Cambridge IGCSE History (0470): How to Answer Every Question
Lacking in IGCSE History skills? That is exactly what this guide is designed to help with.
Below, we will show you how to answer every Cambridge IGCSE History (0470) question across Papers 1, 2 and 4. Each section explains what the examiner is looking for, how to structure your answer and the common mistakes to avoid so you can approach each question with a clear plan and much more confidence. All the best!
Paper 1
How to Answer Paper 1, Part (a)
Part (a) is worth 4 marks and tests your ability to recall and describe accurate historical knowledge. Questions normally begin with “Describe”, “What” or “Identify”.
The Golden Rule: Make Four Mark-Worthy Points
Aim to include four clear facts. Alternatively, you can develop fewer facts with precise supporting detail. Keep your answer short and directly focused on the question.
Write one focused paragraph using complete sentences.
Include specific names, events, terms or places where possible.
Check the dates in the question and stay within the stated period.
Spend only around four to five minutes on your answer.
Do not write an introduction, explain why something happened or discuss its consequences unless the question specifically asks. Part (a) rewards accurate description, so save your explanations and arguments for Parts (b) and (c).
Example
Question: What were Germany’s main territorial losses under the Treaty of Versailles?
Germany returned Alsace-Lorraine to France and transferred Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium. Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark following a plebiscite, while West Prussia and Posen became part of Poland, creating the Polish Corridor. Danzig was also placed under League of Nations control as a Free City, and Germany lost all its overseas colonies.
This answer works because the answer gives several precise, relevant facts and identifies both the territories Germany lost and what happened to them. It does not waste time explaining why the treaty was imposed.
How to Answer Paper 1, Part (b)
Part (b) is worth 6 marks and tests your ability to explain why something happened. Questions normally begin with “Why”.
The Golden Rule: Explain Two Reasons
For full marks, give two different reasons and explain each one fully in a separate paragraph. Do not simply identify the reasons—you must show how each reason led to the outcome in the question.
A useful paragraph structure is:
Point: Identify the reason clearly.
Evidence: Support it with precise historical knowledge.
Explanation: Show how the evidence answers the question.
Useful linking phrases include “This was important because…”, “This meant that…” and “As a result…”
Keep your answer focused and spend approximately 10 minutes on it. Do not include a long introduction, narrate everything that happened or use information outside the dates in the question.
Example
Question: Why did the Treaty of Versailles cause problems for Germany in the years 1919–23?
One reason was the reparations imposed on Germany. In 1921, the total was fixed at £6.6 billion, placing considerable pressure on Germany’s weak economy. When Germany fell behind with its payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr in 1923. The German government responded by paying striking workers and printing more money, which worsened hyperinflation and destroyed many people’s savings.
Another reason was that the Treaty weakened support for the Weimar Republic. Many Germans regarded it as a humiliating “Diktat” because Germany had been forced to accept its terms, including the War Guilt Clause. Politicians who signed it were attacked as “November Criminals”. This strengthened opposition to the new Republic and helped extremist groups gain support by promising to overturn the Treaty.
Why this works: The answer explains two distinct reasons, supports each with precise evidence and clearly connects that evidence to the problems Germany experienced.
How to Answer Paper 1, Part (c)
Part (c) is worth 10 marks and asks you to evaluate a historical claim. Questions normally use phrases such as “How far do you agree?” or “How important was…?”
The Golden Rule: Explain Both Sides, Then Judge
A strong answer must:
Explain evidence that supports the statement.
Explain evidence that challenges the statement.
Reach a clear, evidence-based final judgement.
Simply mentioning both sides is not enough. You must explain how each piece of evidence supports or challenges the claim.
Plan Before Writing
Spend a minute identifying:
The exact claim you are evaluating
The dates or period covered
Evidence supporting the claim
Evidence challenging the claim
Which side you find more convincing—and why
A quick two-column plan can prevent your answer from becoming one-sided or disorganised.
