Essay Writing - Getting it Right - Good technique

An essay is a discussion on one key issue looked at from different perspectives. You need good evidence,
arguments and counter-arguments throughout. In Politics, this will be something that is usually controversial
and is often hotly debated. Try to get this across in your answer, as this brings an essay to life!
1. Read and re-read the question to check you understand it fully. Don’t answer it if you don’t
understand it or don’t have much to say!

2. Highlight the key words to give a clear focus to your answer. Keep referring back to the question and
these key words.

3. Check you are addressing ALL the points within the question. ‘Analyse’ invites links to other topics and
Units to give STNOPTICITY to your answer.

4. Plan your answer in bullet points - intro/main sections/conclusion. Cross the plan out with a single
line, to show these are draft ideas. Keep it simple!

5. The ‘burger model’ is good. Thin top and end – intro/conclusion. Substantial middle section.

6. Cover each AO equally, as they are worth 10 marks each.

7. Make sure everything you say is relevant to the question.

A) The Introduction
• Definition of key terms and referencing what the essay is about. (AO1)

• Identifying the key debating point within the question. (AO3)

• 3/4 sentences maximum, to make it sharp and well-focussed.

B) The Main Part - detailed, evidence based and well balanced:

• 4-6 paragraphs e.g. 3 key themes for and against the question, gives 6 main paragraphs. 2 themes for
and against gives 4 longer paragraphs.
• Within each section aim to have coverage of each AO, starting with AO1 K&U/context, supporting
with AO2 evidence and evaluating with AO3.
• K & U of the key issues, of direct relevance to the question. This means you need to know the basics
of each topic well. Use good subject vocabulary/political concepts here too. AO1. EXAMPLES
• Evidence and arguments for and against the debating point. Draw on historic and recent political
evidence and events. It doesn’t have to be 50/50, but it should have some balance between opposing
ideas. AO2 EXAMPLES
• Mini-evaluations during the essay, which weigh up the evidence. What viewpoint is the evidence used
leading you towards? Refer to the views of opposing political writers and politicians to get different
ideas. AO3.
• From exam experience students with the top grades argue for and against throughout their answer,
using connectives to show this e.g. However, although, whilst, whereas etc. This gives much stronger
AO2 and AO3.
C) The Conclusion

A final clear judgment answering the question, though remember it may not be black and white, especially if
it asks how far an idea is valid or not.
This is your chance to give your final view. It should not be a surprise and should follow on from your main
sections. 3/4 sentences maximum. (A03)
 How to write an A* essay – Sarra Jenkins
There is often little difference between what an A* student and a B grade student know. The key
difference in achieving the top grades is how you write and apply your knowledge. Sarra Jenkins
explains how to succeed

At A-level, most of your marks are gained from longer essays (Box 1). Picking the right question, and
planning it properly, is crucial. Many students complain that they do not have enough time. Far
worse is to plough through an essay and realise only halfway through that you have picked the
wrong question.
Questions usually contain three key elements:
• Command word: what does the question want you to do? For example, 'to what extent...',
'assess...', 'analyse and evaluate...'.
• Focus: this is the broad topic that a question is on.
• Limitation: this is any restriction on what information is relevant to this question.
At first glance, the questions in Box 2 look almost identical. However, an A* student would recognise
that both the focus and the limitations are totally different (Box 3). It sounds so simple but
answering the question that you have been asked is the only way to achieve top marks. By looking
for the limitations within a question, you are identifying what you have actually been asked to do,
and you will be able to address the question more fully.
Planning
The word 'planning' is always followed by cries from students about timing. But planning is crucial to
ensuring that your essay has a good flow to it. Writing an essay is an act of persuasion — you are
trying to convince the examiner that your view is correct on the basis of all the knowledge and
evidence you have presented. If your essay jumps around different arguments in no apparent order,
you are not being persuasive.
Planning does not need to take long. To achieve an A* in 25-mark (AQA) or 30-mark (Edexcel) essays,
you should be looking to write three or four big paragraphs. It is rare that something is totally
effective or ineffective, therefore within each of these larger paragraphs you should debate the
pros and cons of each point and show which side is stronger. Planning therefore involves little more
than a few bullet points (Box 4).

