June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam made one thing very clear about Section B: students needed to build a response.
They could not simply describe each source one by one. They could not write a general paragraph about water and sanitation. They could not rely only on memorised SDG content. They had to use all four sources, apply their own knowledge, and respond directly to the three parts of the question.
The 2025 Section B question focused on water and sanitation. Students were given four sources: two graphs comparing high-income and low-income countries, one key-facts source about global water, sanitation and diarrhoeal disease, and one case study about access to clean drinking water in the Central African Republic.
Students then had to discuss:
how characteristics of high-income and low-income countries may affect access to safe water and sanitation
how access to safe water and sanitation contributes to differences in health status between high-income and low-income countries
how achieving SDG 6, Clean water and sanitation, contributes to key features of SDG 3, Good health and wellbeing
This was a broad task, but it was not vague.
It required structure, evidence, explanation and integration.
Section B was assessed through multiple skills
The assessment criteria for Section B required students to explain and apply concepts of health, examine concepts across more than one Area of Study, synthesise and interpret multiple sources of stimulus, draw conclusions and use relevant health terminology.
This matters because Section B is not a longer version of a short-answer question.
It is an extended response that tests whether students can combine parts of the course.
In 2025, the question drew on:
health and wellbeing
health status
burden of disease
characteristics of high-income and low-income countries
access to safe water and sanitation
the Sustainable Development Goals
human development
equity
global health inequalities
stimulus interpretation
A strong answer needed to move across these ideas without becoming disorganised.
The challenge was not just knowledge.
It was synthesis.
The response needed to use all four sources
The question explicitly required students to use information from all four sources and their own knowledge.
That instruction mattered.
Source 1 showed the proportion of the population using safely managed drinking water in high-income and low-income countries. High-income countries remained very high, around the low-to-mid 90% range, while low-income countries remained much lower, increasing gradually but still only around the high 20% range by 2022.
Source 2 showed the proportion of the population using safely managed sanitation facilities. Again, high-income countries were much higher, around 90%, while low-income countries remained far lower, increasing to only around the low-to-mid 20% range by 2022.
Source 3 stated that globally there are nearly 1.7 billion cases of childhood diarrhoeal disease every year, that 2.2 billion people lacked access to safely managed drinking water, and that 3.5 billion people lacked access to safely managed sanitation.
Source 4 described Milène, a 29-year-old mother of three in the Central African Republic, struggling to fill three 20-litre jerrycans with water. It explained that people previously walked five kilometres or more to collect dirty water, and that many became ill or died.
A strong Section B response would not necessarily quote every source at length.
But it needed to use each source meaningfully.
Source 1 and Source 2 showed inequality
The two graphs were central because they established the difference between high-income and low-income countries.
In Source 1, high-income countries had consistently high access to safely managed drinking water, while low-income countries had much lower access across the whole period. Although low-income countries improved gradually, the gap remained large.
In Source 2, the same pattern appeared for safely managed sanitation. High-income countries had high access, while low-income countries remained much lower.
These graphs supported a core argument:
High-income countries generally have greater access to safe water and sanitation than low-income countries.
That argument could then be explained through characteristics of countries.
High-income countries are more likely to have greater Gross National Income per capita, stronger infrastructure, more developed health systems, higher education levels, better governance, and greater capacity to fund water treatment, sewerage systems and sanitation facilities. Low-income countries may have lower income, weaker infrastructure, lower education levels, political instability or limited capacity to build and maintain safe water and sanitation systems.
The data was not just decorative.
It was evidence of global inequality.
Country characteristics needed to be connected to access
The first part of the question asked how characteristics of high-income and low-income countries may affect access to safe water and sanitation.
This required more than listing characteristics.
A strong response needed to connect the characteristic to access.
For example:
High-income countries are more likely to have higher average incomes and government revenue. This can allow governments to invest in water treatment plants, sewerage systems, pipes, pumps and maintenance, increasing access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation.
Low-income countries may have lower levels of infrastructure. This can mean fewer public fountains, fewer toilets, fewer sewerage systems and greater reliance on unsafe water sources. Source 4 shows this through Milène’s experience in the Central African Republic, where limited public water fountains mean people must queue at particular times or travel long distances to collect water.
Low-income countries may also have lower education levels. This can reduce knowledge of safe sanitation practices, hygiene, water treatment and disease prevention, making it harder to improve access and use of safe facilities.
The key is the chain:
country characteristic → effect on resources or systems → access to safe water and sanitation.
Infrastructure was one of the strongest links
Infrastructure was especially important in the 2025 sources.
Source 4 described people having to line up at public fountains because there were so few water points. It also described people previously walking five kilometres or more to fetch dirty water, with many falling ill or dying.
This shows what limited infrastructure looks like in real life.
A high-scoring response could use this to argue that low-income countries often lack the infrastructure needed to provide safe water close to homes. Without sufficient water points, pipes, treatment facilities and sanitation systems, people may rely on unsafe sources or spend long periods collecting water.
This then affects health and wellbeing.
It can increase exposure to waterborne pathogens. It can create physical strain from carrying heavy water containers. It can reduce time for education, paid work or caring responsibilities. It can increase danger, especially for women and girls who may be exposed to violence when collecting water.
