The big idea: The command term is the most important word in any question. Get it wrong and even brilliant knowledge scores badly.
Two jobs: Almost every command term asks for one of two jobs: explain an idea, or evaluate it. Papers 2 and 3 ask for both, in two parts.
Explain (AO2)
- Make an idea clear; show you understand it
- No judgement — you are not saying if it's right
- Command words: explain, describe, outline
- Usually the [10]-mark part (a)
Evaluate (AO3)
- Argue for and against; weigh the views
- Reach a reasoned judgement
- Command words: evaluate, discuss, to what extent, assess
- Usually the [15]-mark part (b)
So explain and evaluate are different jobs. One shows understanding; the other shows argument. The exam pays for both — but only if you do the right one in the right place.
The one-line test: Explain = 'here is what it means.'
Evaluate = 'here is how strong it is, and what I conclude.'
Before writing, underline the command term and name the job.
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.
Part (a) asks you to explain a concept, claim or argument — often from a prescribed text. Your only aim is to make it clear and show deep understanding. Save every opinion for part (b).
How to structure an Explain
Define the idea
State the concept or claim clearly in your own words.
Unpack it
Break it into its parts; explain each and how they connect.
Show the reasoning
Give the argument or reasons behind the view — why someone holds it.
Illustrate
A short, clear example makes abstract ideas land.
Define → Unpack → Support → Example
Weak Explain
- One vague sentence, then moves on
- Secretly starts arguing it's wrong
- Name-drops without unpacking
Strong Explain
- Defines, unpacks and gives the reasoning
- Stays neutral — no judgement yet
- Uses a clear example to show understanding
The number-one part (a) mistake: Evaluating too early. Part (a) is not the place to say the idea is wrong. Every objection you write here is a mark you could have earned in part (b), spent for nothing. Keep part (a) purely explanatory.
Get feedback like a real examiner
Submit your answers and get instant feedback — what you did well, what's missing, and exactly what to write to score full marks.
Part (b) is worth more and asks you to evaluate the same concept. Now you argue, weigh different views, and reach a reasoned conclusion. This is where the toolkit from 2.1 and 2.2 pays off.
How to structure an Evaluate
Set out the views
Present more than one position on the concept — in genuine tension.
Bring objections
For each, attack a premise or the logic; use counterexamples.
Weigh them
Which objections really bite? Steelman the strongest view.
Reach a judgement
Decide, and say why — a reasoned, consistent conclusion.
Views → Objections → Weigh → Judge
'Discuss', 'to what extent', 'assess': These are all AO3 cousins of 'evaluate'. Discuss = argue more than one side. To what extent = say how far a claim holds (a measured, not yes/no, judgement). Assess = judge its overall strength. All want argument + a conclusion — never mere description.
The Papers 2 and 3 shape: Both papers give a two-part question on one concept: (a) Explain [10] then (b) Evaluate/Discuss [15]. Same concept, two different jobs. Answer both parts of one question.
Worked example — (a) Explain the 'harm principle': the idea that the state may only limit a person's freedom to prevent harm to others. [10] (b) Evaluate the harm principle. [15]
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Evaluating in part (a). Keep (a) purely explanatory.
2. Just re-explaining in part (b). (b) marks are for argument only.
3. Ignoring the command term. Do the job it names.
4. No judgement in (b). 'To what extent' and 'evaluate' demand a conclusion.