On Paper 2 you get two Section A questions, one on cause and consequence and one on perspectives. You only answer ONE, and it is worth 6 marks.
The command term is always Analyse. That means you cannot just describe what happened — you must show how your example proves the concept in the question.
The Section A formula: Pick ONE strong example. State the concept clearly in your opening sentence. Then spend the rest of the answer showing, step by step, how that example demonstrates the concept — not just retelling the story.
- 1-2 marks — the concept is barely described, almost no analysis, example is missing or too vague to use
- 3-4 marks — a relevant example is used, but the link to the concept stays thin or generic
- 5-6 marks — the concept is analysed clearly and accurately, backed by one specific, well-chosen example throughout
For example, a question might ask: 'Analyse the causes and consequences of ONE conflict, using one example from your thematic study.' A 5-6 mark answer on the Rwandan Genocide (1994, Africa & the Middle East) would not just say 'ethnic tensions between Hutu and Tutsi led to genocide.' It would analyse HOW colonial-era ethnic classification by Belgian rulers created the division that later exploded into mass killing, and then trace the direct consequence: roughly 800,000 deaths in 100 days and a refugee crisis that destabilised the whole Great Lakes region.
Say the concept out loud in your answer: Literally use words like 'this shows cause and consequence because...' or 'this reveals different perspectives because...'. Naming the concept signals to the examiner that you understand what is being tested, not just what happened.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Section B(a) is short — only 4 marks — and it wants exactly ONE clear, specific example. Do not try to squeeze in a second conflict; there is no reward for breadth here, only for depth.
Identify
Name your one example precisely: the conflict, the dates, the region.
Describe
Add a concrete detail — who was involved, what happened, roughly when.
Explain
Say WHY or HOW it answers the question, linking cause to effect specifically.
Specify
End on one precise fact (a date, a number, a named leader) that proves you know the example well.
Identify, describe, explain, specify — four steps for four marks.
Take a question like: 'Explain an example of how proxy war shaped a conflict in your thematic study.' A full-mark answer might explain the Vietnam War (1955-1975, Asia & Oceania): the United States backed South Vietnam while the Soviet Union and China supplied North Vietnam, turning a civil and anti-colonial struggle into a Cold War battleground that killed an estimated 2 million Vietnamese civilians.
Common pitfall: vague examples: 'A war happened in Asia and lots of people died' earns almost nothing. Examiners need a named conflict, a date range, and a specific, correct detail — vagueness is the fastest way to lose marks here.
Stop wasting time on topics you know
Our AI identifies your weak areas and focuses your study time where it matters. No more overstudying easy topics.
Section B(b) is the big one — 15 marks, and the question always starts 'To what extent...'. This is an argument essay, not a story.
The rule that decides your grade: You MUST use at least 2 examples from at least 2 different IB regions (Africa & the Middle East, the Americas, Asia & Oceania, Europe). Skip this and your essay is self-penalising, no matter how well it is written.
Take the question: 'To what extent did civil wars cause lasting change to the societies that fought them?' Do not just describe two civil wars back to back. Instead, build a running comparison.
Chinese Civil War (1927-1949) — Asia & Oceania
- Fought between the Nationalists (Kuomintang) and the Communists over who would rule China
- Ended with Mao Zedong's Communist Party in full control by 1949
- Consequence: total social transformation — land redistribution, one-party state, decades of planned economy
Nigerian Civil War / Biafran War (1967-1970) — Africa & the Middle East
- Fought after the south-eastern region declared itself the independent state of Biafra
- Ended with federal Nigerian victory and Biafra's reabsorption into Nigeria
- Consequence: up to 2 million deaths (many from famine), but the pre-war federal structure of Nigeria was restored, showing more continuity than change
That comparison already gives you an argument: civil wars caused more lasting change in China (a whole new political and economic system) than in Nigeria (the old federal state survived). That is a judgement you can defend — which is exactly what 'to what extent' is asking for.
Judgement is not optional: Your final paragraph must directly answer 'to what extent' — for example 'largely', 'only partially', or 'significantly, but not completely' — and defend it with your evidence. Only a substantiated judgement reaches the top band.
| Markband (of five) | What reaches it |
|---|---|
| 4–6 | Descriptive answers |
| 7–9 | Descriptive answers with some analysis |
| 10–12 | A mostly analytical answer with a consistent judgement |
| 13–15 | A fully analytical answer with a substantiated judgement throughout |