Source 4 made the issue human.
The response needed to use that.
Source 3 connected access to disease
Source 3 was critical because it provided global health consequences.
It stated that there are nearly 1.7 billion cases of childhood diarrhoeal disease every year. It also stated that 2.2 billion people lacked access to safely managed drinking water and 3.5 billion people lacked access to safely managed sanitation.
This source helped students link access to health status.
Unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation increase exposure to pathogens that can cause diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera and dysentery. This increases morbidity, especially among children. Severe diarrhoea can also cause dehydration, malnutrition and death, increasing mortality rates and contributing to lower life expectancy at birth.
A weak response might simply say that poor water makes people sick.
A strong response explains the pathway:
lack of safe water and sanitation → exposure to pathogens → diarrhoeal disease → morbidity and mortality → differences in health status.
That is what Section B rewarded.
Health status needed correct terminology
The second part of the question asked how access to safe water and sanitation contributes to differences in health status between high-income and low-income countries.
This required health status language.
Students could discuss:
morbidity
mortality
life expectancy at birth
burden of disease
incidence or prevalence of infectious disease
under-five mortality
maternal mortality
disability-adjusted life years, where relevant
The key was to connect safe water and sanitation to measurable health outcomes.
For example:
Low-income countries with lower access to safely managed sanitation may experience higher incidence of diarrhoeal disease due to faecal contamination of water sources. This can increase morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, contributing to lower life expectancy at birth compared with high-income countries.
This is stronger than writing:
Low-income countries have worse health.
The response needs to name and explain the health status difference.
Safe water and sanitation affected more than diarrhoea
Diarrhoeal disease was central, but strong responses could go further.
Poor access to safe water and sanitation can increase the spread of communicable diseases such as cholera, typhoid and dysentery. It can contribute to malnutrition because diarrhoeal disease can reduce nutrient absorption and increase dehydration. It can increase maternal and child health risks if health facilities lack clean water and hygiene. It can also increase injuries, exhaustion or musculoskeletal problems when people must carry heavy loads of water over long distances.
Source 4 gave a strong example: Milène had to fill three 20-litre jerrycans in the heat. A response could link this to physical strain, dehydration risk, reduced energy and time lost from other activities.
This kind of response shows depth.
It understands that water and sanitation shape health in multiple ways.
Women and girls could be used to deepen the analysis
Source 4 described Milène’s fear of being attacked if she went into the bush to fetch water.
This detail allowed students to discuss safety, gender and health.
In low-income countries where water sources are distant or unsafe, women and girls may spend hours collecting water. This can increase risk of violence, reduce time for education or employment, and increase physical strain. Girls may miss school due to water collection responsibilities or because schools lack adequate sanitation facilities.
This links water and sanitation to human development as well as health status.
Students could explain that improved water access may allow women and girls to attend school, participate in community life, earn income and make decisions affecting their lives. This expands choices and capabilities.
A strong Section B response uses details like Milène’s experience to show the social consequences of water inequality.
SDG 6 needed to be linked to SDG 3
The third part of the question asked how achieving SDG 6 contributes to the achievement of key features of SDG 3.
This was not asking students to define both goals separately.
It required a link.
SDG 6 aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Key features include safe and affordable drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene, improved water quality and reduced water pollution.
SDG 3 aims to ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages. Key features include reducing maternal mortality, ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under five, ending epidemics of communicable diseases, reducing mortality from non-communicable diseases, achieving universal health coverage and reducing deaths from pollution and contamination.
A strong response might explain:
Achieving SDG 6 by increasing access to safe drinking water reduces exposure to pathogens that cause diarrhoeal disease. This can help achieve SDG 3 by reducing communicable diseases and preventing deaths among children under five.
Another response might explain:
Improving sanitation and hygiene under SDG 6 can reduce faecal contamination and disease transmission, reducing morbidity and mortality from infectious disease and supporting SDG 3’s aim to promote wellbeing for all ages.
The response needs to show how one goal supports the other.
Students needed key features, not just goal numbers
A common risk in SDG questions is writing only the goal names.
For example:
SDG 6 helps SDG 3 because clean water improves good health and wellbeing.
This is too broad.
A stronger response identifies key features:
Access to safely managed sanitation under SDG 6 can reduce open defecation and faecal contamination of water, reducing diarrhoeal disease and helping SDG 3 achieve the key feature of ending preventable deaths of children under five.
That level of specificity is much stronger.
The response names the mechanism and the SDG 3 feature.
The extended response needed organisation
Because the question had three parts, students needed a clear structure.
A strong structure could be:
Paragraph 1: country characteristics and access
Paragraph 2: water and sanitation access and health status differences
Paragraph 3: SDG 6 contributing to SDG 3
Conclusion or linking sentence drawing the argument together
This is not the only possible structure, but it helps prevent source-by-source summary.
A weaker structure might be:
Source 1 says…
Source 2 says…
Source 3 says…
Source 4 says…
That structure can become descriptive rather than analytical.