Structure Your Answer
Supporting paragraphs: Explain one or two reasons why the statement is valid.
Challenging paragraphs: Explain one or two reasons why the statement may be incomplete or incorrect.
Final judgement: Decide how far you agree. Compare the two sides and explain why one carries greater weight.
A lengthy introduction is unnecessary. If you include one, keep it to one or two sentences.
Explain—Do Not Just Describe
Description: The Nazi–Soviet Pact divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Explanation: The Nazi–Soviet Pact made war more likely because it removed the danger of immediate Soviet opposition. Hitler could therefore invade Poland without expecting a war on two fronts.
The second version earns more credit because it explains why the evidence mattered.
How to Write a Strong Conclusion
Do not merely repeat your earlier points. Judge the two sides using a clear criterion, such as:
Which factor affected the outcome most directly?
Which had the greatest or longest-lasting impact?
Under which circumstances was the statement true?
Could the outcome have happened without that factor?
A useful structure is: “Although [evidence supporting the statement], overall [your judgement] because [comparative reason].”
Example Structure
Question: “The League of Nations was a success in the 1920s.” How far do you agree?
Agree: The League successfully resolved disputes involving smaller countries. In the Aaland Islands dispute, it awarded the islands to Finland while protecting the rights of the Swedish population, and both sides accepted its decision.
Disagree: The League struggled when a powerful country challenged it. During the Corfu Crisis of 1923, Mussolini occupied the island and the dispute was largely settled through the Conference of Ambassadors, with Greece forced to pay compensation.
Model judgement: Although the League achieved some successes in humanitarian work and disputes between smaller states, it was only successful to a limited extent. Its failure during the Corfu Crisis showed that it could not enforce its decisions against a major power. Therefore, its successes depended largely on whether the countries involved were willing to cooperate.
Paper 2
How to Answer Question 1: Comparing Sources
Question 1 is normally a source comparison worth 7 marks. It often asks: “How far do Sources A and B agree?”
Your task is to compare what the two sources say—not to describe each source separately.
Step 1: Identify the Overall Messages
Read the Background Information, then ask:
What is Source A’s main view?
What is Source B’s main view?
Do the authors ultimately support or challenge each other?
The overall message is the central point the author wants the reader to accept. Comparing this is essential for reaching the highest level.
Step 2: Compare Point by Point
Choose one issue at a time and explain what both sources say about it.
Agreement:
Both sources agree that the leader’s policy was unsuccessful. Source A states that…, while Source B similarly argues that…
Disagreement:
The sources disagree about the leader’s responsibility. Source A suggests that…, whereas Source B argues that…
Each comparison should include:
A clear topic of comparison
What Source A says
What Source B says
Evidence from both sources
Use short, precise quotations or accurate paraphrases. You do not need to copy long quotations.
Step 3: Answer “How Far?”
Explain the extent of the agreement by comparing the sources’ overall messages:
Overall, the sources agree only to a limited extent. Although both accept that…, Source A’s main message is that…, whereas Source B ultimately argues that…
This is stronger than simply counting how many similarities and differences you found.
Common Mistakes
Writing two separate summaries: Compare both sources within the same paragraph.
Comparing different topics: Match “like with like”.
Making unsupported claims: Use evidence from both sources for every comparison.
Focusing only on small details: Compare the sources’ main views as well.
Discussing reliability: Do not evaluate the sources’ origins or trustworthiness unless the question specifically asks you to do so.
Forcing comparisons: Do not invent an agreement or disagreement that the sources do not contain.
Student Checklist
Have I compared the sources point by point?
Have I supported each comparison with both sources?
Have I included agreements and disagreements where present?
Have I compared their overall messages—not just isolated details?
Have I clearly answered “How far?”
How to Answer Message, Purpose and Surprise Questions
Paper 2 may include questions about a source’s message, purpose or surprising nature. The order and number of marks can vary, so always follow the exact wording of the question.
