary artery walls, narrowing them and causing cardiovascular disease. However, for some factors the mechanism is unproven. A correlation may exist because a third variable, such as age or poverty, influences both the factor and the disease.

    The effects of diet, smoking and exercise on cardiovascular disease.

    Cardiovascular disease (CVD) affects the heart and blood vessels. Diet high in saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, which forms fatty plaques in coronary arteries, narrowing them and reducing oxygen supply to heart muscle, causing angina or heart attack. Smoking damages artery lining, raises blood pressure and makes platelets stickier, increasing clot risk. Regular exercise lowers blood pressure, improves cholesterol balance and helps maintain a healthy weight, reducing CVD risk. A diet rich in fruit, vegetables and unsaturated fats also lowers risk. These effects can be explained by describing how each factor changes the structure or function of blood vessels.

    Obesity as a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes.

    Obesity means carrying excess body fat, often assessed using body mass index (BMI = mass in kg ÷ (height in m)²). Type 2 diabetes is a non-communicable disease in which body cells respond poorly to insulin, so blood glucose is less well controlled. Obesity is a major risk factor: excess fat tissue, especially around the abdomen, makes cells less sensitive to insulin and increases the demand for insulin. This raises the chance of developing Type 2 diabetes, but it does not guarantee it, and not everyone with Type 2 diabetes is obese. Risk factors increase probability rather than cause disease directly. Reducing obesity through a balanced diet and regular exercise lowers the risk.

    The effect of alcohol on the liver and brain function.

    Alcohol is a recreational drug that affects many organs. In the liver, alcohol is broken down by enzymes; harmful products and long-term excess can damage liver cells, leading to fatty liver, cirrhosis and reduced liver function. This impairs roles such as detoxification and controlling blood glucose and cholesterol. In the brain, alcohol is a depressant: it slows nerve impulses and reaction times, and can impair judgement, balance and coordination. Long-term heavy drinking can cause memory problems and brain damage. The effects depend on the amount and frequency of drinking, so risk increases with sustained excess. Reducing alcohol intake lowers these risks.

    The effect of smoking on lung disease and lung cancer.

    Smoking introduces harmful substances into the respiratory system. Tar coats the lining of the airways and destroys cilia, so mucus and pathogens are not swept away; this causes coughing and increases infection risk. Tar also irritates the bronchi and bronchioles, causing them to narrow and produce excess mucus, which restricts airflow and leads to diseases such as chronic bronchitis. Chemicals in cigarette smoke can trigger uncontrolled cell division in the lungs, forming a malignant tumour, so smoking is a major risk factor for lung cancer. Emphysema damages alveoli, reducing the surface area for gas exchange, so less oxygen enters the blood. Because these diseases are non-communicable, they cannot be passed from person to person, but smoking greatly increases the chance of developing them.

    The effects of smoking and alcohol on unborn babies.

    Substances in tobacco smoke and alcohol can cross the placenta from the mother's blood into the fetus. Smoking reduces the oxygen supply to the fetus because carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin and nicotine narrows blood vessels, so the fetus may grow more slowly and have a lower birth mass. Alcohol crosses the placenta and can damage the developing brain and other organs, leading to fetal alcohol syndrome, which may cause learning difficulties, distinctive facial features and behavioural problems. Because the fetus cannot detoxify these substances as effectively as an adult, the effects can be severe and permanent. The risk generally increases with the amount consumed, so avoiding smoking and alcohol during pregnancy reduces the chance of harm. These effects are examples of how lifestyle factors can affect health, and the resulting conditions are non-communicable.

    Carcinogens, including ionising radiation, as risk factors in cancer.

    A carcinogen is any agent that increases the chance of cancer developing by damaging DNA, so cells may divide in an uncontrolled way and form a tumour. Ionising radiation is a physical carcinogen: its high-energy waves or particles can break chemical bonds in DNA, producing mutations. Sources include X-rays, gamma rays, and radon gas. Other carcinogens include ultraviolet (UV) light (which is non-ionising), tobacco smoke, asbestos and some chemicals. Risk means probability, not certainty: exposure raises the chance of cancer but does not guarantee it, and risk generally increases with dose and duration of exposure. Students should compare carcinogens with other risk factors such as genetic inheritance, age and lifestyle choices, and explain how reducing exposure lowers risk.