Box 1 How important are the essays?

AQA 150 out of 231 marks are awarded for 25-mark essays (with and without sources).
Edexcel 180 out of 252 marks are awarded for 30-mark essays (with and without sources).

BOX 2 Sample questions

Question 1
Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords is the only effective check on the power of the
prime minister. (30 marks) (Edexcel-style)
Question 2
Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords is ineffective at checking the power of the prime
minister. (30 marks) (Edexcel-style)

Box 3 - Sample questions explained

Question 1
Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords is the only effective check on the power of the
prime minister. (30 marks) (Edexcel-style)
• Command word: you have to reach a conclusion regarding 'extent'. Do not sit on the fence.
• Focus: the topic of this question is the power of the prime minister.
 • Limitation: the use of the word 'only' is crucial. It implies there are other effective checks
and you have to compare and contrast some others before drawing a conclusion.
Question 2
Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords is ineffective at checking the power of the prime
minister. (30 marks) (Edexcel-style)
• Command word: you have to reach a conclusion regarding 'extent'. Do not sit on the fence.
• Focus: the topic of this question is the House of Lords and how much power it actually has.
• Limitation: this question is only interested in the House of Lords' power in relation to the
prime minister. Any other powers it may have are irrelevant to this question.
Exam tip
You are awarded marks for three assessment objectives — you are only rewarded for what you know
in AO1. This is worth 5/25 marks (AQA) or 10/30 marks (Edexcel). Therefore, the bulk of your marks
come from how you use what you know (A02 and A03). Planning and picking the right question will
help you achieve this.

Box 4 - Worked example: planning

'The House of Lords is ineffective at checking the power of the prime minister.' Analyse and evaluate
this statement. (25 marks) (AQA-style)
• Amend, reject and delay legislation — 15 Brexit defeats on govt vs Parliament Acts (although
rarely used). More important since 1999 HoL reform.
• Introduce legislation — smoking in cars with minors. But PM can effectively control HoC,
Parliament Acts and appoint Lords.
• Scrutinise government work — Lords debate Leveson enquiry. Reactive but can make
headlines.
From this brief plan, it is evident that this student has considered what evidence is relevant, and how
the argument plays out in each paragraph, giving a good indication of the conclusion. If your essay
does not contain a strong argument, it is unlikely to score highly.
Introduction
Your introduction should be a contents page for your essay (Box 5). If you are just repeating the
question, you are wasting valuable time. A good introduction will include just three things:
• a definition of any key terms
• an identification of the points you plan to discuss, maybe with a key example
• an idea of the direction of your essay
The main body of the essay
How you write is a highly personal thing. There is no one essay formula that will always gain you top
marks, and if you try to write in a way that does not suit your style, your essay is likely to end up
sounding odd. Instead, try acting on the following pointers:
• The point of your paragraph should appear in the very first line, so it is clear what you are
talking about.
• It is often easier to present the side you disagree with first. Then you can demonstrate why
it is the weaker argument as your paragraph goes on.
• Evidence must be used not described. Why did you pick a particular piece of evidence, rather
than a different piece? What do you believe it demonstrates and why?
• Make it clear throughout your essay what you think. This should not be a surprise at the end
of the essay.
Box 6 provides some more tips on writing the main body of your essay.
Conclusion
You must ensure you leave yourself time to write a strong conclusion to achieve an A* essay. You
have been asked directly for an answer. Everything you wrote up until this point has been you laying
out the relevant arguments — now you must clearly demonstrate the overall answer as you see it.
This should not be a repetition of your previous points, although you can mention them, and it
certainly should not be new information. Instead, you are showing what you believe the answer is
and why you believe that (Box 7).