Although these questions are related, they are not asking the same thing:
Question type | What you must explain |
Message | What the creator is saying about the topic |
Purpose | Why the source was produced and how it was intended to affect its audience |
Surprise | Whether the source is unexpected when compared with other evidence or its provenance |
Message Questions
A message question may ask:
“What is the message of this cartoon?”
Your task is to identify the source’s main viewpoint, not simply describe what it shows.
Step 1: State the Main Message
Begin with a direct answer:
“The cartoonist’s main message is that the League of Nations was ineffective because it lacked the power and support needed to enforce its decisions.”
A strong message should identify:
The topic of the source
The creator’s attitude towards it
The main point the audience is meant to understand
Avoid vague answers such as “The cartoon is about the League of Nations.” That identifies only the topic—not its message.
Step 2: Support Your Interpretation
Select details from the source and explain what they mean.
For a written source, use short quotations or accurate paraphrases. For a visual source, explain the meaning of its labels, symbols, characters or exaggerations.
“The League is shown as a weak dove facing a heavily armed aggressor. This symbolises the League’s reliance on moral condemnation rather than military force.”
Do not merely write “There is a dove in the cartoon.” Explain what the image represents and how it communicates the message.
Step 3: Consider the Purpose
If the source’s context and provenance allow you to do so, take your answer further by explaining why the creator wanted to communicate this message:
“By portraying the League as powerless, the cartoonist wanted the audience to lose confidence in its ability to prevent aggression.”
Purpose and Context Questions
A purpose question normally asks:
“Why was this source published at this time?”
A complete answer must connect three elements:
Context: What was happening when the source appeared?
Message: What was the source saying about it?
Purpose: What did the creator want the audience to think, feel or do?
The Golden Formula
Context + Message + Intended Effect = Purpose
A useful sentence structure is:
“This source was published at the time of [context] to persuade [audience] that [message], so that they would [intended response].”
Example
“This cartoon was published after the Tet Offensive in early 1968, when the US government had been claiming that victory in Vietnam was approaching. Its message was that these claims could no longer be trusted. The cartoonist therefore wanted to undermine public confidence in the government and increase opposition to the war.”
This works because it explains:
Why then: It followed the Tet Offensive.
What it said: Government claims of progress were unreliable.
Why it was produced: To change public attitudes towards the war.
Simply stating that the source was published “because the Tet Offensive had happened” gives context, but does not explain its purpose.
Common Purpose Mistakes
Saying the purpose was merely “to inform”
Explaining the message without identifying the intended effect
Giving historical background that is not connected to the source
Naming an audience without explaining how the creator wanted to influence it
Assuming every source was intended to deceive or spread propaganda
Surprise Questions
A surprise question may ask:
“Does Source X make Source Y surprising?”
or:
“Are you surprised by this source?”
Your task is to decide whether the source is unexpected and justify that decision using relevant evidence.
Step 1: Give a Clear Decision
Begin by answering the question directly:
“Source D makes Source E surprising because the two sources give opposing assessments of the agreement.”
Your final answer can be more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
Step 2: Test the Content
If another source is named in the question, compare what both sources say about the same issue.
“Source D describes the agreement as a major success, whereas Source E argues that it failed to solve the central dispute. Source E is therefore surprising when judged against Source D.”
Support the comparison with short quotations or precise references to both sources.
If only one source is named, test its claims against:
The Background Information
Your relevant historical knowledge
Other sources in the paper, where appropriate
Step 3: Examine the Provenance
Now ask:
“Is it surprising that this particular person produced this message at this particular time?”
Consider the author’s position, audience, circumstances and purpose. Do not simply state that a source is “biased”. Explain why its origin makes its message expected or unexpected.
“However, it is not surprising that the politician presented the agreement as a success. As a member of the government responsible for it, he had a strong reason to defend the policy and maintain public support.”
Disagreement between two sources does not automatically make one surprising. Their different authors, purposes or circumstances may explain why they disagree.