    Many diseases are caused by the interaction of a number of factors.

    Most non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and chronic respiratory disease, do not have a single cause. They arise from interactions between several factors: genetic inheritance, lifestyle choices such as diet, smoking, alcohol and exercise, and environmental influences such as air pollution or exposure to carcinogens. These factors can combine, and their effects may be additive or multiplicative. For example, a person who smokes, has a high-saturated-fat diet and has a family history of heart disease may face a much greater risk than someone with only one of these factors. Because risk factors interact, it is often impossible to identify one cause, and reducing several risk factors together can lower risk more than changing just one.

    Students should be able to understand the principles of sampling as applied to scientific data in terms of risk factors.

    Sampling means studying a subset of a population to estimate something about the whole population, such as how a lifestyle risk factor relates to a non-communicable disease. A sample must be large enough and selected without bias, for example choosing every tenth name from a list rather than only asking people in a gym. If the sample is small or biased, the estimate of risk may be unreliable. Scientists compare groups that differ in one risk factor, such as smokers and non-smokers, and look at disease rates. Correlation does not prove causation, because other factors may differ between groups. Understanding sampling lets you judge whether a claimed link between a lifestyle factor and a disease is trustworthy.

    Students should be able to translate information between graphical and numerical forms; and extract and interpret information from charts, graphs and tables in terms of risk factors.

    Risk-factor data often appear as tables, bar charts, line graphs or scatter graphs. Translating between forms means reading a value from a graph and writing it as a number, or plotting table values as a graph. To extract information, locate the correct axis, read the scale carefully and identify the group or category. To interpret, describe the pattern: as one variable increases, does disease risk rise, fall or stay the same? For example, a graph of daily cigarettes against lung-cancer rate may show a positive correlation. You should quote figures from the graph, compare groups and state whether the evidence supports a link. Always check units, axis labels and whether the scale starts at zero.

    Students should be able to use a scatter diagram to identify a correlation between two variables in terms of risk factors.

    A scatter diagram plots one variable on the x-axis and another on the y-axis, giving one point per individual or group. If points trend upwards, the two variables are positively correlated; if downwards, negatively correlated; if there is no trend, there is no correlation. In this section the variables are often a lifestyle risk factor, such as number of cigarettes smoked per day, and a health outcome, such as incidence of lung cancer. Correlation means the variables are associated, not that one causes the other. A third factor, such as age or income, could link them, so a correlation supports but does not prove causation. You identify a correlation by describing the direction and strength of the trend, for example a strong positive correlation, and you interpret it in terms of increased risk.