Box 5 - Worked example: introduction

'The House of Lords is the only effective check on the power of the prime minister.' Analyse and
evaluate this statement. (25 marks) (AQA-style)
As the 'upper chamber' of Parliament, the Lords can introduce legislation to rival the prime minister's,
amend her legislation, and scrutinise her government's work. However, following the Gina Miller
case, it is evident the Supreme Court too restricts the prime minister. The issue of Brexit has also led
to party and cabinet divisions, further restricting her power. While the power of the Lords has grown,
the political circumstances in which a prime minister finds herself are likely to have a far greater
impact on her power.
This introduction demonstrates absolute focus on the question, clear theoretical knowledge and
good examples, as well as an ability to argue.

Box 6 The Body of the Essay

• Never say that evidence 'proves' anything — it might suggest something, but this is all down
to interpretation and context.
• Avoid 'I think' — examiners know it is what you think, as you are writing the essay.
• Do not just name drop examples 'e.g. Jeremy Corbyn'. You must give more detail to make
your example relevant,
• If you are paraphrasing the question, this should appear in the middle of your paragraph, not
the end, and be followed by the word 'because'. 'The House of Lords could be considered to
be an effective check because...'.

Box 7 – Worked Example – Conclusion

Evaluate the extent to which the House of Lords is the only effective check on the power of the
prime minister. (30 marks) (Edexcel-style)
Rejections of Brexit amendments have been used to suggest the Lords alone is preventing the prime
minister from achieving her policy goals. It has doubtless 'bloodied the nose' of the prime minister,
but the Lords has only been able to do this because of circumstances beyond its control. Ignoring the
Gina Miller ruling would have raised serious questions about UK democracy, especially at a time of
minority government. The Lords is therefore far from being the 'only effective check', and indeed is
only really effective at all due to the 2017 election results and political circumstances. In the event of
a government victory like 1997, its power would likely be diminished once again.
This conclusion name checks a number of points and examples that the student must have dealt with
earlier in the essay, but shows an absolute answer and justification.
General guidelines
• Know and stick to timings.
• To practise your writing, look back at an old essay and rewrite some or all of it heeding
feedback. It is easier to improve your writing style this way rather than trying to apply
feedback to a completely new essay.
 • One of the best ways to improve your writing is by reading — read your peers' work, opinion
pieces in the press, politics and history books. The more you read, the more your vocabulary
will expand and you will learn about structure, style and persuasion.
• Have an opinion, and justify it — even if you are faking it, it must seem like you feel strongly
about the view in your essay.
• Answer the question set, not the one you hoped would come up.
Writing an A* essay is an art, not a science. The only reliable way to achieve this level of success is to
practise these skills and act on feedback from your teachers.
Sarra Jenkins is an experienced writer and teaches politics at Loughborough Grammar School.

Exam success; Edexcel and AQA A-level Politics

Using the sources
Being able to understand, analyse and evaluate ‘political information’, also known as sources, is
crucial to success at A-level politics and is worth either 24% (Edexcel) or 32% (AQA) of your overall
mark (Tables 1 and 2). The source will either be a few paragraphs of text, or text combined with data
such as a table of statistics or a pie chart, from which you have to identify arguments and opinions
to form the basis of your answer.
Approaching the source
When reading the source, you should be trying to identify two different things — you are looking for
the individual arguments which have been advanced, as well as the overarching opinions on how
the question could be answered. It is important that you give yourself plenty of time to read the
source in the exam as you will only be credited for analysis and evaluation that is relevant to the
source. It is useful to have a couple of different coloured highlighters handy for source work — one
to highlight arguments, one to highlight opinions.
Using the source in your answer
The structure of your answer should be broadly similar to your other politics essays. It is likely to
have an introduction, it should be well-organised and argued throughout and you need to reach a
justified conclusion.