A Strong Surprise Judgement
“The content of Source E is initially surprising because it contradicts Source D. However, it is not surprising that the politician made this claim because he was defending a policy for which his government was responsible.”
This distinguishes between:
Being surprised by what the source says
Being unsurprised that this author said it
Final Student Checklist
Have I followed the exact command in the question?
Have I identified the source’s overall message?
Have I supported my interpretation with precise source details?
Have I explained symbols rather than merely describing them?
For purpose, have I connected context, message and intended effect?
For surprise, have I tested the source against other evidence?
Have I explained why the author’s position or purpose makes the source expected or unexpected?
Have I used short, relevant quotations instead of copying large sections?
How to Answer Utility and Reliability Questions
Utility and reliability questions are closely related, but they assess different qualities:
Question | What you are judging |
Usefulness | What the source helps a historian understand |
Reliability | How far a particular claim in the source can be trusted |
A source can be unreliable as a factual account but still useful as evidence of propaganda, attitudes or political motives.
How to Answer a Utility Question
A utility question normally asks:
“How useful is this source to a historian studying…?”
The marks and position of this question can vary between papers.
The Golden Rule: Useful for What?
Always judge the source against the specific enquiry in the question. A source may be useful for investigating government propaganda but much less useful for discovering what the public actually believed.
Step 1: Give a Focused Judgement
Begin by identifying what the source is useful for:
“Source F is useful for studying the government’s public response to the crisis because it reveals both its official explanation and the message it wanted citizens to accept.”
Avoid simply stating that the source is “very useful”. Explain its particular value.
Step 2: Evaluate Its Content
Identify relevant information in the source and explain how it helps the historian.
“The source claims that the intervention was necessary to restore order. This is useful because it shows how the government publicly justified its actions.”
Use short quotations or accurate paraphrases. Do not copy large sections of the source.
Step 3: Evaluate Its Provenance
Consider:
Who created it?
When was it produced?
What position or access did the creator have?
Who was the intended audience?
What was its purpose?
Provenance should be connected directly to usefulness: “As an official government poster produced during the crisis, it is especially useful for revealing the arguments used to win public support.”
Bias does not automatically make a source useless. It may make the source more valuable for studying the creator’s attitudes or propaganda. However, it can reduce its usefulness for establishing exactly what happened.
Step 4: Test Its Claims and Limits
Use your own knowledge or other sources to check whether the source’s claims are supported.
“However, the source exaggerates the success of the policy, as fighting continued after it was published. It is therefore less useful as an accurate account of the policy’s results.”
A limitation must be specific. Do not simply say that the source is incomplete because it does not contain every possible detail.
Model Utility Judgement
“Overall, the source is highly useful for investigating how the government presented the crisis and attempted to influence the public. However, because it was produced as propaganda, it is less useful for judging whether the policy actually succeeded or how ordinary people responded.”
This recognises that the same feature can create both value and limitations.
Common Utility Mistakes
Claiming that a biased source is automatically useless
Describing the source without explaining its value
Discussing provenance without connecting it to the enquiry
Assuming that an eyewitness is automatically accurate
Listing missing information without explaining why it matters
Judging usefulness without testing the source’s claims
Utility Checklist
Have I answered “useful for what?”
Have I explained the value of the source’s content?
Have I evaluated its author, date, audience and purpose?
Have I tested its claims using knowledge or other sources?
Have I explained both its value and its limitations?
Have I reached an overall judgement?
How to Answer Reliability and Trustworthiness Questions
Reliability questions may ask:
“Can this source be trusted?”
“Is the author lying?”
“Does Source X prove that Source Y is wrong?”
These questions require you to test the source rather than accepting or rejecting it immediately.
Step 1: Identify the Claim Being Tested
Do not attempt to judge the entire source at once. Focus on the particular claim relevant to the question.
“Source B can be trusted to some extent in its claim that the policy faced serious opposition.”