    Your focus

    1. Distinguish human cost from financial cost for a named non-communicable disease.
    2. Apply the distinction to an individual, a local community, a nation and globally.
    3. Reach a supported judgement about the relative scale of these costs.
    Show all 52 objectives
    1. Define incidence and distinguish it from prevalence.
    2. Explain how diet, alcohol and smoking increase the risk of named non-communicable diseases.
    3. Apply these explanations to local, national and global populations using appropriate evidence.
    4. State that a risk factor is linked to an increased rate of a disease rather than causing it directly.
    5. Interpret simple data comparing disease rates in exposed and unexposed groups.
    6. Apply the concept of risk factors to a named non-communicable disease and suggest how risk can be reduced.
    7. Identify aspects of a person's lifestyle that act as risk factors for non-communicable diseases.
    8. Identify substances in a person's body or environment that act as risk factors.
    9. Provide concrete examples of lifestyle and substance risk factors and link them to specific diseases.
    10. State at least three lifestyle aspects that affect non-communicable disease risk.
    11. Link a named lifestyle aspect to a named non-communicable disease.
    12. Explain how changing a lifestyle habit can reduce disease risk.
    13. Distinguish factors inside the body from environmental factors that affect disease risk.
    14. Link a named internal or environmental factor to a named non-communicable disease.
    15. Explain how the amount and duration of exposure influence disease risk.
    16. Classify radiation as ionising or non-ionising and give a named example of each.
    17. Define risk factor and causal mechanism accurately.
    18. Explain how a proven mechanism links a risk factor to a named non-communicable disease.
    19. Discuss why a correlation may not prove causation for some risk factors.
    20. Describe how diet, smoking and exercise affect the risk of cardiovascular disease.
    21. Explain the biological mechanisms linking each factor to changes in blood vessels.
    22. Compare the effects of different lifestyle factors on cardiovascular health.
    23. Define obesity and state that it is a risk factor for Type 2 diabetes.
    24. Explain how excess body fat reduces insulin sensitivity and increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes.
    25. Apply the concept of risk factors to a simple lifestyle scenario involving body mass and physical activity.
    26. Describe how alcohol can damage the liver and reduce its function.
    27. Explain how alcohol affects brain function in the short term and long term.
    28. Relate the risk of liver and brain damage to the amount and frequency of alcohol consumption.
    29. Describe how tar and other substances in cigarette smoke damage the airways and alveoli.
    30. Explain how smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and chronic lung diseases.
    31. Use the terms cilia, alveoli, surface area and gas exchange correctly in written answers.
    32. Describe how smoking and alcohol can affect an unborn baby.
    33. Explain how substances cross the placenta and why the fetus is vulnerable.
    34. Relate maternal lifestyle choices to the risk of conditions such as fetal alcohol syndrome and low birth mass.
    35. Define carcinogen and give at least two examples, including ionising radiation.
    36. Explain how ionising radiation can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer.
    37. Evaluate how reducing exposure to carcinogens can lower the risk of developing cancer.
    38. Describe how several factors can interact to cause a non-communicable disease.
    39. Apply the concept of interacting risk factors to a named disease with specific examples.
    40. Assess how reducing multiple risk factors can lower the probability of developing a disease.
    41. Describe how a sample is selected from a population and why representativeness matters.
    42. Evaluate whether a given sample is large enough and free from bias to support a conclusion about risk.
    43. Explain why a correlation between a lifestyle factor and a disease does not automatically show causation.
    44. Convert data between tables, graphs and numerical statements accurately.
    45. Extract specific values and trends from charts, graphs and tables about risk factors.
    46. Interpret graphical evidence to compare disease risk between groups and comment on what it shows.
    47. Plot or read points on a scatter diagram and state whether the correlation is positive, negative or absent.
    48. Describe the strength of a correlation from how closely points follow a trend.
    49. Interpret a correlation between a risk factor and a disease in terms of risk, and explain why it does not prove causation.