A01: knowledge and understanding

In a source question, all your paragraphs should be drawn from information in the source. One
simple way of doing this is to incorporate short quotes from the source in the opening sentence of
each paragraph to identify the argument that you are going to analyse and evaluate. You should then
try to show that you understand what the source quote means, expanding on it using your own
knowledge and political vocabulary and using examples to illustrate it (Box 1).
A02: analysis
Table 1 Edexcel
Command word Using the source, evaluate...
Source questions Paper 1 (UK political participation), Question 1a OR 1b Paper
2 (UK government), Question 1a OR 1b
Marks A01:10, A02:10, A03:10, Total: 30
Time allowed Approximately 45 minutes

Table 2 AQA
Command word Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments in...
 Source questions Paper 1 (Government and politics of the UK), Question 4
Paper 2 (Government and politics of the USA), Question 4
Paper 3 (Political ideas), Question 4
Marks A01: 5, A02:10, A03:10, Total: 25
Time allowed Approximately 40 minutes
The source in your exam will always include more than one opinion regarding the question you have
been asked. When answering a source question, analysis is best understood as showing the link
between the information that you have presented (an argument, or an example) and the actual
question asked. Often, this skill is poorly done as students think it is obvious.
You must show which arguments in the source support which opinion and, importantly, why they
support this viewpoint. It is also important that you demonstrate some balance throughout your
essay, discussing how both of the opinions presented could reasonably be supported (Box 1).

Box 1 Understanding assessment objectives

• A01 assesses what you know and the depth of your understanding. For source questions, this
means being able to identify relevant viewpoints and arguments from the source, and
showing that you understand them. Often, you will demonstrate this by expanding on the
source or using examples.
• A02 assesses your analytical skill. In a source question this means showing which arguments
support which viewpoint, and why. Crucially, this means maintaining a tight focus on the
wording of the question to ensure the viewpoints you are discussing are relevant.
• A03 assesses your evaluative skill. For source questions, this means judging the
effectiveness, strength and significance of the arguments you have discussed, and forming a
well-reasoned conclusion about which viewpoint is stronger.

A03: evaluation
While you have to be balanced, you do not have to be completely neutral in your essay — in fact,
you should definitely have an opinion. A03 requires you to ‘evaluate’, so while you should be able to
show how each opinion could be valid, you should also be clearly arguing that one side is stronger
than the other and why.
For both AQA and Edexcel, the word ‘evaluate’ appears in the question, therefore you are expected
to make this sort of judgement. Sitting on the fence will not allow you to access the top marks. It is
often easier to advance the view you disagree with first, and then show the counter-view. For A03
marks, it is also crucial to include a conclusion (Box 1).
Worked example
Question
Using the source, evaluate the view that lowering the voting age is necessary for UK democracy.
(Edexcel-style)
Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments in the source regarding the necessity of lowering the
voting age in the UK. (AQA-style)
Source extract
Of course, everybody knows that young people are less likely to participate in elections than older
voter categories but that fact alone should not give people a licence to make rather bold
assumptions about why this is... Allowing 16-year-olds to vote is not a panacea, but it is, clearly, an
essential step in rejuvenating democracy by ‘creating’ long-term voters by winning the battle to
encourage young people to vote in the first elections of their lives at a time of their lives when they
are more available — both physically and intellectually — to make it to the polling booth, and
encouraging the political discourse to stop largely ignoring young voters and their concerns by
mechanically increasing a their weight in the electorate. /
 Source: Bruter, M. and Harrison, S. (2015) ‘Granting 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote is not a panacea for youth
engagement in politics, but it is necessary for democracy’, 4 October, LSE website: www.tinyurl.com/yb7c7w5p

In this source extract, the underline highlighting identifies the opinions. In this case, there are two
contrasting opinions that lowering the voting age ‘is not a panacea’ (meaning it will not solve all of
the UK’s democratic problems), but that it is ‘essential’. The italicised text identifies arguments that
could be used to support either of these opinions.