A qualified judgement is often stronger than an absolute “reliable” or “unreliable” verdict.
Step 2: Test the Content
Compare the claim with:
Your own historical knowledge
The Background Information
Other relevant sources in the paper
“This claim is supported by Source C, which also describes large demonstrations, and by the government’s decision to deploy troops.”
A simple agreement is not enough. Explain why the supporting evidence makes the claim more convincing.
Step 3: Evaluate the Provenance
Consider the creator’s:
Position and access to information
Date and circumstances
Intended audience
Purpose or possible motive
Opportunity to know what happened
Avoid generic statements such as “politicians are biased”. Explain the specific reason this author might present events in a particular way.
“As the minister responsible for the policy, he had direct knowledge of the decision. However, because this was a public speech delivered while the government faced criticism, he also had a reason to minimise its failures.”
Provenance can strengthen and weaken reliability at the same time.
Step 4: Reach a Precise Judgement
Do not finish with a vague statement such as “Therefore, the source is biased.” Explain exactly what can and cannot be trusted.
“The source is reliable for showing the government’s official defence of the policy, but its claim that the policy was completely successful should be treated cautiously.”
Special Variant: “Is the Author Lying?”
A source is not necessarily a lie simply because it is inaccurate, exaggerated or one-sided. To argue that the author was lying, you should establish that:
The claim was false.
The author was likely to know it was false.
The author had a reason to deceive the audience.
Bias alone does not prove deliberate dishonesty.
Special Variant: “Does Source X Prove Source Y Is Wrong?”
Two sources disagreeing does not automatically mean one must be wrong. They may have:
Different perspectives
Different information
Different purposes
Been produced at different times
Focused on different aspects of the event
To answer this question:
Identify the precise disagreement.
Test Source X’s reliability.
Test Source Y’s reliability.
Decide whether Source X provides strong enough evidence to disprove Source Y.
“Source X challenges Source Y, but it does not prove it wrong. Source X was a public statement designed to defend the government, whereas Source Y was a confidential report that admitted serious difficulties. Source Y may therefore provide the more candid account.”
Reliability Checklist
Have I identified the exact claim being tested?
Have I compared the sources on the same issue?
Have I used knowledge or other evidence to test the claim?
Have I explained the specific effect of provenance and purpose?
Have I avoided assuming that bias automatically means lying?
Have I explained precisely what can and cannot be trusted?
How to Answer Paper 2, Question (e): The Hypothesis Question
Question (e) is the fixed final question in Paper 2 and is worth 9 marks. It asks you to use the complete source collection to test a historical statement.
A typical question is:
“How far do these sources provide convincing evidence that…?”
Your answer must explain which sources support the hypothesis and which challenge it.
The Golden Rule: Test the Statement Using the Sources
This is not a normal knowledge essay. Your own knowledge can help you interpret the sources, but your marks come from using the sources as evidence.
For every source you use, explain:
Whether it supports or challenges the hypothesis
What specific content shows this
How that content relates to the exact statement
Step 1: Break Down the Hypothesis
Before reading the sources again, identify exactly what the statement claims.
Look for:
The event or outcome
The suggested reason or responsibility
The period covered
Any important words such as “mainly,” “successful” or “because”
A source is relevant only if it addresses that specific claim.
Step 2: Make a Quick Two-Sided Plan
Sort the sources into two columns:
Supports the hypothesis | Challenges the hypothesis |
Sources agreeing with the statement | Sources offering a different explanation or opposing view |
Some sources may support one part of the statement but challenge another. You may place these on both sides, provided you explain each interpretation clearly.
Step 3: Organise Your Answer by Side
Start with the sources that support the hypothesis, then examine those that challenge it. Within each section, deal with every source clearly and individually.
A useful sentence structure is:
“Source C supports the hypothesis because it states/shows that… This suggests that…”
or:
“Source E challenges the hypothesis because it instead argues that… This suggests that…”
Always explain the connection. Do not assume the examiner will work it out for you.