    The effect of lifestyle on some non-communicable diseases exam tips

    Marking Points
    • Distinguishes human cost (suffering, pain, anxiety, stigma, reduced quality of life, premature death) from financial cost (direct treatment costs and indirect lost income or productivity).
    • Applies the distinction at more than one level, for example an individual paying for insulin versus a nation funding diabetes care and losing tax revenue.
    • Uses a named non-communicable disease, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to make the discussion concrete.
    • Recognises that costs interact: illness can reduce a person's income, which worsens health outcomes and increases the burden on public services.
    • Considers prevention as a way to reduce cost, for example anti-smoking campaigns or sugar reduction, and links this to lower future spending.
    • Reaches a supported judgement about which level carries the greatest cost, rather than listing points without comparison.
    • Defines incidence as the rate of new cases in a population over time, so the explanation is about changing numbers of cases rather than individual symptoms.
    • Links diet to disease through mechanisms such as obesity, raised blood cholesterol, high blood pressure and insulin resistance.
    • Links alcohol to liver cirrhosis, some cancers and high blood pressure, and smoking to lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease.
    • Applies the explanation at local, national and global levels, for example comparing smoking rates in a local area with national trends and global tobacco use.
    • Uses data or trends appropriately, such as a fall in national smoking rates followed by a fall in lung cancer incidence, while noting that effects may lag.
    • Recognises that risk factors often combine, so a person who smokes, drinks heavily and has a poor diet faces compounded risk.
    • Defines a risk factor as something that increases the probability or chance of a disease developing, not something that definitely causes it.
    • Explains that risk factors are linked to an increased rate of disease across a population, shown by comparing disease frequency in exposed and unexposed groups.
    • Uses a named example, such as smoking and lung cancer, or a high-sugar diet and type 2 diabetes, to show the statistical link.
    • Distinguishes correlation from causation, noting that other factors must be controlled before concluding that a risk factor contributes to a disease.
    • Recognises that non-communicable diseases are not passed between people, so risk factors are usually lifestyle, environmental or genetic.
    • Applies the idea to reducing risk, for example stopping smoking lowers the chance of developing smoking-related diseases.
    • Identify aspects of a person's lifestyle as risk factors, giving examples such as diet, smoking, or exercise levels.
    • Identify substances in a person's body as risk factors, such as asbestos fibres or tar accumulated in the lungs.
    • Identify substances in the environment as risk factors, such as air pollution or secondhand smoke.
    • Explain that these risk factors are linked to an increased rate of non-communicable diseases.
    • Provide a concrete example linking a category to a disease, such as asbestos in the lungs increasing the risk of cancer.
    • Identify named lifestyle aspects such as diet, smoking, alcohol, exercise and obesity.
    • Link each lifestyle aspect to a named non-communicable disease, for example smoking to coronary heart disease or lung cancer.
    • Explain that lifestyle factors often interact rather than acting alone, for example poor diet plus inactivity leading to obesity.
    • Describe how risk can be reduced by changing habits, for example stopping smoking or increasing exercise.
    • Recognise that lifestyle is not the only influence, since genetics and environment also affect disease risk.
    • Identify factors inside the body, such as inherited faulty genes, hormones or body chemicals, that affect disease risk.
    • Identify environmental factors, such as air pollutants, carcinogens or ionising radiation, that affect disease risk.
    • Link a named factor to a named non-communicable disease, for example ultraviolet radiation to skin cancer or tobacco smoke to lung cancer.
    • Explain that exposure level and duration affect the size of the risk, for example more smoking or more Sun exposure raises risk.
    • Recognise that body and environmental factors interact with lifestyle factors rather than acting in isolation.
    • Distinguish ionising radiation (for example X-rays and gamma rays) from non-ionising ultraviolet light, while noting that both can damage DNA.
    • Define risk factor as anything that increases the probability of developing a disease.
    • Distinguish correlation from causation: a link does not prove that the factor causes the disease.
    • Describe a proven mechanism, such as carcinogens in tobacco smoke mutating DNA and causing lung cancer.
    • Explain that for some factors the mechanism is not proven, so a third variable may explain the correlation.
    • Use specific examples such as saturated fat raising LDL cholesterol and narrowing coronary arteries.
    • Describe how a diet high in saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol and leads to plaque formation in coronary arteries.