BOX 2 Essentials for source questions

• Keep the source at the heart of your essay, drawing all key arguments and opinions from it.
• Give yourself time to read the source properly — ideally, annotate it as you do.
• Compare and contrast the opinions advanced in the source.
• Be balanced in your consideration of opinions.
• Write a well-reasoned conclusion.

Box 3 Hazards with source questions

• This is not a typical essay with a source thrown in. The source must be at the heart of your
entire answer.
• Be wary of trying to use every argument from a source in your essay. Picking the most
relevant and strongest arguments, and showing why, is far more effective.
• Avoid using lengthy quotations from the source. This does not demonstrate any of the
assessed skills effectively.
• You need to address all three assessment objectives, but you do not need to work through
them systematically in order in each paragraph.

Student answer
Lowering the voting age would advance UK representative democracy by encouraging MPs to ‘stop
ignoring young voters’ and the specific concerns they have. The UK’s trustee model of representation
means that MPs should represent the best interests of their constituents, who can hold them
accountable at election time. However, for those without the vote, there is no way to hold MPs
accountable for decisions that directly affect them. This was particularly evidenced when the
coalition government introduced £9,000 per year tuition fees, despite the Liberal Democrats
promising to abolish them.
By lowering the voting age, MPs would have to be more mindful of these constituents, because of
their increased weight in the electorate. This could result in MPs having to better represent young
people in order to be elected, improving the representative nature of democracy in the UK. For this to
be the case, however, young people would need to participate in elections, but the reality is that they
are less likely to participate. Even in the 2017 general election, where turnout of 18-24-year-olds was
unusually high, this age group still had the lowest turnout of any group. If turnout of young people
cannot be ensured, then lowering the voting age could actually damage representative democracy,
effectively lowering the overall turnout, and therefore legitimacy, of the elected representative.
Equally, if those running for office are aware that young voters are unlikely to vote, they are unlikely
to actually address their concerns once in office, meaning that young people would be seldom better
represented with a lower voting age and UK democracy would therefore not be improved.

Commentary
This is a top-grade answer, comparing different opinions and showing balance but maintaining a
good argument. This student draws on a number of direct quotes from the source (A01). The student
expands on the points in the source, using an example to show how young voters have been
ignored (AO1). The answer makes clear links to the question, defining a specific type of democracy
and showing how this argument could be linked to both opinions (A02). It also shows evaluation in
determining that lowering the voting age would not improve democracy, with a clear explanation of
how this conclusion was reached (A03).

Conclusion
While there is no formula to essay writing, there are clear guidelines that you must follow if you
want to be successful with sources (Boxes 2 and 3). Ignoring them will limit you to a maximum of
Level 2. Follow this advice and keep the source as your essay focus to maximise your success.
Sarra Jenkins is an experienced writer and teaches politics at Loughborough Grammar School where she is assistant
head.

AQA A-level Politics - Tackling the extract question - Nick Axon

Nick Axon gives you the tools you need to approach extract questions with confidence

The extract question (Section B in AQA Politics papers) is challenging for many students because it
requires not just the good knowledge and thoughtful analysis that any essay does, but also the
ability to comprehend and interpret arguments contained in a piece of unseen political
information. The extract may be information from the government or a political organisation,
newspaper or website articles, visual material or data. The length may vary, but the extracts
produced by AQA so far have all been around three paragraphs.
The extract question is worth 25 marks and you should spend 40 minutes on it. All extract questions
take a similar form: Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments in the above extract on...'. Table 1
outlines how the marks are awarded.
Reading the extract
It is easy to underestimate how important this is because it is tempting to dive straight into writing
your answer. However, note the wording of the question: Analyse, evaluate and compare the
arguments in the above extract...'. You may have learned many arguments for and against, say, UK
pressure groups, but you need to address the arguments made in the extract, not the ones you
would like to have seen. This is underlined in the mark scheme, which states:
‘Students who fail to focus their discussion on the arguments in the article, however complete their
answer may otherwise be, cannot achieve a above Level 2.’
This would be a maximum mark of 10/25. In light of this, you should:
• Highlight the arguments made in the extract.
• Highlight the evidence put forward to support those arguments.
• Consider the 'status' (context) of the extract. The best way to do this is to consider what the
extract is a response to. For example, if it is a piece written in 2017 against further use of
referendums in UK politics, then it may be that the writer is a 'Remainer' responding to the
outcome of the EU referendum. You should ask yourself: does the status of the extract make
it more, or less, convincing?
• Finally, you should decide before you write what your overall judgement on the extract is.
Essays are not like a murder mystery, where the reader finds out who did it in a twist at the
end — your conclusion should fit with the analysis that goes before.