The stronger response organises around the question’s demands, using sources as evidence.
Synthesis meant combining sources
Synthesis does not mean mentioning each source separately.
It means using sources together to support an argument.
For example:
Sources 1 and 2 show that low-income countries have much lower access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation than high-income countries. Source 4 helps explain how this looks in practice, with Milène relying on scarce public fountains and unsafe water sources in the Central African Republic. Source 3 then shows the global health consequence, with billions lacking safe water and sanitation and nearly 1.7 billion childhood diarrhoeal disease cases each year.
This combines the sources into one line of reasoning.
That is stronger than treating each source as isolated.
Data needed cautious wording
The graphs in Sources 1 and 2 used approximate values. Students should therefore use cautious language such as approximately, around or about.
For example:
In 2022, approximately 95% of the population in high-income countries used safely managed drinking water, compared with approximately 28% in low-income countries.
The exact value may not be necessary, but the comparison and unit are important.
Students should avoid unsupported precision when reading from a graph. They should also avoid vague statements such as “high-income countries had way more water”.
Data language should be accurate and controlled.
Own knowledge had to extend the sources
The question required students to use their own knowledge as well as the sources.
Own knowledge could include:
characteristics of high-income and low-income countries
definitions of safe water and sanitation
health status indicators
examples of communicable diseases
burden of disease
human development concepts
SDG 6 and SDG 3 key features
equity and sustainability
the role of infrastructure, education and income
links between sanitation and under-five mortality
Own knowledge should extend the sources, not replace them.
The sources provide evidence. The student’s knowledge explains why the evidence matters.
The best responses completed cause-and-effect chains
A high-scoring Section B response would repeatedly complete chains like this:
Low-income countries often have lower Gross National Income per capita, which limits government revenue available for water treatment systems and sanitation infrastructure. As a result, fewer people may access safely managed drinking water and sanitation, as shown in Sources 1 and 2. This can increase exposure to pathogens in unsafe water, increasing diarrhoeal disease morbidity and mortality, contributing to poorer health status than in high-income countries.
This is a complete chain.
It links:
country characteristic
access
source evidence
health mechanism
health status outcome
That is the level of connection Section B rewards.
Avoiding repetition mattered
Because water and sanitation are closely related, students could easily repeat the same idea.
A strong response should avoid saying the same thing three times.
Instead, students could separate ideas:
Water access affects disease transmission through drinking contaminated water.
Sanitation affects disease transmission through faecal contamination and hygiene.
Infrastructure affects availability and distance to safe sources.
Education affects hygiene knowledge and water treatment practices.
Income affects government capacity and household affordability.
SDG 6 supports SDG 3 through communicable disease reduction, child mortality reduction and improved maternal health.
This creates breadth without becoming repetitive.
Section B needed health and human development language
Students should use subject terminology throughout the response.
Useful terms include:
health and wellbeing
physical health and wellbeing
mental health and wellbeing
health status
morbidity
mortality
life expectancy at birth
burden of disease
communicable disease
under-five mortality
human development
capabilities
choices
decent standard of living
equity
sustainability
SDG 6
SDG 3
high-income countries
low-income countries
infrastructure
safe and affordable drinking water
sanitation and hygiene
Terminology should not be dropped in randomly. It should support the reasoning.
The conclusion should draw the argument together
A Section B response does not need a long conclusion, but it should end with a clear sense of the overall argument.
For example:
Overall, the sources show that unequal access to safely managed water and sanitation is both a result of differences between high-income and low-income countries and a contributor to further health inequalities. Achieving SDG 6 can reduce communicable disease, child mortality and unsafe living conditions, directly supporting key features of SDG 3 and improving global health and human development.
This kind of conclusion is concise but effective.
It synthesises the response.
Why Section B marks were lost
Section B marks were likely lost when students:
- summarised sources without answering the three parts of the question
- used only one or two sources
- described water and sanitation generally without comparing high-income and low-income countries
- listed characteristics of countries without explaining access
- mentioned disease without linking to health status indicators
- named SDG 6 and SDG 3 without connecting their key features
- ignored Source 4 or treated it only as a story
- gave data without units or comparison
- repeated the same point about diarrhoea without adding depth
- wrote a response that lacked structure
These issues are preventable.
Section B rewards planning.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that Section B preparation should focus on synthesis and structure.
Students should practise:
- reading the full question before writing
- identifying the separate parts of the task
- using all sources meaningfully
- combining graph data with case study evidence
- using data with approximate values and units
- linking country characteristics to access
- linking safe water and sanitation to health status indicators
- explaining disease pathways clearly
- connecting SDG 6 key features to SDG 3 key features
- using own knowledge to extend stimulus material
- organising responses by argument rather than by source
- writing concise conclusions that draw the response together
These skills make Section B manageable.
The extended response is not about writing everything students know.
It is about selecting, linking and explaining.
How ATAR STAR approaches Section B in Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, Section B is taught as evidence-based synthesis.
Students learn how to break down the question, group sources by idea, use data accurately, apply course concepts and build extended responses that move logically from stimulus evidence to health and human development outcomes.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply summarise the sources.
They used the sources to build an argument.