    • Explain that narrowed coronary arteries reduce oxygen delivery to heart muscle, causing angina or heart attack.
    • State that smoking damages artery lining, raises blood pressure and increases clot formation.
    • Explain that regular exercise lowers blood pressure, improves cholesterol balance and helps maintain a healthy weight.
    • Link each lifestyle factor to a reduced or increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
    • Define obesity as excess body fat, commonly indicated by a BMI above the healthy range, and state that it is a lifestyle-related condition.
    • Describe Type 2 diabetes as a non-communicable disease where body cells respond less well to insulin, so blood glucose control is reduced.
    • Explain the link: excess fat tissue reduces cell sensitivity to insulin and increases insulin demand, raising the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
    • State that obesity is a risk factor, not a direct cause, so it increases the probability of Type 2 diabetes rather than guaranteeing it.
    • Give a concrete example, such as a person with a high BMI and low activity level having a greater risk than someone with a healthy BMI.
    • Suggest that losing excess body fat through diet and exercise can reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
    • State that alcohol is broken down in the liver and that excessive long-term drinking can damage liver cells.
    • Describe liver effects such as fatty liver and cirrhosis, and link these to reduced liver function.
    • Explain that alcohol acts as a depressant on the brain, slowing nerve impulses and increasing reaction time.
    • Describe short-term brain effects such as impaired judgement, balance and coordination.
    • Describe long-term brain effects such as memory problems and brain damage from sustained heavy drinking.
    • State that the risk depends on the amount and frequency of alcohol consumed, so reducing intake lowers the risk.
    • Tar in cigarette smoke paralyses and destroys the cilia lining the airways, so mucus is not removed and airways become blocked.
    • Tar irritates the bronchi and bronchioles, causing them to narrow and produce excess mucus, which reduces airflow and contributes to chronic bronchitis.
    • Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens that can cause mutations leading to uncontrolled cell division and the formation of a malignant lung tumour.
    • Emphysema damages the walls of the alveoli, reducing the surface area for gas exchange so less oxygen diffuses into the blood.
    • Smoking increases the risk of infections such as pneumonia because mucus and pathogens are trapped in the airways.
    • Lung cancer and chronic lung diseases are non-communicable, so they are not spread between people but are linked to lifestyle risk factors.
    • Carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke binds to haemoglobin, reducing the oxygen carried to the fetus and slowing growth.
    • Nicotine narrows blood vessels in the placenta, reducing blood flow and the supply of oxygen and nutrients to the fetus.
    • Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of low birth mass and premature birth.
    • Alcohol crosses the placenta and can damage the developing brain and organs, causing fetal alcohol syndrome.
    • Fetal alcohol syndrome can lead to learning difficulties, behavioural problems and distinctive facial features.
    • The fetus cannot break down alcohol or tobacco chemicals as effectively as an adult, so the effects may be permanent.
    • Defines a carcinogen as an agent that increases the risk of cancer, typically by causing mutations in DNA.
    • Identifies ionising radiation as a physical carcinogen that can damage DNA because it carries enough energy to break chemical bonds.
    • Gives named sources of ionising radiation, such as X-rays, gamma rays or radon gas, and distinguishes these from non-ionising carcinogens like ultraviolet light.
    • Explains that mutations may lead to uncontrolled cell division and tumour formation.
    • States that risk depends on factors such as dose, duration and frequency of exposure, and that exposure raises probability rather than causing cancer with certainty.
    • Compares carcinogens with other risk factors, for example genetic inheritance, age, smoking or diet, and explains how reducing exposure can lower risk.
    • States that many diseases have multiple contributing factors rather than a single cause.
    • Identifies categories of factors, such as genetic, lifestyle and environmental influences.
    • Gives a named disease and at least two interacting factors, for example heart disease with smoking and a high-saturated-fat diet.
    • Explains that factors can interact so their combined effect on risk is greater than either factor alone.
    • Uses the idea of risk to explain that having several factors increases the probability of disease without making it certain.
    • Suggests that reducing more than one risk factor can lower the chance of developing the disease.
    • Defines a sample as a subset of a population selected to represent the whole population.
    • Explains that sample size affects reliability: larger samples generally give more reliable estimates of risk.
    • Explains that random or systematic selection reduces bias, whereas convenience sampling can distort results.
