Concepts and Paper 2 exam skills

Why the conflict happened and what resulted from it — always multiple, interrelated causes, and outcomes that were never inevitable.

Actors are the people making decisions (leaders, soldiers, civilians); conditions are the circumstances they operate within (economic, political, social).

What a war transformed and what stayed the same — the two happen at the same time, not one after another.

Change: Vietnam reunified under communist rule in 1975. Continuity: rural village life in much of the countryside recovered much as before.

How different groups — combatants, civilians, victors, and later historians — view the same conflict differently, and how valid each view is.

The mismatch between official U.S. government reports of progress and the on-the-ground accounts of journalists and soldiers.

Power (did it shift who holds control), impact (how many were affected and how deeply), or what it reveals about deeper processes.

Though small in territory, it reveals how colonial-era Hutu-Tutsi identity categories and international inaction enabled mass atrocity.

WWI: long-term alliance rivalry + arms race, triggered by an assassination. Mexican Revolution: long-term land inequality under Díaz, triggered by Madero's 1910 revolt.

Because outcomes result from choices made by actors within specific conditions — they were probable, not certain, and could have gone differently.

At least two examples from at least two different IB regions, connected to a clear, substantiated judgement.

Analyse, worth 6 marks — a concept mini-essay using one example from the thematic study.

Section A concept mini-essay [6]; Section B(a) explain one example [4]; Section B(b) 'To what extent' essay [15].

You must use at least 2 examples from at least 2 different IB regions (Africa & the Middle East, the Americas, Asia & Oceania, Europe), or the answer is self-penalising.

The concept is clearly and accurately analysed, effectively supported by ONE relevant, specific example — not just described.

The concept is partially analysed and supported by a relevant example, but the link between example and concept stays underdeveloped or vague.

Analyse — break the concept (cause & consequence, or perspectives) down and show how the example demonstrates it, not just describe what happened.

Just ONE, explained specifically and clearly — depth beats breadth for this 4-mark question.

Europe: the Russian Civil War (1917-1922). Asia & Oceania: the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949, with a pause 1937-1945). Both reshaped their societies through single-party rule.

Descriptive answers stay in the lower bands (4–6, or 7–9 with partial analysis); a consistent judgement reaches 10–12; only fully analytical work with a substantiated judgement throughout reaches the top band (13–15). Retelling events is not the same as answering 'to what extent'.

Compare how different groups experienced the same TYPE of conflict differently, e.g. Algerian civilians vs French settlers in the Algerian War (Africa & the Middle East) compared with Confederate vs Union civilians in the US Civil War (the Americas).

Thesis stating your judgement -> 2-3 themed paragraphs, each drawing on both regions and explicitly comparing them -> a final judgement that answers 'to what extent' directly.

Writing about only one region's conflicts — even a brilliant single-region essay is capped below top band because the ≥2-region requirement is not met.

Judging which conflicts, causes, or experiences mattered most and explaining why — not just listing what happened.