Table 1 Mark scheme

AO Description
 A01 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes,
concepts, theories and issues. (5 marks)
Level 5 answers demonstrate a detailed and accurate understanding of the topic,
and use detailed examples to support or refute the arguments being analysed.
A02 Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to
parallels, connections, similarities and differences. (10 marks)
Level 5 answers are balanced, focused both on the question and the arguments
made in the extract, and are consistently analytical. Arguments are compared, and
a range of examples used to illustrate them.
A03 Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct
arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions. (10 marks)
Level 5 answers reach a reasoned judgement on how convincing the extract is,
with a conclusion that is consistent with the essay as a whole. The best answers
consider the impact of the status of the extract.

How to structure your answer

The arguments in the extract should provide the structure of the answer. In other words, the
opening line of each paragraph should take its cue from an argument put forward in the extract.
You should then illustrate that argument with examples, both from the extract (if there are any) and
from your own knowledge. The final section of each paragraph should analyse, evaluate and
compare the strength of this argument. Is it misleading or overstated? How convinced are you by
the argument?
You should repeat this for the range of arguments featured in the extract, and your conclusion
should come to a judgement on how convincing the extract is.

Sample Extract - Reforming the House of Lords

Although reform of the House of Lords is superficially attractive, supporters of an elected House
ignore what would be lost, as well as new problems it would create. Certainly, an elected House
would likely lose the expertise of those who would be unwilling to run for election, and
crossbenchers would surely be replaced by representatives of parties.
In addition, the House of Lords has held the government to account on a range of issues, from civil
liberties to welfare reform, whereas an elected House would behave in a partisan manner, with
whips playing a greater role. No doubt an elected Upper House would also assert its authority over
matters that unelected peers leave to the House of Commons, potentially leading to deadlock and
undermining the elected government's manifesto promises. The proposals of the 2012 Lords Reform
Bill — including a four-fifths elected House and 15-year terms — may have been designed to solve
some of these problems, but the failure of the bill shows that a reformed House is as far away as
ever.
Source: an academic journal article

Question Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments presented in the extract on reforming the
House of Lords. (25 marks)

Extract
The extract (Box 1) features at least four arguments:
An elected House would lose expertise.
The Lords does a good job of scrutinising the government.
An elected House would be too powerful.
There is limited support for the proposed reforms.
Sample paragraph
The extract argues that an elected House would lose the expertise of many of its members. This is
because it is unlikely that peers like Lord Winston, a prominent scientist, would want to run for
election. Even though he takes the Labour whip, the fact that he does not have to run for election
makes him less likely to follow the party line, and he can instead provide the kind of non-partisan
scrutiny missing from the House of Commons. This is also true of former MPs and cabinet ministers
in the Lords who, with limited career ambitions, can act freely. This was seen in recent government
defeats in the Lords over membership of the Customs Union, with 24 Conservatives rebelling,
including three former government ministers. Not all peers are non-partisan experts of course, and it
is worrying that, for example, David Cameron appointed an average of 44 new peers every year.
However, the Lords performs different functions to the Commons and, as a revising chamber,
democracy is less important here than expertise.
Top three tips
• Read, highlight and annotate the extract.
• Use the arguments in the extract to plan the structure of your answer.
• Analyse how convincing each of the arguments is.
Nick Axon teaches politics and is assistant head (sixth form) at Cheadle Hulme School.