    • Describes comparing groups that differ in one risk factor, such as smokers and non-smokers, to estimate associated risk.
    • Recognises that correlation between a risk factor and a disease does not by itself prove causation.
    • Identifies that other variables, such as age, diet or occupation, should be controlled or accounted for.
    • Reads values accurately from axes, keys and scales in tables, charts and graphs.
    • Plots or completes a graph from numerical data using correct labels, units and scale.
    • Describes trends or patterns, such as positive or negative correlation, between a risk factor and disease.
    • Compares data for different groups, quoting numerical values to support the comparison.
    • Interprets whether the data support a link between the risk factor and the disease, while noting limitations.
    • State that each point on a scatter diagram represents one individual or group, with one variable on the x-axis and the other on the y-axis.
    • Identify a positive correlation when y increases as x increases, a negative correlation when y decreases as x increases, and no correlation when there is no clear trend.
    • Describe the strength of a correlation as strong or weak according to how closely the points lie to a single trend, without inventing numerical thresholds.
    • Interpret a positive correlation between a risk factor and a disease as meaning that higher exposure is associated with higher risk of the disease.
    • Explain that correlation does not prove causation because another variable may be responsible for both patterns.
    • Apply the skill to given data, for example a graph of daily cigarettes smoked against lung cancer cases per 1000 people.
    • Use terms such as risk factor, correlation, positive, negative and causation accurately in written answers.
    Examiner Tips
    • 💡Use the levels in the question as paragraph prompts: individual, local community, nation, global.
    • 💡Include both human and financial consequences for each level you discuss to show balance.
    • 💡Anchor each point to a named disease so the discussion stays specific and creditworthy.
    • 💡Finish with a short comparative judgement rather than a new point.
    • 💡State the factor, the biological effect and the resulting disease in one clear chain.
    • 💡Name the level you are writing about so the examiner can see local, national or global coverage.
    • 💡Use comparative language such as 'higher incidence' or 'lower risk' rather than absolute claims.
    • 💡If data are provided, quote a trend and explain what it shows about incidence.
    • 💡Use the phrase increased chance or increased rate rather than causes when describing risk factors.
    • 💡Support your answer with one named disease and one named risk factor, then state the direction of the link.
    • 💡If asked to evaluate, mention that data from large populations is stronger evidence than a single anecdote.
    • 💡If asked for categories of risk factors, explicitly state 'aspects of lifestyle' and 'substances in the body or environment'.
    • 💡Use asbestos in the lungs as a clear example of a substance in the person's body acting as a risk factor.
    • 💡Name the lifestyle factor and the disease together in one sentence to secure both marks.
    • 💡Use comparative language such as higher risk or lower risk rather than saying a factor is bad.
    • 💡If asked to evaluate, mention that correlation does not prove causation and that other factors may be involved.
    • 💡Separate your answer into factors inside the body and environmental factors to cover both parts of the statement.
    • 💡Use precise names such as ultraviolet radiation, particulates or carcinogens instead of vague words like pollution.
    • 💡When data is given, quote a figure and compare risk between exposed and unexposed groups.
    • 💡If asked about radiation, state whether it is ionising or non-ionising and give an example of each.
    • 💡Use the phrase causal mechanism and explain what it means in your answer.
    • 💡Link each risk factor to a named disease and a biological process.
    • 💡When discussing an unproven factor, mention a possible third variable such as age or poverty.
    • 💡Name the specific blood vessel affected, such as the coronary arteries.
    • 💡Use terms such as plaque, cholesterol, blood pressure and clot accurately.
    • 💡For each factor, state whether it increases or decreases CVD risk and why.
    • 💡Use the phrase risk factor and explain that it increases the probability of disease rather than causing it directly.
    • 💡Link the biology clearly: excess fat → reduced insulin sensitivity → poorer blood glucose control → increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.
    • 💡Include a named lifestyle measure, such as regular exercise or a balanced diet, that can reduce obesity and therefore lower the risk.
    • 💡Separate liver effects from brain effects clearly, using a short paragraph or bullet for each organ.
    • 💡Use precise terms such as depressant, reaction time, judgement, coordination, cirrhosis and fatty liver.
    • 💡Link the level of risk to the amount and frequency of alcohol consumed rather than treating all drinking as equally harmful.
    • 💡Link each harmful substance to a specific effect, for example tar to cilia damage and carcinogens to mutations.
