Section A always asks you to analyse one of the four concepts — usually cause and consequence, or perspectives — using one example from your thematic study.
6 marks: keep it short: It is worth 6 marks, so it is short: think one tight paragraph, not a full essay.
The command word is Analyse: Analyse means break the idea into parts and show HOW they connect — not just describe what happened. A Section A answer that only tells the story of a regime, with no explicit link to the concept named in the question, gets stuck in the middle bands.
Because you only need one example, go deep rather than wide. Pick the regime you know best and can explain with real dates, names and specific detail — a vague, generic answer never reaches the top band, even if it mentions several regimes.
Name the concept and your example
Open by stating which concept you are analysing (e.g. cause and consequence) and naming your one chosen example, with a date range.
Explain the specific detail
Give real facts: who, what, when, why. For example, Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 followed the Great Depression's mass unemployment and the collapse of the Weimar coalition governments.
Link every fact back to the concept
Do not just narrate. After each fact, say explicitly what it shows about the concept — e.g. 'this shows a long-term economic cause combining with a short-term political crisis.'
Name it, explain it, link it — every sentence should serve the concept.
Worked mini-example — perspectives: Question: 'Analyse perspectives on the impact of ONE authoritarian regime, using one example.' Answer sketch: use Pinochet's Chile (1973-1990).
| Perspective | What it points to |
|---|---|
| Supporters | Economic stabilization and the defeat of Marxism under Allende |
| Victims and human-rights groups | The DINA and thousands of 'disappeared' opponents |
| Historians today | Weigh both using declassified US and Chilean archives |
Why this works: Naming three distinct perspectives on ONE example is exactly what 'analyse perspectives' rewards.
What separates 5-6 marks from 3-4: Top band (5-6): the example is precise and detailed, and EVERY point is explicitly tied to the concept. Middle band (3-4): accurate facts but the link to the concept is only implied, or the answer drifts into pure narrative for a sentence or two.
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 the shortest question on the paper — just 4 marks. It asks you to explain one example of something specific.
For instance
- 'Explain an example of how authoritarian rule was maintained'
- 'Explain an example of resistance to authoritarian rule.'
There is no concept-naming requirement here and no cross-regional rule. You just need ONE clearly named, accurate, specific example — explained, not just mentioned.
What earns the 4 marks
- A named regime with a date or date range
- A specific policy, event or method described in detail
- A short explanation of HOW it did the job the question asks about
What loses marks
- Naming a regime with no explanation of the example itself
- Vague phrases like 'they used propaganda' with no detail
- Switching between two examples instead of developing one fully
Worked mini-example: Question: 'Explain an example of how authoritarian rule was maintained.' Answer: Nazi Germany (1933-1945) maintained control partly through propaganda.
The detail that earns the marks
- Joseph Goebbels' Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda used radio, film and mass rallies like the Nuremberg rallies
- This built loyalty to Hitler and spread Nazi ideology
- Newspapers and schools were brought under state control from 1933
What 4 marks looks like: This single, well-detailed example — not a list of methods — is what 4 marks looks like.
Keep it short and precise: 4 marks means roughly 4-6 sentences of real content. Do not try to write an essay here — pick your best example and explain it cleanly, then stop.
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 main event: a 15-mark 'To what extent...' essay, for example 'To what extent was propaganda the most important method used to maintain authoritarian rule?' This is the question where the cross-regional rule is strictly enforced.
The rule that decides your grade: You MUST use at least two examples from at least two different IB regions — Africa & the Middle East, the Americas, Asia & Oceania, Europe. An essay that only discusses one region, however detailed, is capped well below the top band. This is the single biggest mistake students make on Paper 2.
State your judgement upfront
Open with a clear thesis answering 'to what extent' directly — e.g. 'Propaganda was important, but repression and legal control mattered just as much, as shown by Nazi Germany and Pinochet's Chile.'
Build themed paragraphs, not region-by-region blocks
Organize by argument (e.g. 'legal methods', 'use of force', 'popular support'), pulling in both regions within each paragraph — not one paragraph on Germany, then a separate one on Chile.
Compare explicitly, don't just juxtapose
For every point, say directly how the two examples are similar or different — e.g. 'Unlike Hitler's legal appointment, Pinochet seized power by force, yet both then relied on the army to enforce control.'
Close with a substantiated judgement
Return to the 'to what extent' question and give a clear final answer, weighing the evidence from both regions rather than just summarizing.
Judge, argue by theme across regions, compare explicitly, judge again.
Two regions, one theme, explicit comparison: Theme: how rule was maintained. Nazi Germany (Europe, 1933-1945) combined the 1933 Enabling Act, which legally suspended civil liberties, with the Gestapo's surveillance and terror. Pinochet's Chile (Americas, 1973-1990) relied on military rule under a state of siege and the DINA secret police to crush opposition.
The explicit comparison
- Similarity — both regimes paired a legal or institutional cover with violent repression.
- Difference — Hitler built his legal cover from within an existing democracy. Pinochet's power came directly from destroying one in a coup.
Common pitfall: narrative without judgement: A chronological retelling of 'first this happened, then this happened' in two regions is NOT the same as an argument. Every paragraph needs a point that answers the question, not just a story.