Use Specific Source Evidence
For written sources, use a short quotation or accurate paraphrase.
“Source B supports the hypothesis because it claims that Britain and France were ‘unwilling to act’. This suggests that the League failed because its leading members placed their national interests first.”
For cartoons and posters, explain the message conveyed by the image.
“Source D challenges the hypothesis by showing the League as powerless without the United States. This presents American absence, rather than British and French unwillingness, as the main reason for the League’s failure.”
Do not merely describe what appears in a visual source. Explain what it means.
Should You Evaluate the Sources?
The main priority is to use a range of sources on both sides. You may comment on a source’s provenance or purpose when this helps you judge whether its evidence is convincing.
“However, Source B was a public speech by a politician defending his own policy, so its attempt to shift responsibility onto other countries may be less convincing.”
Avoid turning every paragraph into a lengthy reliability evaluation. Only include evaluation when it directly strengthens your assessment of the hypothesis.
Finish with a Brief Overall Judgement
A conclusion should answer “How far?” by explaining which side is better supported by the source collection:
“Overall, the sources support the hypothesis to a moderate extent. Several sources show that Britain and France were unwilling to take firm action, but others suggest that structural weaknesses—particularly the absence of the United States and the League’s lack of military power—were equally important.”
Keep this brief. Using and explaining the sources is more important than writing a long conclusion.
Common Mistakes
Writing a general essay based mainly on your own knowledge
Using sources from only one side of the argument
Mentioning a source without explaining how it tests the hypothesis
Describing cartoons without interpreting their messages
Assuming that every source must fit entirely on one side
Copying long quotations instead of selecting the relevant phrase
Distorting a quotation by removing important words with ellipses
Listing source letters without analysing their content
Student Checklist
Have I broken down the exact claim in the hypothesis?
Have I used sources that support the statement?
Have I used sources that challenge the statement?
Have I identified every source clearly by letter?
Have I included precise evidence from each source?
Have I explained how each source supports or challenges the claim?
Have I interpreted visual sources rather than merely described them?
Have I used as many relevant sources as possible?
Have I reached a brief overall judgement?
Paper 4
How to Answer Part (a): The Sequenced Account
Part (a) is worth 15 marks and normally asks:
“Write an account of…”
Your task is to describe how an event or development unfolded using accurate, detailed knowledge in a logical order.
The Golden Rule: Tell the Complete Story in Stages
Before writing, identify four to six main stages:
How the event began
The main developments
Important actions or turning points
How it ended or what it produced
Chronological order is normally the clearest approach. Use phrases such as “Initially,” “Next,” “This was followed by…” and “Eventually” to connect the stages.
Include Precise, Relevant Knowledge
Support each stage with details such as:
Key people, groups and organisations
Important actions and decisions
Relevant dates and locations
Accurate statistics or figures, where remembered
The immediate outcome of each development
Precise knowledge strengthens an answer, but do not insert dates or statistics simply to impress the examiner. Covering the main events accurately is more important than including minor facts.
Keep Directly to the Question
Check the topic and dates carefully. Everything you write should form part of the account requested.
If the question ends in 1929, information about Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 will not receive credit. Avoid lengthy background information unless it is necessary to explain how the event began.
Do You Need to Explain?
Part (a) does not require an argument, evaluation or judgement. Its main focus is what happened and in what order.
However, brief connections can make the sequence clearer:
“The dismissal of Emil Eichhorn triggered demonstrations in Berlin, which developed into the Spartacist Uprising.”
Save detailed explanations of importance, causes or consequences for Part (b).
Example
Question: “Write an account of the Spartacist Uprising of 1919.”