    • 💡Use the terms cilia, alveoli, surface area and gas exchange accurately when explaining emphysema.
    • 💡When asked to compare, refer to risk factors rather than claiming that smoking always causes the disease.
    • 💡Name the specific substance and its effect, for example carbon monoxide reduces oxygen transport.
    • 💡Use the term placenta correctly when explaining how substances reach the fetus.
    • 💡Link lifestyle choices during pregnancy to the health of the unborn baby rather than giving vague advice.
    • 💡Link the carcinogen to DNA damage and then to uncontrolled cell division, so the explanation forms a logical chain.
    • 💡Use the word risk rather than cause, and mention dose or duration to show understanding of probability.
    • 💡When asked to compare, give one similarity and one difference between a carcinogen and another risk factor, using named examples.
    • 💡Use a named disease and two or three specific factors, then explain how they combine to increase risk.
    • 💡Include the word interaction to show that factors work together rather than in isolation.
    • 💡Avoid absolute language such as always or never; use terms such as increases the risk or makes it more likely.
    • 💡Name the sampling method and say why it reduces bias, rather than just writing 'it is fair'.
    • 💡Use the phrase 'the sample may not be representative' and then state a specific reason.
    • 💡When interpreting a risk comparison, quote the groups and the outcome, for example smokers and non-smokers with lung cancer rates.
    • 💡Quote numbers with units when describing a pattern, for example 'risk rises from 5 to 20 per 1000 people'.
    • 💡Use comparative language such as 'higher than', 'lower than' or 'increases as' rather than vague words like 'different'.
    • 💡Check whether the question asks you to read a value, describe a trend or evaluate a conclusion, and answer that specific command.
    • 💡Read the axis labels and units before describing the trend, then quote the direction and strength in one sentence.
    • 💡Link the correlation back to risk, for example state that as the number of cigarettes smoked per day increases, the risk of lung cancer increases.
    • 💡If asked whether the data prove causation, answer no and give a reason such as another lifestyle or genetic factor could affect both variables.
    • 💡Practise interpreting unfamiliar scatter diagrams so you can apply the skill to any context, not just smoking and cancer.
    Common Mistakes
    • Treating all disease cost as financial only; correction: human cost includes pain, anxiety, stigma and lost independence, which are not measured in money.
    • Assuming non-communicable diseases affect only wealthy countries; correction: they cause a large share of deaths worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries.
    • Confusing non-communicable with infectious disease; correction: non-communicable diseases are not passed from person to person, so costs arise from long-term care rather than transmission.
    • Giving a vague statement such as 'it costs a lot'; correction: specify who pays and for what, for example a family paying for transport to dialysis.
    • Saying a lifestyle factor causes a disease in every person who experiences it; correction: it increases risk or incidence in a population, not certainty for an individual.
    • Confusing incidence with prevalence; correction: incidence counts new cases over a period, while prevalence counts all existing cases at a point in time.
    • Treating correlation as proof of cause; correction: explain the biological mechanism, such as tar damaging cilia and DNA in lung tissue.
    • Ignoring the level asked for; correction: if the question says national, use national data or policy rather than only personal advice.
    • Saying a risk factor causes a disease. Correction: a risk factor increases the chance or rate of disease; it does not make the disease certain.
    • Treating a single case as proof. Correction: risk is shown by comparing rates in large groups, not by one person who did or did not become ill.
    • Assuming correlation proves causation. Correction: a link may be due to another variable, so controlled studies are needed before claiming cause.
    • Including inherited or genetic factors as answers for this specific clause. Correction: The specification strictly categorises these as lifestyle aspects or substances in the body/environment.
    • Confusing substances in the body with naturally occurring chemicals. Correction: This refers to harmful substances introduced and retained in the body, like asbestos.
    • Stating that a risk factor guarantees the disease will occur. Correction: Risk factors only increase the probability or rate of the disease.
    • Treating a risk factor as a certain cause: say it increases the chance of disease, not that it always causes it.
    • Listing only one lifestyle aspect when the question asks for aspects in the plural: include at least two named factors.
    • Confusing communicable and non-communicable disease: non-communicable diseases are not spread between people.
    • Calling genes a lifestyle factor: inherited genes are inside the body and are not chosen habits.
    • Saying a factor definitely causes disease: describe it as increasing risk, since not everyone exposed develops the disease.
    • Describing ultraviolet light as ionising radiation; correction: UV is non-ionising, whereas X-rays and gamma rays are ionising.
    • Ignoring dose: state that greater exposure or longer exposure usually means greater risk.
    • Saying any correlation proves causation; correct this by stating that a causal mechanism must be identified.
    • Confusing risk factor with cause; correct this by explaining that a risk factor raises probability but may not be the direct cause.
    • Assuming all lifestyle factors have proven mechanisms; correct this by giving an example where the mechanism is uncertain.
    • Confusing LDL and HDL cholesterol; correct this by stating LDL is harmful and HDL is beneficial.
    • Saying exercise directly removes plaques; correct this by explaining it lowers risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol.
    • Describing smoking as only affecting lungs; correct this by explaining its effects on blood vessels and clot formation.
    • Confusing Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: Type 1 is not caused by lifestyle, whereas Type 2 is linked to obesity and other lifestyle factors. Correction: link obesity specifically to Type 2 diabetes.
    • Claiming that obesity always causes Type 2 diabetes. Correction: describe obesity as a risk factor that increases the chance of developing the disease.
    • Writing that obesity directly destroys insulin-producing cells. Correction: explain that obesity mainly reduces the sensitivity of body cells to insulin, increasing insulin demand.
    • Saying alcohol is a stimulant because it makes people feel relaxed or talkative. Correction: alcohol is a depressant that slows nervous system activity.
    • Claiming the liver is unaffected if a person does not feel drunk. Correction: liver damage can develop over years without obvious short-term symptoms.
    • Stating that alcohol directly kills brain cells immediately after one drink. Correction: short-term effects are impaired nerve function, while long-term heavy drinking is linked to lasting brain damage.
    • Thinking that smoking only affects the lungs; correction: it also increases the risk of other cancers and cardiovascular disease, but this statement focuses on lung disease and lung cancer.
    • Confusing tar with nicotine; correction: tar damages cilia and alveoli and contains carcinogens, while nicotine is the addictive substance.
    • Stating that lung cancer is infectious; correction: it is non-communicable and cannot be passed from person to person.
    • Thinking the placenta filters out all harmful substances; correction: alcohol, nicotine and carbon monoxide can cross the placenta.
    • Believing only heavy drinking is harmful; correction: any alcohol during pregnancy carries risk, and the safest approach is to avoid it.
    • Confusing low birth mass with prematurity; correction: low birth mass is a measure of size, while premature birth means being born before the expected date.
    • Saying that a carcinogen definitely causes cancer in anyone exposed; correction: it increases the probability of cancer, and other factors also contribute.
    • Confusing carcinogens with mutagens or teratogens; correction: carcinogens increase cancer risk, often by causing mutations, but the terms are not interchangeable.
    • Classifying ultraviolet light as ionising radiation; correction: UV light from the Sun is a carcinogen but it is non-ionising, whereas X-rays, gamma rays and radon gas are ionising.
    • Claiming that one factor alone always causes a named disease; correction: many diseases result from several interacting factors, and a single factor usually changes risk rather than determining outcome.
    • Treating correlation as proof of causation; correction: an observed association suggests a risk factor but does not by itself prove that the factor causes the disease.
    • Assuming that genetic factors cannot be influenced at all; correction: genetic risk may be fixed, but lifestyle changes can still reduce overall risk.
    • Assuming any sample represents the whole population: correct by checking size, selection method and whether the sample matches the population.
    • Confusing correlation with causation: correct by stating that a third factor or chance may explain an observed link.
    • Thinking a larger sample removes all bias: correct by explaining that a large but biased sample can still give misleading results.
    • Misreading a non-zero axis start as zero: correct by checking the scale and labelling the first tick.
    • Describing a trend without quoting data: correct by adding a specific value or range from the graph.
    • Mixing up axes or groups: correct by naming the axis and the category before giving a value.
    • Writing that a positive correlation proves the risk factor causes the disease; correct this by saying the data show an association, and other factors may be involved.
    • Confusing the axes, for example reading a negative correlation as positive; correct this by checking which variable is on each axis before describing the trend.
    • Describing a correlation as strong merely because many points are plotted; correct this by judging strength from how closely points follow one trend, not from the number of points.
    • Treating any scatter of points as showing a correlation; correct this by stating that no clear trend means no correlation.