On 4 January 1919, the government dismissed Berlin police chief Emil Eichhorn, leading to a major protest the following day. Armed workers occupied newspaper offices, while Karl Liebknecht and other revolutionary leaders called for Ebert’s government to be overthrown. Ebert responded by ordering Gustav Noske and the Freikorps to suppress the uprising. By 13 January, the revolt had been defeated, and Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were arrested and killed on 15 January.
Why this works: It covers the uprising from its beginning to its defeat, follows a clear chronological sequence and includes precise names, dates and actions.
Student Checklist
Have I covered the event from beginning to end?
Are the main stages arranged logically?
Have I included accurate, specific knowledge?
Does every paragraph directly answer the question?
Have I stayed within the stated dates?
Have I avoided a long introduction and unnecessary judgement?
How to Answer Paper 4, Part (b): The Extended Discussion
Part (b) is worth 25 marks and requires an extended, analytical answer. Questions normally begin with “Discuss” and focus on impact, importance, contribution or the extent of change.
The Golden Rule: Explain Several Facets, Then Compare Them
A facet is one distinct aspect of the discussion. The most suitable facets depend on the question:
Question focus | Possible facets |
Impact | Political, economic, social, military, short-term and long-term effects |
Importance | Different ways the event mattered, its limitations and other developments |
Contribution | Different roles played, achievements and limits |
Turning point | Changes produced compared with important continuities |
Do not force every answer into political, economic and social categories. Select the facets that answer the actual question most effectively.
Step 1: Plan Your Argument
Before writing, identify:
Two or three strong facets
Precise evidence for each one
The limitations of each facet
Which facet was most important—and according to what criterion
Useful criteria include:
Scale: How many people or areas were affected?
Duration: Was the impact temporary or long-lasting?
Depth: Did it fundamentally change the situation?
Directness: Did it directly produce the outcome?
Relative importance: Was it more significant than the other facets?
Step 2: Build Analytical Paragraphs
Each main paragraph should contain:
Point: Identify the facet and make a clear argument.
Evidence: Add precise names, events, dates or statistics.
Explanation: Explain how and why this evidence answers the question.
Mini-judgement: Assess the facet’s importance or limitations.
For example:
“The Treaty of Versailles had an important economic impact because reparations contributed to Germany’s financial difficulties. When Germany fell behind with payments, French and Belgian forces occupied the Ruhr in 1923. The government funded passive resistance by printing money, worsening hyperinflation and destroying savings. However, this impact was largely short-term because the Dawes Plan helped stabilise the economy from 1924.”
This is analytical because it explains the impact and then evaluates its duration.
Step 3: Compare Throughout
Do not leave all evaluation until the conclusion. Use comparisons such as:
“This was more significant than…”
“However, its impact was mainly short-term…”
“Although this affected…, it did not…”
“This became important only when…”
These comparisons show that you are weighing the facets rather than discussing them separately.
Step 4: Reach a Substantiated Judgement
Your conclusion must answer the exact question and explain why one interpretation is stronger.
Example judgement:
“Overall, the Treaty’s political impact was more important than its immediate economic effects. Economic stability largely returned during the Stresemann years, but resentment towards the Treaty continued to undermine support for the Weimar Republic and was later exploited by the Nazis. However, this political resentment became truly damaging only when the Great Depression created another economic crisis.”
This works because it compares the facets, considers change over time and explains the reasoning behind the verdict.
Common Mistakes
Writing a chronological story instead of an analytical discussion
Explaining only one facet
Forcing irrelevant political, economic or social categories
Listing evidence without explaining why it matters
Treating every impact as equally important
Adding a conclusion that merely repeats earlier points
Drifting outside the topic or dates in the question
Spending too long on Part (a) and rushing this 25-mark answer
Student Checklist
Have I discussed at least two relevant facets?
Have I supported each facet with precise knowledge?
Have I explained how the evidence answers the question?
Have I considered limitations, differences or continuities?
Have I compared the facets using clear criteria?
Have I made judgements throughout the answer?
Does my conclusion give a clear and substantiated verdict?
Have I remained within the question’s topic and dates?
